Christopher Hays - Beyond Mint and Rue.pdf

[PT 11.3 (2010) 383-398] Political Theology (print) ISSN 1462-317X doi:10.1558/poth.vlli3.383 Political Theology (online) ISSN 1473-1719

BEYOND MINT AND RUE:

THE IMPLICATIONS OF LUKE'S INTERPRETIVE

CONTROVERSIES FOR MODERN CONSUMERISM

Christopher Hays1

Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät Universität Bonn

Am Hof 1 53113 Bonn Germany

cmhays@gmail com

ABSTRACT

Luke's Gospel features repeated confrontations between Jesus and the socio-religious elite of his day, in which Jesus disputes with his opponents regarding how the Hebrew Bible bears upon social ethics The present essay examines the character of Jesus' controversial interpretations in the accounts of Jesus' polemics against the Pharisees and lawyers in Lk 11 37-52 and 16 14-31. Against the paradigms of his contemporaries, Luke's Jesus stands in the stream of the Hebrew prophets, calling for fulfillment of the Law especially in terms of justice and mercy After describing the contours of Luke's ethical interpretation of Scripture, the investigation seeks to imitate prophetic and Lukan interpretation. Luke's message challenges modern consumenst practice, particularly what sociologists have referred to as idealist consumption of symbols and status Idealist consumption drives the western consumer to insatiable, narcissistic expenditure and neglect of the poor, and is dissonant with the prophetic summons to justice and mercy

Keywords consumerism, law, Luke, poverty, riches

Introduction

In 1985, when Madonna giggled about being a material girl in a material world, some Christians doubtless recognized the crassness of her glib construal of identity in terms of possessions. Still, Christian patterns of

1 Christopher Hays holds a doctorate in New Testament studies from the University of Oxford, and is currently a wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter in Church History at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, Bonn.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010,1 Chelsea Manor Studios, Flood Street, London SW3 5SR

384 Political Theology

consumption are often indistinguishable from those of people without any particular religious affiliation. Popular authors smilingly justify contemporary consumptive patterns by calling it "your best life now" or "breaking through to the blessed life." These thinly veiled prosperity theologians play into the extant consumerist value system by selectively appealing to Old Testament promises, while ignoring prophetic invectives against the wealthy and wisdom teachings that laud the piety of the poor. How might twenty-first-century readers respond to these Old Testament voices? Perhaps one could take a cue from Luke. The present essay intends to highlight in two pericopae how Luke brings the Old Testament to bear on issues of wealth ethics (Lk. 11:37-44; 16:14-31). A brief summation of contemporary sociological discussion on consumerism will ensue, in order to permit a closing criticism of the modern consumer phenomenon.

The Interpretive Controversies in Luke

Woes against the Pharisees: Lk. 11:37-44 One revealing skirmish between Luke's Jesus and the interpretive tradition of his contemporaries occurs in the Woes to the Pharisees of Lk. 11:37-44, when Jesus neglects to wash before a meal. In particular, I would like to highlight how this account criticizes the manner in which Pharisaic preoccupation with purity led to their neglect of the "fundamentals" of the Law.

The occasion for the narrative is the Pharisees' perturbation at Jesus' failure to wash before the meal. Jesus responds to them, however, not by defending his bathing practices, but by adopting the metaphor of washing utensils. In so shifting the issue, his response can be seen as addressing the global conception of purity.2 He indicts the Pharisees for being foolishly concerned about the cleanliness of the outside of their vessel (i.e. their external purity),3 when internally they are full of plunder (harpagès)* and

2. Darrcll L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 1112. 3. M. Kelitn 25:1-9; on which sec Jacob Ncusner, α'First Cleanse the Inside': The

'Halakhic' Background of a Controversy Saying," New Testament Studies 22 (1976): 486-95;

and the response of Hyam Maccoby, "The Washing of Cups," Journal for the Study of the New

Testament 14 (1982): 3-5.

4. Harpage refers to the act of violently seizing property or plundering someone's

property (Judith 2:11; Tob. 3:4; 1 Mace. 13:34), orto that which is plundered (4 Mace. 4:10;

Nah. 2:13; Isa. 3:14; 10:2). This lexeme in all the LXX occurrences (save Lev. 5:21) identi

fies the plunderer as exploiting their position of social or military power. It is not a word

just for robbery, but for exploitation (as csp. in Isa. 3:14; 10:2; Eccl. 5:8). Major léxica have contended, on the basis of the present passage (since it is paralleled to ponería^ but ponería can also refer merely to wicked deeds), that harpagé also refers to a state of mind that leads to

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.

Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 385

wicked deeds (ponerías).5 Ironically, the fastidious Pharisaic attention to external purity avails for nothing, since they are already inwardly profane. No amount of washing will purify them.6

Instead of worrying about external purity, the Pharisees should attend to their internal purity by giving alms. The puzzling logion τα ενόντα δότε έλεημοσυνην uses τα ενόντα (ta enonta, that which is inside) as an accusative of respect. Protestant commentators tend to translate this phrase "give alms in expression of what is inside,"7 that is, to show your internal purity. However, this interpretation is difficult since "what is within" the Pharisees is plunder and wicked deeds...how can almsgiving be an expression of that? Thus commentators are forced to assume a middle term of repentance, altering the Pharisees' hearts so that almsgiving would justly express their purity. Alternatively, might one not understand "give alms with respect to what is within" as indicating that almsgiving actually ameliorates the problem of what is within? This interpretation commends itself from a strictly economic perspective, since by giving alms the Pharisees could disperse the defiling plunder they had amassed. Further, this reading fits nicely within Jewish theological tradition. Drawing on a variety of Old Testament passages,8 Second Temple

seizure, i.e. greediness, rapacity (BDAG, 133; NIDNTT, 3:604; LSJ 235). The only other passage cited by BDAG and LSJ to support this translation is Xenophon, Cyr. 5.2.17, but it makes equally good sense as referring to the "act of seizure" (the standard meaning) as to an "intent to plunder." The Xenophon passage (which Miller's Loeb translation renders quite loosely) reads better "for no Persian of the educated class would allow it to appear that he was captivated with any kind of food or drink, neither in [the act of] seizure it nor in thought (ούτε άπαργη ούτε τω νφ) as to fail to observe things that would attract his attention if he were not at meat." The italics indicate my modification ofWalter Miller's translation, which reads quite expansively "either with his eyes gloating over it, or with his hands greedy to get it." Nonetheless, while this translation is more accurate and provides a more helpful image of a cup filled, not with abstract intentions but with actual plunder and deeds, this does not preclude harpagês from functioning as a trope for greed. As the cup is a material metaphor for the Pharisee's person, so also what is inside the cup is a material metaphor for their spiritual state.

5. This term can refer either to evil intentions (Matt. 22:18; Exod. 10:10; 32:12; Ps. 73:8; Prov. 26:25; Dan. 11:27) or to wicked deeds (Judg. 11:27; 2 Esd. 16:2; 23:7, 27; 1 Mace. 13:46; Ps. 7:10; Wis. 4:6; Sir. 46:7; 47:25; Jer. 51:3,22).

6. A similar point is achieved in the saying of Jesus in P.Oxy. 840:2. 7. John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 664, my emphasis;

Bock, Luke, 1114-15. 8. Dan. 4:27, the LXX of Prov. 15:27, and Sir. 3:30.1 discuss this topic at greater length

in Christopher M. Hays, "By Almsgiving and Faith Sins are Purged?: A Critical Analysis of the Theological Underpinnings of Second and Third Century Christian Almsgiving," in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Interpretation, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly Liebengood (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 266-75. C£ Gary A.



and rabbinic interpreters contended that almsgiving could function to atone for sins,9 and this position found a variety of adherents among early Church fathers.,0 In a similar vein, rabbinic material indicates that almsgiving might also increase one's piety or receptivity to God11 and could even win eternal life for the giver.12 Thus Jesus would fit neatly into his interpretative milieu by contending that almsgiving, in a manner analogical to sacrificial atonement, could reintegrate the sinful Pharisees into covenant relationship with God.

The part of Jesus' claim that does not cohere with Jewish assumptions is the contention that proper attention to almsgiving (and deeds of that sort)13 excuses a person from rigorous observance of purity laws. In this connection one cannot but call to mind the account of Cornelius in Acts, whose uncleanness was overcome on account of his almsgiving and prayer (Acts 10:2), with the result that God admonishes Peter "what God has made clean, you must not call unclean" (10:15,28).

Luke gives further theological support to Jesus' displacement of purity with almsgiving in his ensuing Woe against the Pharisees. 'You tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others" (11:42). In spite of their scrupulous tithing, of which Luke approves, the Pharisees failed to pursue justice and the love of God. How should one understand την άγάπην του θεού (the love of God) here? The mention of the love of God naturally recalls the encounter of Jesus and the lawyer in Lk. 10:27. The lawyer explains the Law's account of eternal life, 'You shall love the Lord your God.. .and your neighbor as yourself" (αγάπησες κύριον του θεόν σου.,.καί τον πλησίον σου ώς σεαυτόν; Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). In

Anderson, "Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms: Sin, Debt, and the Treasury of Merit'

in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition," Letter and Spirit 3 (2007): 37-67; Roman Garrison,

Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 46-59.

9. t. Pe' ah 4:21; b. Git. 7a; B. Bat. 9a-10a; Shab. 156b; Suk. 49b; Midr. Ps. on 50:8.

10. Cyprian, Eleem. 2 cites Lk. 11:41 to support almsgiving for the remission of sins.

Other patristic sources endorsing redemptive almsgiving include 2 Clan. 16:4; Cyprian,

Laps. 35; Ep. 51:22; Eleem. 1.

11. b. B. Bat. 9a, 10a; Eliezcr Segal, "Rabbi Elcazar's Perutah" fourtiat of Religion 85.1

(2005): 26-28. This was based upon an interpretation of Prov. 19:17, which identifies

almsgiving as lending to God and thus allowing one to expect recompense, sec Anderson,

"Redeem \bur Sins," 40-55; George Foot Moorcjudaism in the First Centuries of the Christian

Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 169.

12. b. Ros. Has. 4a; B. Bat. lOa-b, lia; Git. 68b; Ex. Rab. 31:14; Midr. Pss. 118:19. On

entering into or being excluded from the future life through merit, sec Tg. Ruth 2:13;

b. Sank 110b; Ber. 10b; b. 'Abot 3:15 (3:16 in the Mishnah).

