Suffering in Luke's Gospel (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 81)

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

81

AThANT Eben Scheffler

Suffering in Luke's Gospel

TVZ

The book: This is a study of Luke's comprehensive view of suffering. It aims to demonstrate, firstly, the comprehensiveness of human suffering and the suffering ofJesus and, secondly, their interrelationship. Through detailed analysis of the Nazareth episode and the Magnificat, the multidimensional view of suffering is demonstrated and its six dimensions are identified as: economic, social, political, physical, psychological and spiritual. By investigating Luke's portrayal of the suffering ofJesus it is established that Jesus suffered because of his compassion for all forms of human suffering. His suffering, which itself is comprehensive and marked by utter humiliation, effects liberation in the widest sense of the word.

The author: Eben Scheffler is Professor for Old Testament at the University of South Mrica (UNISA), Pretoria.

ISBN 3-290-10921-6 Theologischer Verlag Zurich

TVZ

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Zusammen mit Erich Grasser, Ferdinand Hahn, Ernst Jenni, Ulrich Luck und Hans Heinrich Schmid herausgegeben von Oscar Cullmann und Hans Joachim Stoebe Band 81

Eben Scheffler: Suffering in Luke's Gospel

Eben Schemer

Suffering in Luke's Gospel

Theologischer Verlag Zurich

TVZ

Financial assistance from the HSRC in Pretoria is herby acknowledged.

Satz: Eben Scheffler

ISBN 3-290-10921-6

© Theologischer Verlag Zurich 1993 Alle Rechte, auch die des auszugsweisen Nachdrucks, der photographischen und audiovisuellen Wiedergabe sowie der Ubersetzung, .bleiben vorbehalten.

CONlENTS

J>reface

9

Chapter one INTRODUCI10N

11

1 AIM OF THE STUDY 2 ASPECTS OF RECENT RESEARCH 3 METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES

11 15 21

Chapter two LUKE'S COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF HUMAN SUFFERING

25

1 THE NAZARETH EPISODE: LUKE 4:16-30 1.1 Luke 4:16-30: Preliminary issues 1.2 The tradition behind Luke 4:16-30 1.3 Redaction criticism of Luke 4:16-30 1.3.1 Luke's specific redaction of Mark 6:1-6a 1.3.2 Luke 4:1fr30 as reinterpretation of the Marean programme (Mk 1:15) 1.3.3 The Lucan use of Isaiah 61:1-2a and 58:6 1.3.4 Luke 4:1fr30 in Luke's composition or macrostructure 1.3.5 Other techniques used by Luke to convey his point of view 1.4 Various dimensions of suffering in Luke 4:16-30 2 THE MAGNIFICAT 2.1 Luke 1:46-55: some preliminary issues 2.2 The tradition behind the Magnificat 2.3 Redaction criticism of Luke 1:46-55 2.4 The structure and genre of the Magnificat 2.5 Various dimensions of suffering in Luke 1:46-55 3 SUMMARY OF FURTHER EVIDENCE

25 26 29 32 32 35 37 41

44 45 48 48 50 51 53 55 56

Chapter three VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SUFFERING IN LUKE'S GOSPEL

1 ECONOMIC SUFFERING 1.1 The reference of the term 1t'twx6c; 1.2 Poverty and Luke's use of his sources 1.3 Luke's attitude towards the rich 1.4 Renunciation of possessions and charity 2 SOCIAL SUFFERING 2.1 Toll-collectors 2.2 Shepherds 2.3 Soldiers 2.4 Women 2.5 Children 3 POLITICAL SUFFERING 3.1 The Jews (Israel) 3.2 The Samaritans 3.3 The gentiles 4 PHYSICAL SUFFERING 4.1 Physical assault 4.2 The hungry 4.3 Physical danger 4.4 The healings of Jesus 5 PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING 5.1 General affliction 5.2 Old age 5.3 The exorcisms of Jesus 6 SPIRITUAL SUFFERING 6.1 Forgiveness and release from sin 6.2 The social acceptance of sinners 7 CONCLUSION

60 60 60

63 64

67 69 69 71 72 72

74

75 76 79

81 83 84

86 86

87 90 90

91 92 96 97 99 102

Chapter four THE SUFFERING OF THE LUCAN JESUS

103

1 JESUS' SUFFERING THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE 1.1 Jesus' humble birth and childhood 1.2 The baptism, genealogy and temptation of Jesus 1.3 Rejection at Nazareth 1.5 Persecution by Jewish leaders 1.5.1 Rejection during his Galilean (Judean) ministry 1.5.2 Rejection on the way to Jerusalem 1.6 Persecution by Herod 1.7 Jesus' anticipation of his passion (the announcements) 1. 7.1 The classical announcements of the passion 1.7.2 Additional Lucan predictions of Jesus' passion 1.8 Conclusion 2 ASPECTS OF LUKE'S PASSION NARRATIVE 2.1 The defection of Jesus' followers 2.1.1 The betrayal by Judas 2.1.2 The denial by Peter 2.1.3 Forsaken by the disciples 2.2 Jesus' innocent suffering 2.3 Jesus' care for others during his suffering 2.4 Jesus' crucifIXion as extreme suffering and humiliation 3 THE SUFFERING OF JESUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS 3.1 The comprehensiveness of Jesus' suffering 3.2 The analogous suffering of Jesus' followers 3.3 Jesus' suffering as salvation for his followers 3.3.1 Salvation as the exaltation of the lowly 3.3.2 Jesus' suffering and exaltation 3.3.3 Jesus' suffering as service to his followers

104 104 107 108 110 110 113 116 117 118 121 123 124 125 126 129 131 135 140 141 145 145 147 149 150 153 154

Chapter five CONCLUSION

159

1 FINAL COMMENTS ON LUKE'S VIEW OF SUFFERING

159

2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 2.1 Luke's situation 2.2 Suffering in Acts 2.3 Luke's view of the kingdom, the gospel and faith 2.4 Luke's view of non-sufferers (topdogs) 2.5 What does Luke's view of suffering communicate?

164 164 165 165 165 166

BmUOGRAPHY INDEX OF AUTHORS INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES INDEX OF SUBJECfS

167 176 178 186

PREFACE

Except for minor corrections and some bibliographical additions, this study comprises virtually the same text that was accepted as a DD dissertation at the University of Pretoria in 1988. I am grateful to the editors of AThANT for making its wider publication possible. I also thank the following people: my promoter, Prof Andrie du Toit (for his guidance and academic integrity), the external examiners, Prof E Earl Ellis and Andries van Aarde (for their constructive criticism), Marcelle Manley (for checking my English); Jurie Ie Roux, Chris Schnell, Vossie Vorster, Willem Vorster (for their friendship and interest) and my parents and parents-in-law for their support through the years. A special word of thanks also to Heidi and Cilliers Breytenbach for facilitating the publication and their hospitality in Berlin when I put the fmal touches to it. The book is dedicated to my wife, Maretha, and my sons Ewald Friedrich and Otto Carl.

Berlin/Pretoria November 1992

Eben Scheffler

Chapter one

INTRODUCTION

1 AIM OF THE STUDY The theme of poverty and wealth has received considerable attention from scholars of Luke's Gospel and even of Acts (cf par 2 below). Much has been said about Luke's emphasis on social outcastswomen, children, Samaritans and gentiles (e g Guthrie 1970:90-92). However, in many of these studies Luke's economic interest tends to feature more prominently than other facets of his interest in people. Exegetes are often at a loss to account for his positive attitude towards, for instance, toll-collectors (for a discussion of the term, cf chapter three, par 2.1), since the latter were rich (19:2). A case in point is Horn (1983:95) who, in his analysis of the Standespredigt (3:10-14), alleges that it is 'wahrscheinlich, dass Lk die Welt der ZOllner und Soldaten in irgendeiner Form vor Augen hat', but is unable to reconcile it with his sympathy for the poor. Degenhardt's (1965:60) interpretation of 3:10-14 as an 'an alle gerichtete Mahnung zur Wohltatigkeit' likewise underplays Luke's positive attitude towards toll-collectors and soldiers. The same trend is noticeable in scholarly opinion regarding Luke's positive attitude towards the gentiles (universalism). Although Luke's universalism is communis opinio, this motif is usually treated independently of his positive attitude towards the poor. In this study we propose to show that Luke's emphasis on all these categories of people stems from a single concern: compassion for any suffering group. Luke not merely feels such concern himself. He portrays a Jesus who advocates and expresses the same concern and who expects his followers to do likewise. Luke's version of the Qsaying in 6:36 (Ylv€0'9€ OUc'tlpJ.l.OV€«;, instead of €0'€0'9€ oov uJ.I.€t«; 'tEA-€lOl - Mt 5:48) is but one expression of this compassion. 11

12

Chapter one

There is a second problem. Scholars have devoted considerable attention to Jesus' suffering and death and the significance of the latter, but have failed to discern a relation between Jesus' suffering and Luke's attested emphasis on the suffering of the poor. The question is: is there a relation between Jesus' suffering and the economic and social ethics which the Gospel propagates? Or does Jesus' passion relate exclusively to the remission of human sin? Is the economic ethics attributable purely to the situation in which the church found itself as a result of the delay of the second coming (cf Schmithals 1975:160-164 and Conzelmann 1964:217-219)? Or is Luke's preoccupation with economic ethics part of his characterisation of the earthly Jesus, whereas the church of Luke's day was concerned solely withlij€O'lt;; QJ..lapt:tG>v (24:47)? It is postulated in this study that all these matters are interrelated and should be viewed thus in order to avoid a one-sided perspective on Luke's thought. Luke's emphasis on poverty should be seen as part of, and as qualified by, a comprehensive view of suffering in which different types of human suffering feature equally. Luke is not merely the 'evangelist of the poor' (cf the title of Degenhardt's book). This, however, is not to denigrate his manifest concern with poverty or economic matters. On the contrary, we contend that what starts off as an exclusive interest in Luke's view of poverty often leads to a spiritualisation of the concept, or to the attribution of 'paradigmatic' meaning to these terms (e g poor/rich = sinners/ Pharisees - cf Hoyt 1977:234). One of the aims of this study is to establish whether the Lucan text permits such interpretations of poverty or whether its concept of poverty is restricted to the economic. sphere. In addition, it is our thesis that even the suffering of Jesus relates to Luke's overall view of ordinary human suffering. His special emphasis on the suffering of Jesus- both during his lifetime and his fmal passion (Lk 22-23) - is investigated, specifically with a view to determining to what extent it can be related to ordinary human suffering. Two chapters of this study are devoted to the fIrst objective (the exploration of Luke's comprehensive view of suffering). In chapter two, two key passages in the Gospel are analysed in some detail: the programmatic Nazareth episode (4:16-30) and the Magnificat (1:4655). An attempt is made to characterise and distinguish the types of suffering encountered in each passage. The chapter concludes with a

Introduction

13

bird's eye-view of the whole Gospel to assess provisionally whether the dimensions of suffering distinguished in chapter two are also present in the rest of the Gospel. Chapter three examines in greater detail how the various dimensions of suffering distinguished in chapter two are reflected in the Gospel as a whole. As far as possible, all the evidence concerning certain groups of sufferers (e g the poor, social outcasts, the sick,) is grouped together and systematised in order to establish Luke's approach to the various kinds of suffering. We distinguish six dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel: economic, social, political, physical, psychological and spiritual suffering. We do not claim that Luke himself consciously made these distinctions. We are fully aware that we - like any other exegete - approach the text in terms of modern thought categories, by means of which we attempt to understand it. Thus the fact that we distinguish a psychological dimension of suffering in no way implies that Luke passed a degree in psychology, any more than it is implied by researchers who call Luke 'den Psychologen unter den neutestamentlichen Schriftstellern' (cf Du Toit 1965:26). Even a cursory reading of our presentation of the various dimensions will make it plain that one could distinguish more - or fewer - dimensions (Van Aarde [1988a:19] refers to Malina who distinguishes three broad categories in the synoptic Gospels, with a total of eighteen subcategories; cf Hollenbach 1987). We are also fully aware that the distinction of such categories, unless made with great caution, can lead to a compartmentalisation of Luke's thought which would violate the evangelist's intention. It will be seen that the various dimensions often overlap (e g the case of the sinful woman in 7:36-50 entails both social and spiritual suffering). However, it is precisely the initial distinction between the various dimensions which enables us to appreciate their interrelatedness, and hence the comprehensiveness of suffering. Thus our distinction helps us to discern, firstly, the wide spectrum of suffering groups to which Luke pays attention (which has implications for, amongst other things, his soteriology), and secondly, the intensity of suffering in many of the portrayals (e g the presence of more than one dimension in a specific case such as that of the poor widow, 21:1-4). Thirdly, it reveals how one and the same person may be both an inflicter of suffering (topdog) and a sufferer (underdog). It is

14

Chapter one

believed that such an approach can be extremely fruitful. Thus it could explain Luke's positive attitude towards certain rich people (e g the toll-collectors), despite the fact that the Gospel contains 'negative' statements about the rich (e g 6:24). The fourth chapter is devoted to Jesus' suffering, which is not seen as limited to the final passion and crucifixion, but as encompassing his whole life, and thus as comprehensive. The ftrst section of the chapter is devoted to Jesus' suffering in the course of his life, whereas the second section deals with his fmal suffering as recorded in Luke's passion narrative. In the third section Jesus' suffering is related to ordinary human suffering (especially that of the people who chose to follow him). An attempt is made to determine whether the various dimensions of suffering distinguished in chapters two and three are also discernible in Jesus' suffering, and whether the suffering of Jesus' followers is analogous to his own (e g martyrdom). Finally the question is asked whether, in Luke's view, Jesus' suffering has any salviftc meaning for his followers. The chapter therefore concludes with a subsection on Luke's soteriology. The concluding chapter is a summary of certain insights arising from the study as a whole. Certain research areas which, in the light of this study, warrant attention are indicated. As the title indicates, this study is limited to Luke's Gospel. It will be clear to the reader that this is not a matter of principle, since references to the book of Acts abound. In fact, we believe that Luke's peculiar view of suffering is also evident in Acts. Certain sections (e g chapter four, par 2 on the analogous suffering of Jesus' followers) required investigation into the second half of Luke's double work. The main reason for limiting ourselves to the Gospel was constraints of space. However, we believe that this limitation is to some extent justifted - after all, Luke himself made a division in his work. It also seems that the motif of alleviation of suffering is more vividly depicted in the first half of his work, since Luke regarded it as closely linked to the person of Jesus (his message, ministry and his fate). In our view a study of Luke's theme of comprehensive suffering can entail a study of the Gospel, an analysis of Acts, a study of the double work or even a study of selected pericopes in either the Gospel or Acts. By and large we settled for the ftrst option. In order to further demarcate our theme, we outline certain as-

