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 of Jesus 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, psycholo­

gical and spiritual. By investigating Luke's portrayal of the

suffering of Jesus 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 Univer­

sity 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 11

2 ASPECTS OF RECENT RESEARCH 15 3 METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES 21

Chapter two

LUKE'S COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF HUMAN

SUFFERING 25

1 THE NAZARETH EPISODE: LUKE 4:16-30 25

1.1 Luke 4:16-30: Preliminary issues 26 1.2 The tradition behind Luke 4:16-30 29 1.3 Redaction criticism of Luke 4:16-30 32 1.3.1 Luke's specific redaction of Mark 6:1-6a 32 1.3.2 Luke 4:1fr30 as reinterpretation of the Marean

programme (Mk 1:15) 35 1.3.3 The Lucan use of Isaiah 61:1-2a and 58:6 37 1.3.4 Luke 4:1fr30 in Luke's composition or macrostructure 41 1.3.5 Other techniques used by Luke to convey his

point of view 44 1.4 Various dimensions of suffering in Luke 4:16-30 45

2 THE MAGNIFICAT 48 2.1 Luke 1:46-55: some preliminary issues 48

2.2 The tradition behind the Magnificat 50 2.3 Redaction criticism of Luke 1:46-55 51

2.4 The structure and genre of the Magnificat 53 2.5 Various dimensions of suffering in Luke 1:46-55 55

3 SUMMARY OF FURTHER EVIDENCE 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 104

1.1 Jesus' humble birth and childhood 104

1.2 The baptism, genealogy and temptation of Jesus 107

1.3 Rejection at Nazareth 108

1.5 Persecution by Jewish leaders 110

1.5.1 Rejection during his Galilean (Judean) ministry 110

1.5.2 Rejection on the way to Jerusalem 113

1.6 Persecution by Herod 116

1.7 Jesus' anticipation of his passion (the announcements) 117

1. 7.1 The classical announcements of the passion 118

1.7.2 Additional Lucan predictions of Jesus' passion 121 1.8 Conclusion 123

2 ASPECTS OF LUKE'S PASSION NARRATIVE 124

2.1 The defection of Jesus' followers 125

2.1.1 The betrayal by Judas 126

2.1.2 The denial by Peter 129

2.1.3 Forsaken by the disciples 131

2.2 Jesus' innocent suffering 135

2.3 Jesus' care for others during his suffering 140

2.4 Jesus' crucifIXion as extreme suffering and humiliation 141

3 THE SUFFERING OF JESUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS 145

3.1 The comprehensiveness of Jesus' suffering 145

3.2 The analogous suffering of Jesus' followers 147

3.3 Jesus' suffering as salvation for his followers 149

3.3.1 Salvation as the exaltation of the lowly 150

3.3.2 Jesus' suffering and exaltation 153

3.3.3 Jesus' suffering as service to his followers 154

Chapter five

CONCLUSION 159

1 FINAL COMMENTS ON LUKE'S VIEW OF SUFFERING 159

2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 164

2.1 Luke's situation 164

2.2 Suffering in Acts 165

2.3 Luke's view of the kingdom, the gospel and faith 165

2.4 Luke's view of non-sufferers (topdogs) 165

2.5 What does Luke's view of suffering communicate? 166

BmUOGRAPHY 167

INDEX OF AUTHORS 176

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES 178

INDEX OF SUBJECfS 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 (1:46-55). 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 1983:13-16). 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, 1:46-55 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 1980:7-9), 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 2:42-47; 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 (1985:16-22). 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 1985:47-72) 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

~ ~Oeu Etc; ~apcl,oo ~v 'te9paJ1J.LEvoc;,---. 6:1a 16a b

6:2a Kat Eiof\A9EV Ka'[a '[0 Ei.w9ac; aU'[ep Ell 'tij Ju,L~ 'tiiJv ~

aafJPlmw Etc; rl\v ~v, c

17a b

18a b

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 J

yEypaJ..lJ..lEVOV·-----------....... 1tVE0J..la Kupiou E1t' EJ..lE:,

If' v " , OU ElVEKEV ExPlO'EV J..lE c EUaYYEAiO'aa9al 1t'[wxolc CmE:O',[aAKE:V J..lE, d KT\pU~at aixuaAclJ'I:OlI; lijEO'lV e f

19 20a

b

21a b

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

-

A

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 27

Mk 22a ~ nlvtEt; E:~ a\rdil---------.

6:2b b Kat E:9aUuatov tnt 'tole; MJyOtc;; 'tfic; Xclpl'tOl; 'tole; B E:mop€uop,Evotc;; E:K mO am).UmJC; aUmO,

'~'l.e-vnJ~ ., .. ,. , L . ......u. .. 6:3 c Kat. ~"IO' ,0000l U1OC; Eat:UI .-.. • .,. 0U't0C;;----'

, ". ", 23 a Kal El1tEV npoc; QU'touc; ,-----------, 6:5? b niIvtooc; E:pEl'tE)IOl 'ri\v nopaIJoAnv 'tCllm\v·

c ' 1.a'tpE, 9EpOnaxmv 0'EalJ't6v. d oO'a TtKouO'aJl€v l.€voJl€va d.; n1V ~vaouu

noiT\O'ov KOt cOO€ E:V 'tfj no't~i1h O'ou. ----' 6:4 24a ETnw lit,ciJlitv ).£yw U)llv ----------,

b O'tl oOOEi.f; ~'tI}I; 6EK't6c; E:at:UI €v 'tl\ JIa'tVWl amocru.---------------J

25 a E:n' 6AT\8Eio.; OE: AEyw UJltV, ----------, b noUat ~ ~O'av E:V 'tOt.; itJlepat.; , HAiou E:V 'tlil C

, 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;.

6:3? 28 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.

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-

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<; Lap€Tt'tO

U\<; LtOooviac; TtpO<; YUVcnKO xitpav corresponds with the formulation in 1 Kings 17:9-10 (LXX).

12 The tradition behind Luke 4:16-30

Before we proceed to a redaction-critical analysis, it is necessary to consider the tradition of Luke 4:16-30. The intention is not to pro­vide a complete tradition-critical analysis which traces the text back to its earliest origin, but merely to establish the basis (Vorlage) on which Luke did his redactional work. Three possible theses need to be considered:

(1) Luke took Mark 6:1-6a and appended another source or sources to it (inter alia Grundmann 1974:119).

(2) Luke 4:16-30 is actually based on Q. Luke omitted Mark 6:1-6a or reworked it into his rendering of Q (Schiirmann 1969:242-242).

(3) Luke 4:16-30 represents a free redactional reconstruction (Wei­terbildung) of Mark 6:1-6a (most commentators, e g Busse 1978; Bultmann 1967:31; Dibelius 1964:106; Tannehill 1972:52; Haen­chen 1974:290; Schmithals 1980:61).

That Luke somehow had Mark 6:1-6a in mind, is clear from his omission of the Marcan version from his own composition (between 8:56 and 9:1ff). At all events, in all three the theses Luke's version is seen as a redactional response to a Marcan text.

Jeremias's (1980:119) investigation seems to support the first thesis and offers the following results:

VERSE CONTENT TRAD/RED SOURCE 16 arrival in synagogue mainlytrad Mk6:1a,2a 17-21 reading from Isaiah mainlytrad Sondergut 4:22 reaction of Nazarenes mainlytrad Mk6:2b,3 4:23 reference to Capernaum mainly red Lk 4:24 prophet without honour mainlytrad Mk6:4 25-27 widow and Naaman mainlytrad Sondergut 28-30 rejection of Jesus mainly red Lk

30 Chapter two

According to Jeremias, then, at least verse 23 (the reference to Capernaum) and verses 28-30 (the rejection of Jesus) reflect heavy Lucan redaction. However, according to him there are also non­Marcan elements which cannot be proved to be redactional inser­tions and which he therefore ascribes to tradition (cf especially vv 16-21 [containing the quotation from Isaiah] and 25-27 [also contain­ing scriptural references]). These verses nevertheless contain typical­ly Lucan words and expressions (cf 00 ~v "t€8paJ..lJ..l€voc;, KCX"tO "to doo8ac;, ~O'cxv a"t€vi~ov"t€C;; cxU"ttp, €8cxUJ..lcx~ov €"Jti, €t"Jt€V DE:, €"Jtl €"tT\ "tpia). Consequently it is quite conceivable that Luke may have intro­duced the scriptural references himself. Although Jeremias's investi­gation has significant implications for the establishment of an assured minimum (gesichertes Minimum) of Lucan redactional emendations, his conclusion that Luke 'im ganzen die volkstiimliche Erzahlweise unserer Geschichte ... belassen hat' unjustifiably rules out the possibility that Luke could have used traditional terminology himself.

According to the second thesis, a represents a tradition similar to that of Luke (cf Schtirmann 1%9:228). Matthew 4:13 (containing the 'un-Lucan' form N:x~cxpa; cf 4:16) is considered to be reminiscent of this tradition, featuring in the same position in the Gospels of both Luke and Matthew. Because this a-tradition is supposed to parallel that of Mark 6:1-6a, Matthew appears to have chosen to transmit the Marcan tradition in full, assigning it the same position as Mark did (cf Mt 13:53-58). Matthew 4:13 therefore contains only a residue of the a-tradition which Luke chose to follow in its entirety.

In our view Schiirmann's argument can at best be regarded as a possibility, since it relies too heavily on a mere remnant of the Naza­reth tradition in Matthew 4:13. This remnant is confmed to the one word N:x~cxpa, since Matthew 4:13 makes no mention of Jesus' entry into Nazareth (cf Lk 4:16a), only referring to his departure. Further­more, Luke 4:16 (which contains the word N:x~cxpa) has many other substantial Lucan elements (00 ~v "t€8pcxJ..lJ..l€vOC;;, KCX"tO "to €i.oo80c;;), which are acknowledged by Schtirmann (1969:227) and attested by Jeremias (1980:119-120). Busse (1978:32) also convincingly argues that Luke might have chosen the word form N:x~cxpa (instead of N:x~cxp€8 or N:x~cxph) for lack of an example from the Septuagint, his customary model for the transcription of Hebrew proper names. In Luke 4:16 he chose an adaptation which follows the hellenistic

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 31

style of writing Semitic names of major cities. The third thesis (that 4:16-30 is a free redactional rendering of

Mark 6: 1-6a) seems therefore the most probable. The following ar­guments can be adduced in its support:

Firstly, the Nazareth episode is omitted between Luke 8:56 and 9:1ff, where it should have appeared in the otherwise 'Marcan' se­quence followed by Luke. This indicates not only that Luke knew the Marcan tradition, but also that he saw his own transmission of the Nazareth episode as paralleling Mark's. The Marcan account also does not deviate from Luke's to such an extent as to rule it out as a possible basis for the Lucan account. Furthermore, the Lucan ver­sion is more of an elaboration (Weiterbildung) on the Marcan ac­count than a radical departure from it.

In the second place, Busse (1978:25) has indicated that the motifs peculiar to Luke 4:16-30 (not found in Mark) are consistently inte­grated into the immediate textual context (3:20-4:44) within the Lu­can composition (cf the Spirit, Galilean cities, the devil and demons, the synagogues, praise and amazement, Capernaum, etc). This sug­gests Lucan redaction.

Thirdly, because of the constant recurrence of peculiarly Lucan expressions throughout the text (almost in every sentence, cf Jere­mias 1980:119-128), it is more feasible to ascribe all deviations from Mark to Luke rather than to another source. The two subsections (A and C, cf the text), regarded by Jeremias as a non-Lucan tradition (cf especially vv 17-21 and 25-27, which do not appear in Mark), con­tain not only Lucan expressions, but scriptural references as well (cf Is 61; 1 Ki 17; 2 Ki 5). The use of scriptural quotations to substanti­ate an argument (especially with reference to Jesus) is very much a Lucan device (cf e g 24:44; Ac 28:23; and 1.3.5 below).

Fourthly, Busse (1978:55ft) demonstrates convincingly that Luke's rendering of the pericope reflects the influence of peripatetic helle­nistic historiography (cf also par 1.3.5), in which events are drama­tised in order to entertain the reader. Such dramatisation is evident when Luke's version is compared with that of Mark (cf CX1:€vt~€lV in v 17, Jesus' speech and the resultant conflict). This is best explained in terms of peripatetic historiography, an influence which is more likely to have reached the text via Luke himself than, for instance, via the Q-tradition.

32 Chapter two

Finally, the sections which do not appear in Mark (redaction and Sondergut, cf vv 17-21, 23, 25-27, 28-30) are integral to the tenor of Lucan thought, especially his concept of suffering. As far as content is concerned, there is therefore no need to establish another tradi­tion for the sake of explaining contradictions in thought patterns. On the contrary, the assumed Sondergut traditions reveal Luke's thought to a great extent.

One can therefore agree with Schmithals (1980:61) that Luke 4:16-30 is 'das deutlichste Beispiel rur die redaktionelle Neugestal­tung einer Markus-Vorlage durch Lukas'. Even if Luke had drawn more heavily on tradition than has been argued above, the question would still remain: why this specific selection of traditions? The ans­wer would probably still hinge on his affInity with the motif of suffer­ing contained in these traditions. However, the notion of a free re­dactional rendering allows greater scope for a minute comparison between the versions of Luke and Mark. It also provides a surer ba­sis for the identification of redactional features which could afford useful insight into Luke's theological interests - certainly as far as the theme of this study is concerned.

1.3 Redaction criticism of Luke 4:16-30

Although our tradition-critical analysis permits us to accept, as an operational premise, that Luke 4:16-30 is a free rendering of Mark 6:1-6a, our redactional analysis is not limited to a mere comparison between Luke 4:16-30 and Mark 6:1-6a. Other factors also have to be taken into account, especially in view of our theme. Besides the specific redaction (editing) of Mark 6:1-6a, we shall pay attention to Luke 4:16-30 as a substitute for Mark 1:15, the redaction of the Isa­ian quotation, this text's role in Luke's overall composition or mac­rostructure, and certain other techniques employed by Luke to un­derscore his theme.

1.3.1 Luke's specific redaction of Mark 6:1-60

A comparison of Luke 4:16-30 with Mark 6:1-6a reveals several im­portant differences. In Mark 6:2a (cf the text of Luke 4:16-30 above) it is stated that Jesus taught in the synagogue. Mark 6:2b-3 report that the people took offence at Jesus' preaching because of his wis­dom (referring to OtOO<7K€lV in v 2a), mighty works (OUVcXJl€lC;;, pro-

Luke's comprehensive view of human sUffering 33

bably referring to Jesus' miracles recounted in the previous section, cf Mk 4:35-5:43), and questionable family connections (v 3a). Having already presented Jesus as a teacher in the general report (summa­rium) which directly precedes the Nazareth episode (cf Lk 4:15), Luke is not satisfied merely to mention it again. Instead he provides information on the content of Jesus' teaching. To this end he depicts the scene where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61 and 56 and comments on it (cf 4:17-21). The content of Jesus' teaching is thereby shown to be good news (deliverance) for the poor and other sufferers. In his comment (v 21b) the present (aitJ..l.€pov) character of this deliver­ance is emphasised, as well as Jesus' role in it.

In contrast to Mark's version, Luke's account does not portray the initial reaction of Jesus' hearers as negative (contra Bornhauser 1934:23-25, followed by Jeremias 1958:44-45), because throughout his Gospel and Acts Luke uses the terms J..I.ap1:UP€lV and 9auJ..l.a~€lV in a positive sense (cf 1:63; 2:18,33; 20:26; Ac 4:13; 6:3; 10:22; 22:12; cf also especially Ac 14:3 where the expression J..I.ap1:UP€lV €nt 1:41 MYql1:f\c;; XaPl1:oc;; appears). According to Mark the Nazarenes re­acted negatively to Jesus because of the contrast between Jesus' humble background and his teaching and miracles. Luke's failure to transmit the information about Jesus' lowly background seems strange, since he elaborates on the subject elsewhere in his Gospel (cf 1:48; 2:7; 2:24- see Lv 12:8). Possibly a positive interpretation of the reference to Jesus' relatives would have caused too great a di­gression from his main purpose in this passage, namely to communi­cate that (contrary to Mark) the initial reaction to Jesus' teaching was positive. This positive reaction was not primarily attributable to Jesus' testimony regarding himself (this would be a christological overinterpretation), but to the 'words of grace' in the quotation from Isaiah and because Jesus accentuated the present character of the promised deliverance (cf v 21b).

Luke 4:23-27 (section C of the text above) offers a reinterpretation of the people's reaction to Jesus' miracles in the Marcan account (cf Mk 6:2c and 5a). According to Mark the Nazarenes also found Jesus' miracles problematic in view of his humble background (Mk 6:2b,3) and, probably because of their unbelief (cf Mt 13:58), Jesus was unable to perform many miracles there. However, Luke seems to differ from Mark on the point of faith as a prerequisite for mira­cles, suggested, for instance, by his omission of Mark 9:23-24 (all

34 Chapter two

things are possible to him who believes) from the narration of the healing of the epileptic boy (9:37-43; cf however also chapter three, par 5.3).

According to Luke the exclusivism of the Nazarenes (which, through Luke's exploitation of the polysemy of the word l1Q1:pi«;; be­comes symbolic of the Jewish nation as a whole) was the reason for Jesus' not performing miracles among them. To make this point, Luke contrasts Nazareth with Capernaum in verse 23d and under­scores it by introducing the proverb about the unacceptable prophet in 24b. Jesus explains the meaning of this proverb in verses 25-27 with reference to miracles performed in ancient Israel. The miracles cited here, however, involved gentiles and not Israelites. That it is their exclusivism which is the stumbling block, is communicated by the fact that in the Lucan account the Nazarenes not merely took of­fence at Jesus (Mk 6:3), but tried to kill him (4:28-30).

Luke therefore not only omits the Marcan notion of faith as a prerequisite for working miracles, but takes the opportunity to com­municate something of cardinal importance to him: the departure from the traditional view of the future, which held that God's wrath would be turned on the enemies of Israel (cf chapter three, par 3.3).

By means of his redaction of the Marcan account Luke commu­nicates that the Nazarenes (and the Jews) applauded the liberation Jesus offered to those who suffer - as long as they were at the re­ceiving end. They therefore expected Jesus to perform healings amongst them. They applauded Jesus' positive attitude to sufferers, but in an exclusivist way.

In his narration of the whole episode Luke advocates a universal c@cept of suffering. Consequently this passage is perhaps the most potent testimony for our contention that Luke's emphasis on suffer­ing should be viewed in a broader perspective. The point made in verses 25-27 is that the widow of Zarephath and Naaman were helped not merely because they suffered economically or physically; it is emphasised that because they were from Israel's enemies, they also suffered politically (in the sense that the Jews despised all gentiles). The pericope communicates that a nationalist, exclusivist sympathy for those who suffer is not enough: compassion should be comprehensive and embrace all people.

Luke's comprehensive view of human sUffering 35

1.3.2 Luke 4:16-30 as a reinterpretation of the Marcan programme (Mk 1:15)

Luke not merely edited Mark 6:1-6a; notwithstanding his general ad­herence to the Marean sequence he replaced Mark 1:14-15 with Luke 4:16-30. To facilitate discussion, we quote the Marcan text in full:

14a MELCx DE 'to 1tapaOo8flval 'tOV 'IwavvTIV nA8EV b 6 'ITlcrouc; Etc; UtV lw..tACXtaV c KTlPUcrcrwv 'to EUCXYYEAtOV 'tOU 8EOU

15 a KCXt AEYWV o'tt 1tE1tAt1PW'tal 6 KCXtpOC; b KCXt i1YYtKEV it ~CXcrtAEta 'tOU 8EOU· c J..lELCXVOEl'tE KCXt mcr'tEUELE €V 'tifl EUCXYYEAiql.