13. Almsgiving is certainly meant literally, but should not be considered exhaustive of

Luke's intention; it is metonymy for a lifestyle of justice and love of neighbor.



this instructive summation of the Law, one imperative verb (αγαπήσεις, agapèseis, you shall love) governs the combination of the two commands, emphasizing the integral connection between love of God with all one's being14 and its necessary corollary in love of neighbor.15 This is almost certainly the evocation Luke intends when he accuses the Pharisees of neglecting the love of God, since 10:27 is the closest Lukan verbal parallel to 11:42. But of equal significance is the fact that, while Luke might frequently speak of God acting lovingly or mercifully towards people,16 or encourage humans to show love to each other,17 there is only one other occasion in Luke and Acts in which Luke mentions people loving God.18

In 16:13, Luke discusses the idolatry of wealth by saying, "No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon." This passage construes loving God in terms of proper use of wealth. As such, the "love of God" which the Pharisees are said to neglect in Lk. 11:42 refers most likely not to emotive affection,19 but specifically to concrete actions that demonstrate piety. Since the Pharisees could hardly be accused of failing to show love of God in their observation of issues such as purity or tithing, it is likely that their neglect of "love of God" refers to their failure to love their neighbor, particularly in the sphere of the use of wealth, as is also implied by the context of 11:39-42 enjoining almsgiving and indicting their greed.

This pairing of justice and love functions to evoke passages from the Minor Prophets like Mie. 6:6-8 (cf. Zech. 7:9-10); what is good and what the Lord requires is to do justice and to love mercy ΤΟΠ ΓΠΠΚ1 (BBEJD Π1ϋΙ7). One would also do well here to recall the famous

14. Cf. Bock, Luke, 1025; Vincenzo Petracca, Gott oder das Geld: Die Besitzethik des Lukas (Tübingen: Francke, 2003), 89-90.

15. It might be salient to mention that at this point in the history of interpretation, the Hebrew term me'odecha (your strength) (rendered τη ίσχυι σου by Luke) was often interpreted as referring to one's money (Tg. Onq., Neof., Ps.-J. Deut. 6:5; m. Ber. 9:5//b. Ber. 54a). In Sifre Deut. §32, Rabbi Eliezer accounts for the combination of "all your souP and "all your might" on the grounds that some people's lives are more important to them than their wealth, and for others the case is reversed; so also b. Ber. 61b, Pes. 25a, Yom. 82a, Sanh. 74a; cf. Str.-B. 1:905-907).

16. God's action: 1:50, 54, 58, 72, 78; 15:20; Jesus' action: 7:13; 17:13; 18:38-39. This survey included examination of all occurrences of lAeos, αγάπη, σττλάγχνον, φιλία, άγατταω, φιλέω, έλεέω, and σττλαγχνίζομαι in Luke and Acts.

17. Lk. 6:27,32; 7:5; 10:33,37. 18. Perhaps one might also add Lk. 7:42, 47, though this love is directed towards

Jesus. 19. See also Reinhard Neudecker, " 'And You Shall Love \bur Neighbor as \burself—I

Am the Lord' (Lev 19,18) in Jewish Interpretation," Biblica 73 (1992): 496-517.



prophetic dichotomy between "mercy and sacrifice" à la Hos. 6:6, so also Amos 5 "Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them... But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" (Amos 5:25-26). So Jesus locates himself in the tradition of the Prophets, denouncing Israelites whose vigorous cultic piety is not accompanied by justice to the poor, widow, and orphan. Seeing almsgiving as an expression of justice and love, however, explains theologically how Jesus could tell Pharisees to give alms instead of attending to purity. He was following a well-established prophetic precedent.

Jesus follows quickly upon this blow with an assault on the Pharisees' preoccupation with status acquisition and honor maintenance, for they love "to have the seat of honor in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces" (11:43). Not only does this prefigure Jesus' teachings against squabbling over the best seats in banquets in Lk. 14, Jesus will also level this precise charge against the scribes in chapter 20 (w. 46-47), who "love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets" but "devour widows' houses." Instead of "loving" God, the Pharisees "love" the best seats in the synagogues; instead of giving alms they brim with plunder. This charge explains why Pharisees, so preoccupied with religious observances like purity and tithes, could neglect the crucial biblical commands of justice and love; their meticulous religious observance arose from a desire to garner honor or prestige in their local social economy. Acquiring wealth and scrambling for good seats at banquets served the same end, and yet inexorably dulled their commitment to justice and love of neighbor.

Luke subordinates the role of purity to other ethical issues he perceives to be more fundamental to adherence to the Law and Prophets, namely, love and justice.20 Justice and love, particularly as manifested by almsgiving, are the crucial elements of covenant fidelity, and no amount of tithing or hand washing suffice as its substitute. As the next text shows, this interpretive decision is not incidental, but rather is significant to the theological substructure of Lukan ethics.