Introduction

15

pects of recent Lucan research which have a bearing on Luke's view of suffering. 2 ASPECTS OF RECENT RESEARCH The heading of this section should be taken quite literally, since we do not propose conducting a full-scale Forschungsgeschichte. The sole purpose of these comments on recent research is to establish the place of the present study in the history of research. Even so we are hampered by the absence of studies which investigate the theme as we have defined it. We will therefore confine ourselves to a brief discussion of selected studies which in one way or another touch on our theme. Two traditional research areas (those of ordinary human suffering - especially poverty - and Jesus' passion) are relevant. Instead of dealing successively with these two research areas, we shall take eleven Lucan studies as our point of departure and adopt a more or less chronological approach. The pioneer exponent of Redaktionsgeschichte as far as the Lucan writings are concerned, Hans Conzelmann (Die Mitte der Zeit, 1953), briefly touched on Luke's emphasis on poverty (Conzelmann 1964:218-219). He is at pains to demonstrate that Luke's economic ethics is 'Einstellung auf die damalige Situation' and 'der Anfangszeit zugeordnet' (Conzelmann 1964:218). It is interesting, however, that he situates Luke within the 'Leidenszeit der Kirche' and concludes that Luke 'bewegt sich ... in Richtung auf die Martyriumsethik' and 'Bekenntnisethik' (Conzelmann 1964:219). Unfortunately it was not part of Conzelmann's intention to develop these observations any further. The first full-fledged study of Luke's view of poverty was undertaken by Hans-Joachim Degenhardt (completed in 1964 and published a year later as Lukas - Evangelist der Annen: Besitz und BesitzvelZicht in den Lukanischen Schriften). As the subtitle of his work indicates, Degenhardt is only indirectly interested in the suffering of the poor. His main concern is with 'die rechte Einstellung zum Besitz' (Degenhardt 1965:68ft) and for this purpose he analyses texts like 9:1-6, 12:13-34; 14:7-35 and 16:1-31. Because these passages are addressed to the J,la9T'\1:at, Degenhardt concludes that they are aimed at the Christian clergy of Luke's day. Contrary to Conzelmann, he believes that the economic ethics applies to Luke's own sit-

16

Chapter one

uation, but not to lay members of his community. In response to Degenhardt's book, Schmithals (1975) criticises the position adopted, citing (inter alia) the 1tOOl't€C;; BE: ot mO"t€uov't€C;; of Acts 2:44. According to Schmithals ,. ux9Tl'tal refers to members of the Lucan Christian community (cf also Seccombe 1983:1316). Schmithals believes that Luke intended his rather radical demands for the Christians of his day who lived in a situation of persecution ('Geldstrafe, Konfiskation des Vermogens; dann die dazu tretende Verbannung aus der Heimat, von Haus und Hof, von Weib und Kind; schlieslich die Todesstrafe' - Schmithals 1975:163). Luke's demands should be viewed in terms of this extreme situation, and can therefore not be 'zeitlos imitiert' (Schmithals 1975:165). Luke merely concretised the more general insight that 'der verantwortliche Umgang mit dem Besitz ist fUr den Christen der von der Liebe bestimmte Umgang' (Schmithals 1975:166). Two cardinal points in Schmithals's argument are debatable: was the Lucan community in fact subject to severe persecution (cf 8:14; 12:45; 17:26-37, cf also chapter five, par 2.1); and, even if it was, would Luke have agreed with Schmithals's conclusion? Two American studies followed in 1974 and 1976. In that of Thomas Hoyt (The poor in Luke-Acts, 1977), the poor and the rich are interpreted in two ways. Firstly, Luke communicates 'an ethical concern based on the fact of Jesus' life and proclamation, the delay of the parousia, and obvious obligation of the Spirit-filled community. Concretely, the rich are to practice almsgiving and do deeds of loving kindness'. Secondly, 'the poor ... were analogous to the sinner ... The rich are analogous to the Pharisees, whose rich heritage causes a false security'. Hoyt concludes that 'reversal of roles is imminent both for those concretely poor and rich and those paradigmatically so' (Hoyt 1977:v). Hoyt's thesis that a reversal of fortunes (= Luke's view of salvation, cf chapter four, par 3.2.1) applies to both sinners and the poor seems to be confirmed by our own fmdings. However, in our view this thesis is better substantiated by distinguishing a separate dimension of spiritual suffering (sin) than by a 'paradigmatic' interpretation of the poor and the rich (cf chapter three, par 1.1). The 'symbolic' interpretation of possessions in Luke-Acts reached its acme in the doctoral dissertation of Luke Timothy Johnson (The literary function of possessions in Luke-Acts, 1977).

Introduction

17

Johnson's is a purely text-immanent analysis of the 'story of the· Prophet and the People'. 'The study is not concerned with the historical practice of the ftrst Christians in regard to possessions, nor with the paraenetic intentions of the author' (Johnson 1977:summary). In the story, the attitude towards possessions symbolises either rejection or acceptance of the prophet Jesus. The same applies to the rich and the poor: the poor are those who accept him, whereas the rich are those who reject him (Johnson 1977:166). As will become evident from our own treatment of the Gospel, there is merit in our approach to Luke as a story or narrative. However, this does not mean that one can disregard the history of origin of the text, or the historical intention of the author. Despite Johnson's premise regarding the purely literary nature of his study (Johnson 1977:summary), he later observes that 'Luke's purpose in using these materials was not purely aesthetic, but also paraenetic' (Johnson 1977:204). One could also ask whether Luke's portrayal of other suffering groups (e g women, toll-collectors, Samaritans) serves the same literary function. Johnson's point regarding rejection of the prophet on the basis of attitude towards possessions has some merit. In our view, however, the criterion is not just a person's attitude towards possessions, but his direct concern or lack of concern for any suffering group. In Luke's Gospel the Jewish leaders reject Jesus because of his unwavering compassion for those who suffer (cf the sabbath healings), and they themselves are the antagonists in the story because of their lack of compassion. Although not directly bearing on the motif of poverty or suffering in general, the ftndings of Richard Glockner (Die Verkiindigung des Heils beim Evangelisten Lukas, 1975) have considerable signiftcance for our study. Unlike most investigators of the motif of poverty, Glockner takes account of Jesus' own suffering and its salviftc meaning. His main interest is Lucan soteriology, which encompasses Jesus' whole life as well as his death and resurrection. Salvation also includes the exaltation of the lowly ('ErhDhung der Erniedrigten'). This leads Glockner to deal with 'Jesu Weg zu den Emiedrigten' (e g the poor, sinners, toll-collectors - Glockner 1975:148-154), since Jesus' identiftcation with these groups is part of his salviftc activity. Although Glockner does not deal extensively with the lowly, his contribution is important in two respects: frrstly, the lowly (Emiedrigten) include, but are not confmed to, the poor; secondly, the emphasis on

18

Chapter one

suffering groups is soteriologically linked with Jesus' own suffering. This study owes much to the insights of Glockner, the main difference being that its primary focus is the motif of suffering rather than soteriology. The co-author of the book Jesus von Nazareth - Hoffnung der Armen (1978), Wolfgang Stegemann, deals with Luke's 'social message' (Schottroff & Stegemann 1978:89). Stegemann considers the economic ethics of Luke's Gospel to be directed to the wealthy upper-class Christians in Luke's community who are urged to share their possessions (through halben Besitzverzicht, almsgiving or charity) with the poor and despised Christians. In this way Luke hoped to achieve 'einen innergemeindlichen Besitzausgleich' and 'Einmiltigkeit' within the community (Schottroff & Stegemann 1978: 150-151), similar to his portrayal of the early Jerusalem community. The merit of Stegemann's contribution lies in the fact that he takes Luke's emphasis seriously. Thus he does not reduce it by restricting its validity to a specific situation or regarding it merely as a literary symbol. He does not attempt to resolve the tension between renunciation of possessions and charity, and so avoids overinterpretation of the Lucan text. Although Stegemann's main emphasis is on economic matters, the question of social ostracism is also touched upon. However, he fails to apply Luke's emphasis on compassion (6:36) to suffering in a wider sense. In a doctoral dissertation completed in 1978, David Peter Seccombe (Possessions and the poor in Luke-Acts, 1983) treats LukeActs as a unit in which all traditional material is well integrated. He distinguishes four domains of interest according to which material regarding possessions and the poor can be classified: 'the poor and the salvation of Israel', 'renunciation and discipleship', 'possessions and Christian life' and 'fellowship and the church'. On the basis of Old Testament and intertestamental texts he argues that the 'poor' refers to 'Israel in its humiliating bondage to gentile powers and its suffering at the hands of the satanic ruler of this present age of wickedness' (Seccombe 1983:225). The poor are furthermore those who accept the kingdom, whereas the rich are those who refuse it, 'being satisfied and happy with their lot of this age' (Seccombe 1983:225). In our view, a scrutiny of Old Testament and intertestamental texts is shaky ground for establishing the reference of the term m:wx.6c; as used by the hellenist Luke (cf chapter three, par 1.1). It is also inter-

Introduction

19

esting that when dealing with the use of possessions in the rest of his book (although he detects no tendency towards 'any idealization of poverty' in Luke- cf Seccombe 1983:134), Seccombe does not deny the economic implications of Luke's warning against clinging to possessions or his call to deploy them 'generously in the service of men' (Seccombe 1983:227). It seems strange that Seccombe should retain the economic reference of 'possessions', whereas he basically denies it in the case of the 'poor' in such cardinal passages as 4:16-30, 1:4655 and 6:17-49 (Seccombe 1983:21-96; cf also our chapter two, pars 1.4 and 2.5). The publication of Richard Cassidy's book, Jesus, politics, and society: a study of Luke's Gospel (1980) marked a shift away from analyses focusing exclusively on Luke's interest in the poor. Cassidy's main interest is the political stance of the Lucan Jesus. Cassidy is critical of Conzelmann's (1964:128-134) thesis concerning Luke's 'political apologetic' vis-a.-vis the Roman authorities (Cassidy 1980:79), maintaining that the Lucan Jesus was not indifferent about the political oppression of the Jewish people. Although the Lucan Jesus does not commit himself to violence (Cassidy 1980:40-47), his acceptance of the poor, women, the sick and other social outcasts presented a challenge to the Roman authorities who held different values. Cassidy's contribution is valuable because it reveals a further dimension of Luke's comprehensive view of suffering, namely that of political oppression (although in our view political suffering should be viewed even more broadly- cf chapter three, pars 3.2 and 3.3). Jesus' positive attitude is also not confmed to the poor, but includes other suffering groups. Some of these themes are developed further in another book (Political issues in Luke-Acts, Cassidy & Scharper 1983) of which Cassidy was co-editor. In a study of Acts (Society and politics in the Acts of the Apostles, 1987) Cassidy came to similar conclusions. A major contribution to the study of poverty in Luke-Acts was made by Friedrich Wilhelm Hom (Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas, 1983). Horn's main interest is the ethics towards the poor which Luke advocates to his church (Gemeindepariinese). After dealing with the 'ethische Forderungen' of certain texts (e g Ac 2:4247; Ac 4:32-37; Ac 20:17-35; Lk 12:13-34; 16:1-31; 3:10-14; 19:1-10; 8:1-3), Horn (1983:121-168) analyses the beatitudes and woe-sayings (6:20-26), the Magnificat (1:46-55) and the parable of Lazarus and

20

Chapter one

the rich man (16:19-26). Horn (1983:176-188) concludes that these '''ebionitischen'' Traditionen' only function within the framework of Luke's 'Wohltiitigkeitspariinese' and that Luke himself did not advocate such an 'ebionitische Tendenz'. Despite Horn's rigorous argumentation, we cannot fully subscribe to his application of Redaktionsgeschichte. In our opinion motifs found in traditions like the Magnificat (where Horn [1983:181] concedes that no explicit paranetic framework can be distinguished), the beatitudes and the parable about Lazarus cannot simply be excised from Luke's intention merely because the evangelist provided some of them with a paranetic framework (cf also our discussion of the Benedictus in chapter three, par 3.1). In our view Luke adopts two viewpoints on possessions and the poor: renunciation of possessions and charity. The fact that modern exegetes may find these two views inconsistent and mutually contradictory is no reason to conclude that Luke did not intend both. We would argue that his compassion with the suffering of the poor dominates his thought to such an extent that he advocates any action (be it renunciation of possessions or charity) which he feels would help to alleviate their suffering. These critical remarks do not, however, detract from our respect for Horn's work. In a book about Luke's passion account, Robert J Karris (Luke: artist and theologian: Luke's passion account as literature, 1985) establishes an important link between Jesus' suffering as described in Luke 23 and his concern for various kinds of sufferers during his life. Karris asks the question how Jesus got himself crucified (1985:1622). He concludes that it was because as 'God's righteous one' (Karris 1985:16) he attacked the Jewish leaders for their injustice (Karris 1985:24-29) and he himself lived a just life (Karris 1985:29-38). Although Karris's conception of Jesus' care for 'God's hungry generation' (Karris 1985:52) in terms of the 'motif of food' (Karris 1985:4772) appears somewhat far-fetched, his findings to our mind contribute significantly to the theme of suffering in the Gospel as a whole. A recent work on the Gospel of Luke that pertains to our theme is Hans Klein's analysis of Luke's Sondergut (Bannhe/Zigkeit gegeniiber den Elenden und Geiichteten: Studien zur BotschaJt des lukanischen Sonderguts, 1987). Although Klein's work is limited to the Sondergut as an 'einheitlich gepragte miindliche Sammlung' of a Jerusalem community (Klein 1987:130-136), his book (as the title indicates)

Inuoduction

21

is relevant to our theme because it is not confmed to the motif of poverty. Klein deals with such important topics as sabbath healings and miracles (physical suffering), the justification or acceptance of sinners (spiritual suffering), the Samaritans (political suffering), possessions and invitations to the poor and outcasts (economic and social suffering), and humility (17:7-10). His work illustrates that the motif of compassion for a wide range of sufferers (= Elenden und Geiichteten) was already present in Luke's Sondergut and that Luke used it freely to communicate his own thought. That Luke to a large extent identified with his Sondergut is clear from the way he edited Mark and Q along similar lines, as well as from his redactional notes (e g 15:1-2). 3

METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES

Elsewhere (Scheffler 1985:58-60) I have argued that exegetical fmdings should not claim to be absolute, since no exegetical method is free of presuppositions and therefore cannot produce absolute,positive results. Exegetical findings are relative to the operational premises which should be spelled out beforehand by the exegete. The language used by the exegete in the presentation of his results should reflect his own assessment of the degree of reliability of his assertions. He should therefore use terms and expressions like 'attested' or 'certain' (= 90-100% reliable), 'highly probable' (= 70-90% reliable), 'probable' (= 50-60% reliable), 'possible (= 50% reliable) 'improbable' (40-50% reliable), 'highly improbable' (= 10-40% reliable) and false (= 0-10% reliable) in describing the results. These terms and percentages are cited simply in an attempt to comply with the above requirement in this study and are not postulated as an absolute norm (cf also Moore et al1985:110-111). As far as exegetical method is concerned, I have made extensive use of redaction criticism in this study. In this regard the operational premise is that Luke's main source was Mark, whose sequence he basically followed. Material from Q and his Sondergut was interwoven at consciously chosen places in his composition or narrative in order to express his own intentions. Tradition criticism is used only to establish the immediate basis for Luke's redactional work. I therefore do not see redaction criticism as limited to the actual editing of Mark (= specific redaction). The overall composition of the narra-