Several elements of the Lucan text are reminiscent of the Marcan text, which justifies a redaction-critical comparison of the two pe­ricopes. They are the following:

(1) Both the Lucan and the Marcan passages follow after the tempta­tion pericope.

(2) Both pericopes are set in Galilee at the beginning of Jesus' mi­nistry (cf Mk 1:14b with Lk 4:14,16).

(3) Both pericopes report Jesus' preaching (cf Mk 1:14c and Lk 4:18d,19 for the use of the term KTlpUcrcrEtV).

(4) The term EUCXYYEAtOV appears in the Marcan account (Mk 1:14c, 15c) where Luke has EUCXYYEAi~Ecr8cxt (4:18c).

(5) Both accounts use the term 1tATlPOUV in a similar context to em­phasise the imminence of the kingdom of God (cf Mk 1: 15ab) or deliverance (cf 4:21b).

(6) In the same way the term €yyi~EtV (Mk 1:15b) shows resem­blances to cnlJ..lEpOV (4:21b) as far as content or reference is con­cerned.

(7) The chronology and topography in the sections which follow the two pericopes are the same (e g sabbath, Capernaum).

Because most of these resemblances actually exist between Mark 1:14-15 and Luke 4:16-21, and because the latter, compared to Mark 6:1-6a, can be regarded as a peculiarly Lucan section (Sondergut), we contend that in these verses Luke gives his reinterpretation of the

36 Chapter two

Marcan account of Jesus' preaching. It follows that an examination of the differences between Mark 1:14-15 and Luke 4:16-21 will fur­ther clarify Luke's thought.

In Mark 1:14 Jesus is presented as preaching the gospel of God. In verse 15ab Mark to some extent defines the term EOOYY€A10V . It conveys the notion of the nearness of God's kingdom (the time is fulfilled). The nearness is also meant as an incentive for Jesus' hearers to repent and believe (v 15c).

Although Luke does not use the word in its nominal form in his Gospel at all (and only once in Acts - cf Ac 15:7), the word EuaYY€AlOV nevertheless appears to have prompted him to quote from the Septuagint text (cf Goppelt 1981:605) of Isaiah 61:1, where the word EuaYYEAil;,E0'8at appears. However, for him the term EuaYY€A10V or EuaYYEAil;,E0'8at does not refer primarily to the nearness of the kingdom of God. As a matter of fact, in Luke 4:18c Luke does not assign EOOYYEAil;,E0'8at any particular meaning, ex­cept that the news seems to be to the benefit ofthe poor (m:wxotc;;). However, verses 18d-19a are a clear parallel to 18c, and from this we can infer what Luke is aiming at with EuaYYEAil;,E0'8at: deliverance (cf the repetition of the key term a~EO'lC;;) from suffering. Luke seems therefore to have introduced the quotation from Isaiah 61 in order to specify that the good news is freedom for those who suffer.

The term KTlPUO'O'ElV serves the same purpose. Luke uses the word twice (in v 19a he even altered the LXX text which he used, cf the text in par 1.3.3), in conjunction with EOOYYEAil;,E0'8at (cf e g 8:1: KTlPUO'O'WV Kat EOOYYEAll;,OJ.lEVOC;; nlV tJaO'tAEtav 1:00 8EOO). It there­fore seems that for Luke the term KTlPUO'O'E1V has a soteriological component. Furthermore, in the rest of Luke's Gospel EuaYYEAil;,­E0'8at is used mostly with reference to the upliftment of the lowly or the alleviation of suffering (cf 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 7:22; 9:6).

Luke's account also does not convey the notion of the fulftlment of the times and the nearness of the kingdom (cf Mk 1:15ab). He uses the term 1tATlPOOV to refer to the fulfilment, not of the times, but of Scripture (cf 4:21b with Mk 1:15a) - specifically of Isaiah 61:1ff. The notion of the nearness of the kingdom is replaced, more­over, by the presence (oTtJ.lEpOV) of the fulfilment of Scripture. Al­though the Nazareth episode itself contains no mention of the king­dom of God, Jesus' ministry in both Nazareth and Capernaum is summarised in Luke 4:43 as EuaYYEAil;,E0'8at 1:T)V tJaO'tAEiav 1:00

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 37

8EOU (cf 1.3.4). Luke also interprets the kingdom of God differently from Mark.

More emphasis is laid on its present character, instead of the tradi­tional future hope (€YYl~ElV - oTt)J.EPOV, cf also 17:21). The king­dom seems to be present wherever suffering is alleviated. In this regard Luke 11:20 interrelates with the report in Luke 4:16-43:

Ei DE €V OaKLU~ 8EOU €yw €K~6AAw LCx OOl)J.OVla, Opa €<j>800'EV €<j>' 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)

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..l­

J..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]

2a KaAE:O'aL EVLaU1:0V KUpiou O€K1:0V

b Kat 1)J..lE:pav av1:CX1toOOO'€W«;; c 1tapaKcXA€O'aL 1tW1:ac;; 1:0Ue;;

1t€v90uv1:ac;; 3a oo9f\vaL 1:Ole;; 1t€V90UO'LV LLWV

b 06~av avd O'1tOOOU c aA€LJ..lJ..la €Ucj>poaUVTle;; 1:ole;;

1t€V90UO'LV d Ka1:aO'1:0A11V OO~Tle;; wd

1tv€uJ..la1:Oe;; OKTlOlac;; e KatKATl9~0'0V1:aLY€V€at

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

LUKE 4:18-19

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€

d 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

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 6:20-22, 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 (17:11-19). 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:tJ</>AOc;: 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:a<; LOGe;; Ka'l:aOuvaO''l:€UOIJEVOUe;; UftO LOG Otat}OAOU.

Fourthly, because Luke usually uses the term ~€aLe;; in the sense of &~€aLe;; 'l:WV aIJap'l:LWV (cf 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Ac 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18), the generic terms al)(JJ.O:AWLOe;; and 'l:€8pauO'IJEVOe;; can

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 47

also be regarded as metaphors referring to sinners. Luke's emphasis of the term lij€O"lC; suggests that he also had spiritual or religious suf­fering in mind (cf the close connection between forgiveness of sin and physical healing in 5:17-26).

Fifthly, as noted already, Luke's view of suffering has a political dimension. This is communicated by the whole narrative, but is espe­cially apparent in the Nazarenes' change of attitude towards Jesus. It is when Jesus cites examples of the gentiles' sufferings being allevi­ated (and not those of the Israelites) that the Nazarenes grew angry. Their very anger reveals their political repudiation of the gentiles. Luke is selective in his reference to the widow of Zarephath, focus­ing on those features which accord with his purpose (cf the version in 1 Ki 17:8ff). The Old Testament story in 1 Kings nowhere says that Elijah did not go to any Israelite widows. Neither does the story suggest that he was sent mainly for the widow's sake (as in Luke) -in fact, it implies that he went for his own sake as well. The same ap­plies to the Naaman story (2 Ki 5:lff), which does not mention the healing (or non-healing) of any Israelite lepers. Luke emphasises that the two sufferers were gentiles. He relates the incidents in a way that reflects concern for the rejection which the gentiles suffered at the hands of the Jews. This point should not be swept under the car­pet by too hastily interpreting Luke 4:25-27 as referring programma­tically to the gentile mission (cf Busse 1978:28-29).

In the sixth place, when citing the example of the widow of Zare­phath, Luke makes a point of it that she was a widow (cf the discus­sion of relevant text-critical problems above, par 1.1). It is men­tioned twice, and prominently at the end of this reference (cf 4:26). In the Sondergut tradition of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (which is strongly reminiscent of the raising of the widow of Zarephath's son by Elijah, cf 1 Ki 17:17ff) the accent is more specifi­cally on the suffering of the widow, which was alleviated by the rais­ing of her son, than on the son himself. Traces of Luke's positive at­titude towards women (especially widows) as a suffering group are therefore apparent in the Nazareth episode. Moreover, Flender (1968:15) and Navone (1970:224) argue convincingly that in Luke's Gospel a story about a man is often paralleled by a story about a woman, thus according women the same status before God as men (e g Zechariah and Mary, Simeon and Anna, etc; cf chapter 3, par 2.4). The same complementary parallelism is discernible in the ex-

48 Chapter two

amples of the widow of Zarephath and Naaman in the Nazareth pe­ricope. We conclude, then, that Luke's consistent concern for ostra­cised groups in society is observable, albeit recessively, in the Naza­reth episode.

In conclusion: our brief analysis of the Nazareth pericope has il­lustrated that the motif of suffering in the passage should not be in­terpreted purely in terms of either poverty or spiritual suffering (sin). Luke seems to conceive of suffering in its widest sense, and we have identified several dimensions. In the analysis of the Magnificat that follows we attempt to indicate that this conception of suffering is not confined to the Nazareth episode.

2 THE MAGNIFICAT

The Magnificat is the pericope in Luke's infancy narrative where the motif of suffering features most prominently. It illustrates that, at least as far as this motif is concerned, the infancy narrative is well in­tegrated into the rest of the Gospel. Here too Luke was careful to select traditions which reflect his own interests (cf also the way in which Wellhausen 1904 and Conzelmann 1964 totally disregard the infancy narrative).

In the history of New Testament scholarship the Magnificat has often been said to reflect Luke's accent on poverty (cf Horn 1983:137ff). It is our contention that the Magnificat reflects various dimensions of suffering. The emphasis on Mary herself also accords with Luke's comprehensive view of suffering.

2.1 Luke 1:46-55: some preliminary issues

The text of the Magnificat is supplied on the next page. Our discus­sion follows the exact verse numbering given there. The relation be­tween thought units is again graphically illustrated and key words (pertaining to our theme) are underlined.

The Magnificat is integrated into Mary's visit to Elizabeth (1:39-56), as is clear from the fmal comment (1:56). Within this episode it actually forms part of the dialogue between Mary and Elizabeth, but since it dominates this dialogue (constituting ten of the eighteen verses), it can be demarcated as a single unit. Being written in poetic form, it also contrasts with the prose of the narrative in which it is embedded.

Luke's comprehensive view of human sUffering 49

LUKE 1:46-55

46 a Kat €l'Jt€V M::rpwJJ b JJ€YaAUV€l n lJIuxn JJOU 'tOV KUplOV, ---------;

47 Kat nyaUlaa€V 'to 'JtV€OJJel JJOU €'Jtt 'ttf)9€tf) 'ttf) O'wUipl

48a b

49a b

50

51a b

52a b

53a b

54 55a

b

JJOU,.-----------------~

(hl €'JtE~A€IJI€V €'Jtt 1:ftV 'ta'Jt€lvwO'lv rile; oouAnc; aU'toO. iOOu yap ano 'toO vOv UaKetpwOO'lv JJ€ 'JtQO'al ai y€v€al· (hl €'JtolTlO'Ev JJOl JJ€Yaxa 0 ouva't6c;, Kat aylOv 'to QvoJJa aU'toO, Kat 'to EA€oc; aU'toO de; Y€V€Qc; Kat Y€V€Qc; 'tole; cjlo~U­

JJEVOle; aU'tOV.---------------J

€'Jt01TlO'€V KpCt'toc; €V ~paXioVl aU'toO,--------. Ol€O'KOpmO'€v \m€pncj>clvouc; otaVo~ KapOlac; aU't@v·---, Ka9€IA€v OUVela'tac; ano 9p6vwv ~ Kat ulJIwO'€V 'ta'Jt€lVOUc;, 'Jt€lV@V'tac; €VE'JtATlO'€V aya9@v Kat 'JtAOU'tOOv'tac; €~a'JtEO''t€tA€V K€VOUc;. Cxv't€ACx~€'tO 'IO'panA 'JtatOOc; aU'toO, JJVfl0'9fiVat €A€Ouc;,

Ka9Wc; €ACxATlO'€V 'JtpOc; 't0Ue; 'Jta'tEpac; nJJ@V , 'ttf) , AjjpaixJJ Kat 'ttf) O"JtEPJJa'tl aU'toO €ie; 'tOV aiWva.

A

B

As far as content is concerned, the motifs to be distinguished in the Magnificat (especially vv 51-55) extend beyond the immediate situation of the episode. 'Like an aria in opera' (Tannehil11974:265) the Magnificat is slotted parenthetically into the Lucan narrative.

From a text-critical point of view, the reading tEt ait Elisabeth' instead of tEt ait Maria' (1:46) in some Latin manuscripts (cf Metz­ger 1971:130) is the only variant relevant to our theme. Apart from the overwhelming textual evidence for the reading M::rpwJJ, it can be argued that, because of the prominent role he wanted Mary to play in the Gospel, Luke probably took the original hymn (which in the pre-Lucan tradition could have been spoken by Elizabeth or some other person) and put it into the mouth of Mary (cf also Kloster­mann 1975:17-18; Schiirmann 1969:72-73; Marshall 1978:78). As far as the theme of the present study is concerned, both Elizabeth and Mary count among the lowly in the Gospel. If the Magnificat was spoken by Elizabeth the 'ta'Jt€lvwO'le; in verse 48a could refer to her childlessness (a motif already touched on in 1:25,36). Because of its

50 Chapter two

wider reference, the second part of the Magnificat (vv 51-55) is vir­tually unaffected by the identity of its speaker.

22 The tradition behind the Magnificat

In examining the tradition behind the Magnificat we again do not propose conducting an exhaustive tradition-critical analysis to un­cover its earliest origins. As in 1.2 above, our aim is simply to form a clearer picture of Luke's redactional work.

As far as the origin of the Magnificat is concerned, the only point of agreement among the different theories is that it did not originate with Luke. This is probably correct, since Luke in his prologue gives the impression of being a careful transmitter rather than a creator of new material. The four songs in the infancy narrative (1:46-55; 1:67-79; 2:14; 2:28-32) appear to have been inserted later (probably by Luke), for they fit somewhat loosely into the context - which would not have been the case had Luke been the sole author. On linguistic grounds Jeremias (1980:60-63) also argues in favour of the 'tradi­tional' character of - probably - the whole poem.

As far as the actual origin of the Magnificat is concerned, it should be noted, first of all, that this poem is a compilation of Old Testament motifs. There is not a single verse which is not remini­scent of Old Testament verses or phrases (cf Brown 1977:358-359). As a whole it shows strong resemblances to Hannah's song (1 Sm 2:1-10) and, like that song, it is embedded in a nativity story. In both Hannah's song and the Magnificat the conception of a child is seen as bringing salvation to the individual speaker, on a par with the sal­vation that God gives to the poor and the needy. As in Hannah's song, this salvation is highlighted by the rejection of the rich and the mighty. The author of the Magnificat, whoever he was, most likely modelled it on Hannah's song.

Brown's argument (1977:350) that the Magnificat arose in a Jew­ish Christian community and not in purely Jewish or Baptist circles seems convincing (cf also Horn 1983:168). According to him it origi­nated amongst a group of Jewish Anawim (Poor Ones) who had been converted to Christianity. The principal features of Anawim thought are apparent in Luke's thinking: communal sharing of goods (3:11; Ac 2:43-47; 4:32-37), an intense 'temple piety' (cf 1:5-7; 2:25-52), a sense of persecution (6:22, 27-35), a Davidic messianism (1:32,69), fierce rejection of the rich (6:24) and an exclusivist Jewish

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 51

soteriology in terms of which the Anawim saw themselves as a conti­nuation of the remnant of Israel (1:17,54,68,77; cf also Zph 3:12-13). Originally Anawim referred only to economic poverty, but through the rejection of the rich as ungodly it became a religious term, a synonym for 'pious' (Dibelius 1964:59-60), also referring to the low­ly, the sick, the downtrodden, widows and orphans (Brown 1977:351). In the first century, because of the economic situation, there was a new focus on the economic aspect, also amongst Jewish Christian Anawim (Dibelius 1964:59-60). According to Brown (1977:352), 'Luke borrowed canticles composed by Jewish Christian Anawim ... because he felt a kinship to those ideals and to that group'.

It is questionable, however, whether the Jewish Christian Ana­wim can be identified with the Christian community in Jerusalem, as Brown (1977:354) would have it. Although Paul speaks of the m:wxol. Lwvayiwv (Rm 15:26) and even 1tLwxoi (GI2:10) with reference to the Jerusalem community, this rather indicates that there were many poor people among the Christians in Jerusalem. We may therefore assume that the Jewish or Christian Anawim or 1tLwxoi represented a stratum in first century Jewish and Jewish Christian society (possi­bly with a distinctive outlook) but not a specific historical group con­stituting a Christian community as such. Perhaps such a stratum ex­isted in Luke's own community too, which would account for his affi­nity with the ideals of the Anawim.

Horn (1983:121-168) regards the Magnificat (together with 6:20-26 and 16:19-26) as the '''ebionitischen'' Traditionen des Lukasevan­geliums'. Brown's use of the termAnawim is preferable, however, to avoid any mistaken identification with the historical ebionites of later centuries.

23 Redaction criticism of Luke 1:46-55

Because the Magnificat belongs to Luke's Sondergut and he was not himself the author of it, any attempt to determine the specific redac­tion of his probable 'Anawim source' must be conjectural. According to Jeremias (1980:60), 1:48 is the only verse of the Magnificat proba­bly written by Luke's own hand. If verse 48 is regarded as Lucan re­daction (Fitzmyer 1986:360) it would explain the unnecessary double (iLL in verses 48 and 49, as well as the universal character of verses 49-50 (in contrast to 48). Most probably, therefore, Luke inserted

52 Chapter two

verse 48 to bring the 'otherwise generic praise of Yahweh in the hymn into reference to Mary herself' (Fitzmyer 1986:360). If this is correct, then it is noteworthy that Luke - by adding verse 48 - con­sciously interprets Mary as one of the lowly, which accords with his view of Mary in other pericopes (cf 1:28,30,38). She is an 'underdog' (maidservant) whose fortunes are reversed when she becomes Jesus' mother. And because she is IlTt1:1lP 1:0U KUpiou (v 43), the Magnifi­cat's emphasis on the exaltation of the lowly comes to be associated with the coming of Jesus himself.

When considering the Magnificat in' relation to the rest of the Gospel, its place in the infancy narrative (Lk 1-2) should first be es­tablished. Whereas the whole of chapters 1-2 is quite certainly a Lu­can addition to the Gospel, opinions differ as to whether he had a hand in the composition of the actual infancy narrative. The history of the composition probably went through the following phases (cf Schiirmann 1969:140-145; Horn 1983:182):

PHASE A: THE BAPTIST NARRATIVE The annunciation of John's birth (1:5-25) The birth and childhood of John (1:57-80)

PHASE B: THE INFANCY OF JOHN AND JESUS The annunciation of John's birth (1:5-25) The annunciation of Jesus' birth (1:26-38) The birth and childhood of John (1:57-80) The birth and childhood of Jesus (2:1-52)

PHASE C: THE LUCAN INFANCY NARRATIVE The annunciation of John's birth (1:5-25) The annunciation of Jesus' birth (1:26-38) Mary's visit to Elizabeth, the Magnificat (1:39-56) The birth and childhood of John (1:57-80) The birth and childhood of Jesus (2:1-52)

From Jeremias's (1980:52-59; cf also Brown 1977:251-253) lin­guistic analysis it seems probable that Luke added 1:39-56 to phase B (contra Horn 1983:182). The Magnificat therefore occupies an im­portant place in the Lucan composition. It permits the inference that, by adding the Magnificat to the infancy narrative, Luke asso­ciates Jesus' coming with a reversal of underdog-topdog re1ation-

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 53

ships. Jesus the Saviour (2:11) brings salvation, individual and collec­tive, to the totality of life.