20. This docs of course raise the issue of Luke's view of the Law, which cannot be fully explored here. Suffice it to say at present, while one might be inclined to see Luke as rejecting purity wholesale, his depiction of Paul in Acts suggests that he does not see purity laws as wholly defunct or irrelevant. Paul takes vows (Acts 18:18), circumcizes Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), undergoes purification rituals (Acts 21:23-26), and loudly asserts that he never violated the purity of the temple (Acts 24:18) So also, the account of Peter's visions does not swccpingly discard purity, but rather shows that God can declare clean things which were previously unclean (i.e. the food [Acts 10:12-16] or Gentiles [Acts 10:28; cf. Acts 15]).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010


Dives and Lazarus: Lk 16:14-31 The issues of Lukan interpretation and wealth resurface in Lk. 16, on the heels of the warning that one cannot serve God and Mammon. Luke turns this apothegm against the Pharisees, indicting their greed (he calls them

filargurioi, greedy),21 and thus implying that in spite of their great piety they are guilty of idolatry (cf. T.Jud. 19:1). The appellation oifilargurioi for the Pharisees comes as no surprise, since Lk. 11 has already indicted the Pharisees for loving honor more than God, and exhorted them to give alms to remedy their wickedness. So again in Lk. 16, Jesus denounces the Pharisees for justifying themselves before men. The wealth and status that they so revere (το εν άνθρωπος ύψηλόν; that which is high among men) are nothing less than an idolatrous abomination (bdelugma)22 before God.

But more than just denouncing the greed of the Pharisees as idolatry, Luke condemns the Pharisees on the very grounds upon which they "justify themselves before men," namely, he impugns their adherence to the Law and the Prophets.23 To articulate the manner in which the Pharisees' neglect of the poor is tantamount to neglect of Old Testament teaching,24 Luke's Jesus spins the tale of Dives and Lazarus in order to show in which respect Pharisees failed to adhere to the Law and Prophets

21. Scholars have often contended that the Pharisees associated prosperity with divine

blessing; see, e.g., John Gillman, Possessions and the Life of Faith (Collcgeville: Liturgical Press,

1991), 81; J. Duncan M. Derrctt, "Fresh Light on St. Luke 16: II. Dives and Lazarus and

the Preceding Sayings," New Testament Studies 1 (1960-1961): 367; Walter E. Pilgrim, Good

News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 116. While

it would be facile to say that wealth is a sign of divine blessing (in the Wcbcrian sense that

creeps into the discussions of certain proponents of this view), wealth is one of the blessings

of God on the pious in the Old Testament and rabbinic literature (e.g. Gen. 26:12-14; Lev.

26:3-5, 9-10; Deut. 6:1-3; 7:12-15; 8:7-10; 11:9-12; Prov. 8:21; 22:4; m. 'Abot 5:19; Num.

Rab. 11:5), and so one can identify the reason for the Pharisees' scorn without assuming

they were ignorant of the phenomenon of the wicked rich.

22. The identification of money as bdelugma indicates that one capacity in which money

is reprehensible is as an object of idolatry, a point which was made two verses previously

(16:13) by Jesus' saying that one can not serve God and Mammon, personifying Mammon

as a rival to God; Thomas E. Schmidt, "Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt 6:33,

Luke 14:33, and Luke 16:15," Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 186; Brian S. Rosncr, "Soul Idolatry:

Greed as Idolatry in the Bible," Ex audim 15 (1999): 78.

23. Cf. Rom. 2:17-23; Gal. 1:4; Phil. 3:6; James D. G. Dunn, "Pharisees, Sinners, and

Jesus," in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard

Clark Kee, cd. Jacob Neusner et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 266-74. By saying they

"justify themselves" I refer to a standard by which they attempt to demonstrate their righ

teousness, not a means through which they attempt to make themselves righteous, pace

John J. Kilgallcn, "The Purpose of Luke's Divorce Text (16,18)," Biblica 76 (1995): 236.

24. The transition between 16:14-18 and 16:19-31 is merely indicated by a δε in 16:19,

and there is no change of narrative scenery; so also Robert C. Tannchill, The Narrative Unity

Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.


they claimed to prize.25 There is little need to review the parable in detail. What is crucial to the present investigation is the reason that Luke gives for the post-mortem reversal in the situations of Dives and Lazarus.26

For the majority of the last century, interpreters have focused on the various Jewish, Egyptian, and Hellenistic parallels to this text, claiming that a parallel text's explanation of reversal should be transplanted into the Lukan account. More recently, however, the weight of opinion has shifted, albeit not entirely, to recognizing that the relations between the parable and the parallels are more likely indirect.27 Luke engages not with a single text from which his agenda can be inferred, but dialogues with an existing "folkloric motif"28 in developing his unique moral agenda.

Because of this shift in focus from parallel traditions to the Lukan composition, scholars have zeroed in on Lk. 16:25 to account for the inverted fates of Dives and Lazarus, in which Abraham reminds Dives, "during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony" (16:25). Giving pride of place to this explanation, Richard Bauckham has

of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation: Volume 1: The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia Fortress, 1986), 185

25. Some commentators claim that 16:16-18 has nothing to do with the surrounding material (Joseph A. Fitzmycr, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and Notes [New York: Doublcday, 1985], 1114,119, even Tannchill, Narrative Unity Í, 185). However, these verses arc a crucial step for Luke, as he advances from indicting the greed of the Pharisees as idolatrous to condemning their greed as leading to neglect of the Law and Prophets. In addition, the discussion of "all entering the Kingdom" (in v. 16) links back to the conflict that catalyzed the entire scene of 151-16:31, in which the Pharisees balked at Jesus' social intercourse with tax collectors and sinners (15:1-2). This passage is perfectly consonant with Luke's narrative agenda and deliberately placed in this location to develop a second line of polemic against the Pharisees. See also Mark A. Matson, "Luke's Rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39 (2000): 640-42.