22

Chapter one

tive is seen as part of Luke's work, which can be regarded as that of redactor, author or narrator (cf also Rhode 1966:7-22). Hence when we find a tradition included in the Gospel which has no basis in either Mark or Q (Sondergut) - in other words when the tracing of 'specific redaction' is difficult - it should still be accepted that Luke chose to include that tradition in his Gospel. The place where such a tradition is inserted is significant, as well as the inclusion of similar traditions (cf also Breytenbach 1984:129-132). Luke's use of traditions concerning the Samaritans is a case in point. Luke includes no 'negative' reference to the Samaritans (cf Mt 10:5), but he uses three favourable Samaritan traditions from his Sondergut (9:51-56; 10:25-37; 17:11-19). Moreover, these traditions all appear in the travel narrative where the impression is created that Jesus also ministered in Samaria (9:52; 17:11). Although Luke did not obtain the Samaritan traditions from Mark, and the tracing of his 'specific redaction' is therefore impossible, it can nevertheless be concluded that he wanted to portray a positive attitude towards the Samaritans. If one adopts this approach to redaction criticism (defining redaction as the redactor's total contribution to the narrativeand therefore including composition criticism), the Acts of the Apostles can also be used to verify ideas reflected in the Gospel, as happened frequently in the course of this study. In the example of the Samaritans the use of Acts for this purpose seems to have had positive results (Ac 1:8; 8:5; cf also chapter three, par 3.2). Because we seek to determine the intention of the final author of the text, the latter's historical situation is relevant. The Gospel is regarded as the work of a hellenist writer who lived somewhere in Asia Minor after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If this is accepted, the next problem is to decide whether to regard the text as referring to the events described in its own story-world, or whether everything should be interpreted as 'transparent history' in which the needs of Luke's contemporary community are addressed. We adopted the first premise, but we attempted to present our analysis in such a way as to allow for Luke's conception of the story-world which he created (one that reflects the circumstances before Easter). For example, although Luke may have been somewhat ignorant regarding the geography of Palestine, he appears to have been well-informed about the hatred between the Samaritans and the Jews and the latter's negative attitude towards gentiles and toll-collectors (cf 9:51-56; Ac

Inuoduction

23

10:28; 19:7). It is doubtful, on the other hand, whether his concept of the poor is the same as that of contemporary Judaism. We therefore considered it vitally important to attempt to establish Luke's view of the matters he is writing about. The question of what he wanted his version of the pre-Easter events to communicate to his own readers is of course perfectly legitimate, although it is not dealt with in detail in this study (cf chapter five, par 2.1). We furthermore believe that our approach to redaction criticism does not preclude the use of literary analysis (narratology, cf Prince 1982; Brink 1987) in this study, since the redactor is seen to be the final author of the text. As will be seen in chapter four, the description of Jesus' innocent suffering is actually part of Luke's characterisation of him. The same applies to the disciples' and the Jewish leaders' role in his suffering. In our discussion of the Nazareth episode (4:16-30) and the Magnificat (1:46-55) in chapter two we conduct a structural analysis of the texts. In our view such an analysis need not conflict with the intention of the final author of the text, since it is based on the fmal text (the one left by the redactor). In addition the division of the text into thought units, interrelated in subsections, facilitates reference to the text and permits a provisional assessment of the overall construction of a passage. It should be noted that we defme a thought unit as a meaningful semantic unit. It is therefore not the same as a colon, which is distinguished on a syntactic basis in classical South African discourse analysis (cf Louw 1982:95). It should further be stated emphatically that structural analysis (in view of its relative value) cannot provide an adequate interpretation of the text. We hope to illustrate the truth of this assertion through our analysis of the Nazareth episode and the Magnificat. In our view the results of structural analyses often do not warrant the space they take up. A structural analysis of every peri cope discussed in this study would have necessitated the omission of (to our mind) more important fmdings obtained from, for instance, redaction criticism. The above outline of methodological premises should make it clear to the reader that we have tried to avoid rigid methodology and dogmatic discussion about it. The nature of a text often dictates the way in which a study is presented. In some instances it is necessary to provide zeitgeschichtliche information to elucidate the text or the point at issue; elsewhere it is sufficient merely to point out dif-

24

Chapter one

ferences between Luke and Mark. In this connection the following remarks by Deist (1983:86-87) may be considered: What we need is a marriage of structural and historical awareness within the perceiving mind of the exegete. For this there is, to my mind, no recipe. An exegete has to be trained to be constantly on the lookout for all sorts of structural and historical indicators in the text and to integrate them into the process of understanding. From this integrated process of perceiving he has to create his story (or narrative) of what the text means. It is thus not a question of applying a few neat steps in succession - as in a natural science laboratory - but of doing several things simultaneously.

Chapter two

LUKE'S COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF HUMAN SUFFERING

The aim of this chapter is the first objective mentioned in chapter one (par 1): to indicate that Luke views suffering multidimensionally and not mainly in economic terms (poverty). The aim is to differentiate between the various dimensions of suffering other than the already well attested economic dimension (cf chapter one, par 2). In addition we shall demonstrate that Luke integrates the various dimensions into a comprehensiv~ view of suffering. To achieve this purpose two key passages from the Gospel are singled out for discussion, namely the Nazareth episode (4:16-30) and the Magnificat (1:46-55). It is believed that these two pericopes afford considerable insight into Luke's comprehensive view of various types of suffering. Then, in paragraph 3, evidence from the rest of the Gospel is examined to determine whether the concept of suffering in the Gospel as a whole is as comprehensive as in the selected pericopes. This brief investigation serves to verify the inferences made from Luke 4:16-30 and Luke 1:46-55. It also gives a preview of matters that receive more attention in subsequent chapters. 1 THE NAZARETH EPISODE: LUKE 4:16-30 This pericope is discussed before the Magnificat because of the longstanding critical opinion concerning its programmatic nature. Busse (1978:28-29) mentions the various grounds for this opinion: Jesus' passion, the mission to the gentiles and the resurrection (v 30). He himself cites Luke's Christology as further evidence of the programmatic nature of this pericope (Busse 1978:68ff). Despite the centrality usually assigned to the Isaian quotation (4:18 = Is 61:1ff) in which the motif of suffering is dominant, remarkably little attention has

25

26

Chapter two

been paid to the way in which the programmatic nature of the pericope reflects Luke's emphasis on various modes of human suffering, apart from Jesus' passion. It is our contention that not merely the Isaian quotation, but the entire narrative structure of the pericope reflects the motif of suffering which can be traced throughout the Gospel and even in Acts. As far as methodology is concerned, our analysis will be based mainly (but not exclusively) on redaction criticism, since it is believed (as we hope to demonstrate) that Luke himself not only radically changed his tradition (Mk 6:1-6), but also assigned the Nazareth episode a key position in the overall composition of his Gospel. 1.1 Luke 4:16-30: preJiminary issues

For easy reference the text of Luke 4: 16-30 is supplied. The verses are numbered in accordance with our conception of basic thought units (cf chapter one, par 3) and the relation between these thought units is graphically illustrated (cf also Combrink 1973:27-47). Key words (relating to our theme) are underlined and sections common to both Luke and Mark appear in bold print. LUKE 4:16-30

Mk

6:1a 16a b 6:2a c 17a b 18a b c d

e f 19 20a b 21a b

~ ~Oeu Etc; ~apcl,oo ~v 'te9paJ1J.LEvoc;,---.

Kat Eiof\A9EV Ka'[a '[0 Ei.w9ac; aU'[ep Ell 'tij Ju,L~ 'tiiJv

~

aafJPlmw Etc; rl\v ~v, Kat eXvE:O''I:T\ eXvayvWvat . - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Kat E1tEOO9T\ aU'[ep I}ll}AloV '[00 1tpoCI)1'1'[ou ' Haalou'l Kat eXv(X1t'[u~~ '[0 I}ll}AloV EUPEV '[OV '[01tOV OU ~v yEypaJ..lJ..lEVOV·-----------....... 1tVE0J..la Kupiou E1t' EJ..lE:, v " , OUIf' ElVEKEV ExPlO'EV J..lE EUaYYEAiO'aa9al 1t'[wxolc CmE:O',[aAKE:V J..lE, KT\pU~at aixuaAclJ'I:OlI; lijEO'lV Kat MAOll; eXvQ6AE!jIlV , CmOO',[ElAal ,[E9pc:xuO'uE:VOUI; EV #E:O'El, KT\pU~at EVl(XU'[OV Kupiou OEK,[OV. Kat 1t'[U~ac;; '[0 I}ll}Aiov CmoOoUc; '[ep U1tT\PE:n;l EK69lO'EV' Kat 1teXv,[WV oi 6cj>9aAJ..lot EV Lfj O'Uvaywyfj ~O'av (hEVi~oV,[Ee;; aU'[ep. TlP~a'[o DE: MYElV 1tpOc;; aU'[oUc; (l'tl oTtJ..lEPOV 1tE1tA1'\PW'[at t1 ypacl>ll cxU'I:T\ EV LOle;; wO'tv

J

UJ..lwv.----------------~

A

-

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering

27

Mk

6:2b 6:3

22a ~ nlvtEt; E:~ a\rdil---------. b Kat E:9aUuatov tnt 'tole; MJyOtc;; 'tfic; Xclpl'tOl; 'tole; B E:mop€uop,Evotc;; E:K mO am).UmJC; aUmO, . , .. , . , L .......u. .. c Kat.'~'l.e-vnJ~ ~"IO' ,0000l U1OC; Eat:UI .-.. •.,. 0U't0C;;----' ". ", Kal, El1tEV npoc; QU'touc; , - - - - - - - - - - - , niIvtooc; E:pEl'tE)IOl 'ri\v nopaIJoAnv 'tCllm\v· ' 1.a'tpE, 9EpOnaxmv 0'EalJ't6v. oO'a TtKouO'aJl€v l.€voJl€va d.; n1V ~vaouu noiT\O'ov KOt cOO€ E:V 'tfj no't~i1h O'ou. - - - - ' 24a ETnw lit,ciJlitv ).£yw U)llv - - - - - - - - - - , b O'tl oOOEi.f; ~'tI}I; 6EK't6c; E:at:UI €v 'tl\ JIa'tVWl

23 a 6:5? b c d 6:4

amocru.---------------J

25 a E:n' 6AT\8Eio.; OE: AEyw UJltV, - - - - - - - - - - , b noUat ~ ~O'av E:V 'tOt.; itJlepat.; , HAiou E:V 'tlil , IO'par1A, C o't€ E:KA€ia8T\ 6 oupavac; E:nt €'tT'\ 'tpia KOt Jlfivac; €~, d We; E:yev€'to AlUOs: ueyas: E:ntnQO'av n1V yfiv, 26 KatnpOc; OUO€Jltav aU'twv E:neJl~8T\ ' HAiac; d Jl11 €i.; . LCtp€n'to uk LtOwVias: npOc; YUVOtKO XDpav. 27 a KOtnOAAOt A€npot ~O'av E:V 'tlil ' IO'panA E:nt ' EAlO'oiou '[Ou n~ft'tou, b KOt ouoEi.; aU'twv E:Ka8apia8T\ d Jl11 NXlUOv 6 LUpoC;.

Kai E:nAfta9rlc:mv nlvtEt; Ou)1OO €v 'tl\ auvaywyij OKoUovt:Et; t:aOt:a, 29 a KOtavOO''tav't€.; E:Ee6aAov aU'tov €~W t:f\.; nOA€CJJ.;, b KOt nyoyov aU'tov €CJJ.; 6cj>pUo.; 'tou opouc; E:~' 0011 D nOAl'; 4>KoOOJlT\'tO aU'twv, ooO''t€ Ko'taKpTluviO'at aU'tov' --------------~ 30 aU'to.; OE: Ol€A8wv oux JleO'ou aU'twv E:nop€u€'to.

6:3? 28

Before we discuss the tradition of the text, we need to comment briefly on the demarcation of the passage and textual criticism pertinent to our theme. Busse (1978:13ft) shows convincingly that Luke 4:16-30 defInitely fIts its immediate context within the overall composition or macrostructure of the Gospel. This aspect will receive attention in paragraph 1.3.4. In terms of tradition history, however, it can be clearly demarcated as a single unit on the basis of Mark 6:1-6a. The begin-

C

28

Chapter two

ning of the pericope is furthermore demarcated by the redactional note in Luke 4:14-15, which reports in general on Jesus' ministry in Galilee. Its end is demarcated by the note in Luke 4:31-32 which gives a general report on his ministry in Capernaum. In contrast to the general comment on Jesus' Galilean ministry in Luke 4:14-15, the Nazareth passage recounts a specific episode in that ministry. It is not the fIrst episode chronologically, but is recorded fIrst because of the paramount importance that the redactor assigns it. Because of the close connection between the thought units (cf the text), the change in location (Galilee- Nazareth- Capernaum), the change in time (a specific sabbath), the change in action (specific versus general ministry, ministry versus temptation) and the change in characters (the devil- Galileans- Nazarenes), we can conclude that Luke 4:16-30 is a highly cohesive unit - the more so since our text represents a coherent episode within the larger narrative. As far as textual criticism is concerned, two variant readings warrant attention. Some witnesses - notably the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus- insert, after cXn€(11:aAK€V J..I.€ in verse 18c, the phrase from Isaiah 61:1d, i.Qaaa8cn 1:0Ue;; O\JV1:€1:plJ..l.J..I.€VOUe;; Lfj KapOla (cf the text in par 1.3.3). Since the fourth century witnesses (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) omit this latter phrase, thus representing the more difficult reading, the reading of Alexandrinus should be regarded as an assimilation to Isaiah 61, from which Luke quoted. (For possible reasons why Luke omitted the phrase, cf 1.3.3 below.) Also relevant to our theme is Wellhausen's (1904:10-11) conjecture concerning Luke 4:26, where he reads 1tpOc;; yuva'ika LUpav instead of X:f!pav . According to Wellhausen x.ilpav is tautologous, as verse 25b implies that the woman in question was a widow: 'die Pointe beruht ... auf den Gegensatz ... zwischen Israel und den Heiden. In der folgenden Parallele steht ja auch den vielen Aussatzigen in Israel nicht Naeman der Aussatzige gegeniiber, sondern Naeman der Heide.' Although Wellhausen's suggestion seems reasonable, it has to be rejected, not only because of the total lack of textual witnesses, but also because the present text is the lectio difficilior. Although Wellhausen's reading would have made the contrast between Israel and the gentiles more emphatic, this point is still communicated by the present text (cf Lfle;; LlOwviac;; in v 26). One could rather argue that Luke also wanted to emphasise that the woman was a widow, since widowhood constitutes an important category in

Luke's comprehensive view of human sUffering

29

his concept of suffering (cf 2:37; 7:12; 18:3; 20:47; 21:2; cf also chapter three, par 2.4). Furthermore, as Klostermann (1975:65) points out, Wellhausen's suggestion is implausible because €i' u)J.&; T1 ~O'tA€io LOU 8EOU. Together with the Capernaum pericope (because of 4:43), Luke 4:16-30 can therefore be viewed as an interpretation of the concept of ~oO'tAEio LOU 8EOU presented in Mark 1:15b. Because Luke uses the concept not as a motivation for people to repent and believe, but to express the deliverance offered to those who suffer, his version omits Mark 1:15c. His emphasis is on the deliverance brought to humanity rather than on human repentance and faith (cf also 1.3.1 above). The expressionEUaYYEAlO'o0'8ol ... UtV ~oO'tAEiav therefore refers to the alleviation of suffering as recounted in the Nazareth and Capernaum episodes. This is moreover the main aim of Jesus' mission (cf 4:43). Our comparison of Luke 4:16-30 with Mark 1:14-15 thus affords some insight into Luke's method. He not only reinterprets a whole episode in order to convey his emphasis on suffering, but also gives new meaning to key terms like EUOYYEALOV and ~O'tAEia LOU 8EOU (cf chapter five, par 2.3).