This inference means that we have to reject Horn's view (1983: 181-182) that the Magnificat, because of its 'Ebionitismus', actually conflicts with Luke's thinking. The contrast which Horn (1983:176) attempts to resolve between 'padinetische Almosenforderung' and 'ebionitische Armutsforderung' most likely never existed in Luke's mind. Hence the Magnificat needs no paranetic framework to assure its significance.

Apart from its significance in the infancy narrative, the theme of a reversal of fortunes discerned in the Magnificat occurs elsewhere in the Gospel as well. It is the prodigal rather than the elder son who feasts with his father (chapter 15); Lazarus and not the rich man is ultimately saved (chapter 16); the publican and not the Pharisee went to his house justified (18:14); a Samaritan and not a Jew fulflls the law (10:29,37; 17:18); the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind should be invited to dinner rather than friends, brothers, kins­men or rich neighbours (14:12-14); some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last (13:30 - cf also Schlatter 1960: 169).

2.4 The structure and geme of the Magnificat

Because the Magnificat is a poem with a specific form, we believe that an examination of its structure and literary type will help us to understand it.

If the Magnificat is regarded as a song of praise in classic Old Testament style (cf Brown 1977:355-365; Vorster 1979:20), four strophes can be distinguished (46b-47; 48-50; 51-53; 54-55). How­ever, in my opinion such an analysis does not account adequately for verse 50 (which may be regarded as part of the praise and not a spe­cific reason for it) and verses 54-55 (which give a reason for praise and are not necessarily a recapitulatory conclusion).

According to our analysis only two subsections can clearly be dis­tinguished (cf the text above):

Subsection or strophe A (w 46b-50) praises God as the speaker's Saviour because he changed her fortunes (46b-49a). In 49b-50 he is proclaimed holy and merciful (because of this salvific act).

In subsection or strophe B (w 51-55) the theme of a reversal of fortunes is continued, but groups are mentioned in the third person

54 Chapter two

plural and the individual speaker of the first strophe no longer fea­tures. In contrast to the first strophe, God's salvation of sufferers is not merely mentioned, but is accentuated by the rejection of the top­dogs. The Kpa1:0C; in verse 51a refers to this reversal of fortunes. Even the form of this subsection or strophe emphasises the reversal theme: formally the strophe represents a chiasm which captures the motif of reversal (vv 52-53):

Quvacr1:ac;; (5:lx) 1:an€LVOUc; (52b)

>< n€LVWV1:ac;; (5lx) nAOU1:00V1:ac;; (53b)

The rhyme (Bpovwv - 1:an€LVOUc; - aycx8wv - K€VOUc;), antithetic parallelisms and the quickened pace highlight these verses as the probable focus of the whole poem. In addition verses 52 and 53 are framed by verses 51b and 54-55: the reversal of the fortunes of Israel and its enemies.

The poem as a whole can be summarised as follows: God changed Mary's fortunes (A). He rejected the proud, the

mighty and the rich and saved Israel, the lowly and the poor (B). In the words of Jesus quoted twice by Luke (14:11; 18:14):

nQc; 0 ulJlwv €CXU1:0V 1:an€Lvw8ftcr€1:CXL KCXt 0 1:an€LVWV €CXU1:0V u1JIW8ftcr€1:CXL

This same theme of the abrogation of the sufferers' misfortunes also unifies the two strophes of the poem. Mary shares the low estate (cf 1:an€lvwcrLV in 48a) of the lowly (1:an€LVOUc; in v 52). The eternal mercy of God is also mentioned in both strophes (cf 50a and 54) as the motivation behind the salvific acts described in the poem.

With regard to the literary type or genre of the Magnificat, various possibilities have been suggested. Gunkel (cf Klostermann 1975:18) called it an eschatological hymn. To substantiate this verdict he had to interpret the verbs in the second strophe as future aorists. Apart from the fact that the text itself gives no indication that the verbs should be read in this way, an eschatological interpretation of the se­cond strophe violates the very point that the Magnificat seeks to make: the reversal of fortunes is not a future event but happens here

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 55

and now. By using aorists rather than the future tense the events are located in this world and are actually 'de-eschatologised' (cf Horn 1983:144, 'enteschatologisiert').

Usually the Magnificat is typified as a hymn of praise in classic Old Testament style (cf Brown 1977:355ff) and it certainly can be read to meet the criteria usually set for such a hymn. However, this characterisation does not recognise the outstanding feature of the song, namely the theme of the reversal of fortunes. Schiirmann's suggestion (1969:71) to regard it as a "'Mischform" von eschatologi­schen Hymnus und personlichen Danklied' does not solve the pro­blem either. Because the conventional distinction between form and content is even less tenable in poetry than in prose texts, any more specific typification (besides the label 'poem') should preferably be based on the content. Winter's suggestion (1954) to regard the Mag­nificat (like the Benedictus) as a Maccabean battle hymn was proba­bly based on content, but it does not tally with the Lucan (non-Mac­cabean) context.

In the context of the Lucan nativity story the Magnificat is best classified as a messianic psalm or salvation (freedom) song, because it reflects the type of salvation that Luke considers Jesus' coming to have brought, namely freedom from various kinds of suffering.

25 Various dimensions of suffering in Luke 1:46-55

In the first line of the Magnificat Mary calls God O"wnlP J.l.OU and what follows in verses 49-55 is a description of God's soteriological activity. At first it concerns Mary as an individual woman, but then proceeds to include various classes of people in society and finally reaches a climax in the salvation of Israel as a people. At this stage the reversal of power relations seems to have nationalistic rather than universal overtones.

Mary herself is the first representative of the lowly. The 1:am~t.­VWO"le;; rile;; OOUAT\e;; refers not only to her humble attitude, but also to her existential situation as one of the poor (cf v 48 with 52). In addi­tion she, a woman in a patriarchal society, is placed squarely in the limelight.

In verse 52b 1:a71€lVOt. (the lowly, the oppressed) should be inter­preted in political rather than economic terms, since this is the anti­thesis ofBuVCtO"1:€e;; (52a). Israel itself as nate;; (= 'servant', not child; cf Is 41:8-1) likewise functions as a political underdog, being the an-

56 Chapter two

tithesis of the proud enemies who will be scattered (51b, cf also 1:71).

The 1t€lVWV1:€C; in verse 53 refers to the economically deprived who are so poor that they have nothing to eat. In this context 1t€l­

VWV1:€C; is a synonym for 1t1:WXOl which usually refers to the begging poor, as opposed to the ordinary poor (1tE:IIT'\c;) who have to work for a living (Schottroff & Stegemann 1978:26-28; Coenen 1977:38-39; Esser 1977:39-42 - cf chapter three, par 1.1).

The above distinction between the different types of suffering (social, political, economic) is admittedly somewhat artificial. The poor may be poor because they are oppressed, and the oppressed may be oppressed because they are poor. Mary, as a woman, may be an example of the poor, oppressed people of Israel. However, the distinction is necessary to avoid the exclusively economic (and spi­ritualised) way in which the Magnificat is so often interpreted.

It is significant that the soteriological activity described in the Magnificat is linked not to Jesus' death and resurrection, but to his birth. Although the poem itself does not mention Jesus' birth direct-1y' 'das Kommen des Messias ist als der unansgesprochene Hinter­grund dieses Lobpreis zu verstehen' (Gollwitzer 1952:20). By linking it to Jesus' coming rather than to his death, Luke's soteriology as re­flected in the Magnificat is in a sense pre-Christian or early Chris­tian - at any rate different from classical Christian soteriology. In the Magnificat it moreover consists in the abolition of human misfor­tune, and not merely in salvation from sin and death.

One could ask on what scale Luke envisaged the reversal of for­tunes. It is fruitless to speculate whether it happened or should hap­pen on a universal scale or not. The fact of the matter is that the re­versal of fortunes is integral to his view of the gospel and God's sote­riological activity. It happened to Mary, it happened to Jesus (cf chapter 4), it was preached by Jesus (6:20ff), was taught to his fol­lowers (cf 12:33; 10:25-37) and effected by the early Christian com­munity as described by Luke (Ac 2:44ff).

3 SUMMARY OF FURTHER EVIDENCE

This paragraph examines selected passages in Luke's Gospel (ex­cluding the Nazareth episode and the Magnificat) in order to see whether the comprehensive view of suffering detected in the perico-

Luke's comprehensive view of human sUffering 57

pes discussed above accords with at least some of the traditions which Luke relates in the rest of his Gospel.

The story of Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:5-80) simultaneously em­phasises various dimensions of suffering. Firstly, the childlessness of Zechariah and Elizabeth is presented as a social disgrace (cf 1:25). Secondly, the advanced age of the couple is emphasised (1:7; cf also 2:37 and chapter 3, par 5). Thirdly, there is greater emphasis on Eli­zabeth, the woman. She is the one who believed the angel, and she, together with Mary (to whom Jesus' birth is announced, rather than to Joseph as in Matthew's Gospel), becomes one of the two main characters of the annunciation narrative.

The ethical preaching of John the Baptist (3:10-14- for an exten­sive treatment see Scheffler 1990:21-36) not only emphasises the al­leviation of economic suffering, but the toll-collectors and soldiers (ostracised professions because of their exploitive activities) receive considerable attention. The toll-collectors and soldiers are exhorted not to oppress the people economically, but are not expected to quit their professions as the Pharisees and Sadducees demanded (cf J ere­mias 1971:113). The ethical preaching of John therefore compre­hends the dimensions of economic as well as social suffering.

In the healing of the paralytic (5:17-26) the dimensions of physical and spiritual suffering (sin) are clearly interwoven (cf especially vv 23-24). The fact that Luke took over this tradition from Mark, and the probability that the text reflects a world view in which sin is seen as the cause of disease, do not detract from the fact that the tradition is very much in keeping with Luke's comprehensive view on suffer­ing. This was noted earlier in the discussion of the term &cI>€O"tC; in the Nazareth pericope (cf 1.3.3 above).

The account of the calling of Levi (5:27-32) simultaneously em­phasises the ostracised toll-collectors and sinners, as is clear from the Pharisees' and scribes' murmuring against the disciples (v 30). The toll-collectors were rejected by the Pharisees and scribes because of their sinful practices. Jesus does not deny that they are sinners, but accepts Levi as a disciple and indicates that he, Jesus, came for the sake of sinners (5:32).

The four beatitudes which Luke transmits (6:20-23) also reflect various dimensions of suffering: poverty (v 20); hunger, being the physical effect of poverty (v 21); distress (KAatOv't€C;) which can be dermed as psychological SUffering or interpreted generically as the re-

58 Chapter two

sult of any kind of suffering (e g persecution which manifests itself in social ostracism; cf v 22). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that in Luke's beatitudes the emphasis is consistently on modes of suffering rather than on correct or moral behaviour (as in Matthew's version, cf Mt 5:1-12).

The episode of the healing of the centurion's servant (7:1-10) fo­cuses not only on the physical healing of the servant but also on the centurion himself who was a non-Israelite (political dimension, cf 7:9) and, as a soldier, practised a despised profession (social dimen­sion; cf chapter 3, par 2).

In 7:22, in his answer to the disciples of John the Baptist, Jesus summarises his ministry as bringing relief to people suffering from various kinds of physical ailments (the blind, the lame, lepers, the deaf, even the dead) as well as poverty (physical and economic di­mensions).

In the parable of the good Samaritan (10:25-37) three dimensions of suffering can be discerned. Firstly, the Samaritan attends to the physical needs of the assaulted man (v 34). Secondly, he helps him economically (v 35). Thirdly, there is apolitical dimension of suffer­ing because in Luke's composition the parable is told in response to the question, 'Who is my neighbour?' (v 29). Implicit in the inquiry of the lawyer (,who desired to justify himself') is the question whether or not the word 1tA1'\O'loV can be interpreted in an exclusivist sense. Jesus' parable not merely indicates that the hated Samaritans are the Jews' neighbours (and as such to be loved), but he accentu­ates the point by presenting the Samaritan as the alleviator of suffer­ing where the Levite and the priest had failed. The parable as a whole therefore fiercely criticises the political rejection of the Sama­ritans by the Jews.

In the parable of the great banquet (14:15-24) the economic and physical sufferers (cf 14:13,21) are again (as in 4:18 and 7:22) men­tioned in the same breath as the ones who should be invited to the feast.

In the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal son (chapter 15) the emphasis is on the lost. The parables are told (as Luke indicates himself; cf 15:1-3) by way of 'apology' (Grundmann 1974:304) or explanation to the Pharisees and scribes for Jesus' ac­ceptance of toll-collectors (the socially ostracised) and sinners (the spiritual sufferers). In the parable of the prodigal son, the son's sin is

Luke's comprehensive view of human suffering 59

not only unconditionally forgiven, but he is saved from his economic need (cfw 17,23).

The Sondergut tradition of the grateful Samaritan (17:11-19) fo­cuses not merely on the mercy that Jesus shows to the lepers (cf vv 13-14) but especially on the Samaritan who, as anOAAoYElI'f\c;; (politi­cal dimension, cf v 18), is the only one who thanked Jesus.

The parable of the Pharisee and the toll-collector (18:9-14), like the calling of Levi (5:27-32) and the Lucan 'apology' (15), focuses on both the social rejection of the toll collector (v 11) and the justifica­tion of the toll-collector as a sinner (vv 13-14). Similarly the episode about Zacchaeus (19:1-10) focuses on Zacchaeus who, as a toll-col­lector (social suffering), repents of his sin (spiritual suffering) by giv­ing to the poor (economic suffering).

The passion na"ative (Lk 22-23; cf also chapter 4) concentrates mainly on Jesus' own suffering (from which he is ultimately saved, not merely through his resurrection, but especially through his ascension which is recorded only by Luke; cf 24:46, 50-53). That Luke links Jesus passion and ascension is clear from his use of the words €~OOOc;; (cf 9:31) and avaAT\JJ.lJltC;; (cf 9:51) to refer to the events in Jerusalem (cf chapter four, par 3.2.2). His description of Jesus' passion emphasises Jesus' physical suffering (22:63-65; 23:26-43). In addition Luke underscores the psychological dimension of his suffering (cf the mockery, 22:63,65) by introducing the elaborate, dramatic description of Peter's denial of Jesus (22:54-62) and by communicating, through the centurion and the penitent robber, that Jesus suffered as aOlKatO«;; (23:41,47). The penitent robber himself is promised salvation on the same day from both his sin and his physi­cal suffering.

This bird's-eye view of suffering motifs in Luke's Gospel is by no means a complete presentation of Luke's view of suffering. How­ever, it bears out our contention that the multidimensional character of Luke's view of suffering as distinguished in the Nazareth episode and the Magnificat accords with a substantial number of passages in the rest of his Gospel. In the next chapter we take a systematic look at the six dimensions of suffering which we distinguish in the Gospel.

Chapter three

VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SUFFERING IN LUKE'S GOSPEL

In this chapter we shall systematise the various dimensions of suffer­ing distinguished in chapter two. Since we shall be dealing with the Gospel as a whole, individual passages will only be analysed to the extent that they clarify a specific dimension that features throughout the Gospel.

1 ECONOMIC SUFFERING

In the Nazareth pericope we found that, among the various dimen­sions of suffering, Luke singled out poverty for special attention. Because the motif of poverty in Luke-Acts has received considerable attention in the past (cf chapter one, par 2), we confine ourselves to problems relevant to our theme of comprehensive suffering. In this section we shall attempt to account for Luke's consistent focus on poverty and riches by discussing the reference of the term 1tt:wx6c;, outlining his use of his various sources to communicate his view of poverty, and examining both his attitude towards the rich and the re­lated topic of renunciation of possessions and charity.

1.1 The reference of the term mooxOc;;

In his Gospel Luke uses the term 1tt:wx6c; ten times (out of 34 occur­rences in the New Testament). In our discussion of the Nazareth episode (chapter two, par 1) we pointed out that the term 1tt:wxoc; is often treated as a sort of collective noun for all the disadvantaged. When Luke lists categories of people who suffer, he tends to use this term either heading the list (as in 4:18; 6:20; 14:13; 14:21) or as a climax at the end (cf Bosch 1988:5; Albertz 1983:199). Although the maimed, the blind and lepers were more often than not poor as well,

60

Various dimensions of sUffering in Luke's Gospel 61

and although poverty often led to sickness (as in Lazarus's case- cf 16:20), we contend that one should be wary of reading semantic components of related dimensions of suffering into the term m:wxOc; (what Barr 1969:218 calls 'illegitimate totality transfer'). In the end this robs it of its economic connotation and allows the concept of the poor to become spiritualised (e g Schmithals 1980:62). Nothing in Luke's use of the term in his Gospel compels us to assign it any meaning other than its basic economic reference of 'poor, destitute', even 'begging poor' (,bettelarm' - Rienecker 1970:137; cf Louw & Nida 1988:564; BammeI1959:886), as we shall demonstrate below.

Luke's use of the term in the Nazareth episode (4:18a) was dis­cussed in chapter two. Especially in view of 4:25-27, where Luke cites two separate examples (one of poverty - All.U1C; J.L€yac; - and one of sickness), €UaYY€Al(J(X(J8at m:wxo'lc; should be regarded as a literal reference to the poor (cf chapter two, par 1.4).

Luke's second use of the term occurs in the first beatitude QJ.aKO­Plot oi m:wxol, cf 6:20b), which, unlike Matthew 5:3, permits a literal interpretation. Such an interpretation is also most likely because the second beatitude (oi n€lVWV1:€C; vuv, cf 6:21/ /Mt 5:6; cf also 1:53) stands in apposition to the first, semantically limiting it (hunger defmes poverty).

In Jesus' answer to John the Baptist (7:22), the expression m:wxol €u(XYY€All;,OV1:at appears at the end of a list of suffering groups. Since this tradition is common to Luke and Q (cf Mt 11:5), it should be noted that in the early Palestinian context the term n1:wxOc; could have implied more than just poverty (cf our remarks about the Ana­wim in the discussion of the Magnificat - chapter two, par 2.2). The text itself, however, contains nothing which compels us to interpret it metaphorically. Indeed, since m:wxOc; in 4:18 most likely refers to economic poverty (cf above), the similar expression appearing short­ly afterwards most probably has the same reference.

The same argument is applicable to the next two uses of the term, namely 14:13 (whom to invite to a meal) and 14:21 (in the para­ble of the great banquet). In fact, these two instances provide even more convincing support for our contention because they include economic motifs: the banquet implies wealth, or at any rate things which then1:wxol do not have (cf 14:12,16,19).