26. Texts on economic reversal abound in Luke (1:52-53; 6:20-21,24-25; 14:16-24; so also E S. Wchrh, "Luke 16:9-31," Interpretation 31 [1977]: 278), and arc a subset of a larger, more general reversal motif: Two Debtors (7:41-43); Good Samaritan (10:30-35); Prodigal Son (15:11-24); the Cleansing of 10 Lepers (17:11-19); the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (18:9-14); sec further Outi Lchtipuu, "Characterization and Persuasion: The Rich Man and the Poor Man in Luke 16:19-31," in Characterization in the Gospels, cd. David Rhoads and Kan Syrceni (Sheffield. Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 84-85.

27. Since these parallel relations only account for the first half of the Lukan parable (and in so doing, neglect the manner in which Luke has crafted it for his narrative context), and because of the significant differences in the accounts (on this sec R F. Hock, "Lazarus and Micyllus. Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31," Journal of Btblical Literature 106 [1987]· 452; Richard Bauckham, "The Rich Man and Lazarus· The Parable and Parallels," New Testament Studies 37 [1991]: 227-29).

28. Bauckham, "Rich Man," 229.



argued that, "What has to be put right is the fact that one man lived in luxury while another was destitute. The next world compensates for this inequality by replacing it with a reverse inequality."29 Bauckham is not alone, having been followed by James Metzger, who contends, "had the rich man opened the gate and given alms to Lazarus, yet remained wealthy, he would not have improved his chances."30

Metzger and BauckhanVs line possesses significant advantages to positions that circumscribe the application of this text to unjust methods of acquisition or abandoning the poor; they are right to emphasize that Luke considers lavish lifestyle amidst a world of suffering to be flatly intolerable, and that no amount of charity will paint over the ugliness of that disparity. But in order to make this point, Bauckham and Metzger have limited the explanation for the reversal strictly to 16:25, and thus overly truncated the ethical teaching of the parable.

Abraham's reasoning goes further than Bauckham and Metzger allow. He explains that obeying Moses and the Prophets would afford Dives' five brothers the opportunity to escape his miserable fate;31 the obvious implication is that Dives did not obey them in the salient manner. This

29 Bauckham, "Rich Man," 232, cf Stephen I Wright, "Parables on Poverty and Riches (Luke 12 13-21, 16.1-13, 16.19-31)," in Challenge of Jesus' Parables, ed Richard N. Longcnccker (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 2000), 232

30. James A Metzger, Consumption and Wealth in Luke's Travel Narrative (Leiden E. J Brill, 2007), 146, italics original. The problem with Bauckham and Metzger's line of interpretation is that in spite of maintaining firmly that the interpreter should "focus exclusively on Abraham's unique formulation of the rationale in v. 25" (Metzger, Consumption, 146), Bauckham and Metzger import the terms "luxury," "wealth," "decadence and overcon-sumption" into the explanation of 16:25 (Metzger, Consumption, 146, 56; Bauckham, "Rich Man," 232) where Abraham only said ta agatha (good things). Doubtless, it is right to think that Dives reveled in luxurious overconsumption, as v. 19 makes explicit; it is furthermore appropriate to think that Luke intends to indict that decadence What is problematic, however, is that reading v. 25 in isolation from the rest of the text implies that Dives should not have partaken of good things in his life, and that Lazarus was fortunate not to have enjoyed them, since deprivation afforded him a chance to avoid eternal torment. (Though admittedly there are parallels to this sentiment in the Beatitudes and the Woes, most scholars would affirm that what is not enjoined is that the rich should be hungry, nor is it considered a good thing that the poor have been hungry) It further entails that ta agatha are not, in eternal reality, actually good things And by restricting account of reversal to v. 25, Bauckham and Metzger box themselves into contending that Dives had simply to divest himself of his wealth to dodge hell, without necessarily alleviating the condition of Lazarus (Metzger, Consumption, 155-56, Bauckham, "Rich Man," 232-33). Doubtless they would not want to undercut the importance of almsgiving; they simply have to preclude charity from this parable

31 Cf William R G Loader, Jesus' Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (Tubingen Mohr Sicbcck, 1997), 339.



mention of Moses and the Prophets weighs heavily against Metzger and Bauckham's analysis, for the prophets do not denounce the mere possession of wealth. But previous scholarship on this passage has not seriously attempted to evaluate what is intended by the phrase "Moses and the Prophets."

The actual details of the parable suggest an allusion to Isa. 58:6-7. "Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice...to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?" This likely constitutes part of the intended referent to "the Prophets," since Jesus invokes the same passage in his programmatic Nazareth synagogue sermon (Lk. 4:18-20, mixed with Isa. 61:1-2). Jewish interpreters frequently used Isa. 58:6-7 in a similar fashion, engaging the passage as an impetus to charity,32 promising blessings (b. B. Bat. 9b; Leu. Rah. 34:11) and eschatological rewards (2 En. 9:1; ci 2 En. 63:1-2) to those who fulfilled its demands.