1.3.3

The Lucan use of Isaiah 61:1-2a and 58:6

It should now be clear that the quotation from Isaiah was of considerable importance for Luke as a means, not only of reinterpreting the tradition presented to him, but also of expressing and giving authority to his own theological approach. Certain other points regarding his use of the Isaian quotation have to be considered. First of all it should be noted that, although in the main Luke followed the Septuagint, he did not quote the text from Isaiah verbatim. However, a comparison between the two versions suggests that Luke quoted directly from the Septuagint. In order to appreciate the differences, a synopsis of the Septuagint text together with Luke's wording (4:18-19) is provided.

38

Chapter two

ISAIAH 61:1-3 (LXX)

LUKE 4:18-19

1a 1tv€uJ..la KUpiou E1t' EJ..lE: b 00 €lV€K€V €xPLO'E:V J..l€ c €UaYY€AiO'a0'9aL m:wX0lr; eXnE:O'1:aAKE:V J..l€ d laO'a0'9aL 1:0Uc:; auV1:€1:pLJ..lJ..lE:VOUC; -rU KapOlQ e KTlPU~aL aiXJ..laAW1:OLe;; &j>€O'LV f Kat 1:u<j>Aole;; av6j3A€IJIlV 58: llmOO'1:€AA€ 1:€9pauO'J..lE:vOUC; 6d EV b<j>E:O'€L]

18a 1tv€uJ..la KUpiou E1t' EJ..lE: b 00 €lV€K€V €xPLO'E:V J..l€ c €UaYY€AiO'a0'9aL 1t1:WXOle;; eXnE:O'1:aAKE:V J..l€

2a b c 3a b c d

KaAE:O'aL EVLaU1:0V KUpiou O€K1:0V Kat 1)J..lE:pav av1:CX1toOOO'€W«;; 1tapaKcXA€O'aL 1tW1:ac;; 1:0Ue;; 1t€v90uv1:ac;; oo9f\vaL 1:Ole;; 1t€V90UO'LV LLWV 06~av avd O'1tOOOU aA€LJ..lJ..la €Ucj>poaUVTle;; 1:ole;; 1t€V90UO'LV Ka1:aO'1:0A11V OO~Tle;; wd 1tv€uJ..la1:Oe;; OKTlOlac;;

e

KatKATl9~0'0V1:aLY€V€at

f

OLKaLoaUVTle;; cj>u1:€uJ..la Kupiou €i.e;; oo~av

KTlPU~aL aiXJ..laAW1:0Le;; &j>€O'LV e Kat 1:u<j>Aole;; av6/3A€IJIlV f eXnOO'1:€lAaL 1:€9pauO'J..lE:vOUC; EV b<j>E:O'€L 19a KTlPU~aL EVLaU1:0V Kupiou O€K1:0V

d

The three main differences from the Septuagint seem to accord with Luke's own thought:

Firstly, Luke omits Isaiah 61:1d (wO'a0'9aL 1:0Uc:; O'UV1:€1:pLJ..lJ..lE:voue;; 1:1;\ Kapoia). Because psychological suffering is part of his universal concept of suffering (cf 6:21b; also chapter three, par 5) the omission initially strikes one as strange. However, nowhere in the rest of the Gospel does Luke use the term ia0'9aL metaphorically. Physical healing is also a very important motif in the rest of the pericope (cf 4:23d,27). What the Lucan Jesus has in mind is not just comfort for those who suffer. The replacement of Isaiah 61:1d with 58:6d (although not in exactly the same place, cf 4:18f in text) therefore serves Luke's purpose, since 1:€9pauO'J..lE:VOL need not refer exclusively to psychological

Luke's comprehensive view of human sUffering

39

suffering. Furthermore, throughout his Gospel Luke depicts Jesus as the one who teaches and heals (cf 5:17). Teaching and healing are the two important motifs in his ministry in Nazareth (where the emphasis is on teaching about healing) and Capemaum (where the emphasis is on the act of healing). Secondly, Luke inserted Isaiah 58:6d (onoO't:€tAOl t:€9pauO'Jl€vouc; E:V cXcI>€O'€l). As a result of the insertion the term &/>€O'lC; (also appearing in 4:18d) receives considerable emphasis. Because in every other instance where the term a~€O'lC; is used in the Gospel and Acts, it occurs in the expression &/>€(nc; oJlapt:t.Wv (cf 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Ac 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18), its use in the Nazareth episode definitely suggests deliverance in a spiritual, religious sense. However, Klostermann (1975:63) is wrong to interpret the whole Isaian quotation (which he calls 'Heilspredigt an die Armen') as 'das Ende von Gefangenschaft, Blindheit und Zerschmetterung in sittlichreligiosem Sinne' (my italics). The context in which the quotation appears, namely that of Jesus' healing ministry in Nazareth and Capernaum (cf especially 4:23d and 4:31-44) does not allow for a purely 'religious' interpretation. The fact that the rest of the Gospel depicts the poor as the literally poor (cf chapter three, par 1) and the blind as the literally blind (cf chapter three, par 4) makes such an interpretation highly improbable. Indeed, it is a moot point whether Luke (within the parameters of his thinking) could have used &/>€O'lC; in an exclusively religious sense at all. In the Benedictus, for instance, the term O'wt:Tlpia is used in both a political (1:71: O'wt:Tlpia E:~ E:X9pWv) and a religious (1:77: O'wt:T'tpia E:V O~€O'€l oJlapt:t.Wv) sense. In the healing of the paralytic (5:17-26) there also seems to be a close link between physical healing and a~€O'lC; t:wv QJlopt:t.Wv (cf especially v 23). It is our contention that in the text under discussion the use of &/>€O'lC; together with the more general (or generic) term t:€9pauO'Jl€VOl is indicative of Luke's comprehensive view of suffering. In its immediate context, the focus is probably on physical deliverance. However, in view of a passage like the healing of the paralytic and the use of the term a~€O'lC; in the rest of the Gospel, the expression also has a religious ( and programmatic) dimension. The expression CmOO't:€tAal t:€9pauO'Jl€vOUC; E:V cXcI>€O'€l suggests the actuality of the &/>€O'lC;. Jesus does not merely announce it (cf v 18d); he also executes it. After several of his healings he is reported to have sent the healed person forth in freedom (cf 5:24; 8:39).

40

Chapter two

Thirdly, it is our contention that the omission of Isaiah 61:2bc (Kat T)JJ.€pav avt:anoooO'€wc;;, napaKaA€O'al nclvt:ac;; t:oOc;; n€v8ouvt:ac;; ... ) accords very well with Luke's intention. In Luke 3:4-6 it is clear that he gives a longer quotation than Mark in order to communicate his universalism (cf especially 3:6 and chapter three, par 3.3). It also testifies to the fact that Luke made direct use of the Septuagint and did not merely quote from memory. For his purpose he had to end the quotation from Isaiah 61 after verse 2a, since the rest of the Isaian text speaks about a day of vengeance and comfort exclusively for the people of Zion (cf Is 61:2b-3 in text). Isaiah 61:1d (discussed above) was also omitted, probably because it hints at what follows in the rest of the text (comfort to Zion). Quoting even one additional phrase from Isaiah 61 would therefore have been contrary to Luke's intention. What he has in mind is not vengeance on Israel's enemies (cf Is 61:2b), nor exclusive comfort for Zion (v 3a), but the exact opposite: deliverance to those who suffer, even among Israel's enemIes.

Having noted the differences between the Lucan and Isaian texts, we turn to the importance of the quotation in the Lucan text. It is highlighted, for instance, by the rather dramatic portrayal of Jesus reading from the scroll (4:17). Luke 4:17 and 20 in fact provide a framework without which the quotation would have been senseless. We are told in detail how Jesus takes the scroll and (providentially?) finds the specific passage to read. After his reading, the sense of expectancy in the synagogue is also described dramatically (cf Busse 1978:55ft). The rest of the pericope is not understandable without the quotation. In fact, any understanding of it depends on a correct interpretation of the quotation, and for that reason Scripture is quoted again (vv 25-27). Even the ministry in Capernaum which follows the Nazareth episode should be understood in terms of the quotation. Isaiah 61 was not a famous tradition which was widely quoted in Jewish sources. Hence the fact that Luke quotes it specifically is indicative of his purpose and says much about the centrality of his emphasis on suffering. The quotation is also reminiscent of Luke 6:2022, 7:22, 14:13 and 14:21 where various types of suffering are mentioned in similar fashion. The use of the quotation could have been prompted by Luke 6:20-22 and 7:22, which Luke took from Q. The

Luke's comprehensive view of human sUffering

41

quotation from Old Testament prophecy at the beginning of Jesus' ministry also fits into Luke's scheme of promise and fulfilment. The fact that Isaiah had prophesied that Jesus would minister to sufferers emphasises that this ministry formed part of God's plan. Therefore the prophecy (quoted by Luke himself) can in itself be regarded as programmatic for his whole Gospel. Schweizer (1982:58) demonstrated from the Qumran literature that in late Judaism Isaiah 61:1ff was interpreted as referring to the Messiah. However, in the Lucan context the quotation should not be seen (also contra Schiirmann 1969:229) merely as the fulfilment of scriptural prophecies concerning Jesus' messianic office. Luke also uses it to communicate his concept of the nature of that office, which he sees as associated with the alleviation of suffering. The same notion is communicated in his account of the preaching of John the Baptist: after the Standespredigt (3:10-14), which deals with the alleviation of suffering, the people mistakenly thought that John was the Messiah (3:10,15-16). 1.3.4 Luke 4:16-30 in Luke's composition or macrostructure

On the basis of recurrent motifs (see 1.2 above) Busse (1978:25) demonstrates that Luke 4:16-30 is very well integrated into the context of Luke 3:20-4:44 and that the latter actually forms an 'Erzahleinheit'. For our study the link which Luke establishes between Jesus' ministry in Nazareth and Capernaum is especially important. In our view the description of the healings in Capernaum helps us to interpret the various types of suffering programmatically mentioned in the quotation from Isaiah. Luke establishes the connection between the ministries in Nazareth and Capernaum as follows: (1) He transposes the pericope on the calling of the disciples, which in Mark appears between the Marcan programme and the Capernaum episode (Mk 1:16-20), to 5:1ff, thus directly linking the Nazareth and Capernaum episodes. (2) The Nazareth episode contains an explicit reference to healings performed in Capernaum (cf 4:23d, contra Mark). The ministries in Nazareth and Capernaum are actually compared, which is significant for the universalism that Luke propagates (cf chapter three, par 3.3). (3) Luke often uses redactional notes or summaria to frame epi-

42

Chapter two

sodes. The Nazareth and Capernaum episodes are enclosed in the same frame, demarcated by Luke 4:14-15 and Luke 4:42-44. (4) Luke 4:43 mentions that Jesus had to preach in other cities as well. Luke 4:44 mentions that he preached in the cities of Judea. In both the Nazareth and Capernaum pericopes Luke explicitly points out (in opposition to Mark) that the latter were Galilean cities. Referring to the Judean cities, he contrasts them with both Nazareth and Capernaum. The 'preaching of the kingdom of God' likewise refers to Jesus' activities in both Nazareth and Capernaum. [Text-critical note: The main textual witnesses (e g p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) support the reading 'rile;; • IouOaiac;; in 4:44. Since this is also the lectio difftcilior, the question is why Luke used it. To his mind' IOuOaia did not exclude Galilee (cf above), but referred to the entire Jewish territory. Observations below (cf chapter 4, par 1.5.1) seem to conftrm this view]. It is our contention that the close connection between the Nazareth and Capernaum episodes tells us something about the connotation that Luke attaches to the generic terms alXJ.laAw'[Ol and 1:€9pcxuO"J.l€VOL. Viewed from the perspective of the Capernaum pericope (which the Nazareth pericope mentions, in the context of these two terms - cf 4:23), alXllaAW1:0le;; &j>€O"le;; could very well refer to the healing of demoniacs (cf 4:31-37,41 and even 38-39, where the fever of Peter's mother-in-law is seen as a demon). Even 1:€9pcxuO"J.l€VOl €V bcI>€O"€l could be interpreted as referring to the healing of demoniacs and sick people (4:40-41; cf also Ac 10:38). Viewed from the perspective of the Gospel as a whole, one observes that (as in the case of the Isaian quotation) the poor and the sick are often mentioned together (cf 7:22; 14:13,21). Although from the perspective of the Capernaum pericope these terms can be taken to refer to Jesus' healings, their generic nature still serves to convey Luke's broader intention. After mentioning the poor and the hungry in Luke 6:20-21, he adds a third beatitude which generically could refer to any type of suffering: J.laKOplOL Ol KMtoV1:€e;; vUv. Although they are given a specific meaning in the Capernaum episode, the phrases alXJlaAW1:0le;; &j>€O"lV and 1:€9pauO"J.l€voue;; €V bcI>€O"€l are still best interpreted as programmatic for all types of suffering mentioned in the rest of the Gospel (including &j>€O"le;; 1:WV cXJ.lap1:tWv). At all events, this analysis

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering

43

of Luke's arrangement of the Nazareth and Capernaum episodes indicates that a purely 'spiritual' interpretation is not probable. Besides the immediate compositional arrangement of the Nazareth and Capernaum episodes, the position of the Nazareth pericope in the Gospel as a whole also needs to be considered. If we compare the structures of Luke and Mark, the transposition of the Nazareth episode to the beginning of Luke's Gospel is conspicuous. It is particularly significant since Luke 4:23 shows that Luke knew that 4:16-30 was not the first episode in Jesus' ministry. His deliberate transposition of this episode to the beginning of Jesus' ministry therefore indicates that his theological intention was so dominant as to override any possible intention to write a chronological history (cfKcx9E~flc:; in 1:3). Schmithals (1980:61) appears to have grasped this truth when he comments that 'offensichtlich geht es Lukas darum, wichtige, fur Jesu Wirken typische Aussagen- iihnlich wie in Mark 1:14f- an den Anfang seines Evangeliums zu stellen'. One could say that Luke 4:16-30 is anticipated by Luke 2:34, because it contains the fulfilment of Simeon's prophecy of m:wO' LV ... 110AAWV E:V "[Ii'> ' IO'pexTtA and C1TlJlEtOV aV"[lAEYOJlEVOV (Fitzmyer 1986:526). The Nazareth episode in turn anticipates the account of Jesus' entire ministry, in the sense that it encapsulates that ministry and the reaction, success and rejection that he encountered. 'The rejection of him by the people of his hometown is a miniature of the reaction of him by the people of his own llcx"[pic:; in a larger sense' (Fitzmyer 1986:529). The examples of the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian are strongly reminiscent of the Sondergut traditions of the widow of Nain (7:11-17) and the Samaritan leper (17:1119). The recurrence of traditions similar to that of the Isaian quotation was mentioned above (cf par 1.3.3). However, in our view Schweizer's remark (1982:59) that Luke sees Jesus' departure in verse 30 as 'Zeichen auf Ostern hin' is too far-fetched. The statement admittedly suggests that the people did not have power over Jesus. At the same time such a statement is necessary for the continuation of Luke's story after the heavy emphasis on their attempt to kill him. Although the attempt to kill Jesus should not be rashly interpreted as a direct reference to his crucifIXion, in the context of the Gospel as a whole it definitely refers to the rejection (culminating in his death) which Jesus had to suffer (cf chapter 4, par 1.3). In con-