Both the next two instances appear in the parable about Lazarus and the rich man (16:20,22), and both refer to Lazarus whose poverty

62 Chapter three

and physical suffering are vividly described (16:20-21). Lazarus's sickness (in addition to his skin disease he was probably also crippled - e:1}€I}Arrro; cf Jeremias 1970:183) may well have been caused by poverty; at all events, the accent is on poverty because of his desire to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table (accord­ing to Jeremias 1970:183, 'Stucke der Brotfladen, die man zum Ein­tauchen in die Schussel und zum Abwischen der Hande gebrauchte und dann unter den Tisch warf). Lazarus is actually a case of pover­ty to the point of beggary (m:wx6c; in its most literal sense) and he is clearly contrasted with an economically wealthy man (ltAOUCTtOC;;, 16:21b). Furthermore, Luke placed the parable in a context which deals with economic matters (16:1,5-7,9,13,14a). Since 16:19-31 seems to be the passage in Luke's Gospel in which the term m:wxoc;; receives the most intensive attention, it is highly probable that he had the same reference in mind when he used the word elsewhere in the Gospel.

In the episode of Jesus' meeting with the rich ruler (18:22) the term is clearly used in an economic sense since the selling of goods (Luke inserts ltaVLa!) is involved. This is further underlined by Peter's response in 18:28 where La lOla (Mk 10:28 reads ltaVLa) re­fers to possessions (Bammel 1959:904; Nida & Louw 1988:559; cf also Ac 4:32).

The 'economic' context of the poor widow's mite (21:3) is appa­rent in every verse of 21:1-4. An interesting point is Luke's substitu­tion of xnpa lt€Vlxpa (21:2) for Mark's ftrst use of xi!pa ltLWXTt (Mk 12:42b). II€vlxp0C;; means the same as ltLWX0C;; and therefore limits the meaning of the latter to 'very poor' or bettelann (Nida & Louw 1988:564).

We can therefore conclude with a high degree of probability that Luke consistently used the term ltLWX0C;; in its literal sense. Where he omits an episode containing the term this seems to be because he in­terpreted it literally: Jesus' seemingly negative attitude towards the poor in Mark 14:7 could well have been one of the reasons for Luke's omission of the Marcan episode of the woman with the oint­ment (Mk 14:3-9). Our argument seems to find further support in Luke's use of ltAOUCTtOC;; (and the verb ltAOUL€LV) as the antonym of ltLWXOC;. Both these words are used with an economic reference throughout the Gospel (cf 1:53; 6:24; 12:16; 14:12; 16:1,19,21,22; 18:23,25; 19:2; 21:1), except in one instance where the verb is used in

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 63

a manifestly metaphorical sense (12:21: €tC; 9€ov nAoU1:wv). Al­though the term may have had more than just an economic refer­ence in Palestian Judaism and early Christianity (e g Mt 5:3), it is most unlikely that Luke, a hellenistic writer, would have used it me­taphorically. That he felt concern for other dimensions of suffering as well we have already demonstrated, but he never uses the term m:wx.6c; to signify these dimensions. Concern for spiritual or reli­gious suffering (cf 6 below) never caused him to interpret the con­cept of the poor metaphorically, thereby lessening the emphasis on their economic suffering.

1.2 Poverty and Luke's use of his sources

A look at Luke's concentration on poverty in the light of his use of his sources gives one some impression of the prominence of this theme in his thought, for his redactional work is conspicuously ex­tensive in this area.

From Mark's Gospel Luke transmits the tradition of the rich ruler (18:18-30/ /Mk 10:17-31) and the widow's mite (21:1-4); he also introduces an interesting substitution in the Marcan tradition of Jesus' anointment by the woman of Bethany (Mk 14:3-9//7:36-50). Luke omits the negative reference to the poor in Mark 14:7, retelling the story in order to put the spotlight squarely on the ostracised woman (cf 2.4 and 6.2 below).

From Q the Gospel takes traditions like the answer to John the Baptist (cf 7:22/ /Mt 11:5) and the first beatitude (cf 6:20/ /Mt 5:3). As far as the latter is concerned, it is noteworthy that Luke (as opposed to Matthew) gives a literal interpretation of the poor, also evident in his second beatitude (6:21, cf also 1:53 where 'hunger' defines poverty). It is interesting that the command to love one's enemy (6:27-42/ /Mt 5:38-48) is applied mainly on an economic level: love of one's enemies means to give what they ask and not ask for any of it back (6:30), to lend without hoping to be repaid (6:35) and to give freely (6:38). According to Schottroff and Stegemann (1978:148) even 6:37b (6nOAU€t:€, KalanoAu9itO'€0'9€) should be in­terpreted economically ('Schulden erlassen'; cf however Marshall 1978:266 and 6.1 below). In Jesus' admonition to the the Pharisees about inner morality (11:39/ /Mt 23:25-26) he recommends almsgiv­ing, and the heavenly treasure to be pursued (12:33/ /Mt 6:19-21) is also interpreted in this sense (cf 1.4 below).

64 Chapter three

Several of Luke's Sondergut traditions contain the motif of pover­ty: the Magnificat (1:53); John's ethical preaching (3:10-14); the parable of the great banquet (Lk 14, especially w 13 and 21); and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (16:19-31). We have also noted that Luke himself was most probably responsible for the introduc­tion of the motif of poverty from Isaiah 61:1 in 4:18 (cf chapter two, par 1.3.3).

13 Luke's attitude towards the rich

In some of Luke's traditions (which Horn 1980:168-188 designates 'ebionite') rejection of the rich is accompanied by a positive attitude towards the poor. In the Magnificat the filling of the hungry is paral­leled by the rich being sent away empty-handed (1:53), and the bless­ing of the poor (6:20-21) is paralleled by rejection of the rich (6:24-25). If these passages are read in conjunction with the parable of the rich fool (12:16-21), the question arises whether Luke's attitude to­wards the rich is not totally condemnatory. In my opinion, the para­ble of Lazarus and the rich man (also regarded as an ebionite tradi­tion by Horn) offers an answer to this question.

In order to appreciate the full meaning of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, one should take into account Ellis's (1974:201) ob­servation that 16:19-31 is a 'double pronged parable' which, with the 'double pronged saying' in 16:14-18, forms a single episode. As far as the first part of the parable (16:19-26) is concerned, the narrative structure can actually be defmed in terms of the sayings Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God and Woe unto you that are rich (6:20,24). In the parable Lazarus's unhappy fate is reversed, for he is taken up into Abraham's bosom, while the fate of the rich man changes for the worse (16:22-23). The reversal of fortunes is por­trayed in such vehement (16:23-24b) and fmal (16:26) terms that the reader may well be puzzled by the torments of the rich man (oouvw­Mal €V 1:fj ~Aoyl 1:cxU1:t;\, 16:24b), since the reason for his punishment is not mentioned (cf Du Plessis 1985:148). The explanation for Luke's apparent attitude of oual UMtV nAouO'totc;; is to be found in the second part of the parable (cf Du Plessis 1985:149), as well as the parable's position in the context of chapter 16 (contra Du Plessis 1985:149).

The second part of the parable (16:27-31) provides some explana­tion for the reversal of fortunes: when the rich man began to plead

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 65

for his five brothers, Abraham refers him to Moses and the prophets. His remark (clKOUO'Cl'tWO'QV cxll1:WV, 16:29) implies that the rich man should attribute his suffering to his remissness in obeying Scripture. We are not told, however, in what way the rich man has failed to obey Scripture.

In his commentary (16:9-13) on the parable of the unjust steward (16:1-8), Jesus explains why he praised the steward and urges his followers to 'make friends' by means of money and riches (EK 'toO Jl(XJlwvCi tile:; aBlKic:xc:;, 16:9) and to be faithful in the unrighteous mam­mon (16:11). Since faithfulness here implies readiness to serve God (16:13), making friends with mammon does not mean gathering more riches, but using riches as a means of service. This the Lucan Pharisees (who loved money) could not stomach and therefore they scoffed at Jesus (16:14). Jesus' response to the Pharisees in 16:15-18 is 'double pronged' (Ellis 1974:201). Firstly, he refers them to the values which matter to God: 'to EV clv9pcll1tole:; U~T'\AOV I}O€AUYJl(X EVW1tlOV 'toO 9EOO (16:15b). The first part of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is a vivid illustration of this basic principle. Second­ly, Jesus refers to the law and the prophets, which are still binding (even more stringently as far as adultery is concerned - cf 16:18) and are not abrogated by the preaching of the kingdom of God (16:16-18). Jesus' remarks in 16:16-18 correspond with the second part of the parable (16:27-31): the rich man had to listen to Moses and the prophets.

Within the context of chapter 16 as a whole it becomes clear that the rich man served mammon and not God (16:13b); like the Phar­isees, he was a~tA6pyupoc:; (16:14a) and not a maker offriends with money and riches. As a result he was not received 'into the eternal habitations' (16:9b) but had to endure the anguish of Hades (16:23-25). The woe of 6:24a applied to him. The situation of the parable forces the Lucan reader to ponder those sections of Moses and the prophets that the rich man (and the Pharisees who scoffed at Jesus) overlooked. Being the counterpart of the Pharisees, it is impossible that he could have ignored the Torah (the impression created by Du Plessis's analysis - 1985:149), for the Pharisees' attitude in this re­gard was well known (cf 18:12). The reader's only clues are the de­mand to serve by means of mammon and the situation in the parable in which the rich man disobeyed. Faced with the poor man Lazarus at his gate, he should have served him (and therefore God) with his

66 Chapter three

money. He should have listened to the words of (inter alia) Deutero­nomy 15:4-11:

But there will be no poor among you ... If there is among you a poor man, one of your brethren, in any of your towns within your land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor bro­ther, but you shall open your hand to him, and lend him suffi­cient for his need, whatever it may be ... You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him; because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in the land (RSV).

That the rich man did not heed these words from 'Moses and the prophets' is evident from Lazarus's desire to fill himself with what fell from the rich man's table (16:21). He was rejected not for his riches per se (as a wealthy person he could have been blessed in all his undertakings- Dt 14:10), but because he did not show mercy by giving to the poor. The same idea is communicated by the tradition of the rich ruler (18:18-30), and especially the episode of Zacchaeus the toll-collector (19:1-10). Luke does not hesitate to state explicitly that Zacchaeus was rich (19:2), but because he was prepared to give half his possessions to the poor, he was saved and (cf Lazarus in 16:23) was called a son of Abraham (19:9; cf also Schottroff & Stege­mann 1978:137-140).

Degenhardt's contention (1965:133) that the whole of Luke 16 forms a unit and is ' ... ein "ethisces Kompendium", das dem christlich­en Amtstrager fur seine ethische Unterweisung Material in die Hand gibt', seems to be supported by our analysis. The injunction to make friends by means of mammon (16:9) is a call to serve God (16:13b) and is a 'Mahnung zur Wohltatigkeit' (1965:120-125). The addres­sees, however, should probably not be limited to the Christian clergy of Luke's day, but should include especially the rich Christians to whom Luke's Gospel in all likelihood is directed (Van Tilborg 1988:212).

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 67

1.4 Renunciation of possessions and charity

In view of the fact that Luke usually emphasises the immediate relief of suffering (cf his use of oT!JlE:pov in 2: 12; 4:21; 13:22; 19:5,9; 23:43), napaXP11JlQ in 4:39, 5:25; 8:44,47,55; 13:13; 18:43; Ac 3:7, and vuv in 1:48; 2:29; cf also 11:20; 17:21) the 'eschatological' nature of the pro­mise of the kingdom to the poor in 6:20b (cf also Lazarus's salvation which only occurred in the hereafter) poses a problem. Is the salva­tion promised to the poor as a pie in the sky, while their suffering in this life continues?

Luke's presentation of the motifs of renunciation of possessions and charity seems to provide an answer. In our analysis of the para­ble of Lazarus and the rich man (1.3 above) we noticed that, al­though Lazarus's ultimate salvation was eschatological, the parable was told to the Pharisees in order to encourage charity towards the poor in this life. Luke's concern for the poor therefore seems to be closely related to his view of possessions and charity. Jesus' followers are told to do away with possessions and give to the poor. An austere life style is advocated. We briefly consider some relevant passages.

In John the Baptist's ethical preaching (in which Luke tones down John's proclamation of judgment, as presented to him by Q) the haves are told to share with the have-nots (3:11). Because the saying is addressed to the multitude (cf 3:10), it is not just the rich who are enjoined to give to the poor; those among the poor who have even a little should also give to the begging poor (who have nothing). Luke's presentation of the early church as a sharing community (cf Ac 2:44-47) seems to correlate with John's ethical teaching. That the community was probably poor is suggested by the collection taken for them by the hellenistic churches (Rm 15:26; 2 Cor 8:4). In Jeru­salem (Luke's ideal) it was not just a case of the rich giving to the poor, but of Christians, rich and poor alike, sharing.

The manner in which Luke reinterprets a tradition in order to emphasise his own concern is evident when one compares Matthew 23:25-26 with Luke 11:39-41:

MATTHEW 23:25-26 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside are full of extor-

LUKE 11:39-41 Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wicked-

68 Chapter three

tion and rapacity. You blind Phari­see! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

ness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.

Careful comparison of the above verses reveals that Luke inter­prets the original Q-tradition (which probably dealt with inner as op­posed to ritual morality) in terms of the ethics of charity. The term 'inside' (€O'w9€v) leads him to think of the contents of the dish, which could be given to the poor (1:eX €VDV1:a 061:€ €A€Tl~oaUVT\V-41a). Thus to him almsgiving is the basis of all morality, for it cleanses the person (cf 11:41b).

For Luke, renunciation of possessions and charity go hand in hand. Subtle emendations to the Marcan text emphasise this motif, for example the fact that Luke deletes all possible references to the fact that Jesus owned a house (cf 5:29/ /Mk 2:15; Mk 2:1-2//5:17; Mk 9:33//9:46, cf also 24:12). Austerity is also clearly advocated in Jesus' answer to the man who wanted his brother to share his inheri­tance (12:13-15, Sondergut). The man is expressly warned against co­vetousness, and the parable of the rich fool (Sondergut) is told to drive home the message that human life does not consist in abun­dant possessions but in being 'rich toward God' (cf 12:21). By trans­mitting the Q-tradition about earthly anxieties (12:22-31/ /Mt 6:25-33) directly after the parable of the rich fool, Luke is actually imply­ing that one should not worry even about obtaining the commodities needed for daily living. One's sole concern should be to be eie; 9€ov 1tAOU1:@V (12:21b), that is, to seek God's kingdom and secure a heavenly treasure (12:31,33).

In his presentation of the tradition of the heavenly treasure (12:33-34/ /Mt 6:19-21) Luke probably amended Q. The disciples are not told simply to gather a treasure in heaven instead of on earth (cf Mt 6:19-21); Luke interprets the saying in practical terms (Sell your possessions and give alms, 12:33). This correlates with Jesus' ad­vice to the rich ruler in the Marcan tradition (Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, cf 18:22/ /Mk 10:21). Note the motif of the 9110'aup6c; €V 1:0te; oupavOte; in both traditions.

Conclusion: For Luke 'the poor' is not a spiritualised concept but refers to real people living in this world, people who are not only es-

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 69

chatologically blessed (6:20) but whose this-worldly needs also have to be satisfied. The fact that the disciples are called to beware ana no:OT\C; 7tA€ov€~iac; (12:15; also 3:14) and to give alms is an impor­tant feature of Lucan soteriology. Liberation of the poor will come about not just through God's action, but also through human pity and sharing (which to Luke's mind equals richness towards God, his kingdom and heavenly treasure). The injunctions to renounce pos­sessions (Armutsforderung) and practise charity (Wohltiitigkeitsparii­nese) are juxtaposed dialectically and should not be contrasted (con­tra Horn 1983:186-188). The main thrust of Luke's argument is that the lot of the poor should be ameliorated.

2 SOCIAL SUFFERING

By social suffering is meant the ostracism to which people were sub­jected for belonging to specific groups in contemporary Jewish (or hellenistic) society. On the whole the poor were social outcasts as a result of their poverty, but social suffering is distinguished from eco­nomic suffering because it refers to people who, albeit not necessari­ly poor, were outcasts simply because they belonged to a specific group. This category is also distinguished from political suffering, which refers (amongst other things) to rejection based on member­ship of a specific race or nation (e g Samaritans, gentiles).

According to our analysis Luke seems to concentrate on three despised professions (toll-collectors, shepherds and soldiers), women and children.

21 Toll-collectors

Fitzmyer (1986:469-470) argues convincingly that 'toll-collector' is a better translation for the Greek term 1:€AWVTlC; than 'publican' or 'tax-collector', since these terms refer to the collectors of direct taxes (poll tax, land tax, Greek: 6TlJ..l0c11.wV€c;) who were directly employed by the Roman government. Toll-collectors collected indirect taxes (tolls, tariffs, import and customs duties) at local toll-houses (cf 5:27) and were actually employed by6px.t1:€AWV€C; (cf 19:2) who 'had to pay the expected revenue to the Romans in advance and then seek to recoup the amount, plus expenses and profits, by assessing and collecting the tolls' (Fitzmyer 1986: 469-470). Because of the obvious

70 Chapter three

abuses and dishonesty to which the system was open, toll-collectors were hated by their fellow Jews. They could, for instance, not belong to either the Sadducean or the Pharisaic party without making resti­tution and giving up their profession (Jeremias 1971:113).

In addition to Mark's solitary tradition concerning toll-collectors (Mk 2:13-17//5:33-39), Luke includes several others. With regard to possible Q-traditions, it seems that Matthew still retained traditions containing ad malam paTtern references to toll-collectors (cf Mt 5:43-48 and especially Mt 18:15-17). Luke not only omitted these tradi­tions but actually reports (contra Mt 11:7-19) that the toll-collectors responded positively to Jesus' remarks about John the Baptist (7:29).

From his Sondergut material Luke includes only positive tradi­tions about toll-collectors. In John's ethical preaching (3:13) the toll­collectors are indeed admonished not to exploit the ordinary peo­ple's ignorance about toll tariffs in order to enrich themselves. But they are depicted as responding positively to John's preaching (in contrast to the Sadducees and Pharisees, cf 3:12/ /Mt 3:7; 7:29-30), and what is expected of them is not as harsh as what the Sadducees and Pharisees demanded: they may continue as toll-collectors. From the redactional note in 15:1-2 (Jesus' dining with toll-collectors and sinners) it is clear that the father's unconditional acceptance of the prodigal son in the ensuing parable should be understood to refer to Jesus' unconditional acceptance of toll-collectors as well. Further­more, Luke includes two Sondergut passages in which toll-collectors feature dominantly. In the parable of the Pharisee and the toll-col­lector (18:9-14) the traditional roles are reversed: the toll-collector, confessing himself to be a sinner, went home justified rather than the Pharisee who claimed to be justified. In view of the Pharisees' antagonistic attitude towards toll-collectors, the semiotic effect of the parable is obvious. The passage about Zacchaeus the chief toll­collector (19:1-10) also seems to have been written against the back­ground of the despised status of toll-collectors. In the pericope the social motif of contempt is interwoven with the economic one. Al­though rich (19:2, sic), Zacchaeus was socially ostracised (cf espe­cially v 7). His merit consisted not in quitting his profession (as the Pharisees and Sadducees demanded), but in making restitution and sharing with the poor. Even before his repentance (v 8) he was so­cially accepted by Jesus (v 5).

Various dimensions of sUffering in Luke's Gospel 71

To summarise, Luke retains only 'positive' traditions about the toll-collectors from Mark and Q. He also adds several positive tradi­tions from his Sondergut and does not transmit a single 'negative' tradition.