In addition, other Lukan references to the Law and the Prophets, by that name or via citation, help fill in our picture of Luke's understanding of the essential social message of the Hebrew Scriptures. Lk. 4:16-20 (cf. 1:46-47; 7:22; Acts 10:38) invokes the Jubilee traditions via Isa. 61:l-2.33 In Lk. 10:25-26, "What is written in the Law" is the double love command; the parable of the Good Samaritan interprets that command to entail becoming a neighbor to a person in need rather than neglecting him. So also Lk. 16:16 (cf. Lk. 7:26; 20:6) avers that John the Baptist stands among the Prophets, and thus his commands to share food and clothing (Lk. 3:11 J34

and not to exploit the poor (Lk. 3:12-14) should be considered as well. In sum, by examining the portions of the Old Testament of which Luke was fond and the manner in which Luke interpreted those passages, one can conclude that Abraham's injunction for Dives' brothers to listen to Moses and the Prophets entailed that they should indeed desist from their neglect of the poor, and show charity through sharing their possessions.

Corroborating this analysis, one should remember that this parable is being told in response to the Pharisees, not for being rich, but for being

filargurioi (greedy),35 a trait that led them to neglect justice and the love of

32. Ps.-Phoc. 23-24; b. B. Bat. 9a; Yeb. 63a; Gen. Rab. 17:3; Lev. Rab. 34:14; 5. Eli. Rab. ER 135-137.

33. So Metzger, Consumption, 149. 34. Note also that unlike Dives, John was not a man dressed in soft robes and living in

luxury (Lk. 7:25). 35. Cf. John J. Kilgallen, "Luke 15 and 16: A Connection," Biblica 78.3 (1997): 376;

David B. Gowler, "At His Gate Lay a Poor Man': A Dialogic Reading of Luke 16:19-31," Perspectives in Religious Studies 32.3 (2005): 254.



God, according to Lk. 11 (w. 39-42). So also, Dives is not merely depicted as rich, but as lavishly dressed and feasting brightly every day. Luke has already made it quite clear that those who would inherit eternal life must share their food with the poor (Lk. 3:11; 14:12-24; Acts 2:43-46), and has expressed some chagrin towards luxurious clothing (cf. Lk. 7:25; 12:27; Acts 10:21).

This analysis need not conflict with Metzger and Bauckham's contention that Dives is indicted for living in luxury; it merely means that the manner in which they have excluded the neglect of charity from the charges against Dives need to be reassessed. When Abraham says Dives' brothers should listen to Moses and the Prophets, he endorses a great deal more than divestiture; he demands care for the poor.

Contemporary Ethics

The fundamental values of Luke's ethical-interpretive framework could be aptly applied to any number of contemporary themes; the present investigation will only briefly examine its bearing upon the phenomenon of modern consumerism. I will briefly delineate the contours of current sociological discussion on consumerism before describing how the Lukan texts that have been examined might inform our evaluation of contemporary practice.

Early sociological discussions of consumerism emphasized the manner in which consumptive patterns delimit boundaries between socioeconomic classes,36 but in recent decades, postmodern social fragmentation and diversification have led individuals to establish identity through belonging to much smaller social sub-groups. An individual manifests group belonging by adopting the lifestyle of the group through consuming a conglomeration of goods, such as shoes, music, hairstyles, or cars.37

Footballers identify themselves by sporting jerseys and athletic shoes both on and off the pitch; motorbikers are infamous for their kit, and can be subdivided in their leathers and haircuts between those who ride hogs and others who prefer crotch-rockets.38 Goths commodify their rebellion with

36. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 172. CE Zygmunt Baumann, Intimations ofPostmodemity (London: Routledge, 1992), 223.

37. "Under post-modern conditions, identities are in a constant state of change; individuals move freely from one cultural group and enthusiasm to another; they mix and match what were formerly distinct categories"; Robert Bocock, Consumption (London: Routledge, 1993), 81.

38. For the uninitiated, "hog" is an acronym for "Harley Owner's Group" and refers to large Harley-Davidson motorcycles; "crotch-rockets" are smaller, sport bikes with large engines.



macabre makeup and raven hair, black trenchcoats, and Marilyn Manson sound-tracks; scholars distinguish themselves through collecting extravagant libraries and ratty sports coats.

Consequently, consumerism now functions "to create and maintain a sense of identity through the display of purchased goods."39 What one consumes signifies who one is, which is to say with which group one should be identified; thus consumption is not only a process of consuming material products, but more importantly of consuming signs and symbols.40

Goods have meaning, they possess social significance which is imbued in a variety of ways, the most prominent of which are the modern communications media. By juxtaposing meaningful visual images and phrases with a certain product, an advertisement implies that the product itself possesses meaning.41 This creation of meaning can occur on a billboard (adventurous people drive an X-Terra), in a page of a magazine (sexually exciting women wear Victoria's Secret), or during a movie when the protagonist dons a certain article of clothing or consumes a certain beverage (drinking a vodka martini carries meaning, in part, because it is James Bond's mixer of choice).42

The process of attributing meaning to objects is facilitated by micro-diversification of consumer goods. Consider designer jeans.43 Your jeans can say that you are a rugged cowboy (tight Wranglers), a sexy, metropolitan party-femme (hip-huggers that keep no secrets), or a tough urban survivor (heavy and dark with superfluous pockets, suspended mid-buttock by a studded leather belt, affording insight into the individual's personality

39. Bocock, Consumption, 67; italics original. 40. Steven Miles, Consumerism: As a Way of Life (London: Sage Publications, 1998),

23. 41. Grant David McCracken, Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Sym

bolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities (Bloom ington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), 77.