44

Chapter two

trast to Mark, Luke does not see Jesus' suffering as limited to the final passion: his whole life is pictured as one of humility and suffering. This is borne out by Luke's portrayal of Jesus' humble birth. His followers suffer similar rejection (cf 6:22; Ac 9:16). In chapter four we dwell on these points in more detail. The fact that the Lucan account of Jesus' ministry commences with the Nazareth pericope accords with Luke's scheme of the way of the gospel in the world. The Christian mission expands in concentric circles, as explicitly stated in Acts 1:8: first Jerusalem, then all Judea, then Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth. The composition of the Gospel follows the same pattern: ftrst Nazareth, then Capernaum (both Galilean cities), then Judean cities (cf 4:43-44 and the text-critical note above), then Samaria; after the events in Jerusalem the scheme resumes, culminating in the mission to the gentiles. This scheme communicates Luke's universalism - a universalism which does not exclude the n<X1:pic;;, but commences there. The position of the Nazareth episode in the Gospel, as well as its content, communicates the same idea. Luke uses the pericope to break down the barriers of ostracism and political rejection. 1.3.5

Other techniques used by Luke to convey his point of view

In the Nazareth pericope Luke conveys his theological intention not by arguing his case, but by means of a dramatic episode. Busse (1978:55ff) has pointed out the resemblances between Luke's presentation and peripatetic hellenistic historiography, in which facts are not merely stated but are recounted vividly and entertainingly. This is done by means of dramatising and 'tragicising' the events. A comparison of the Lucan and Marcan versions of the Nazareth episode reveals elements of such dramatisation in Luke. We have mentioned that the Isaian quotation is embedded in such a dramatic situation (cf par 1.3.3 above) for the purpose of emphasising its content. The political motif too is dramatically emphasised: after Jesus had quoted scriptural instances of non-Jews being saved from their suffering instead of Jews (verses 25-27), the Nazarenes (who in the story represent the Jewish nation) tried to kill him (tragicising the event). Their extreme reaction reveals the intensity of their political rejection of the gentiles. A second narrative technique used by Luke is to make the protagonist of his story the mouthpiece of his intention. Luke does not

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering

45

simply state the motif of political suffering; he uses Jesus' speech and the reaction of his hearers and opponents to his words to emphasise it. The aim is to manipulate the hearer into identifying with the protagonist's words and rejecting the reaction of the opponents. A reader who identifies with the main character and hero (Jesus) will therefore automatically identify with the universal and comprehensive view of suffering reflected in Jesus' words, and will reject the attitude of his opponents who unjustly want to kill him. Thirdly, Luke also uses Scripture to advocate his case. Where the motif of suffering is concerned, Jesus' words, which express Luke's viewpoint, are either quotations (v 18) or examples (vv 25-27) from the Old Testament. In Luke's view the Old Testament has authority and contains the promise of what is fulfilled in Jesus ministry (cf especially 24:44-46). In conclusion: This redaction-critical study indicates that a comparison of Luke 4:16-30 with Mark 6:1-6a yields only limited information about Luke's theological thought and his method of communicating it. Luke's intention is further conveyed by his composition of a new narrative which has a new meaning in the overall composition of his Gospel.

1.4 Various dimensions of suffering in Luke 4:16-30 From our analysis of the Nazareth episode it emerged that Luke did not only have the poor or sinners in mind. In this section the various dimensions of suffering to be discerned in this pericope are systematised. Firstly, in view of his use of the term in the rest of the Gospel, the m:wxoi of verse 18c is best interpreted as a literal reference to the poor (those deprived of material necessities). Busse (1978) and Schmithals (1980:62) interpret verse 18c as a heading encompassing the other groups of sufferers mentioned in verse 18. There is, however, no substantiation in the text for such an interpretation. On the contrary, verses 25-27 mention two separate Old Testament examples of persons who suffered - the widow of Zarephath being a case of economic suffering. The interpretation of n'[wxoc;; as a generic heading for suffering in general is also unlikely in view of a similar tradition in 7:22 where n'[wxoi €UCXYY€AU:;,OV'[CXl is mentioned last. For Luke n'[wxoc;; therefore seems to refer to economic suffering,

46

Chapter two

not merely in the sense of relative poverty, but extending further to include hunger and beggary (cf 6:20-21; 16:19-31). Luke does not use the word m:wxoc; metaphorically. He also avoids the word ftEVT\C; (relative poverty) and instead uses m:wxoe;; (the begging poor - cf Schottroff & Stegemann 1978:26; also Boesak 1977:20-26) in its literal sense (cf chapter three, par 1.1 below). Secondly, physical suffering is referred to in different ways in the Nazareth episode. Recovery of sight by the blind is mentioned in verse 18e. Schmithals's (1980:62) somewhat allegorical interpretation of 'l:tJAOc;: as 'Blindheit fUr das Gottliche Wissen' should be rejected. Nowhere else in his Gospel does Luke suggest such an interpretation; what he reports is literal healing of blindness (cf 18:35-43). Besides, physical healing is an important motif in the pericope as a whole (cf v 23) and through the close connection established with the Capernaum episode (structurally achieved by the omission of Mk 1:16-20), the healing of the physically sick becomes a major component of Jesus' ministry. The example of Naaman the leper is primarilyone of physical suffering (although lepers were also ostracised). It is moreover highly probable that the expressions CXl)(JJ.CXAW'l:OLC; &~€O'LV (v 18b) and 'l:€8pCXUO'IJEVOUe;; €V a~EO'€L (18f) are concretely illustrated by the healings described in the Capernaum episode and therefore also refer to physical suffering (cf 1.3.4). Thirdly, in view of the close link established with the Capernaum episode, al)(JJ.aAw'l:Oe;; and 'l:€8pauO'IJEVOe;; could denote demon possession. This can be interpreted as psychological suffering, although Luke sees a close connection between demon possession and physical sickness (cf 4:38-39 and 13:11). The fact that Luke (in contrast to Mark) mentions that the demon did not hurt the possessed man (cf 4:35 and Mk 1:26) indicates that he is interested not so much in the silencing of the demon or in Jesus' mighty deed as in the ~€O'Le;; (freedom, release, liberation, salvation) of the sufferer. Peter's speech in Acts 10, which recapitulates Jesus' ministry after his anointment with the Spirit (cf w 37-38), contains an expression similar to that in Luke 4:18d and f, accentuating the oppressed state of the sufferers: LWIJ€VOe;; ftav'l:aEC1lC;; cXl-lap'l:tWV in 3:3 as an equally universal salvation (all flesh). Although Luke's Gospel concentrates mainly on Jesus' ministry in Galilee, Judea and Samaria (if our view of the travel narrative is correct), his universalism is nevertheless apparent. Jesus' reference

Various dimensions of sUffering in Luke's Gospel

83

to the relief of the suffering of the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian (4:25-27) in particular argues against Jewish exclusivism (cf chapter two, par 1.4). From Mark's Gospel Luke includes the tradition of the Garasene demoniac (8:2Jj-39/ /Mk 5:1-20) and from Q the healing of the centurion's servant (7:1-10/ /Mt 8:5-13). As far as the latter is concerned, Luke's version culminates in a contrast between the faith of the gentile centurion and that of Israel (ou8e: E:V 1: IO'pexTtA 1:00'aU'tTlV nlO'1:lV €opov, 7:10; cf also the confession of the centurion at the cross, 23:47). The universalistic saying about those who 'will come from east and west' (cf Mt 8: 11) does not appear in Luke's version of the episode of the centurion's servant, but an amended form is included in the passage about the narrow door (13:22-30). The universalism of the saying is further emphasised by Luke's inclusion of the words 'north and south' (ana f3opp(i Kat V01:0U, 13:29). In Luke's Gospel Matthew's somewhat harsh version of the saying (while the sons of the kingdom [i e Israel] will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth, Mt 8:12) is replaced by a milder saying (some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last, 13:30). This reflects the motif of a reversal of fortunes, which is more compatible with Luke's thought (cf the Magnificat, Luke's version of the beatitudes and also 14:11; 18:14; cf also chapter four, par 3.2.1). J

We conclude that Luke sees the message of Jesus as more than just an abstraction, albeit one meant for all peoples. Acceptance of all peoples (gentiles), sympathy with their suffering (e g Israel's) and criticism of antagonism between peoples (e g Samaritans and Jews) seem to be integral to the Lucan Jesus' message and salvation.

4

PHYSICAL SUFFERING

In our discussion of the Nazareth episode we indicated that Luke devoted considerable attention to suffering in its literal, physical sense (cf chapter two, par 1.4). That physical suffering is included in his comprehensive view of suffering is especially clear from instances where physical sufferers are mentioned in the same breath as, for instance, the economically deprived. On four occasions in the Gospel this emerges prominently: Firstly, in the quotation from Isaiah 61:1-2 in the programmatic Nazareth episode, the poor, the blind and the oppressed (who in-

84

Chapter three

clude the physically sick) are mentioned in an asyndetic parallelism. The simultaneous release from all these various types of suffering signifies the 'acceptable year of the Lord' (4:19). Secondly, from the answer to the Baptist's question (cf7:21-22) it is clear that the Lucan Jesus saw his healings (of the blind, the lame, lepers, the deaf) and raising of the dead, together with his proclamation to the poor, as obvious proof that he was the epx0J.l€vo«;; (cf 7:19-20). The linking of Jesus' messianic office with his ministry to the suffering underscores the importance of the latter motif for Luke. Thirdly, when Jesus ate in the house of a leading Pharisee (14:124) he not only healed a man with dropsy, ignoring the sabbatical laws (14:1-6), but twice mentioned that the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind (cf 14:13,21) should be invited when a banquet is prepared. Fourthly, From Mark's Gospel Luke took over the tradition of the blind beggar (18:35-43/ /Mk 10:46-52) and in Luke's version he is portrayed as actively begging at the moment when Jesus passed by (18:35). The motif of relief from physical suffering naturally features very prominently in Luke's rendering of the heatings of Jesus, on which we shall dwell briefly. There are other instances, however, which do not involve miraculous healing of the sick, such as assault, hunger and danger.

4.1 Physical assault Luke reveals his sympathy for the suffering of people who are physically assaulted in a parable told by Jesus (10:30-37) and in his report of an incident in Jesus' life (22:50-51). We discussed the parable of the good Samaritan (cf3.2 above) in the context of the political enmity between Jews and Samaritans. Within its redactional framework, which presents the parable as an answer to the question Who is my neighbour? (10:29), the parable indeed has a political reference. However, a further meaning attributed by Jesus to the term nAT\O'loV is evident in his question 'Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to the man who fell among robbers?' (10:36), which focuses attention on the assaulted man himself.

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel

85

In the context of the parable the suffering of the victim is meant literally and not as a metaphor for, for instance, 'the sinful man' (contra Augustine's famous allegorical explanation; cf Rese 1985: 22fj7). This is underscored by the detail in which both the man's suffering and the Samaritan's care of him are described. The man is physically stripped of his clothes (E:KOU€tV), is dealt heavy blows (TtAT\YCxc; E:1tl'tt8€v<Xl; cf Ac 16:23 where the same expression is used) and left half dead (liJll8avTl &cI>l€V<Xl, 10:30). The fact that the man's physical suffering is described in the very ftrst sentence of the parable further underscores its importance. The whole parable revolves around the proper attitude (how to be a neighbour) towards the suffering man. The care of the Samaritan is prompted by his unconditional compassion (10:33) for the half dead man. It consists in attending to the man's physical needs: binding up his wounds and ensuring shelter at the inn and fmancial security (10:34-35). This physical demonstration of mercy makes the Samaritan a neighbour and (as is clear from Luke's redactional framework) a fulfiller of the law (cf 11:41), since the commandment to love (10:25-28) is interpreted in the parable as a commandment (10:37) to show mercy to those who suffer. Besides a political reference, we can therefore rightly distinguish a reference to physical and even economic (cf 10:34-35) suffering in this parable. Within Luke's framework this is no contradiction, but rather supports our thesis regarding the comprehensiveness of his view of suffering. The healing of the slave of the high priest (22:50-51) after his ear had been cut off is actually unique among the healings recorded in the Gospels, since it is the only instance where the person healed was a victim of assault rather than sickness. Mark's report of the attack on the high priest's slave actually hangs in the air (cf Mk 14:4748), making no mention of any reaction by Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke report a reaction by Jesus and a comparison between these two reactions is interesting. Whereas Matthew (cf Mt 26:25) has Jesus admonish the attacker to put back his sword, Luke's version focuses on the suffering man himself. Jesus not only heals his ear, but Luke (like John, cf Jn 18:10) is also quite specmc about the fact that it was the right ear (cf 22:50)! That Jesus heals the man at a time when he is himself being attacked is ironic and underscores his mercy towards the sufferer. Grundmann's (1974:414) view that the aim of the heal-

86

Chapter three

ing is to prove Jesus' innocence and the unpolitical character of his ministry seems to be too limited. Jesus' question to his attackers (cf vv 52-53) also makes it clear that the incident characterises him as a person who will help those who suffer (even his enemies) while he himself is suffering (cf also chapter four, par 2.3).

42 The hungry Although hunger is closely linked to economic poverty (cf the antithesis hungry- rich in 1:53), Luke's consistent attention to this form of deprivation compels us to mention it briefly in the present context of physical suffering. Not only does 6:21 devote a separate beatitude to the hungry, but the difference between Matthew's and Luke's versions is also of interest. In Luke's version the word vOv emphasises the physical nature of the hunger, whereas Matthew's version (JJ.aKaplol oi 1t€lVWV1:€C;; Kat BlIJIWV1:€C;; rilv BlKalOmJVTlV, Mt 5:6) interprets hunger in a religious sense. Other passages in the Gospel (cf also Ac 2:44-47; 4:34-35) focusing on the need of the hungry are the following: (1) John the Baptist's advice to the multitudes to share food and clothing (3:11); (2) Jesus' defence of the hungry disciples who picked grain on a sabbath (6:1-5); (3) Jesus' feeding of the five thousand (9:10-17); (4) Lazarus, who asked to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table (16:21). This emphasis on physical hunger has two implications. Firstly, it underscores our view, mentioned earlier, that Luke is concerned with extreme rather than relative poverty. It also indicates that our distinction between various categories of suffering is only relative. The various dimensions of suffering are actually interwoven and suffering in one area may imply suffering in another. To be a poor beggar may imply both social ostracism and the pangs of hunger.