2.2 Shepherds

In contemporary rabbinic literature shepherds were always evaluated pejoratively. They were thought of as thieves and swindlers; theirs was a listed profession, like that of toll-collectors, and they could not testify in court because their evidence was considered untrustworthy (Jeremias 1974:304-305). The favourable role that Luke assigns the shepherds in the narration of Jesus' birth (cf 2:8-20) should be evalu­ated against this background. In Luke's story it is the despised shep­herds who bear witness to Jesus' birth and the meaning of his com­ing (cf 2:11,17-18). The fact that all the hearers in 2:18 were sur­prised at the shepherds' witness (as opposed to Mary's positive reac­tion) probably reflects their view of shepherds as untrustworthy wit­nesses.

If one compares the shepherds' visit to the baby Jesus with that of the rich Gudging by their gifts) magi in Matthew 2:1-12, the hum­ble, even impoverished state of the shepherds is thrown into sharp relief. Although the differences between Matthew 2:1-12 and Luke 2:8-20 are too many to assume a common written source, the resem­blances (the visit, the supernatural guidance, the fmding of the baby) permit the possibility that Luke was familiar with the magi tradition. Whatever the case may be, Luke chose to recount a tradition reflect­ing a favourable attitude towards the shepherds (contra Du Plessis & Lategan 1983:109). The shepherds cannot present splendid gifts like the magi, but are nevertheless the first recipients of the 'good news' (2:10).

In Jesus' teaching too shepherds playa positive role. In the para­ble of the lost sheep (15:4-6/ /Mt 18:12-14, Q according to Schulz 1972:387, contra Marshall 1978:60), the shepherd is pictured as one who cares about a single lost sheep and rejoices when he fmds it. Furthermore, like the woman and the father in the ensuing parables (15:8-32), the shepherd in this parable (in his caring for his sheep) refers metaphorically to God.

72 Chapter three

23 Soldiers

In 3:14 soldiers (who most probably were despised because they were Jewish mercenaries serving in the army of Herod Antipas - cf Wellhausen 1904:5; Bornhauser 1934:12-14; Fitzmyer 1986:470) are treated in the same fashion as toll-collectors (cf v 13). Although warned, like the toll-collectors, not to abuse their position to enrich themselves, they are portrayed as reacting positively to the Baptist's preaching and are not required to relinquish their profession. In 7:1-10 the emphasis is on the faith of the centurion, of whom Jesus says that he has not found such great faith even in Israel. The soldiers' mockery of Jesus in the passion account is also toned down by Luke (cf the omission of Mk 15: 16-20a/ /Mt 27:27-31a; cf however 23:36), and after Jesus' death the centurion is the rrrst to proclaim his belief that Jesus died innocently (23:47/ /Mk 15:39). In Acts, moreover, the conversion of the centurion Cornelius is narrated in particular detail (Ac 10:1-45; cf also Ac 16:23-40).

24 Women

In the New Testament world (including Hellenism, Judaism and to some extent early Christianity- cf 1 Cor 11:3,7; Col 3:18; 1 Tm 2:11-14), women were often looked upon with contempt. Oepke (1953: 776-777) remarks: 'Fur die herkommliche Stellung und Schatzung des Weibes ist charakteristisch ein bei Persern, Griechen und Juden verschieden uberlieferter Dankspruch des Mannes, dass er kein Un­glaubiger bzw Ungebildeter, kein Weib, kein Unfreier sei: Luke's Gospel differs from this assessment to such an extent that it is often called the 'Gospel of women' (e g Schmithals 1980:13). Because Luke's treatment of the subject of women is so extensive, we confine ourselves to a few cursory remarks.

In the very first episode in Luke's narrative (1:39-45) Elizabeth and Mary are the main characters. Elizabeth is depicted as the faith­ful one (in contrast to Zechariah) who believed the angel's message and whose social disgrace is taken away (1:25). Mary is portrayed as the highly favoured one to whom Jesus' birth is announced (not to Joseph, as in Matthew's Gospel). She praises God and, in the impor­tant (especially for Lucan theology) song that has come to be known as the Magnificat (cf chapter two, par 2), prophesies that she will be called blessed by future generations (1:48). She is also depicted as

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 73

very much involved in Jesus' fate (cf 1:34-35; 2:51). In view of the fact that in contemporary society women were not

considered trustworthy witnesses, were not normally allowed to preach and were not expected to become involved in religious mat­ters (Cohen 1968: 159-162; 307, cf 1 Tm 2:12), Luke's introduction of the widow Anna (who prophesied the expected redemption of Jeru­salem - cf 2:38; Tannehill 1986:134-135) and the pericope on Martha and Mary (10:38-42, cf Brutscheck 1986:167; Tannehill 1986:137) are significant. Both pericopes suggest a role contrary to that traditional­ly reserved for women. To these the parable of the widow and the judge (18:1-8) may be added: her conduct provides an illustration of persistent, confident prayer (Stahlin 1973:438).

Luke's episode of the sinful woman (7:36-50) also reflects his concern for women: in contrast to the critical Pharisee, she is praised as the one who loved much. Luke's Gospel moreover includes a re­dactional note that there were women among Jesus' followers (8:1-3), and it seems to be the same group of women who are favourably contrasted with the apostles in the report of Jesus' empty grave (cf 24:10-11). We have already referred (cf chapter two, par 1.4) to the numerous examples of men and women who 'stand together and side by side before God' (Navone 1970:224, cf 2:25-38; 4:25-28; 4:31-39; 7:1-17; 8:1-3; 12:45; 15:4-10; 17:34-36; 18:1-14; 23:55-24:35; Ac 5:1-11; 9:32-42; 16:13-34; 17:34- cfFlender 1968:15).

Jesus' care for women is portrayed most dramatically in his heal­ing of the crippled woman (13:10-17, cf 4.6 below) and the occasion when, on his way to be crucified (23:26-31; Sondergut), he directed the attention of the lamenting women away from his own suffering to theirs and their children's (23:28, cf chapter 4, par 2.3). It is note­worthy that Luke pays special attention to widows, the women who suffered most in society (Stahlin 1973:430, cf 2:37; 4:25; 7:12; 18:3; 20:47; 21:2). In Jesus' raising of the son of the widow of Nain (7:11-17) the focus is on the plight of the widow who lost her only (7:12) son. Jesus' compassion towards her is explicitly stated: E01tAaYXVtO'-81'\ E1t' aLl1:fj Kat. €t1t€V aLl'l:fj, J..lTt KAat€ (7:13). Jesus also vehemently attacks the scribes 'who devour widows' houses (20:47) and imme­diately afterwards displays a positive attitude towards the poor widow who out of her poverty put... [into the treasury] all the living she had (21:1-4).

74 Chapter three

25 Children In Luke's Gospel children feature prominently (cf De Villiers 1980: 200). There is much exegetical confusion about 1:17 (John will tum

the hearts of the fathers to the children), but Plummer's (1981:15) sug­gestion that it should be interpreted literally deserves consideration, partly because it accords with the background against which Luke's emphasis on children should be understood. According to Plummer, parental affection had probably declined in contemporary society, with the result that children suffered (cf also Oepke 1954:639). The fact that Luke omits the phrase and the hearts of children to their fathers (MI4:6) tallies with the view that in the messianic age paren­tal affection will be restored. The parable of the prodigal son con­veys the same notion: the emphasis is on the father who accepts his suffering child unconditionally (15:11-32).

Luke's emphasis on children is also evident in the fact that his in­fancy narrative is the most detailed one in all the Gospels. He in­cludes the famous episode of how the twelve-year-old Jesus asto­nished all in the temple with his wisdom, but also presented a model of obedience (2:48,51). In his narration of Jesus' actual birth the in­fant (JlpE~ = small baby) is focal (2:12,16). The child Jesus occu­pies the centre of Luke's picture when Simeon utters the Nunc Di­mitt is (2:25-35). As a baby in Simeon's arms, Jesus is already called 'to (JwLitptoV (2:30, cf chapter four, par 1.1 and 3.2.3).

This positive attitude is not limited to the child Jesus. Luke re­lates the story ofJohn the Baptist's infancy. It is announced to Zecha­riah that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mo­ther's womb (1:15), and during Mary's visit to Elizabeth the child (JlpEcj>oc;) leaped for joy in his mother's womb (1:41-44). In 1:66 the question (asked by the people) about the child John's future is prompted by the fact that the people saw that 'the hand of the Lord was with him' even in childhood. Moreover, in the Benedictus that follows (1:67-79) the child John is himself addressed by Zechariah and told that he will be a prophet of the Most High (1:76).

The most famous tradition exemplifying Jesus' positive attitude towards children (Mk 10:13-16, cfMt 19:13-15) is also transmitted by Luke (18:15-17). Besides the fact that Luke (unlike the other evange­lists) again uses the word ~PEcj>oC;; (indicating a very small baby) in verse 15, the pericope explicitly records Jesus' rebuke of the disci­ples' intolerance towards children. By citing children as a model of

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 75

what people should be like if they are to enter the kingdom, Luke seems to imply that children are saved simply because they are child­ren. He who receives a child receives God (cf 9:48/ /Mk 9:37). Luke does not include the Matthean qualification 'who believe in me' (cf Mt 18:6) where children are concerned. If 9:48b (for he who is least [JllKp6T.€poc;.] among you all is the one who is great) is compared with Mark 9:35 (if anyone would be first, he must be last), it is clear that children feature prominently in Luke's scheme of the reversal of for­tunes (cf 1:51-53; 14:11; 18:14).

Children are also introduced in various healing episodes in Luke's Gospel (cf 7:11-17; 8:40-46; 9:37-45). Their importance in these miracles is stressed by the way in which Luke (in contrast to his sources) always specifies the 'only son' (7:12; 9:38) or 'only daughter' (8:42).

Conclusion: Although Luke seems to focus predominantly on the above-mentioned groups of social outcasts, his social concern can be detected elsewhere as well. For instance, there seems to be great empathy for those who are persecuted, especially if it is for the sake of the Son of man (cf Luke's rather long beatitude, 6:22-23/ /Mt 5:11-12; also chapter three, par 1.3-1.6). Part of the persecution usually entails social ostracism (i..t.lO'€lV, 6c1>opi~€lV, 6:22). There is also a social dimension to his emphasis on the poor, the sick (espe­cially lepers) and sinners (cf 7:36-50), who were often ostracised be­cause their disabilities were not tolerated in 'normal' society.

3 POLITICAL SUFFERING

By political suffering is meant the suffering of an entire nation (or nations) at the hand of other nations, or an individual's suffering on account of his nationality. The suffering may refer to actual political oppression (e g that ofthe Jews by the Romans) or to contempt and enmity between nations. In our discussion of the Nazareth episode we touched upon Luke's criticism of Jewish exc1usivism. However, according to our analysis, universalism is not the only political ele­ment of Luke's message. He also shows sympathy for the political suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Romans, and that of the Samaritans at the hands of the Jews.

76 Chapter three

3.1 The Jews (Israel)

Luke's criticism of Jewish exclusivism may create the impression that he was indifferent to the political suffering or oppression of the J ew­ish people as a political entity. This is not the case, as is clear from the annunciation of Jesus' birth, the Magnificat and the Benedictus.

In the annunciation of Jesus' birth to Mary (1:26-38) the angel commands Mary (as he does Joseph in Mt 1:21) to call the child Jesus (meaning Yahweh saves). In contrast to the account in Mat­thew's Gospel, this salvation is not limited to salvation from sin. Ac­cording to 1:32-33 the purpose of Jesus' birth is rather his eternal kingship of the people of Israel (cf 1:16-17). Since there are no indi­cations in the text that OiKOC;; , IaKw~ (1:33) should be interpreted in a spiritual sense (perhaps because of Luke's universalism), one con­cludes that in the annunciation episode the term does not merely ap­ply at an individual or spiritual level, but indeed has nationalistic and political overtones.

In the Nunc Dimittis (especially 2:32) the o:noKOAu"nc;; e:9vwv does not cancel out the M~o AWU (YOU ' IopaTtA. Although 1:32-33 (contra Ford 1976) probably does not permit the conclusion that Luke had zealot sympathies, the expression Ao.6c;; , Iapaf\A undenia­bly retains its political significance for Luke and the 'people of Israel' are therefore the object of God's salvation in a political sense as well (the throne of David will be given to Jesus and he will reign over the house of Jacob). In view of contemporary Jewish expectations, only an explicitly metaphorical interpretation ofMOc;; , Iapm1A in the text could make a spiritual sense likely.

In the case of the Magnificat (1:46-55), the above interpretation seems even more probable. At the beginning of the Magnificat Mary calls God her awn'\p (1:47), and what follows in verses 48-55 is a de­scription of God's soteriological activity (cf chapter two, par 2). Al­though the first section of the song (48-50) concerns Mary's humble status and the promise of her future blessedness, the second section (1:51-55) proceeds to include different classes of people in society, and at the end the song reaches its climax in the saving of Israel as a nation. The reversal of power relationships seems to have nationalis­tic rather than universal overtones. The reference to the t:a1tElVOl in verse 52b should clearly be interpreted politically (and not economi­cally in assimilation to v 53), since it stands in apposition to 'the mighty from their thrones' in verse 52a. Israel the servant (note;;,

Various dimensions of sUffering in Luke's Gospel 77

1:54a) also represents political suffering, in contrast to the proud (enemies) who will be scattered (1:51). Although Winter's (1954) view that the Magnificat was originally a Maccabean battle hymn cannot be proven, his perception of its political overtones (depicting the people of Israel in an oppressed situation) deserves considera­tion. Although Luke possibly borrowed the Magnificat from tradi­tion, he did not alter its political content. One might rather argue that by selecting the Magnificat for inclusion in his infancy narrative he consciously emphasised the political meaning of Jesus' birth for the people of Israel.

The Benedictus (1:68-79), another 'political' hymn borrowed by Luke, contains even more explicit references revealing his concern about Israel's political oppression. The theme of salvation is domi­nant in the song (relevant terms occur five times, cf vv 68,69,71, 74, 77) and the people of Israel are the object of salvation throughout the poem. In verses 68-69 it is said that God visited and redeemed his people by raising a horn of salvation (the Messiah). Verses 71 and 74 explicitly state what kind of salvation is meant: national deliverance from their enemies. The deliverance is also described as a 'visitation' (cf 1:68,78). The Greek word e:1tt<TK€m:€<T8at (to visit) literally means 'to look for' (cf Ac 7:23), but is usually employed when relief from suffering is in sight (cf Mt 25:36,43; Lk 1:68; 7:16; Ac 15:14; Heb 2:6; Ja 1:27; contra Ex 20:5!).

In the second part of the Benedictus (1:76-79) salvation is inter­preted spiritually as 'the forgiveness of sins' (v 77). In verse 79 the lost, sinful state is described as being 'in darkness and in the shadow of death' and the state of deliverance as the 'way of peace'; the latter corresponds with the fearless service of God mentioned in verse 74. According to Schweizer (1982:27-30) the second part of the Be­nedictus is a Christian (Lucan?) addition to the original Jewish hymn and represents a reinterpretation of the original hymn (1:68-75). Thus a~€<Ttc; cl)lOp1:l@V (1:77) is an interpretation of <Tw1:T)pio e:~ e:X8p@v (1:71,74). It is debatable, however, whether Luke would have included the proto-Benedictus in his text if he wished to suggest deliverance in an exclusively spiritual sense. Certainly his concept of salvation has a spiritual aspect, as can be deduced from his transmis­sion of John's preaching in 3:3-6. But, as in the case of the Magnifi­cat, it seems more likely that by including the proto-Benedictus, Luke was introducing the political implications of his concept of sal-

78 Chapter three

vation in addition to its spiritual dimension. Whilst acknowledging the political overtones of the Benedictus,

we nonetheless reject Ford's (1976: 283) view that this song (like the Magnificat) is a militant hymn which reflects the zealot sympathies in Luke's Gospel. According to Ford (1976:280) the 'main purpose of Luke's Gospel (and, perhaps, Acts) is to present a book of conso­lation to the disappointed Zealot', since the historical Jesus disso­ciated himself from the zealot cause. Although Ford identifies many typically zealot motifs in the infancy narrative, evidence of zealot vio­lence or militance is lacking. Verses 74 (6c/>61}wc;; Aa-rp€U€tV aU-r41) and 79 (006c; eipilVTlC;) in fact suggest the contrary.

On the basis of the rest of the Gospel, Cassidy (1980:20-86) argues convincingly that the Lucan Jesus was not indifferent about the Ro­mans' oppression of the Jewish nation. Although he seems unin­terested in obtaining political power himself and does not commit himself to direct political action or violence (cf 22:35-38,49-51; cf al­so chapter four, par 2.1.3 and 2.3), Jesus' resistance (Cassidy 1980:41) to the political authorities (as inflicters of suffering) is ex­pressed inter alia by the following:

(1) his words (Herod is called a fox, cf 13:32, Cassidy 1980:51-52); (2) non-cooperation (cf his attitude before Herod and Pilate - Cas­

sidy 1980:65-71); (3) his acceptance, contrary to Roman practice, of the poor and

social outcasts (Cassidy 1980:50); (4) the criticism of political relationships of domination and oppres­

sion implied in his advocacy of an attitude of humility and ser­vice amongst his followers (22:24-27; Cassidy 1980:39,60,201);

(5) his qualification that loyalty to Caesar should not exceed loyalty to God (20:25; Cassidy 1980:58).

Conclusion: A text like Acts 1:7-8 clearly indicates that the Lucan Jesus does not rule out the possibility of the restoration of the king­dom of Israel (cf also 22:29-30; 24:21a). Like the Gospel, however, this text advocates a universalist attitude rather than direct political action: witnessing in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. Luke's real sympathy for Israel's political suffer­ing is therefore qualified by his understanding of its spiritual suffer­ing (1:74,77) and his universalism (4:25-27).

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 79

3.2 The Samaritans

As is evident from Acts 1:7-8 (also referred to above), Samaria occu­pies a special place in Luke's thought. The Samaritans are the fIrst to benefIt from the breakthrough achieved in respect of Jewish exclusi­vism (cf Ac 8:5). Luke appears to apply the scheme of Acts 1:8 to the composition of his Gospel as well. Texts like 9:52 and 17:11, for in­stance, indicate that he shared the Johannine tradition that Jesus had close contact with the Samaritans on his travels between Galilee and Jerusalem (In 4:4). The impression that Jesus' journey to Jerusalem took him through Samaria is strengthened by the inclusion in his ex­tensive travel narrative (9:51-19:27) of three pericopes in which Sa­maritans feature prominently (cf Conzelmann 1964:58; Jervell1972: 121). Luke therefore creates the impression that Jesus preached frrst in Judea (4:44, sic!) and then in Samaria (9:51-19:27) before his fmal ministry and crucifixion in Jerusalem. Starting from Jeruslaem, the apostles followed the same route, preaching fIrst in Judea and then in Samaria (Ac 1:8b: 8:5).

The three 'Samaritan pericopes' in the travel narrative can only be appreciated fully if one considers the hostility that existed be­tween the Samaritans and the Jews. The Samaritans were descen­dants of Asiatic tribes (cf 2 Ki 17:24) which settled in Northern Is­rael after the Israelites had gone into the Assyrian exile (721 BC). Because they were of mixed blood, the Jews regarded them as culti­cally unclean in spite of the fact that they had accepted Yahwism. Their favourable attitude towards the Romans, and especially their deftlement of the Jewish temple (between 6 BC and 9 AD) by scat­tering dead men's bones, help to explain John's observation in his Gospel that Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans (In 4:9) and the Jews' question to Jesus in John 8:48: Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon? (cf Gerleman 1966: 1660-1661; Grundmann 1974:202; Jeremias 1964:89-91).