42. One ought not underestimate the impact of advertising, since the average American is exposed to three to four hours of television a day, twenty hours a week of radio, forty-one pounds of junk mail a year, and millions of corporate logos, icons, and slogans on billboards, T-shirts, and ball-caps; Michael Budde, The (Magic) Kingdom of God: Christian-ity and Global Culture (Boulder, CO: Wcstvicw Press, 1997), 81. Cf Rodney Clapp, "Why the Devil Takes Visa," Christianity Today 40.10 (1996): 20; Rodney Clapp, "The Theology of Consumption and the Consumption of Theology: Toward a Christian Response to Consumerism," in The Consuming Passion: Christianity and Cultures of Consumption, ed. Rodney Clapp (Downers Grove, IL: IntcrVarsity Press, 1998), 170; William Gibson, "The Lifestyle of Christian Faithfulness," in Beyond Survival: Bread and Justice in Christian Perspective, ed. Dicter T. Hcsscl (New York: Friendship, 1977), 129.

43. Cf. Yiannis Gabriel and Tim Lang, The Unmanageable Consumer: Contemporary Consumption and its Fragmentation (London: Sage, 1995), 141; Miles, Consumerism, 91-106.



through the statements made by their boxer selection). The variety of consumer goods entails a potential variety of meanings.

Because consumption is a process of appropriating a given identity, it should be understood as an idealist practice. However, if consumerism seeks to develop social images rather than to address physical needs, then the only limits to one's consumption are the boundaries of one's imagination and potential for self-construal. As one premier sociologist put it,

If [consumerism were] that which it is naively taken to be, an absorption, a devouring, then we should achieve satisfaction. But we know that this is not the case: we want to consume more and more... If consumption appears to be irrepressible, this is because it is a total idealist practice which has [little to do]...with the satisfaction of needs.44

The Bearing of Lukan Interpretation on Consumerism

To conclude, then, for those who consider the Law and Prophets yet to be fully stocked with jots and tittles (à la Lk. 16:17), how does the Lukan interpretive strategy inform our perception of the modern consumer phenomenon? The appropriation of biblical ethics invariably entails a process of analogy making, in which the directness of the analogy inversely correlates to the novelty of the situation being examined. I would contend that identity construction provides a neuralgic analogy between the Pharisaic pursuit of honor and contemporary idealistic consumptive patterns.45 The parable of Dives and Lazarus, as well as the Woes of Luke 11, viciously indict the neglect of the poor by the Pharisees, arising from their preoccupation with status acquisition and honor maintenance. Identity fabrication through group integration, however, is a provocative analog to honor maintenance and status acquisition. Pharisees wanted greetings in the market and good seats at banquets and synagogues; people today seek belonging to group(s) through purchasing clothes, music, cars, and hairstyles. Perhaps in themselves these desires are only moderately disconcerting as manifestations of pride or vanity. But the insatiability of desire for consumer goods that results from the idealistic character of identity consumption means that people, regardless of their incomes, seldom live below their means or seek to limit their acquisition. More often, people push restlessly at or beyond the boundaries of their means; a raise in pay or a line of credit simply means greater opportunity to facilitate integration

44. Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings (Cambridge: Polity, 1988), 24. Cf. Bocock, Consumption, 75; Gabriel and Lang, Unmanageable Consumer, 50.

45. While further points of critique of consumerism could well be raised, the nature of the analogy I have adopted requires that I limit my discussion to the manner in which both honor and consumption function as mechanisms of identity construal.



into their social group, or to join a further group in order to buttress their sense of identity. There is seldom much left over for the poor.

Luke (11:42; 16:29), however, contends that the crucial aspects of the Law and the Prophets are justice and love, which marginalize the important sources of Pharisaic identity, in particular ritual cleanliness. But if the Lukan Jesus is happy to relativize the practice of purity, which has clear Old Testament grounding, then how much more would he bring woes against people who choose to construe their identity through purchasing a given look, ride, or soundtrack?46 Justice and love are hardly values bounded by time in their ethical applicability.

One might fairly remark that the exhortation to spend less money on oneself and more money on the poor is nothing new; indeed, this invective is at least as old as the prophets. \fet the very antiquity of the imperative makes it all the more embarrassing that westerners persist in their selfish habits of expenditure. Part of the reason for this expenditure, beyond the undeniable influence of avarice, is that it is a means by which we pursue self-definition...is that really so objectionable? Perhaps Dives would not have been denounced for his purple garment, fine linen, and perpetual feasting in a world where no Lazarus festered outside his gates. But no such a world has ever existed, nor ever will, at least not this side of the parousia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, G. A. "Redeem \bur Sins by the Giving of Alms: Sin, Debt, and the Treasury of

Merit,' in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition." Letterand Spirit 3 (2007): 37-67.

Bauckham, R. "The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and Parallels." New Testament

Studies 37 (1991): 225-46. doi:10.1017/S0028688500015678

Baudrillard, J. Selected Writings. Cambridge: Polity, 1988.