43 Physical danger If the episode of the stilling of the stonn (8:22-25) is compared with

the version in Mark (4:35-41), the Lucan account seems to be more

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel

87

sympathetic towards the disciples in their danger. Whereas Mark gives more information about the fierceness of the storm itself (a great storm ... the waves beat into the boat, Mk 4:37), Luke focuses on the dangerous situation in which the disciples found themselves - in fact, Luke is the only evangelist who explicitly mentions that they were in danger (cf 8:23/ /Mk 4:37/ /Mt 8:24). When the disciples woke Jesus, their cry was not a reproach against Jesus as in Mark (Do you not care if we perish?, cf Mk 4:38), but an expression of extreme anxiety: €1ttO't:ct'[(x, €1ttO't:ct'[(x, Cmo:uuJl€9a. (8:24). After Jesus had stilled the storm his question to the disciples (Where is your faith?) is also less harsh than the equivalent in Mark (Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?). According to Mark, it seems as if the disciples were reproached with a total lack of faith, whereas the Lucan Jesus accepted that they did have faith and reminded them of it with his question. In Luke's account they were also not reproached for their fear (cf the omission of the question t:i o€lAoi €O't:€; - Mk 4:40). The Lucan version thus seems to reflect a more sympathetic attitude towards the disciples in their danger. 4.4 The healings of Jesus Achtemeier (1975:562) concludes his 'preliminary sketch' of the Lucan account of Jesus' miracles with the statement that 'few if any of the themes normally identified as characteristically Lucan emerge from Luke's telling of the miracles'. It is our contention that the importance of Jesus' healings as expressions of his compassion for those who suffer physically emerges if one views these miracles in the context of Luke's overall approach to suffering (cf e g the stilling of the storm and our earlier reference to healing in the context of poverty). The special features of Luke's account of Jesus' healings which seem to underscore his compassion for the sick are the following: Firstly, healings are assigned a prominent place in Jesus' ministry, attested by the number of healings reported. Luke shares seven of Mark's nine healings, adds two more from Q and no fewer than five from his Sondergut. A wide range of afflictions are healed: fever (4:38-39), leprosy (5:12-16; 17:11-19), paralysis (5:17-26; 13:10-17), a withered hand (6:6-11), death or near-death (7:1-10; 7:11-17; 8:4042,49-56), haemorrhage (8:43-48), dumbness (11:14/ /Mt 12:22; cf also 1:64), dropsy (14:1-6), blindness (18:35-43) and physical assault

88

Chapter three

(22:50-51, discussed above). There are, however, other indications of the prominence assigned to Jesus' healings in the Gospel. Besides the programmatic proclamation of Jesus' healing ministry in the Nazareth episode (cf chapter two, par 1.4), the healings (together with the preaching of the good news to the poor) are cited to the disciples of John the Baptist as a sign that Jesus is the Messiah (7:22// Mt 11:5). Luke's insertion of 7:21 in particular accentuates Jesus' healing ministry. Luke moreover balances Jesus' healings with his teaching, giving them equal weight (Achtemeier 1975:551). The crowds came to 'hear and to be healed' (5:15; 6:18, contra Mk 1:45; 3:8), Jesus 'spoke ... and cured' (9:11, contra Mk 6:34), he was 'mighty in deed and word' (24:19). In Acts Peter likewise epitomises his ministry as the 'word proclaimed' and 'doing good and healing' (Ac 10:37-38). From this we conclude that the designation 'healing ministry' describes Jesus' activity quite aptly (cf also Luke's summaries, 4:40-41; 6:17-19, especally the one spoken by Jesus, 13:32). Secondly, there is great emphasis on the sufferers in Luke's na"ation of Jesus's healings. Luke provides his reader with more particulars about the suffering characters in the healing narratives, thus focusing attention not just on Jesus (contra Achtemeier 1975:551-552) but specifically on the people whom he healed (cf 6:6, contra Mk 3:1; 7:2, contra Mt 8:6; 7:12; 8:42, contra Mk 5:23; 9:38, contra Mk 9:18). In many instances the sickness or suffering seems to be more severe in the Lucan account than in Mark's version (e g nUpE1:0C; IlEy6Awc; and nATtPTlC; AE:npac;;: 4:38, contra Mk 1:30 and 5:12, contra Mk 1:40; cf also the detailed description of the suffering of the crippled woman in 13:10-11). In comparison with Mark, the Lucan Jesus treats the sick more compassionately. For instance, the Lucan leper (cf 5:14) is not 'sternly charged' (E:Il~plllacr9at) and 'thrown out' (E:K~aAAELV, Mk 1:43) by Jesus after being healed, but is merely commanded to tell no one. This compassionate treatment of the sick is stressed by the fact that Luke often reports that healing occurred instantaneously (cf the use of nopoXpnllo in 1:64; 4:39; 5:25; 8:44,47,55; 13:13; 18:43; cf also Ac 3:7 and Luke's omission [like Matthew's] of the gradual healing of the blind man of Bethsaida Mk 8:22-26). The Lucan sufferers are also portrayed positively: they often praise God after their healing (e g 1:64; 5:25; 13:13; 17:15; 18:43) and are not shown to be disobedient to Jesus' instructions (cf 5:15 and Mk 1:45; Lk 8:39 and Mk 5:19-20).

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel

89

Thirdly, Jesus heals in defiance of sabbatical laws. The fact that Jesus healed the sick on the sabbath in the face of Jewish laws prohibiting it indicates the depth of his compassion with those who suffered. Actually this is quite consistent, for in another context we have already observed that to show mercy to the suffering is regarded by Luke as fulfilment of the law (11:41; cf 1.4 above). Although Luke took the motif of healing on the sabbath from Mark (Mk 3:1-6//6:611), he underscores it by including two further sabbath healings from his Sondergut (13:10-17; 14:1-6; cf Klein 1987:16-32). The Lucan version of the man with the withered hand stresses the fact that the healing took place on a sabbath (cf 6:6/ /Mk 3:1). Luke presents the healing as a challenge to the Pharisees by concentrating more on their thoughts than on Jesus' feelings (cf 6:8//Mk 3:5). In the healing of the crippled woman and the man with dropsy the sabbath motif is even more dominant. In the first of these healings there is a controversy between Jesus and the ruler of the synagogue (13:14-16), and in the second (cf 14:3) Jesus is the first to challenge the lawyers and the Pharisees. These healings also remind one of Jesus' defence of his disciples after they had plucked grain on the sabbath to satisfy their hunger (6:1-6). Here too the alleviation of suffering took precedence over the keeping of sabbatical laws. Fourthly, there seems to be an absence of 'ulterior' theological motives in Luke's account of the healings. Engelbrecht (1983:116117) has indicated that in Mark the healings fulfil the function of characterising Jesus and the disciples. In relation to Jesus, the healings (and other miracles) are indicative of such attributes as his power, his teaching ability (cf Mk 1:27) and the fact that he is the suffering Son of man (cf Mark's redaction in 3:6). As far as the disciples are concerned, they are portrayed negatively as lacking in understanding, 'deaf' (cf Mk 7:31-37; 8:21) and 'blind' (cf Mk 8:22-26, 31-33). . Although Luke does not altogether discard the motifs which he got from Mark, it nevertheless seems that those which do not serve the purpose of emphasising Jesus' positive attitude towards the suffering are at least toned down. This perhaps also explains Luke's omission of two of Mark's healings. In Mark the emphasis in the (initially gradual!) healing of the deaf-mute is not so much on his suffering as on the astonishment and incomprehension of the disciples (Mk 7:37; 8:21). The healing (also gradual!) of the blind man of

90

Chapter three

Bethsaida, which in its Marcan context acquires symbolic meaning in view of the episodes that follow (Mk 8:27-10:52; cf Schweizer 1975:87-88), is also omitted by Luke. Luke places the accent not so much on the requirement of secrecy after the healings as on the public reaction of joy (cf 5:15-16; 5:25-26; 11:14; 18:43). He also tones down the direct reference to Jesus' annihilation after the healing of the man with the withered hand (cf 6:11/ /Mk 3:6; cf also chapter four, par 1.5.1). It therefore seems that in Luke's Gospel Jesus' healings function not merely as signs or 'relevations' of his messianic office or his divinity (power over nature). Luke rather stresses Jesus' compassion towards those who suffer physically. Thus Jesus' followers are urged to 'do likewise' (cf 10:37), and in Acts the apostles heal in his name.

Conclusion: Although Luke retains certain elements of the tradition regarding the function of Jesus' healings in his narration, it seems that his account places more emphasis on Jesus' compassion for the sufferers. Viewed in conjunction with his focus on bodily assault, hunger and physical danger, physical suffering appears to be indisputably part of his overall conception of suffering. 5

PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING

Although the science of psychology is a mere hundred years old (cf Van den Berg 1973), it is useful for distinguishing another kind of suffering encountered in the synoptic tradition and especially in Luke's Gospel. Psychological suffering closely resembles physical suffering in Luke's narrative because it also functions in the context of Jesus' healing ministry. It should be noted that demon possession and epilepsy are not the only categories to which psychological suffering may refer.

5.1 General aftIiction In our discussion of the Nazareth episode we mentioned the generic nature of the terms aiXJlaAcll'I:Ol (cf 4:18d) and't€9paua}l€VOl (4: 18f; cf chapter two, par 1.4). We argued that they may refer (in the context of the Capernaum episode that follows) to sickness and especially demon possession. Despite such concrete references, the terms do not lose their general meaning of overall psychological suffering.

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel

91

Captivity and oppression in this sense are taken to refer to the affliction caused by, for instance, sickness, demon possession, poverty or any kind of suffering. Luke's third beatitude (}J.aKclplOl Ol KMloV1:€C; vOv, 6:21b; cf also the 1t€V8€lv and KMt€lV of the corresponding woe, 6:25) also seems to refer to a general state of psychological suffering. The suffering could have been caused by the particular sufferings enumerated in the other beatitudes, for example poverty, hunger and persecution (or by some other condition, for that matter). Again we have to conclude: the dimensions of suffering which we distinguish are not closed compartments but form a comprehensive concept comprising many interrelated aspects.

52 Oldage More than any other Gospel writer, Luke concentrates on old people. Although aging is also a physical process, Luke seems to be more concerned with the 'psychological' experience of old people. Of course, this psychological experience is most probably partly caused by physical aging. The subdiscipline of developmental psychology makes a special study of the way old people experience the aging process (e g Kimme11974). With regard to Luke's Gospel, the developmental theory of Erikson (cf Hjelle & Ziegler 1976:63-77) seems to be worth noting. According to Erikson every human being develops through eight stages, the last of which (above 65 years) is that of maturity (old age). A happy old age is marked by 'ego integrity' and wisdom, whereas an unhappy one is characterised by despair and disgust. Ego integrity 'arises from the individual's ability to glance back on his or her life in full perspective ... and humbly but assuredly affIrm "I am satisfIed". Death is no longer feared .. .' (Hjelle & Ziegler 1976:76). A despairing old age, on the other hand, is marked by 'a feeling of irrevocable failure, and an incessant preoccupation with what "might have been"'. Luke is the only evangelist who introduces two sets of old people into his Gospel. In the case of Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:5-80) it is explicitly mentioned that 'both were advanced in years' (1:7). Because Zechariah as a law-abiding priest belonged to the middle class (Jeremias 1974:104), they were not suffering in an economic or spiritual sense. This old couple was childless, which, besides the psycho-

92

Chapter three

logical implications, was also (according to contemporary belief) regarded as divine punishment (Grundmann 1974:49). The advanced age of both these characters is stressed in Zechariah's answer to the angel: How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years (1:18). In this context Elizabeth's pregnancy amounts to an alleviation of acute suffering. That it happened in old age is again emphasised by the angel when he announced Jesus' birth: Elizabeth ... who was called ba"en ... in her old age [EV yf\P€l at.l1:f\c;;] has also conceived a son (1:36). Instead of a despairing old age, Elizabeth could therefore experience what Erikson calls 'ego integrity': Thus the Lord has done to me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men (1:25). The same may be said of Zechariah's utterance of the Benedictus (1:68-79; cf 4.1 above). Luke 2:25-38 introduces two characters (Simeon and Anna) in the scene where Jesus is presented in the temple. It is implied that both of them were among those expecting the Messiah (i e consolation of Israel, deliverance of Jerusalem; cf 2:25-26,38). This fIrm expectation found expression in rigorous service in the temple, indicated by terms like (O€Oito't1'\c;;) and (OoOXo«;;) (cf 2:25,29,37). Their position was aggravated by the fact that the npoao€xOJ..l€VOl (the expecting ones) were derided by the Sadducees, who controlled the temple but did not share their expectation (Rengstorf 1974:48-50; Grundmann 1974:90). Although not directly stated, the revelation to Simeon that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ (2:26) implies that he was an old man awaiting death. Jesus' birth not only meant salvation for Israel, but also deliverance from the stressful situation experienced by the expectant ones such as Simeon. This is especially evident in the first line of the Nunc Dimittis (2:29), which in itself represents an expression of ego integrity: ... now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace...for mine eyes have seen thy salvation .... As far as the prophetess Anna is con-~ cerned, it is explicitly mentioned that she was of a great age ... a widow till she was eighty-four. Like Simeon, she was eagerly expecting (cf 2:37) the 'redemption of Jerusalem' and 'gave thanks to God' (ego integrity) at Jesus' presentation.

53 The exorcisms of Jesus Luke transmits three of Mark's four exorcisms and does not add any

Various dimensions of sUffering in Luke's Gospel

93

from his Sondergut or Q. It should be noted, however, that in three cases of physical ailments (one from Mark, one from Q and one from his Sondergut) the sickness is ascribed to a demon. In the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (cf 4:38-39/ /Mk 1:29-31) the fever is 'rebuked' like a demon (cf E1tl'rtJlOV in 4:39,41); the dumb man actually had a dumb demon (11:14/ /Mt 12:22); and the crippled woman had a nV€OJlCl a0'9€V€lcx€0'1C;; is supported by the use of this same term in the Nazareth episode with reference to the KTlPUO'O'€lV al)(J.laAW'tolC;; &j>€O'lV and CmOO''t€AA€lV 't€apcxuO'J.l€VOUC;; E:V 6cI>€0'€1 (4:18; cf also Tannehill 1986:103). Forgiveness and/or release from sin is also emphasised by Luke as the essence of the message which the apostles are sent to deliver to the world (24:47; cf also Ac 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18). The healing of the paralytic (5:17-26/ /Mk 2:1-12) may indeed have served as 'proof' that Christians could forgive sins (on the strength of healings performed, because Jesus had done so; cf Bultmann 1967:13-14). However, in Luke's context, the combination of the healing from paralysis with forgiveness or release from sin also accords with his comprehensive view of suffering. The reader is reminded that Jesus can forgive sins. Healing physical distress and releasing peoplefrom sin both imply alleviation of suffering and are therefore not to be distinguished too sharply: But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins - Jesus said to the paralytic - I say to you, rise, take up your bed and go home (5:24). The same assurance of Jesus' ability and willingness to forgive sins is demonstrated (only in Luke) in the episode of the sinful

98

Chapter three

woman. When the Pharisees question Jesus' right to forgive sins (7:49), not they but the woman is answered: it nlO''l:lC;; [= humble attitude] O'ou O'E:O'OOKE:V O'€' nop€Uou €i.c;; €i.piWT\v (7:50). In the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin (15:3-10) Jesus justifies his positive attitude towards sinners by citing God's mercy towards sinners and his joy when they repent. The ensuing parable of the lost son (15:11-32, Sondergut) is a particularly vivid portrayal of God's mercy towards the sinner. The misery of the son (spiritual need which develops into economic need) is depicted in verses 13-16: he squandered his property in loose living ... a great famine arose .. , he began to be in want .... His position merely worsened when he had to feed swine, for 'feeding swine was ... about as low as Jews could go. To wish to share their food was the nadir of degredation' (Marshall 1978:608). The repentance of the son (15:17-20a) is not as praiseworthy as we would expect, because it is not remorse for sins committed but the realisation that he is perishing with hunger that drives him to repentance (Bornkamm 1975:112). He comes to realise his sins (15: 18-19), but the motivation is somewhat egotistic. This merely underscores the subsequent mercy of the father. The father's unconditional mercy and joyful acceptance of the son is described in 15:20-24. The father's reaction is one of compassion which fmds expression in concrete deeds. He takes the initiative while the son is 'yet at a distance' (15:20). He runs to the son, embraces him and kisses him. Marshall (1978:610) remarks aptly that 'the father's feeling precedes any confession of repentance by the son and corresponds to the seeking and searching in the two preceding parables'. Secondly, the father interrupts the son's confession by not allowing him to utter the words nOlT\O'ov J.l€ We;; eva'l:wv J.ll0'8iwv O'ou (cf verses 19 with 21). Instead of listening to the confession he gives detailed instructions for a feast to celebrate his joy over a lost son who has been found. The father does not settle old scores, he sets no conditions and no period of probation (Bornkamm 1975: 112). His patience also with the older son, entreating him to partake of the feast, demonstrates his boundless mercy and love. 'The meaning for Luke's readers is simply that God loves the world- the common, mixed up, moral-immoral, devil-may-care world' (Ellis 1974: 196; cf also Luke's omission of the 'negative' phrase 'this adulterous and sinful generation'; cf Mk 8:38//9:23-27).