The pericope concerning Jesus and the Samaritan village (9:51-56) clearly reflects the political enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans and Jesus' attitude (according to Luke) towards it. When the disciples react hostilely to the Samaritan inhospitality, Jesus re­bukes them (9:51). This point is accentuated by the fact that it is not the Jews' enmity that is reported, but that of the Samaritans. Jesus did not merely advise his followers to stop hating the Samaritans -he forbade them to hate them, even though they were given reason

80 Chapter three

to do so. The position of the episode at the beginning of the travel narrative gives it some programmatic significance, not only in view of the positive attitude towards the Samaritans in the rest of the travel narrative and later in Acts (cf Ac 8:5-8), but also in relation to Jesus' own suffering in Jerusalem (9:51) and his attitude towards the rejec­tion he experienced (cf chapter four, par 2.3; Marshall 1978:403).

Apart from the emphasis on the physical suffering of the robbed man, the function of the parable of the good Samaritan (10:25-37; cf 4.1 below) in the Lucan redactional framework is to show Samari­tans in a positive light. According to Luke's composition the parable should be understood in conjunction with the passage on the great commandment, which Luke transposed for this purpose from the context of the controversies (cf 20:19-47 and Mk 12:13-40, especially Mk 12:28-34 and 20:40-41). As a direct answer to the lawyer's ques­tion (Kat1:ic;; E:O'"[lV JlOU 7tAT\O'lOV; - 10:29), the parable is highly signi­ficant as far as the acceptance of Samaritans by Jews is concerned. Like the Nazarenes, the lawyer had no qualms about an exc1usivist conception of neighbourly love (cf 4:22 and 10:28-29). In the parable the Samaritan's care for the assaulted man is sharply contrasted with the unconcern of the Jewish religious leaders (cf Mazamisa 1987:86). Secondly, Jesus' interpretation of the concept 'neighbour' forces the lawyer to admit that the Samaritans too are neighbours of the Jews, and as such should be loved (10:36-37; cf Sellin 1975:37-38).

There is a great similarity between the parable of the good Sama­ritan and the episode involving the grateful Samaritan (17:11-19). Be­sides the motif of compassion with physical suffering (the robbed man and the ten lepers) in both passages, the conduct of Jews and Samaritans is sharply contrasted. In both instances the behaviour ex­pected of Jews was evinced by a Samaritan. The emphatic reference Kat cxU"[Oc;; ~V l:aJlapl"tT\C;; (17:16b) and the phrased ,.1.110 bUOYEvTtC;; oo"[oc;; (17:18) have great semiotic effect. The words QAAOYEVf}C;; oo"[oc;; are used rather sarcastically by Jesus, insinuating that the Jews referred to Samaritans as QAXoYEVOl.

Bruners (1977:113-122; 297-306) argued strongly that Luke was not merely the redactor but the sole author of the episode, which he created in analogy to the healing of Naaman by Elisha (2 Ki 5). He therefore calls 17:11-19 a 'nachgeahmte prophetische Erzahlung' (Bruners 1977:118). The reference to this same incident (with its po­litical implications) in the Nazareth episode (4:27) shows that the

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 81

healing of Naaman featured in Luke's thought. That Luke created stories on the basis of Old Testament narratives seems possible if the Sondergut episode of the widow of Nain (7:11-17) is compared with that of the widow of Zarephath (1 Ki 17:8-24; cf 4:25-26). Even the parable of the Good Samaritan may be compared with the mercy which Samaria showed Judah in 2 Chronicles 28:8-15. However, Luke could also have modified traditional material in the light of the relevant Old Testament stories. If Luke indeed created narratives (or even modified them) to communicate his ideas (cf Sellin 1974:166-189 and 1975:19-60), the content of these (specially created or modified) stories would reflect the importance he attached to the Samaritans (cf also Marshall 1978:446 and Klein 1987:78-79).

Summary: Among the synoptic Gospels Luke is unique in his po­sitive references to the Samaritans. Luke's intention could well have been to polemicise against or 'correct' the tradition as reflected in Matthew (€it;; nOAlv L<XJ..lapl1:@v J..lTt €iO'EA9Trt:€, Mt 1O:5b) in order to facilitate the mission to the Samaritans (Grundmann 1974:201). However, his concern for the Samaritans accords well with his posi­tive attitude towards suffering groups in the rest of the Gospel. JeremIas (1964:91) writes:

Wiihrend Mk sie nie, Mt einmal negativ (10,5) erwiihnt, schenken ihnen das lk Doppelwerk (Lk 9,51-56; 10,30-37; 17,11-19; Ag 1,8; 8,1-25; 9,31; 15,3) und das Joh-Ev grosses Interesse. Nicht zufiillig gehoren alle drei Samaritanerperiko­pen des Lk zum Lk-Sondergut, dem auch sonst die Schilde­rung, wie Jesus sich zu den Verachteten und Geringen wen­det, ein Hauptanliegen ist.

33 The gentiles

The report on the mission to the gentiles (€it;; 1t(XV1:<X 1:0 €9VT\ ... €Wt;; E:O'XeXLou riit;; yilt;;, 24:47 and Ac 1:8) is the most striking evidence of Luke's emphasis on the breakthrough of Jewish exclusivist attitudes towards the gentiles. Bietenhard (1977:1319) outlines the typical fea­tures of Jewish exclusivism:

Nach Auffassung des rabbinischen Judentums ist der Nichtis­raelit, der goj, fUr Gott fremd und fern, fUr nichts geachtet ... Darum sind sie rettungslos dem Gericht der Holle verfallen

82 Chapter three

und haben keinen Anteil an der zukiinftigen Welt ... Gott ist der Schopfer aller - er liebt aber allein Israel ... Grundsatzlich gilt, dass die Heiden unrein sind: sie selbst, ihre Frauen und Kinder, ihre Hauser und Lander (St.-B. 1,540.571; 11,838; IV,374t) ... Die grosse Wende wird die Messiaszeit bringen: die Volker, die Israel geknechtet haben (vor allem Rom!), werden durch den Messias vernichtet und enden in der Holle.

Luke-Acts reflects a totally different approach. Peter's experi­ence with Cornelius in particular communicates clearly that OUK €C1-'l:lV npoC1oonOATtl-ln'l:T\C;; 0 9EOc;; (Ac 10:34), and that the tradition that it is unlawful ... for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of ano­ther nation (Ac 10:28) was abrogated by the Jesus event (cf also Ber­tram 1950:364-366).

The Nunc Dimittis is the ftrst hymn in Luke's Gospel to break ex­plicitly with what might be interpreted as the nationalistic perspec­tive of the Magnificat and the Benedictus (cf 3.1 above). In Simeon's words (mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, cf 2:30-32) motifs from Deutero-Isaian universalism are employed to interpret '1:0 C100t:TtPlOV as a light (= salvation from darkness, cf 1:79) for all nations (cf Is 42:6; 49:6; 52:10). Since Simeon was holding the baby Jesus in his arms as he spoke these words (cf also 2:14), it is clear that in Luke's view salvation became universal from the time of Jesus' birth. The idea of a pre-Easter exclusivism (cf Mt 10:5; Mk 7:27; Mt 15:26) is therefore absent from his Gospel.

Luke's universalism is very subtly communicated in his presenta­tion of the preaching of John the Baptist (3:1-6; Mk 1:1-4). Not only is John's preaching embedded in contemporary world history (3:1-2), but he is pictured as the one who 'went [like a missionary] into all the region about the Jordan' (3:3a; contra Mk 1:4/ /Mt 3:1). Luke's quo­tation from the Septuagint on the 'voice crying in the wilderness' (Guthrie 1970:90) is also longer than Matthew's. He extends the quotation from Isaiah 40:3-5 to include the words Kat OIJlE'l:Ql nOC1a C1cXp~ '1:0 C100'l:TtPlOV '1:00 9EOO (3:6), thus interpreting the acj>EC1lC;; 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:<;> J 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).

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 (14:1-24) 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 14:47-48), 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; 8:40-42,49-56), 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//6:6-11), 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 (1983:116-117) 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<;; (13:11). What was said above con­cerning the prominence of the healings in Luke's account of Jesus' ministry (cf 4.4 above) is equally true of his exorcisms, since texts like the programmatic 4:18 and the summaries (4:40-41; 6:17-19) -especially Jesus own summary (13:32) and Peter's summary (Ac 10: 38) - refer to both exorcisms and heatings. In our view Luke's narra­tion of the exorcisms also appears to place greater emphasis on the sufferers themselves than Mark does. By way of illustration we briefly consider the following passages.

Whereas the summary in 4:40-41 (cf Mk 1:32-34) stresses the suf­fering and healing of the sick (Jesus healed everyone), the one in 6:17-19 (cf Mk 3:7-12) focuses on the suffering of the demon pos­sessed:

MARK 3:10-12

... for he had healed many so that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him. And whenever the un­clean spirits beheld him, they fell down beore him and cried out, 'You are the Son of God.' And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

LUKE 6:18-19

... who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with un­clean spirits were cured. And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power came forth from him and healed them all.

Unlike Mark, Luke explicitly mentions that the people were troubled (EVOXA€t0'9<Xl) by demons (6:18b). Mark relates that the demons fell before Jesus confessing that he was the Son of God. The actual healing of the demon possessed people is mentioned by Luke but not by Mark. It therefore seems that in Mark's view the actual healing of the demon possessed was secondary to the fact that Jesus had authority over the demons, whereas Luke's version stresses the alleviation of the suffering of all (in contrast to Mark) that were sick or possessed (tam nOV1:Cl<;;, 6:19b).

94 Chapter three

In Luke's version of the healing of the Capemaum demoniac (4:33-37/ /Mk 1:23-28), redactional emendations indicate his con­cern for the suffering demoniac himself. Mark 1:26 mentions that the unclean spirit convulsed (O'1t(XpQO'O'€lV) the demoniac before it came out. In Luke the casting out is pictured as a less painful pro­cess: the demon threw the man in the midst of them and 'came out of him, having done him no harm' (4:35b; cf especially JlTlOE:V ~~av alJ'[ov). Luke's report therefore clearly states that the expul­sion of the demon brought alleviation of the demoniac's suffering. Furthermore, Mark emphasises the fact that the demons obeyed Jesus (Mk 1:27b), whereas in Luke the phrase U1taKOUoUO'lV mn:i!l is replaced bYE:~€pxov,[CXl, thus focusing on the actual healing (4:36b). This emphasis corresponds with what we have already observed in the summary in 6:17-19. Moreover, in Mark's version the acclama­tion of the crowd is more of a reaction to the exorcism as a demon­stration of Jesus' teaching (Mk 1:27), whereas in Luke it is a re­sponse to the excorcism per se. It should be noted that in Luke's Gospel the healing of the Capernaum demoniac follows after Jesus' ministry in Nazareth and has a direct bearing on it (cf 4:23). As ar­gued above (cf chapter two, par 1.4), it is very likely a concretisation of the aiXJlMw'[ol and '[€9pauO'Jl€VOl mentioned in 4:18, and there­fore a contextualisation within the framework of Jesus' overall minis­try to the suffering.

As far as our theme is concerned, Luke's version of the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac (8:26-39/ /Mk 5:1-20) introduces no signi­ficant modifications to Mark. The emphasis on the suffering of the demoniac before his healing was already there in Mark's version (5:3-5) and is related in a slightly altered form by Luke (8:27,29b). Luke's description of the healed state of the demoniac also derives from Mark, although Luke underscores the deliverance (cf E:O'w9Tl in 8:36) by explicitly referring to 'the man from whom the demons had gone' (cf Mk 5:15//8:35). Luke therefore did not need to add much detail about the suffering of the demoniac because it was already there in his source and he only had to transmit it (albeit in altered form). One subtle change which Luke made to his source reveals his positive inclination towards the demoniac. As in the case of the healed leper (cf 5:15/ /Mk 1:45), the demoniac is pictured as obeying instead of disobeying Jesus. In Mark the healed man disobeys Jesus by proclaiming the news in the Decapolis instead of only to his own

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 95

family (Mk 5:19-20). Through the omission of npOC;; '[ouc;; onuc;; (Mk 5:19) and the change of E:V '[fj ~EKonoAEl (Mk 5:30) to Ko9' OATlV rlIv nOAlv (8:39b), the Lucan Gerasene fully obeys Jesus.

By shortening Mark's version of the healing of the epileptic boy (9:37-43a/ /Mk 9:14-27), Luke retains the focus on the actual suffer­ing and healing of the boy. Contrary to Mark, Luke mentions (as in the cases of the widow of Nain's son and the daughter of Jairus) that the boy was his father's only child (IlOVOYEtn1C;;, 9:38b). As in Mark, the boy's suffering is described in detail (for the symptoms of epi­lepsy, cf Geldenhuys & Du Toit 1973:194-200 or Coleman et al1980: 456). However, Mark's version elaborates much more on the unbe­lief of the disciples and the faith of the boy's father. If one compares Mark 6:5 (cf also Mt 13:58) with Mark 9:23 it seems that Mark sees a close connection between faith and healing. As in his reinterpreta­tion of the Nazareth episode, Luke (at least in this case) plays down the close connection between faith and healing. This accords with what we have established already: Jesus shows compassion uncondi­tionally irrespective of the belief, law observance or repentance of the sufferer. This does not imply that faith (for Luke closely associ­ated with humility, cf 17:5-10; 7:50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42), the law (for Luke closely associated with charity) and repentance (cf 13:1-5) were unimportant to him. But Luke attaches great importance to the fact that there are no conditions or boundaries to God's mercy and com­passion towards those who suffer.

Luke follows the Q-version (Mt 12:22-30//11:14-23) of the Beel­zebub controversy. Whereas in Mark the focus is strongly on Jesus as the conquerer of Satan (Engelbrecht 1983:23), the Q-version used by Luke contains an additional motif of the benefit to humanity associ­ated with the expulsion of demons: it means that the kingdom of God has come upon them (11:20; cf also 9:49-50). That Luke sees the concept of the kingdom as closely related to the abolition of suf­fering, is clear from such texts as 4:43 where Jesus' ministry in Naza­reth and Capernaum is referred to as EUOYYEAlO'o0'9m ... '[fiv ~OO'l­AElOV '[00 9EOO (cf also 6:20; 9:2; 9:11; 10:9; 12:32-33; 13:28-30; 14:15-24; 17:21; 22:16-17; 23:42-43).

We conclude that, as in the case of Jesus' healing of the sick, Luke recounts his exorcisms in a way that highlights the suffering of the afflicted people and the alleviation which Jesus brought them.

96 Chapter three

Although he pays special attention to old age, demon possession and epilepsy, he also refers to psychological suffering in general (cf 5.1 above).

6 SPIRITUAL SUFFERING

In the context of Luke's comprehensive view of suffering, we take spiritual suffering to refer to human sin and guilt. More than any other Gospel, Luke's concentrates on the acceptance and forgiveness of sinners. He deals in some detail with the social rejection which sinners suffered at the hands of, for instance, Pharisees and scribes (e g 7:39; 15:1). However, the concepts of O:J.l.cxp1:io: or O:J.l.cxp1:wMc;; cannot be defined purely in terms of social rejection. Luke explicitly calls sinners by that name (e g 15:7,10; 24:7). Hence he does not de­ny the fact that people are sinners; it is simply that his attitude to­wards them differs from traditional attitudes.

To appreciate Luke's positive attitude towards sinners, one has to consider the contemporary Jewish concept of sin. According to Jew­ish opinion, even the smallest transgression of the law was regarded as sin (Stahlin & Grundmann 1953:290). In Jewish tradition the term OJ.l.CXP1:WAOC;; referred to someone who led an immoral life - robbers, murderers, swindlers and adulterers (cf 18:11). Certain people in society were also regarded as sinners because of what they were. Because various sins were increasingly associated with certain pro­fessions (e g swindling with toll-collectors and shepherds; cf Grund­mann 1973:61), people practising these occupations were ostracised as 'sinners'. Contact with them had to be avoided, because the Pharisees had a rule which stated: 'Let not a man associate with the wicked, not even to bring him to the law' (M. Ex 18:1, quoted in Mar­shall 1978:599). This 'rule' explains Peter's reaction to Jesus in the passage recounting his call: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, 0 Lord (Lk 5:8, Sondergut). Jesus' answer (Do not be afraid ... , 5:lOb) indicates that he did not share the traditional attitude, and his fur­ther remark (henceforth you will be catching men) illustrates the greatness of his mercy in appointing 'sinners' as his apostles.

The original Jesus tradition perhaps did not reflect this sophisti­cated 'social' dimension of sin (Schottroff & Stegemann 1978:24-25). However, as far as Luke's Gospel is concerned, we can distinguish between a religious and a social dimension of sin. We therefore

Various dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel 97

briefly look at the relationships of God to sin or sinners, of man to sin (6.1 below) and of man to sinners (6.2 below).

6.1 Forgiveness and release from sin

Luke transmits the Marcan passage about John's baptism and his preaching regarding the &j>€0'1C;; cXJ.lap'ttWV (cf 3:1-6/ /Mk 1:2-6). In Luke's account it does not merely imply the remission of sins. Through his extensive quotation of Isaiah 40:3-5 (already referred to in 3.3 above), it is also interpreted as 'to O'CJ)'tilplOV 'toO a€Oo (thereby implying the suffering dimension of sin, 3:6). Whereas the expression a~€O'lC;; cXJ.lap'ttWV occurs only once in Mark (in 3:29 it is employed in a negative sense of 'not having foregiveness'), it is used on two other occasions in Luke (cf 1:77 and 24:47). We already men­tioned his extension of the Benedictus proper (1:76-79; cf 3.1 above). Luke 1:77, however, also emphasises the salvific aspect of the for­giveness of sins: 'to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiving of their sins'. Since the Benedictus proleptically referred to John's ministry, it seems possible that Luke understood the concept &j>€0'1C;; cXJ.lap'ttWV to mean 'release', 'salvation',' or 'liberation' from sins, rather than mere foregiveness. This interpretation of &j>€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 people from 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 2:15-17//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; 15:8-10; 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<;): on the periphery, in humble circumstances, the <7WLTtP 0<; E:<7LlV xpl<7LOe; KUptoe; (2:11) is born (cf also Schmithals 1980:38).

Luke 2:6-7 tells the story of the actual birth without much ado (in contrast to that of John the Baptist - cf 1:58), apart from stressing the humble conditions in which it takes place. Luke mentions the irony that for the 'Saviour of the world' there was no Lanoe; E:V LqJ KaLaAU~aLl (2:7; cf also 9:58). Grundmann (1974:80-81) cites ar­chaeological evidence, according to which the quarters for animals (containing the manger) were a cellar-like hole; above it was the house, consisting only of the KaL6Au~a (= upper room, cf 22:11). If this is correct, the lowliness is underscored symbolically as well.

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 105

Like a refrain, it is repeated in three successive scenes (cf vv 7, 12 and 16) that Jesus was born in a manger (contrary to the OiKla of Mt 2:11). His humble birth is therefore underscored by the fact that he is born among animals. The manger is further accentuated by mak­ing it the O'T\Jl€lOV for the shepherds (2:12). As a human being (cmapyavoOv, ~P€<I>oc;), he features preeminently as the sufferer. Al­though he is desribed by titles specifying his exaltation (O'wt:np, XPlO't:OC;, KUPlOC;, cf 2:11), he is born a humble human being (~P€<I>oc;) in poverty-stricken conditions. According to Schiirmann (1969:105), the motif of the manger does not express 'die Armut und Ausgestossenheit des Kindes' but 'den unbegreiflichen Heilsrat­schluss Gottes'. In our view, however, the lowly circumstances con­tribute to the paradoxical contrast between Jesus' exaltation and hu­miliation (cf Marshall 1978:107). As will be seen below (cf par 3.2), this paradox is the crux of Jesus' soteriological significance.