Bau mann, Ζ. Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routlcdgc, 1992.

Bock, D. L. Luke 9:51-24:53. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Bocock, R. Consumption. London: Routlcdgc, 1993. doi: 10.4324/9780203313114

Bourdieu, R Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

Buddc, M. The (Magic) Kingdom of God: Christianity and Global Culture. Boulder, CO:

Wcstvicw Press, 1997.

Clapp, R. "Why the Devil Takes Visa.* Christianity Today 40.10 (1996): 18-33.

46. Neither arc tithes (cf. 11:42) to the local church sufficient excuse for neglecting

direct support of initiatives of justice and redistribution. Notwithstanding the fact that

most Americans tithe 2.66 percent of their income (Ron J. Sidcr, Rich Christians in an Age of

Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, 5th ed. [Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1997],

200), only paltry portions of most church budgets are directed toward social initiatives or

even missions work that is attuned to justice issues.



"The Theology of Consumption and the Consumption of Theology: Toward a Chris

tian Response to Consumerism." In The Consuming Passion: Christianity and Cultures of

Consumption, ed. R. Clapp, 169-204. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Dcrrctt, J. D. M. "Fresh Light on St. Luke 16: II. Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding

Sayings." New Testament Studies 7 (1960-1961): 364-80.

Dunn, J. D. G. "Pharisees, Sinners, and Jesus." In The Social World of Formative Christianity

and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee, ed. J. Neusner et al, 264-89. Phila

delphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Fitzmycr, J. A. The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and Notes.

New York: Doublcday, 1985.

Gabriel, Y, and T. Lang. The Unmanageable Consumer: Contemporary Consumption and its Frag

mentation. London: Sage, 1995.

Garrison, R. Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Gibson, W. "The Lifestyle of Christian Faithfulness." In Beyond Survival: Bread and Justice in

Christian Perspective, ed. D. T. Hesscl, 111-40. New York: Friendship, 1977.

Gillman, J. Possessions and the Life of Faith. Collcgevillc, M N : Liturgical Press, 1991.

Gowlcr, D. B. "At His Gate Lay a Poor Man': A Dialogic Reading of Luke 16:19-31."

Perspectives in Religious Studies 32.3 (2005): 249-65.

Hays, C. M. "By Almsgiving and Faith Sins are Purged?: A Critical Analysis of the Theo

logical Underpinnings of Second and Third Century Christian Almsgiving." In

Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Interpretation, ed. B. W.

Longenecker and Κ. Licbengood, 260-80. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Hock, R. F. "Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31." Journal

of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 447-63. doi: 10.2307/3261067

Kilgallcn, J. J. "The Purpose of Luke's Divorce Text (16,18)." Biblica 76 (1995): 229-38.

"Luke 15 and 16: A Connection." Biblica 78.3 (1997): 369-76.

Lchtipuu, O. "Characterization and Persuasion: The Rich Man and the Poor Man in Luke

16:19-31." In Characterization in the Gospels, ed. D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, 73-105.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Loader, W. R. G. Jesus' Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

Maccoby, H. "The Washing of Cups.">«ni<i//or the Study of the New Testament 14 (1982): 3-15. doi:10.1177/0142064X8200401401

Matson, M. A. "Luke's Rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount." Society of Biblical Literature

Seminar Papers 39 (2000): 623-50. McCrackcn, G. D. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of

Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloom ington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Metzger, J. A. Consumption and Wealth in Luke's Travel Narrative. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2007. doi:10.1163/cj.9789004162617.i-217

Miles, S. Consumerism: Asa Way of Life. London: Sage Publications, 1998. Moore, G. F.Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 2.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Ncudcckcr, R. " And You Shall Love Yrnr Neighbor as Yourself—I Am the Lord' (Lev

19,18) in Jewish Interpretation." Biblica 73 (1992): 496-517. Neusner, J. "'First Cleanse the Inside': The 'Halakhic' Background of a Controversy Say

ing." New Testament Studies 22 (1976): 486-95. doi:10.1017/S0028688500010183 Nolland, J. Luke 9:21-18:34. Dallas: Word Books, 1993. Pctracca, V. Gott oder das Geld: Die Besitzethik des Lukas. Tübingen: Francke, 2003.



Pilgrim, W. E. Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981.

Rosner, B. S. "Soul Idolatry: Greed as Idolatry in the Bible." Exauditu 15 (1999): 73-86. Schmidt, T. E. "Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt 6:33, Luke 14:33, and Luke

16:15." Trinityjournal 9 (1988): 171-89. Segal, E. "Rabbi Eleazar's Perutah." Journal of Religion 85.1 (2005): 25-42. doi:10.1086/

424975 Sider, R.J. Rial Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, 5th cd.

Nashville: Word Publishing Group, 1997. Tannehill, R. C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation: Volume 1: The

Gospel of Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Wehrli, E. S. "Luke 16:9-31." Interpretation 31 (1977): 276-80. Wright, S. I. "Parables on Poverty and Riches (Luke 12:13-21; 16:1-13; 16:19-31)." In

Challenge of Jesus' Parables, ed. R. N. Longenecker, 217-39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.


Λ Π ^ ,

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Documents

Christopher Hays - Beyond Mint and Rue.pdf