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel

99

Luke dramatically illustrates God's love for sinners in his account of the crucifixion of Jesus (23:33-43//Mk 15:21-32). Luke alone records Jesus' prayer on the cross: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (23:34; cf also Stephen's prayer for his killers in Ac 7:60). Although this verse is not found in some important manuscripts, it is most probably authentic (cf Ac 3: 17 and Metzger 1971:180; Schmithals 1980:226). Luke is also the only one to report the penitence of one of the two criminals who were crucified with Jesus (cf 23:39-43, contra Mk 15:32 and Mt 27:44). This should not be interpreted from a Pauline perspective, as if Luke is saying that it is through Jesus' death that sinners are forgiven. It rather underscores Jesus' mercy and love for sinners that he prays for his enemies while they are killing him and assures the penitent robber of paradise in the midst of his own suffering. In the Lord's prayer God's forgiveness of human sins is linked to mutual human forgiveness of sins (11:4//Mt 6:12). The Lucan version (Kat yap aUl:ot 6<j>ioJ.L€v Ttavl:t6~€iAoVl:l TtJ.LlV) can (because of the present tense) also be interpreted as a statement of forgiveness extended while the prayer is being said. Jesus' followers should constantly be forgiving their fellow men. Luke's version further stresses the fact that nobody can be excluded from the forgiveness by the inclusion of the words (every one' (TtWl:t; cf 4:40; 6:19). In 17:3-4 Jesus urges his disciples to forgive a repentant sinner, even if it be €Ttl:cXKle; rile; TtJ.LEpae;. Luke does not transmit the Matthean version which allows for a stage when the sinning brother comes to be regarded as 'a Gentile and a tax collector' (Mt 18:17). Furthermore, the command to love one's enemies (6:27ff) in the Lucan version implies forgiving one's fellow man (cf 6:37b: CmOAU€l:€, Kat CxOTtAUS"a€aS€; cf however also 1.2 above). Luke's readers should not be like sinners who only love those who love them, but should love and forgive even those who hate, curse and abuse them - in other words, the sinners themselves (6:27; 32-35). 62 The social acceptance of sinners The consequence of constant forgiveness of others is that Luke's reader may not hold sinners in contempt or ostracise them socially. The overlapping of the motif of social acceptance of sinners and the dimension of social suffering (cf especially 2.1 above) again illustrates the comprehensiveness of Luke's view of suffering. We con-

100

Chapter three

fine ourselves to points not mentioned previously. In Luke tol/-collectors and sinners are often mentioned in the same breath because the Pharisees regarded toll-collectors as sinners by definition. From Q Luke transmits a saying which clearly suggests the ostracism of toll-collectors and sinners and even of Jesus himself: Behold a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners (7:35/ /Mt 11:19). From Mark's Gospel Luke transmits the tradition concerning Levi the toll-collector (Mk 2:1517//5:27), in which the Pharisees and scribes question Jesus' dining with toll-collectors and sinners. Jesus' answer mentions sinners and their repentance as the aim of his mission (5:32). The fact that Luke attached great importance to Jesus' social acceptance of toll-collectors and sinners is also clear from his redactional note in 15:1: Now the toll-collectors and sinners were all drawing near to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes munnured, saying, 'This man receives sinners and eats with them.' Eating with sinners compounded Jesus' transgression of the rule not to associate with sinners (quoted above) because in contemporary Jewish thinking a shared meal implied a particularly close bond between those who ate together. 'Das gemeinsame Mahl schafft eine enge Gemeinschaft, die durch den Tischsegen hergestellt wird, an dem alle Teilnehmer des Mahles teilhaben und dadurch zu einer Gemeinschaft gleichen Segens zusammengeschlossen werden' (Grundmann 1973:61). Hence Jesus did not merely associate with sinners; his association was so close that to the Pharisees and scribes it actually constituted a religious offence. In the parable of the prodigal son (already discussed above) Jesus provides a religious motivation for his social acceptance of sinners: it is based on God's unconditional mercy and his joy over repentant sinners. The parable is not merely an apology for Jesus' behaviour, but an appeal to the Pharisees and scribes (= the oldest son) to do likewise (15:25-32). The positive attitude towards sinners is communicated in four other traditions which only Luke transmits. In the parable of the Pharisee and the toll-collector, the contemporary attitude towards sinners is spelled out by the Pharisee: God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector (18:11-12). According to the Lucan Jesus, the toll-collector, who as a sinner simply threw himself on God's mercy, 'went down to his house justified', and not the Pharisee (18:14). Jesus' stay at Zac-

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel

101

chaeus's home also met with social contempt: He has gone in to be the guest of the man who is a sinner (19:7). Again Jesus' attitude is one of acceptance of the repentant sinner (19:9-10). However, it is noteworthy that Jesus went to stay at Zacchaeus's house before the latter's conversion. His conversion was therefore not a condition for social acceptance. Luke 7:36-50 (the sinful woman) probably also belongs to Luke's Sondergut (cf Jeremias 1980:174; Schmithals 1980:99; Klein 1987:56) and is transmitted by Luke in preference to Mark 14:3-9 (the woman with the ointment). Luke probably omitted the latter because he did not agree with the Marcan Jesus' seemingly negative attitude towards the poor (Mk 14:7). On the other hand, the tradition of the sinful woman harmonises well with his emphasis on the social acceptance of sinners. Luke mentions explicitly: YUVTt ... OJlCXp-rWAOC;; (7:37a), for the woman was doubly ostracised - both for being a woman (cf 2.4 above) and because she was a sinner. Again it is a Pharisee who complains about Jesus' contact with the sinful woman: If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of women this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner (7:39b). Jesus defends the woman by telling the Pharisee the parable of the creditor with the two debtors (7:41-43), by contrasting her 'positive' behaviour with the 'negative' behaviour of the Pharisee (7:44-47) and by reiterating to the woman in a challenging way that her sins are forgiven (7:48-50). One further tradition from Luke's Sondergut warrants attention. In 13:1-5 the dominant motif is that of the need for repentance. However, Jesus twice criticises the presumption that others are 'worse sinners' (oJlcxp-rwAoi ncxpa nav-rcxc;;, 13:2) and 'worse offenders' (6~€tA€-rcxt napa nav-rcxc;;, 13:4). It is not speculation about the degree of sinfulness of sinners (which may determine their social acceptability) that promotes salvation, but repentance - especially by those who indulge in such speculations (13:3,5). God's merciful patience with sinners is again expressed in the parable of the fig tree: Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure (13:8; cf also the omission of Mk 11:12-14,20-25). Summary: Luke initially borrowed the motifs of the forgiveness of sin and the social acceptance of sinners from Mark's Gospel (cf Mk 1:2-6; 2:1-12 and 2:15-17). He highlights both dimensions by his

102

Chapter three

personal redaction (1:77; 7:48-50; 15:1; 23:34,39-43) and by adding a considerable amount of Sondergut material (cf 7:36-47; 13:1-5; 15:810; 15:11-32; 18:9-14; 19:1-10; 24:47), thus placing an emphasis on sin commensurate with his emphasis on other dimensions of suffering. 7

CONCLUSION

If Luke's Gospel is studied from the perspective of the concept of suffering, one observes a consistent trend in the way in which he alters and applies his sources. This same approach is also discernible in the Sondergut traditions which he chose to include in his Gospel, and could account for the omission of certain traditions which would have conflicted with this intention. To confine oneself to a specific suffering group would- in Luke's terms - entail a danger of being unsympathetic towards other groups. For instance: his sympathy towards the poor compels him to be critical of the extortionist practices of toll-collectors and rich people, but he remains sympathetic towards the latter inasmuch as they are ostracised by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Luke conveys his comprehensive view of suffering with superb consistency. In his presentation of many traditions about suffering he was so successful in integrating various dimensions of suffering that in some cases any distinction between the various dimensions is debatable. This accords with his purpose, for to him a compassionate attitude towards all suffering groups and all kinds of suffering seems to be the crux of authentic religion. The Lucan Jesus is portrayed as living up to this ethic to perfection. His life consisted in ministering to the suffering, teaching about suffering, and suffering personally for the benefit of sufferers. According to Luke, this should serve as an example to his followers. These followers include Jesus' disciples and apostles in the Gospel and in Acts, but also the Christians of Luke's (and, in his view, every) community.

Chapter four

THE SUFFERING OF THE LUCAN JESUS

The aim of this chapter is to examine Luke's account of Jesus' suffering and to relate it to the various dimensions of human suffering discussed in previous chapters. Consequently we shall not undertake a detailed discussion of all facets of Jesus' suffering. If 'saving from sins through the death or blood of Jesus Christ' (cfRm 5:6,8; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14-15; GI1:4; GI3:13) were the only link between the suffering of Jesus (crucifIxion) and ordinary human suffering (in this case sin), the formulation 'soteri%gisches Loch' (cf Haenchen 1968:689; Glockner 1975:94) would have been an apt description of Luke's soteriology. In our view, however, the relation between Jesus' suffering and the various dimensions of ordinary human suffering derives from the comprehensive view that Luke adopts even of the suffering of Jesus. The Lucan account of Jesus' suffering is not limited to the traditional passion (arrest, trial and crucifIXion), but encompasses his whole life. The various dimensions of suffering identifted in earlier chapters are also discernible in the account of Jesus' suffering throughout his life. In addition the concept of a reversal of fortunes applies to both Jesus' suffering and that of ordinary human beings. In order to grasp Luke's view of the suffering of Jesus we will trace possible manifestations of it in Luke's narration of Jesus' life, starting from his birth. Thereafter we shall look for peculiarly Lucan features in the account of Jesus' passion. Without reviewing previously discussed texts in detail, we shall examine parallels between the suffering of Jesus and that of his followers. Finally we focus on the soteriological implications of Jesus' suffering which, according to Luke, consist in a reversal of fortunes. 103

104

Chapter four

1 JESUS' SUFFERING THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE The traditional notion that the Gospels are passion narratives with long introductions is no longer widely accepted. Nevertheless the intensely dramatic narration of the crucifixion (as well as the central place commonly assigned to the crucified Jesus - cf 1 Cor 2:2) causes many readers of Luke's Gospel to overlook the way in which he portrays Jesus' whole life as one of suffering. In this section we attempt to clarify Luke's comprehensive view of Jesus' suffering by investigating aspects of his suffering throughout his life (excluding the Jerusalem events - 19:28-24:53). 1.1 Jesus' humble birth and childhood

Luke's narration of Jesus' childhood contains the motifs both of his suffering and the meaning of that suffering (usually associated with his crucifixion). We briefly consider some aspects of Luke 2:1-52 in this regard. Luke starts his narration of Jesus' birth (2:1-20) with a historical note (2:1-3) which places Jesus' birth in the context of world history. Although his first reference is to the activity of Augustus, fIrst citizen of the great Roman empire, the main action commences with Joseph and Mary's departure from Nazareth in Galilee (2:4). According to Grundmann (1974:55), Luke does not hesitate to mention repeatedly that Jesus came from this 'despised' region (cf 1:26; 2:39; 2:51; 4:16; cf also Jn 1:46). Although Grundmann's observation accords with Luke's thinking, it is debatable whether Luke himself knew about the ignominious status of Galilee. At all events, the census is initiated from the hub of the empire by Caesar (demanding to be KUplO. This is quite a radical alteration of his source,

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus

131

since Peter's recollection of the prediction of his denial and especially his intense reaction of remorse (22:62) are caused not merely by the cock crow, but more particularly by his realisation that Jesus knew that he had denied him. Schneider's (1969:95t) view that Luke 22:62 is an insertion from Matthew's Gospel (cf Mt 26:75) should be rejected, because the present text represents the lectio difficilior and because of insufficient textual witnesses (Aland et al1979:236; Metzger 1971:178). As in Matthew's Gospel, the reaction of the Lucan Peter is more anguished (€KACXUO'€V TtlKPWC;;) than that in Mark, which in Luke's context may suggest that Peter became aware of the suffering which he had inflicted upon Jesus because the latter witnessed his denial. Thirdly, the suffering of Jesus is aggravated by placing the mocking by the guard (22:63-65) directly after the denial. Luke thus creates a dramatic picture of Jesus watching as his closest follower denies him and immediately afterwards being mocked, beaten and blindfolded by the henchmen of his opponents. Luke adds to his source that many other words were spoken against Jesus (22:65), thus interpreting the mocking by the guard as blasphemy (J3AcxO'~T\J..lOOVL€C;;) against Jesus and creating a picture of intense and innocent suffermg. From Luke's portrayal of Peter's denial we draw the following conclusion: by means of his redaction Luke attempted to soften Mark's rather harsh image of Peter without sacrificing the motif of the suffering inflicted upon Jesus by Peter's denial. 2.1.3 Forsaken by the disciples

Our analysis of Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial indicated that the disciples as a group also had a share in causing Jesus' suffering. In this paragraph we investigate three pericopes (22:24-30; 22:39-46; 22:35-38) with a view to identifying the suffering inflicted upon Jesus. Luke's version of the dispute about greatness (22:24-30) is widely considered to be dependent not on Mark 10:35-45, but on some other source which moreover presented this tradition in the context of the eucharist (cf Schiirmann 1977:63-99; Creed 1969:267; Taylor 1972:61-64; Marshall 1978:811). However, since Luke omitted Mark 10:35-45 from his Gospel and chose to transmit 22:24-30 instead, a comparison between the Lucan and Marean versions is nevertheless justified (cf Fitzmyer 1985:1412). The dispute touches on the same

132

Chapter four

issue (1:0 1:t~€lV with reference to the healing of the Gerasene demoniac (cf 8:36/ /Mk 5:16; cf also 4:18). Spiritual suffering: In the Benedictus (1:77) O'oo't1'lpia designates the release from sin (a~€O'lC;; clJ..l.ap'tl@v; cf also 3:3,6; 7:50; 11:4; 19:9,10). The term O'ciJ~€lV is also used to refer to the salvation of human life in a holistic or an eschatological sense (cf 6:9; 8:12; 9:24; 9:56; 13:23; 18:26; 19:10; 23:35,37,39). This underscores rather than diminishes its comprehensive significance.