We have already referred to the prominence which Luke assigns to shepherds as social outcasts (cf chapter 3, par 2). In the context of Jesus' nativity they are in a sense exalted by being the fIrst witnesses of his birth. At the same time, given their deprived social position, they contribute to the lowliness of that birth.

Luke provides more particulars about the childhood of Jesus (2: 21-52) than any of the other Gospels. This is not simply to supply in­formation about Jesus' life for biographical purposes. We have al­ready referred to Jesus' childhood in the context of Luke's positive attitude towards children (d chapter 3, par 2). What concerns us here is that Luke portrays Jesus' childhood as one of suffering.

In the presentation episode (2:22-24), Luke subtly communicates the poverty which Jesus experienced as a child. Jesus' parents took him to offer the sacrifice of ~€Oyoc; t:puyovwv f1v QUo voO'O'ouc; lt€PlO't:€P@V. Leviticus 12:6 stipulates that thirty-three days after the circumcision of a son (when the days of her purifying are completed) the mother should bring to the priest a year old lamb and a young pigeon (or turtledove) as burnt and sin offerings respectively. Leviti­cus 12:8 qualiftes this requirement: If she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons. By citing the sti­pulation in full (without specifying whether Jesus' parents brought turtledoves or pigeons), Luke emphasises that they chose what was termed in contemporary rabbinic literature 'the sacrifIce of the poor' (cf Grundmann 1974:89; Schiirmann 1969:122; Marshall 1978:117).

106 Chapter four

Luke's narration establishes a close connection between the suf­fering and humiliation of Jesus' childhood and its soteriological sig­nificance. Luke seems to communicate to his reader that Jesus brought salvation not merely through his cross and resurrection (cf 1 Cor 2:2), but through his entire life, of which his childhood consti­tutes an important part (cf Schneider 1977:71-72). This is evident in­ter alia from Simeon's and Anna's visits to the infant, for after seeing him they spoke about him as the O'wnlptOV and AtJ'tPWO'lI; of Israel and Jerusalem (2:30;38), and even of all nations (2:32). The paradox­ical contrast between Jesus' exaltation and his humiliation is ex­pressed by Simeon in so many words (2:34) in the Nunc dimittis. In Israel Jesus would become the touchstone for the reversal of for­tunes (m:wO'tC; Kat avaO''taO'tv). The prediction that Jesus would be the C1T\~€lOV av'ttA€y6~€vov refers to the rejection that he was to experience throughout his life and to his final suffering. The intensity of his suffering is accentuated by the description of the anguish this would cause his mother (a sword piercing her soul- cf 2:35). This Jesus- the humble, suffering human baby- is the Saviour (cf GlOck­ner 1975:143).

The humility and humiliation of his childhood reach a climax in the final episode of the infancy narrative which portrays the twelve year old Jesus (2:41-52). This episode is unique to Luke's Gospel and shows no resemblance to the Matthean infancy narrative, or even to Luke's own infancy narrative about John the Baptist. It therefore ap­pears to be from Luke's own hand (cf Jeremias 1980:102-103). The episode is a midrash on Jesus' wisdom as a child. He grew in wisdom (2:40), so much so. that at the age of twelve he could take part in a theological discussion with insight which amazed the bystanders. Jesus himself describes his activity in the temple as €V 'tOlC; 'toO na­'tpOc; ~ou €tVat (2:49), thus characterising it as specific to his exalted role as Son of God. However, his humiliation is thrown into relief in the same peri cope in two ways: his parents, not understanding him (2:50), rebuke him (2:48); and he, although he is the Son of God, fol­lows the humble way of obedience to earthly parents (2:51 - cf Glockner 1975:143). It is noteworthy that important commentators like Schiirmann (1969:134-138), Marshall (1978:125-130) and Fitz­myer (1986:434-447) fail to acknowledge the motif of Jesus' implied humiliation in this episode.

We can conclude that the infancy narrative portrays Jesus in both

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 107

his exaltation and his humiliation. The fact that the exalted one has to live in humiliation actually accentuates the suffering of his humili­ation. This is no coincidence, but is consciously intended by Luke. Jesus' life as a human being is a life of humility, humiliation and suf­fering. The paradox gives it soteriological significance (cf Glockner 1975:142-147).

12 The baptism, genealogy and temptation of Jesus

Being humbly born as an ordinary human being, Jesus was baptised (3:21-22) in the same fashion as the ordinary people of his country. At his baptism he was exalted when the Holy Spirit descended upon him and it was announced that God was 'well pleased' with him (3:22). According to Luke, Jesus' anointment with the Holy Spirit gave him the power to go about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil (Ac 10:38). Jesus' exaltation was therefore not for his personal satisfaction, but to make possible his ministry to suf­ferers. He suffered the humiliation of receiving the txm'tlC1J.1.<X J.I.€'t<x­voiac;; de; &c!>€C1lV aJ.l.<Xp'ttWv (cf 3:3), although as the Son of God this would not seem to have been necessary.

The genealogy of Jesus (3:23-38) reflects the same paradox of Jesus' dual state as both Son of God and a humble human being. Luke points out this paradox in his redactional note in verse 23: WV ui.6e;, We; E:voJ.l.i~€1:O, ' IwO"1)cj>. As if his human descent is not humili­ating enough, his genealogy does not reflect a royal lineage (cf Mt 1:6). It is not a Konigsliste like Matthew's, but one containing the names of ordinary people (e g the obscure Nathan instead of King Solomon; cf Grundmann 1974:111-112).

In the temptation pericope (4:1-13) the paradox of Jesus' state as Son of God and his 'Weg in Niedrigkeit' (cf Glockner 1975:145) reaches a climax. Jesus' suffering is intensified by the fact that he is tempted by the devil in person. His trial consists of repeated tempta­tions over a period of forty days. The main thrust of the temptations is that he should abandon his life as an ordinary human being and in­voke the supernatural powers which he actually possesses as Son of God (cf also 23:35-39). By refusing to do so, he becomes fit for the saving ministry that follows (4:14ff). The irony which Luke commu­nicates is that although Jesus is the Saviour by virtue of being God's Son, he fulflls this role by being humiliated and not claiming his Son­ship.

108 Chapter four

Luke also (most probably in contrast with Q) alludes to Jesus' final suffering by means of his redactional note in 4:13: 0 ot6I3oAoc; Cm€O't:T'\ Cm' aiJ1:00 a)(pt KOtpoO. The 'opportune time' (KOtp6c;) refers to the beginning of the actual passion narrative (22:3). Although Conzelmann's (1964:22) thesis of a 'satansfreie Zeit' between the temptation and the fmal passion does not hold water (in the light of the rejection and temptations that Jesus endured during his ministry - cf 11:16; 22:28), his observations highlight the connection between the temptation episode and Jesus' fmal passion. Conzelmann's thesis can probably be modified to state that at the time of Jesus' death Sa­tan became directly involved again, whereas during his ministry he had been operating indirectly through Jesus' opponents. Be that as it may, Luke's remark in 4:13 creates suspense through its reference to a climactic suffering which would happen at a specified time. The comment about Satan entering into Judas (22:3) suggests that the passion actually starts then and is not confined to the crucifixion. The passion is in effect a continuation of Jesus' temptation and is al­luded to as such (22:28; 22:39-46; 23:35-39; cf Glockner 1975:174-177).

13 Rejection at Nazareth

Since we dealt extensively with the Nazareth pericope in chapter two, we limit ourselves here to the motif of Jesus' rejection. The pre­sent discussion is based on the earlier argument. The following mat­ters merit attention:

Firstly, in the Lucan version of the Nazareth episode the rejection of Jesus is much fiercer than that described in his source (Mk 6:1-6a). In the Marcan version the people took offence at Jesus (6:3) and did not believe in him (6:6) because they could not reconcile his lowly status (6:3) with his mighty works and wisdom (6:2). Luke's report of the initial favourable reaction (Schiirmann 1%9:234; Tannehill 1986: 68, contra Schlitz 1969:42; cf also chapter two) to Jesus' preaching (4:22) may create the impression that Luke mitigated Mark's re­marks about the Nazarenes' offence. This is not the case. Luke simp­ly postpones his report of Jesus' rejection, which happens for ano­ther reason and is much more vehement. In Luke's version the Na­zarenes became wrathful and tried to kill Jesus (4:28-29).

Secondly, the fact that at Nazareth Jesus is rejected by his own

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 109

people among whom he grew up (4:16) intensifies the suffering in­flicted by the experience. From the devil (4:1-13) and Jesus' oppo­nents (although they are the leaders of his own people) rejection could have been expected, but hardly from the more intimate circle of people who had known him since childhood. Jesus' citing of the proverb about the dishonoured prophet (4:24) indicates that he was well aware of the irony of being rejected by his personal acquain­tances.

Thirdly, the question raised in chapter two should be asked again: why did the Lucan Nazarenes reject Jesus? It was not because he was a mere human being, nor because he described his ministry as one exercised for the benefit of sufferers (4:18). For this he was actually applauded. However, the Jews' ostensible sympathy for suf­ferers was in reality self-centred, as is revealed by their rejection of Jesus when he advocated a comprehensive approach to all who suf­fer. Jesus' view that sufferers also include the gentiles and enemies of the Jews (4:25-27) filled the Nazarenes with rage and provoked them to kill Jesus. Thus Luke communicates the irony that Jesus suf­fered because he advocated unconditional, unselfish compassion to­wards all who suffer.

Fourthly, the paradox of Jesus' exaltation and his humiliation is again apparent in tJte Nazareth episode. Despite his anointment by the Spirit (4:18), he is merely the son of Joseph (cf3:22 - here with­out the negative overtones of Mk 6:3). It appears as if Jesus com­municates to the Nazarenes that the miracles, which he is able to perform because of his exaltation, are not for self-glorification nor to satisfy their curiosity. They are solely for the benefit of the sufferers themselves. It is only in the context of the alleviation of suffering that his miracles cannot be misinterpreted as acts of self-glorification. The irony is that in Luke's Gospel the sufferers whose lot is amelio­rated by Jesus usually glorify God (1:25,64; 5:25; 7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 18:43). Jesus' ministry to sufferers is a humble one which incurs suf­fering for himself.

In the fifth place, it can be concluded that the Nazareth episode is programmatic for the Lucan version of Jesus' passion. This insight in­to the Gospel is not new (cf Busse 1978:28-29). The attempt to hurl Jesus from the cliff makes the reader suspect that Jesus will in all probability be killed by his opponents because of his ministry. In view of the discussion thus far and what follows below, however, the

110 Chapter four

treatment which Jesus received at Nazareth alludes to both the final passion and the rejection he suffered during his ministry before his passlOn.

1.5 Persecution by Jewish leaders

Luke's account of the opposition and enmity which Jesus expe­rienced from the Jewish religious leaders is more comprehensive than that of any of the other Gospels. According to Luke, the Phari­sees and Sadducees even rejected the baptism of Jesus' precursor (cf his probable change of Q in 3:7/ /Mt 3:7; also the explicit reference in 7:30 - cf 1.5.1 below). The crucifIXion was the climax of this enmi­ty against Jesus, but he suffered rejection and persecution through­out his ministry. We will examine this 'antagonism of the Jewish lead­ers up to the time of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (19:28).

1.5.1 Rejection during his Galilean (Judean) ministry

In five successive episodes in Jesus' early ministry Luke (like Mark -cf 5:1-6:11/ /Mk 2:1-3:6) makes it clear to his readers that Jesus ex­perienced opposition from the Jewish leaders. In some instances he edited Mark's account in order to focus on the opposition which Jesus suffered.

In the healing of the paralytic, Luke (contra Mark) mentions the presence of the Pharisees and scribes right at the beginning (cf 5:17/ /Mk 2:1-2), thereby making the ensuing conflict the focal point of the pericope. The fact that they came from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem suggests that the opposition which Jesus would encounter from them was universal. In verse 21 they question Jesus' forgiving of the paralytic's sins and actually accuse him of blasphemy. Schlitz's (1969:48) remark is appropriate: ' ... aus dem ganzen Land erwachst Jesus Gegnerschaft, die ibm die Voll­macht abspricht, Slindenvergebung zuzusprechen. Damit wird deut­lich, was Jesus von den geistlichen Flihrern seines Volkes in Zukunft zu erwarten hat.'

When Jesus and his disciples dined with Levi the toll-collector, the Pharisees again questioned his behaviour - this time for eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners (5:30). Luke accentuates the Pharisees' negative reaction by changing Mark's EA€YOV LOtC;; J.lo:8T)­'l:O:lc;; to €y6yyu~ov ... npoc;; LOUC;; J.lo:8T)'l:Cxc;; ... AEYOV'l:€C;; (cf 5:30//

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 111

Mk 2:16). The fact that the Lucan Pharisees murmured against the disciples and did not merely ask them a question testifies to the ag­gression against Jesus that was building up inside them.

By commencing the next peri cope with ot DE:, Luke makes the same Pharisees and scribes of 5:30 ask the question about fasting (5:33). Since this scene also seems to be set at Levi's house (cf also the correspondence of €0'8l0UCHV Kcxl1tlVOUOW in 5:33 with 5:30), this question too is critically intended and forms part of the yOYYU~€lV of the Jewish leaders.

In the pericope about the plucking of grain on the sabbath (6:1-5) there is no significant difference between the Lucan and Marcan ver­sions, although in Luke's version the Pharisees' critical question can be interpreted as being more adamant (6:2/ /Mk 2:24). Moreover, it can be interpreted as suggesting that the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of eating the grain as well (,t:l1tOl€l1:€ instead of Mark's 1:l 1tOlOOO'lV - cf Fitzmyer 1986:608).

The episode of the healing of the man with the withered hand (6:6-11) once more highlights that Jesus put human need before sabbati­cal laws. This episode represents a climax, because the critical ques­tioning and murmuring had by now developed into explicit hate. Jesus was being closely watched (1tCXPCX1:1"\P€lV) by the scribes and Pharisees with the defInite purpose of accusing him (6:7; cf Mk 3:2). Contrary to Mark, Luke refers to their evil thoughts (DlcxA0YlO'J..lO~ 6:8), but omits the Marcan references to their silence, Jesus' anger towards them and his grief about their hard-heartedness (cf 6:9-10// Mk 3:4-5). Although these omissions are difficult to explain, Schutz's (1969:52) conjecture that they were designed to focus more sharply on the 'Jeindselige Reaktion der GeK'ler' may very well be correct. It also explains the apparent 'Abschwiichung' of Luke (in comparison to Mark) in the fInal verse of the pericope (and in the Marcan fIve­scene cycle). Whereas Mark mentions the plot to kill Jesus (Mk 3:6), Luke concentrates on the scribes' and Pharisees' hostile feelings and thoughts about Jesus. By replacing 01tw<; cxU1:0V anoAEO'wO'LV with 1:l av 1tOl1)O'CXl€V 1:41 '11"\0'00, Luke creates marked suspense in his nar­rative. The attempt to kill Jesus will come in the end, but before that the Lucan Jesus will fIrst suffer more criticism and rejection from the Jewish leaders. According to Schurmann (1969:309) the 'To­tungsbeschluss ... steigert uber 11,53f; 13,31; 19,46ff; 20,19f; auf 22,1-6 hin'.

112 Chapter four

We can summarise by saying that Luke subtly edited all five the Marcan scenes in order to highlight the Jewish leaders' enmity against Jesus. In the Lucan version the same Pharisees and scribes, described in 5:17 as hailing from all over Judea, opposed Jesus in all five the episodes. The reaction against Jesus therefore seems to have spread all over the country, suggesting that his ministry encountered disapproval everywhere. What the Marcan source presents merely as the start of Jesus' ministry, Luke turns into the premise and back­drop for the whole of it (Schutz 1969:53).

It further emerged that in all instances Jesus was attacked by the Jewish leaders because of his compassionate attitude towards va­rious kinds of sufferers (sinners, outcasts, the hungry and the sick). Whereas the Jewish leaders maintained that God alone could forgive sins, Jesus went ahead and forgave sin; whereas to the Jewish leaders any association with toll-collectors and sinners was forbidden, Jesus feasted (OOXTtI..l.€yaATt! - 5:29a; contra Mk 2:15) with them; whereas the Jewish leaders regarded plucking grain on the sabbath and heal­ing as work, Jesus defended his disciples' satisfying their hunger and, in the presence of the hostile scribes and Pharisees, healed the man with the withered hand. Jesus' suffering seems to have been very much interlinked with the suffering of those to whom he ministered.

Besides his specific editing of the Marcan traditions in order to underscore the enmity of Jesus' opponents, Luke included in his Gospel similar traditions from Q and his Sondergut. We briefly di­rect our attention to these non-Marcan additions.

In the Q-tradition, which contains Jesus' comparison of himself with John the Baptist, Jesus quotes what people were saying about him: behold a glutton and a drunkerd, a friend of tax collectors and sinners (7:34/ /Mt 11:19). Luke's redactional note in 7:30 (not in Matthew and most probably not in Q) about the Pharisees and law teachers rejecting the Baptist suggests that Luke envisaged them as the referent of the men of this generation (7:31). The label given to Jesus (because of his views about fasting and his acceptance of toll­collectors) makes it clear that he suffered the same ostracism as his associates.

The tradition about the sinful woman (7:36-50) links two previous motifs (that of Jesus' association with sinners and his forgiveness of sins). Although the tradition is usually considered to have derived from his Sondergut, with 7:48-50 as his own addition (Jeremias 1980:

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 113

174), a comparison with Mark is nevertheless warranted because Luke chose to substitute this tradition for Mark 14:3-9. The Lucan tradition reports criticism of Jesus' behaviour more fully than Mark does. It reiterates that the opposition came from the Pharisees. The fact that Jesus was invited by Simon the Pharisee (and not Mark's Simon the leper!) initially creates the impression that the Pharisees were not so hostile to Jesus after all. However, the hostility soon sur­faces when he associates with the sinful woman. The Pharisee ques­tions Jesus' prophethood because he allowed the sinful woman to touch him (7:39).

In view of our broader theme we can consider another compari­son with Mark to highlight Luke's thinking. In Mark's version the re­proach is directed (by 'some' - not the Pharisees) against the woman (Mk 14:4-5), whereas Luke makes Jesus the object of the Pharisee's criticism. Moreover, whereas in Mark the reason for criticism is the waste of the ointment, in Luke it is Jesus' concern for a spiritual and social outcast. In Luke's version Jesus defends his behaviour by pointing out that God forgives sins (7:47), but when he makes this forgiveness effective (v 48), the Pharisee's guests (most probably Pharisees themselves) again murmur among themselves (flp~av1:0 €V E:CXU1:ot«;; A€YElV, cf 7:49; 7:39). The same irony that we detected ear­lier is again apparent: Jesus suffers because of his compassion for sufferers.

1.5.2 Rejection on the way to Jerusalem

Luke's travel narrative contains several traditions which reflect the Jewish leaders' enmity towards Jesus. Besides the lawyer's question about eternal life, which he asked to tempt (10:25, contra Mark) Jesus, the conflict between Jesus and his adversaries receives special emphasis in the whole section from Luke 11:14 to 11:54.