152

Chapter four

We have confmed ourselves to specific instances where salvation terminology is employed to demonstrate that Luke regarded salvation as the alleviation of suffering in the widest sense of the word. In many instances where salvation terminology is not used, salvation is described in terms of a reversal of fortunes (e g the beatitudes, Lazarus). Seen thus, our description of the various dimensions of suffering in chapter two was also a description of Jesus' soteriological activity (cf O'Toole 1984:109-148; Marshall 1970:116). Luke's view of salvation as a reversal of fortunes entails a reversal of human expectations of what God requires. God's values differ from human values especially with regard to security through possessions (12:13-21; 16:19-26), self-exaltation (arrogance, 14:7; 18:19b) and self-justification (5:30-32; 16:15; 19:7 - Glockner 1975:141). Through the notion of a reversal of fortunes, suffering and humility are linked in the sense that both are conditions for salvation. Glockner (1975:138) interprets Luke's view as follows: 'Der Mensch neigt dazu, sich selbst zu erhOhen und durch berechendes Handeln abzusichern. Er kann aber nur bestandiges Heil erlangen, wenn er sich selbst erniedrigt und eine letzte Lebenserfiillung von Gott erwartet.' In this regard Luke twice repeats the saying, o'n n&; 0 ulJIwv e:aU'!:ov 'tan€lvwBf\O'€'tat Kat 0 'tan€lVWV e:atJ'tov ulJIwBf\O'€'tat in the context of teachings on humility (14:11) and the renunciation of self-justification (18:9,14). In the teaching about the undeserving servants (17:7-10, Lucan Sondergut) Jesus actually defines faith (17:5-6) as humble selflessness expressed in willingness to take the lesser role of the servant (cf also 12:42-43; 22:26-27; Ac 20:19). Self-denial and suffering are closely linked (9:23-24; 14:25-26; 17:33; Ac 5:41; 9:16; 14:22; 20:23-24) in the sense that the former implies willingness to accept the latter. In conclusion: In order to grasp fully Luke's notion of salvation as 'exaltation of the lowly' it is helpful to distinguish and then assess the relation between positive lowliness (= humility, selflessness, willingness to serve) and negative lowliness (= the various dimensions of suffering; cf Glockner 1975:123). In cases of negative lowliness (suffering), there is often a double reversal: the lowly are exalted and the topdogs or inflicters of suffering are humiliated. Furthermore, humility or self-humiliation is a prerequisite for salvation.

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus

153

3.3.2 Jesus' suffering and exaltation

The scheme of the exaltation of the lowly seems to apply equally to Luke's narration of the suffering and the exaltation of Jesus. During the transfiguration Moses and Elijah spoke to Jesus about his €~o­ ooc;; (9:31) which 'he was to accomplish at Jerusalem', and at the beginning of the travel narrative Luke refers to his 6v6AT\~1\J1C;; which would happen in Jerusalem (9:51). Both terms describe the Jerusalem events in one word, and both most probably refer to Jesus' fmal suffering as well as his exaltation. The term €~Oooc;;, then, should preferably be interpreted as not referring exclusively to his death (contra Schiirmann 1969:558; Creed 1969:134; Louw & Nida 1988: 264), but as including both his death and his exaltation (Schneider 1977:215-216; Marshall 1978:384-385; Fitzmyer 1986:8(0). Although aVaAT\~lJllC;; literally means 'taking up', the focus is primarily on Jesus' ascension, that is, his final exaltation (Louw & Nida 1988: 196). We have seen, however, that in Lucan thought the exaltation or oo~(X of Jesus is inconceivable without the suffering which preceded it (cf 1.7.2 above). Since the two terms refer to Jesus' own death, resurrection and ascension, they therefore seem to denote Jesus' 'salvation', not from sin, but from his humiliating death (= exaltation from his lowly state). At the same time, because of the 'exodus' typology, they can also be interpreted as suggesting the salvific significance of his suffering and exaltation (Ellis 1974:134). The above interpretation of the terms €~OOoC;; and aV6AT\~l\Jlc;; seems the more probable if one considers Luke's references to and narration of Jesus' suffering and exaltation. In at least three of the Lucan Jesus' predictions of the passion his suffering and exaltation are mentioned in the same breath (9:22; 18:32-33; 17:24-25); there are a further three instances after the passion and resurrection (24:7; 24:26,46), and two in Acts (Ac 5:30-31; 17:3). It is moreover explicitly stated that the Christ had to (Del) suffer in order to be exalted. Luke appears to communicate that God has ordained, as a paradoxical law of nature, that suffering always precedes glory, and that salvation consists of the exaltation of the lowly or the alleviation of suffering. This applies first to Jesus' own suffering, but later also to that of his followers (cf Ac 9:16; 14:22; cf also 3.2 above). If Luke's Gospel is compared with Mark's, one finds that Luke gives not merely the passion, but also the resurrection narrative an 'innere Selbstandigkeit' (cf Grundmann 1974:388). References to the

154

Chapter four

passion within the resurrection narrative (24:7,20,26,46) make it clear, however, that the latter should be viewed in conjunction with the former. Furthermore, Luke is the only evangelist who reports the ascension at all. The latter represents the consummation of the resurrection which ends in theB6~a of Jesus (cf 24:26; Ac 2:33; 3:13; 5:31). This is remarkable if one considers his quite unique portrayal of Jesus' passion as extreme suffering and humiliation (cf 2.4 above). On the one hand Luke portrays Jesus' death as absolute lowliness; on the other hand he does not stop at the resurrection, but continues to narrate the ascension to heaven in order to accentuate Jesus' exaltation as absolute glory. For Luke, Jesus' suffering and exaltation, taken together, have salvific power. This is clear from the apostles' testimony before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:31: God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour (O'wrlipa ul/lwO'€V; cf also Ac 4:1011; 13:26-30). Glockner (1975:223) remarks: Will man konkret verkiindigen, wie er das Heil gewahrt und wie der Mensch sich ihm zuwenden kann, so liegen die bleibenden Grundformen dafiir in der geschichtlichen Offenbaring seines Weges in die Erniedrigung und Erhohung. Denn dieser Weg Jesu is durch die bleibende Gegenwart dessen, der ihn gegangen ist, zur bleibenden Grundform der Versohnung zwischen Gott und Mensch geworden. 3.3.3 Jesus' suffering as service to his followers

We saw in 3.3.2 that according to Lucan soteriology (cf 3.3.1 above), salvation is effected by the 'oneness' of Jesus' suffering and exaltation. Nevertheless the theme of this study requires that we focus specifically on the salvific meaning of Jesus' suffering. First of all it should be emphasised that the soteriological meaning of the Lucan Jesus' suffering is not limited to his fmal suffering or death on the cross. In our exposition of Jesus' suffering throughout his life (cf par 1 above), we saw that the suffering which he experienced, or his 'way in humiliation' (Weg in Niedrigkeit - Glockner 1975:142), was closely linked to his salvific activity. The following table (based on Glockner 1975:218 and our exposition in par 1 above) illustrates how Jesus' salvific significance is associated with his suffering throughout his life:

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus

SALVATION LWt:itp (2:11) 1:0 O'wt:itPlOV (2:30) Son of God (3:22) Full of Holy Spirit (4: 1) Salvation for sufferers (4:18) Ministry to sufferers (4:31ff)

155

SUFFERING/HUMILIATION tlpE~, humble birth (2:8-20) poor childhood (2:22-24) OT\J..I.€loc; av1:1A€yOJ..l.€VOV (2:34) Human baptism, genealogy (3:21-38) Temptations (4:1-13) Rejection by Nazarenes (4:28-29) Rejection by Jewish leaders

Luke's lengthy account of Jesus' ministry to the various kinds of sufferers (cf chapter three) communicates clearly that it is not only through his death that the Lucan Jesus saves. Neither is salvation limited to salvation from sins; it includes the exaltation of various kinds of lowly states (cf 3.3.1 above). The connection between the saving activity of his ministry and his own suffering is twofold. Firstly, he humiliated himself by becoming a human being and serving those who suffered. Secondly, he challenged those who inflicted suffering, either directly (11:37-52) or by defying precepts which prevented the alleviation of suffering (e g healing on the sabbath, acceptance of outcasts). This challenge provoked persecution from the Jewish leaders, which ultimately led to his death. It is especially with reference to Jesus' final sUffering (death and crucifixion) that Luke is said to lack a thoroughgoing soteriology. We have pointed out that this verdict, which derives from a comparison with Pauline soteriology, is invalid. In terms of Luke's own concept of salvation (the exaltation of the lowly), we have established that his Gospel, which depicts Jesus' ministry as a response to suffering, is actually permeated with soteriology. What remains is to indicate the soteriological significance of the Lucan Jesus' crucifixion and death. In this respect we are indebted to the work of Voss (1965: 99-130) and Glockner (1975:171-174,177-183; cf also Schneider 1977: 447-449). Apart from the words of institution (22:19-20), there is only one instance in Luke-Acts where Jesus' death is referred to in a way that could perhaps be interpreted as vicarious suffering. In Milete Paul referred to 1:rw €KK~:r,O'iav 1:00 S€oO, TlV 1t€Pl€1to1110'a1:0 Bux 1:00 alJ..l.a1:0C; 1:00 i.Biou (Ac 20:28b). Regardless of whether Haenchen (1968:82) is correct in regarding this reference (like the words of institution; cf Schneider 1977:448) as a 'Former which Luke merely transmits, the fact is that in the rest of Acts and in the Gospel there

156

Chapter four

is no sign of the doctrine of a vicarious death or 'expiation of sins' (Haenchen 1968:82; Fitzmyer 1968:1516). This is the more remarkable since Luke's sources seem to contain this motif. Luke deliberately chose not to transmit Mark's interpretation of Jesus' death as A\J1:POV rorrt noUWv (Mk 10:45//22:27). In his use of the Isaian motif (cf 22:37; Ac 8:32-33; cf Is 53:7-8,12) he also chose to omit the references to the vicarious death of the suffering servant (Is 53:4,8b). It seems as if the clue to the soteriological significance of the Lucan Jesus' death should be sought in the very passages where this significance appears to be absent, namely in Luke's 'redactional' response to Mark 10:45 and Isaiah 53. As far as Mark 10:45 is concerned, Luke's redaction is not confmed to emendating or replacing the Marcan text (as proposed by Fitzmyer 1985:1412 and Schiirmann 1957:63-99 respectively; cf also 2.1.3 above), but includes the significant transposition of the dispute about greatness (Mk 10:41-45) to its present place in Luke's farewell discourse (22:24-27). As part of that discourse, the dispute should be interpreted in the context of the institution of the eucharist which occurs on the same occasion. In instituting the eucharist Jesus referred to his own death as "to O'wlleX lloU "to unE:p UllwV BWOIl€VOV (22:19) and "to nOUtplOv n Kal!ITt Bu:x9itKT\ E:V "tip allla"tl Ilou, "to unE:p UllwV E:KXUVVOIl€VOV (22:20). Thus Jesus indicated that he would die for the benefit of his followers. This is actually accentuated by Luke, since in his version the unE:p UllwV applies to both the body and the blood (contra Mk 14: 22,24). By consciously incorporating the dispute about greatness (which in Mark's version contains the reference to Jesus' vicarious death) into the farewell discourse, which was spoken on the same occasion as the words of institution, Luke seems to have interpreted the Marean version of the latter (Kat yap 6 LOO w8pronou OUK ~A8€v BtaKoVf\8f\val a>.:>..a BtaKovnO'al Kat ooOval Lfiv lJluxnv aU"toO AU"tpoV Qv"tt noUwv, Mk 10:45). Luke transmits this as: E:Yw BE: E:V IlEO'tp UllwV €illl we; 6 BlaKovwv (22:27b). It seems highly probable that Luke decided, because of the resemblance between Mark 14:24b and Mark 10:45, to react to Mark's interpretation of Jesus' death as AU"tpoV w"tt noUWv by giving his own interpretation (or at least the version which he preferred). Luke 22:27 thus interprets the words of institution in the Lucan context: not merely the shedding of Jesus' blood, but also the giving of his body (in other words his death) is a service to his followers ('Dienst fiir die Seinen', Glockner 1975:177).

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus

157

The nature of the service is of the utmost importance for Lucan soteriology. Jesus did not serve his followers from an exalted position, but from one of extreme humiliation. This is clearly communicated in 22:27a: by serving his followers like a slave, Jesus (unlike the discipies) did not aspire to be the avaK€tJ-l€Voc; ( = greatest), but actively chose the lesser, selfless and humble role (= Bt&Kovoc;). The death which he died for the benefit of his followers was one of utter humiliation. At this point in the narrative (shortly before the passion; cf the present tense of 22:27b) the Lucan Jesus actually defines his fmal suffering, which in fact has already begun, as humble service. In view of our observations (cf 2.3-2.4) about Luke's narration of Jesus' passion after the farewell discourse, we conclude that Luke in a remarkable way portrayed Jesus' final passion to accord with his earlier typification of it as BlaKov€lv (22:27). Jesus served even while he suffered: he healed the high priest's slave, he cared for the lamenting women and their children, he prayed for his crucifiers and promised salvation to the penitent robber. He served while dying the most humiliating death: he was reckoned with transgressors, he was mocked, he died innocently, and he selflessly gave up his spirit to his father. In dying he accepted the lesser role of the 'one who serves' (22:27b). The above interpretation seems to be confirmed by Luke's use of the motif of the suffering servant. Luke twice quotes from Isaiah 53, and both quotations serve the sole purpose of expressing the humiliation of Jesus' death. In order to appreciate how the first quotation (22:37; cf Is 53:12) expresses Jesus' humiliation (assuming that, besides the unlawful sword-carrying - cf 2.1.3 above - Luke also had the crucifIXion in mind), we quote Glockner (1975:173): Wenn Jesus in seinem Tod unter die avOJ-lOl gezahlt wird, so bedeutet das seinen Ausschluss aus der Heilsgemeinschaft des Volkes Israel. In dies em Sinne interpretiert auch Apg 2,23 seinen Tod als Auslieferung an die avOJ-lOl und darin als endgiiltige Verwerfung und Verstossung (vgl. auch Lk 18,31ff; 24,7). Sein Leben endet damit aber in iiusserter Erniedrigung, denn von den geltenden religiosen Vorstellungen her ist der Tod eineslivoJ-lOC; sinn- und heillos. Luke's second quotation from Isaiah 53 is the section read by the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac 8:32-33; cf Is 53:7-8), which, interestingly

158

Chapter four

enough, stops just before the reference to vicarious suffering in the last phrase of Isaiah 53:8 (stricken for the transgression of my people). The quotation characterises Jesus' death as that of 'a sheep led to the slaughter~ that is, in utter humiliation and selflessness. Moreover, in Acts 8:33a the humiliation is explicitly referred to as "tCl1t€lVWO'le;; (cf Is 53:8a). Luke's portrayal of Jesus' death as humble service for the benefit of his followers accords with his view of salvation in the rest of the Gospel. Thus it concurs with a cardinal saying of Jesus, pronounced in his first prediction of his passion: 8e;; yap (Xv BEAU nlv IJlUXTtV oo'.Jt:oO moO'al, anoAEO'€l a