When Jesus heals the dumb man (11:14), he is accused of casting out the demons €V BEEA~El3ouA (11:15). This is a false charge: Jesus casts out demons €V Omc1:UACfl aEOU (11:20). That Jesus took the ac­cusation to heart is evident from his repetition of the charge in 11:19 (cf Mt 12:27). The scepticism about him is accentuated by those who wanted a sign from him. Like Mark (Mk 8:11- but probably in con­trast to Q which he uses for the rest of this passage; cf Mt 12:38), Luke states that this demand was meant to tempt Jesus (11:16). Luke combines the false charge about Beelzebul and the demand for a

114 Chapter four

sign, thus underscoring the opposition against Jesus and assuring that the demand for a sign will also be read as criticism (both are re­ferred to as aUt:@v t:a otaVoTU..lat:a, 11:17). However, contrary to his sources, Luke does not explicitly state that it was the Jewish leaders who made the accusation and demanded the sign (cf 11:15,28; Mt 12:24,38; Mk 3:22; 8:11) - merely some members of the crowd. Hence Luke does not specify the identity of Jesus' opponents in this case. However, he retains the reference to Jewish exorcists in 11:19, which allows the possibility that the t:tvec;; €~ aut:@v of verse 15 could refer partly to the Jewish leaders. Possibly Luke decided to ge­neralise the explicit references to the Jewish leaders in order to com­municate that their enmity had by this stage spread to the people.

In Luke 11:37-54 (Luke probably preserves Q, cf Mt 23:1-39 -Marshall 1978:491) the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders reaches a preliminary climax. Again he is invited to dine with a Pha­risee, who is surprised when Jesus does not wash before dinner. Whereas elsewhere in Luke's sources the Jewish leaders complain about the disciples' washing habits (cf Mt 15:2; Mk 7:1-5), here the criticism is aimed directly against Jesus (11:38). In the woes that fol­low (11:39-44), Jesus contrasts the Pharisees' concern for the law with true concern for sufferers. The Pharisees care about clean cups, but not about almsgiving (11:39-41); they care about tithes, but not about justice and the love of God (11:42/ /Mt 23:23); they care about the best seats and salutations, and therefore not about humility (Lk 11:43/ /Mt 23:6; cf also 14:7-11). The same holds true for the teach­ers of the law (cf 11:45-52) who inflict suffering on people; who ac­tually consent to the killing of the prophets and by implication are themselves persecutors (cf 11:49-51/ /Mt 23:29-36); and who deny people access to knowledge (11:52/ /Mt 23:13). From all these criti­cisms it appears that Jesus attacked his opponents for their lack of compassion for people. Marshall (1978:491) remarks aptly: 'It is not surprising that after such a catalogue of criticisms the scribes and Pharisees had it in for Jesus.'

Immediately after the woes, and arising from them (KQK€'i9€V €~­€X96vLOC;;, 11:53a), Luke adds an important redactional note (11:53-54) which expresses the total enmity which Jesus could henceforth expect from the Jewish leaders: they began to press him hard (O€tV@C;; €V€X€tv) and hypocritically tried to catch at something he might say (cf 6:7). This again seems to vindicate our observation

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 115

about the relation between Jesus' suffering and his concern for suf­ferers: the Jewish leaders persecuted Jesus because (in the woes) he had challenged them about their lack of compassion for sufferers.

In the Sondergut tradition of the healing of the crippled woman (13:10-17) and the man with dropsy (14:1-6), Luke again takes up the motif of healing in defiance of sabbatical laws. Again Jesus en­counters enmity from the Jewish leaders. Luke 13:14 states that the ruler of the synagogue was indignant (ayovouwv) because Jesus healed the crippled woman. The importance of this conflict to the narrator is evident from the fact that it occupies two thirds of the pericope (cf Schutz 1969:59). In the end it appears that it was not on­ly the ruler of the synagogue who opposed Jesus, but a whole group of people (nwl:€C; ot Wl:tK€LJ.l€VOt aUl:c'jl, 13:17). Here too it seems as if the Jewish leaders had managed to stir up hostility against Jesus among the people. In Luke 14:1 Jesus is again eating with Pharisees, but the hypocrisy of their behaviour is evident from the start: they were watching (napOl:TlP€lV) him. The watching was clearly not con­fined to the healing of the man with dropsy but forms the backdrop of everything that occurs during the episode. In both cases - the crippled woman and the dropsical man - Jesus silenced the Jewish leaders (13:17; 14:6) by arguing that the alleviation of human suffer­ing is even more important than rescuing animals (to which the Jew- . ish leaders had no objection). Despite this the animosity of the Jew­ish leaders continued ~nabated (Schutz 1969:61).

In the redactional note in 15:1-2 Luke mentions that Jesus en­countered further antagonism (Otayoyyu~€tV) from the Pharisees and scribes because of his association with toll-collectors and sinners (cf 5:27-32; 7:34,39). Since the Pharisees and scribes are the referent of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son (15:25-32), the parable in fact furnishes additional information about their feelings. The elder son became angry and refused to share in the joy of his brother's return. He felt that he was the one who deserved recogni­tion from his father (15:28-29). The attitude of the eldtr son mirrors the dissatisfaction which the Jewish leaders felt about Jesus: they were angry with him because he loved outcasts and sinners.

The last explicit mention of the Jewish leaders' antagonism in the travel narrative occurs in a redactional note (16:14), where Luke states that the Pharisees ridiculed (€KJ.lUKl:TlpL~€lV) Jesus for saying that one cannot serve God and mammon (16: 13) and that one

116 Chapter four

should actually serve God by means of money (16:1-12). The ensuing parable about the rich man and Lazarus is then addressed to the Pharisees, illustrating that they, because of their love for money, overlooked the lot of the suffering poor (cf 16:20-21). Because Jesus cared for the poor and warned against riches, they hated him.

In Luke 19:7 it is mentioned that when Jesus entered Zacchaeus' house all munnured. The Jewish leaders were certainly not excluded from this 'all', since we have learnt that this behaviour was typical of them (cf 5:30; 7:39; 15:1-2). Luke's statement that all murmured (l1ool1:€«; lh€'Y6'Y'Yu~ov) leaves the reader with the impression that, through the incitement of the Jewish leaders, the hostility against Jesus had by now grown universal. Luke's remark in 11:53-54 seems to have come true within his narrative framework: the Jewish leaders were putting fierce pressure on Jesus.

It can be concluded that Luke, by means of various traditions and at least three redactional notes, considerably expanded the motif of enmity against Jesus which he got from Mark's Gospel. We have al­so seen that it was especially Jesus' care for various kinds of suf­ferers (the poor, sinners, outcasts and the sick) which annoyed his enemies. There seems to have been a progression in the hatred to­wards him, which had moreover spread to the ordinary people. In Jerusalem this enmity was even more intense and culminated in Jesus' final suffering (cf 19:39,47-48; 20:2,19,20-22,27; 22:1-2,52-53,66-23:1,10).

1.6 Persecution by Herod

Luke's Gospel is unique in its portrayal of the relationship between Jesus and the political authorities. Although the Romans' aggression is virtually confmed to the historical fact of the crucifIXion (cf Con­zelmann's thesis on Luke's political apologetic, 1964:128-135), Luke portrays Herod's enmity towards Jesus. As in the case of the Jewish leaders, Herod's antagonism was not restricted to Jesus' trial before him (23:6-12), but also manifested itself during Jesus' life.

By naming Herod as tetrarch of Galilee in 3:1, Luke introduces him as a character whom the reader will meet again. Soon after­wards, in 3:19, Luke mentions in a redactional note the evil things that Herod had done and his imprisonment of John the Baptist. Very early in the Gospel Herod is thus established as an enemy of the

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 117

Jesus movement. For Jesus himself this could only augur ill. Observing the ministry of the disciples (cf 9:1-6) Herod becomes

concerned about Jesus (9:7-9). Whereas in Mark's version Herod's concern functions merely as an introduction to the account of John's death (Mk 6:14-34), the omission of the latter from Luke's version has the effect of placing the emphasis exclusively on Herod's concern about Jesus. It is also noteworthy that the Lucan Herod is not at all sure about Jesus' identity. Whereas in Mark 6:16 he is of the opinion that Jesus is John raised from the dead, in Luke he wonders and wants to see Jesus (9:9). This creates suspense and anticipation of conflict between Herod and Jesus, for Herod seems not to have been pleased by what he heard (9:7). As in the case of the enmity of the Jewish leaders, it is significant that Herod was perplexed by the disciples' ministry to sufferers.

Herod's hostility towards Jesus becomes clear to the reader in Luke 13:31. Although the Pharisees who told Jesus that Herod wanted to kill him might have done so simply to upset Jesus, the reader has no reason - in view of the story world of the Gospel- to doubt the truth of their statement. Jesus' reaction to the Pharisees suggests that he believed them, ,since he called Herod a fox and started to talk about his death in Jerusalem. However, Jesus stated clearly that the threat of death would not divert him from his mini­stry to the sick and the demon possessed (13:32).

The fact that Herod did not immediately kill Jesus when he even­tually saw him (23:6-12) may create the impression that he had no desire to do so and that the Pharisees in Luke 13:31 were lying. Of course, historical facts did not allow Luke to relate that Herod killed Jesus. He therefore used the trial before Herod to relate other as­pects of Herod's antipathy towards Jesus. Herod did not believe in Jesus and (like the people in 11:16) demanded a sign from him. When Jesus would not comply he treated him with contempt (E:~OU-8€vEtv), mocked him (E:J..l1tai~€lv) and sent him back to Pilate.

When the Pharisees told Jesus about Herod's persecution of him, Jesus' reaction showed his painful awareness of his approaching death (cf especially 13:34-35). This awareness of his impending death is a real component of Jesus' suffering, which we will now consider.

1.7 Jesus' anticipation of his passion (the announcements)

More than any other Gospel writer, Luke has Jesus make statements

118 Chapter four

about his own death. Of these the 'classical' predictions of his pas­sion (which Luke got from Mark) are the most famous and will be dealt with first. Thereafter we briefly examine three other refer­ences.

1. 7.1 The classical announcements of the passion

Although Luke transmits Mark's predictions of the passion in ap­proximately the same context, from the angle of Luke's composition they fulfil a new function. In Mark the three predictions are all made after the important central section of the Gospel (Mk 8:27-30) in which Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ (cf Mk 8:31-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-34). By situating the predictions after the confession, the Mar­can Gospel communicates that, even though Jesus is the Christ, he will suffer. Luke does not abandon this motif, but because his Gos­pel contains the lengthy travel narrative, two of the three predictions occur relatively early in his Gospel (9:22,43b-45), thus emphasising that Jesus was aware of his impending passion early in his ministry. Whereas in Mark the predictions of the passion actually form the overture to the passion itself, in Luke they rather convey the idea that Jesus' whole life was one of suffering. In this section we confme ourselves to Jesus' own predictions; below we deal with two further redactional references (9:31 and 9:51- cf 3.3.2).

By eliminating Mark's break (Kal flp~a'[o o tOOO'K€ lV , cf Mk 8:31) between Peter's confession and the first prediction (using the parti­ciple €tn€v - cf 9:22), Luke combines the confession and the first prediction in a single episode, thus acentuating the fact that the Christ would suffer before being resurrected. This reminds us of the paradox of Jesus' exaltation and humiliation observed earlier in the Gospel. Luke also omits Peter's misunderstanding (Mk 8:32-33), thereby associating Jesus' impending suffering directly with the daily (cf 9:23b) suffering of his followers (cf par 3.3 below). It should also be noted that Jesus' suffering is not limited to his death, but consists of many things (noUeX na8€lv). The fIrst prediction mentions his re­jection (lmoOoKllla~€LV) by the Jewish leaders, a process which, as we have seen (cf par 1.5), started early in his ministry.

As in Mark, the second prediction (9:43b-45/ /Mk 9:30-32) fol­lows after the healing of the epileptic boy (9:37-43a/ /Mk 9:14-29). This is signifIcant, since in that episode Jesus makes an indirect re­ference to his suffering. When the boy's father remarks that the dis-

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 119

ciples could not heal his son, Jesus responds: 0 faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you and bear with you? (9:41// Mk 9:19). In Luke's version the pr~diction actually happens on the same occasion as the healing (cf 9:43b: 1toon:wv 8e: 8auJ..l.a~6v"[wv, and the omission of Mark's mention of the return to the house and the journey through Galilee- Mk 9:28,30). This actually compels the reader to read the two references in conjunction with one another: Jesus will suffer, but his life among a faithless and perverse genera­tion is already one of suffering. Luke's version of the prediction itself is shorter than Mark's. He only mentions that Jesus will be delivered into the hands of men. By omitting Mark's reference to the death and resurrection (9:44/ /Mk 9:31) the Lucan version focuses exclusively on Jesus' suffering. The aspect of his suffering on which he focuses is significant and will receive more attention when we come to the ac­tual passion account (cf 2.2 below): that Jesus will be delivered into the hands of men means that he will die innocently. Luke accentu­ates his version of the prediction sharply by his introductory words: 8€0"8€ UJ..I.€te; de; "[a ~"[a uJ..I.@V "[oUe; Myoue; "[ou"[OUC;. Although di­vinely willed (9:45), the disciples' failure to understand these words adds to Jesus' suffering (9:45), since he has to endure it alone with­out receiving any understanding from his intimate circle (cf 2.1 be­low). This motif is further highlighted by the incorporation of the subsequent tradition about the disciples' ambition (9:46-48) into the same scene (cf the replacement of the change of scene in Mk 9:33 by €iaflX8€v 8e: 8moYlO"J..I.Qc; €V cxU"[Otc;, "[0 "[ie; av ElT\ J..I.€i~wv cxU"[@v in 9:46). In view of our earlier observation regarding the relationship between suffering and humility, the disciples' dispute clearly reflects their misconception of Jesus' suffering. Had they understood that Jesus, the exalted one, had to suffer (cf Luke's addition of J..I.€AA€l in 9:44), they would have grasped the meaning of the Lucan Jesus' proverb (he who is least among you all is the one who is great, 9:48) even before their dispute. Even John's remark about the strange exorcist (9:49-50) can, in the Lucan context, be interpreted as contri­buting to the motif of the disciples' misunderstanding: they appear to have been rebuked, but through their spokesman John they imme­diately try to exalt themselves as an exclusive circle around Jesus, as such entitled to reprimand others - even those who are alleviating suffering in Jesus' name.

Immediately after the episode containing the second prediction,

120 Chapter four

the travel narrative commences (9:51- Luke omitted Mk 9:42-50!), with the explicit declaration that Jesus set his face to go to JeTUsalem where his aVaAT\JllJllt; (his fmal humiliation and exaltation) would take place. This redactional note of Luke's actually earmarks the en­tire travel narrative as a 'way to the passion'. Being such a substan­tial section of his Gospel, the narrative underscores Jesus' anticipa­tion of his passion. Not only does it contain many allusions to Jesus' passion (cf the next paragraph below), but Luke saved Mark's third and longest prediction (18:31-34) in order to place it towards the end of the journey when Jesus was nearing Jerusalem and his fmal suf­fering.

As in Luke's versions of the first two predictions, the third is again closely connected with the preceding episode. Mark's rather long introduction is omitted and napaMxl3Wv DE: follows immediately after the section on the renunciation of wordly possessions and inter­ests (18:28-30). The result is that Luke's third prediction (in addition to its cardinal function of directing attention to the fmal suffering which is at hand) should be read as a reaction to the disciples' re­nunciation of earthly interests. Jesus' reference to his passion in this context makes the renunciation of earthly interests still more radical by indicating that the Son of man will renounce even his own life. This the Lucan disciples could not understand (18:34).

The third prediction is the most detailed - in effect a synopsis of the passion narrative that follows. For Mark's version of the Jewish accomplices in Jesus' suffering Luke substitutes the statement that everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished. This underscores an important Lucan motif (cf 22:37; 24:25-27,32,46; Ac 2:23; 3:12-26), namely thatthe passion is ultimate­ly determined by God and Durchgang zur Vollendung (Grundmann 1974:355). Exaltation presupposes final suffering and humiliation. This humiliation comprises not only his actual death, but also being delivered to the gentiles, mocked, spat upon and scourged (18:32-33a). Luke further adds that he will be shamefully treated (Kat utJplO'eilO'C~'tal). According to Grundmann the latter 'ist ein griech­ischer Ausdruck, der vor allem in der Tragodie (UtJPlt;) seine grosse Bedeutung hat. Am Martyrium des Menschensohnes vollzieht sich die Tragodie der Volker, die an ibm freveln .. .' (1974:356). After the prediction, Luke omits the Marcan episodes which again deal with the disciples' ambition (Mk 10:35-41; 10:42-45). This is not because

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 121

the motif does not feature in his account (cf 9:46-48; also 22:24-27 where it serves a specific Lucan function - see par 3.2.3 below). Pro­bably Luke wanted to link his (unique) remark about the disciples' misconception (18:34) more closely to the motif of Jesus' passion as the ultimate renunciation of earthly interests.

This concludes our discussion of Luke's version of the three Mar­can passion announcements. Our study of Luke's redaction has indi­cated how he incorporated them into his composition to clarify his specific view of Jesus' suffering: the Christ had to suffer- misunder­stood, innocently, humiliated and renouncing everything.

1.7.2 Additional Lucan predictions of Jesus' passion

As in the case of several other motifs, Luke elaborates on the motif of Jesus' foreknowledge of his passion by repeating, editing and add­ing traditions from his sources. We briefly note the most important of these.

The three additional Lucan predictions all appear in the travel narrative between the second and third 'Marcan' predictions. The re­sult is that we have two predictions towards the end of the Lucan Galilean ministry and four in the travel narrative. They are spread more or less evenly through the travel narrative (cf 12:50, 13:31-35, 17:25, 18:31-34), with the result that the suffering of Jesus is not just one of the many motifs dominating the narrative (cf Du Plessis 1988: 1-2), but forms the backdrop against which the others are enacted.

The fourth prediction (the third in the Gospel and the ftrst in the travel narrative) occurs in Luke 12:50 as part of the sayings about the division that will happen in households as a result of Jesus' mis­sion. Of these sayings, Luke has 12:51-53 in common with Q (cf Mt 10:34-46). To this he probably adds from his Sondergut (cf Jeremias 1980:223):

49 a IIOp ~A90v lXxA.€tV tnt n)v yflv, b Kat 't1 9€Xw €i ilBTl cXvft~9Tl.

50a lXm'tlGJ-la BE: EXW tkm'tlG9fjval, b Kat n@C; O'UvEX0J-lal ewe;; o'tou 't€A€G9fj

Whereas verse 49 links up with the sayings in 51-53, verse 50 seems to be something of a Fremdkorper. Stylistically, however, it clearly parallels verse 49 (cf Schneider 1977:292) and should there-

122 Chapter four

fore be read in the context of all the ideas expressed in 12:51-53. The words are reminiscent of Mark 10:38, which also refers to Jesus' pas­sion. Jesus' death is a baptism which he must undergo as part of his mission. Verse 50b clearly expresses the anxiety (O'UV€X€lV) which Jesus' suffers because of his own anticipation of his passion, and which he will continue to suffer until his exaltation (t:€A€lV). But this baptism has further meaning. Although it has soteriological signifi­cance, it does not mean that those who follow Jesus will be exempt from suffering. On the contrary, his mission will actually cause suf­fering, since it will divide households. It is highly probable that these sayings should be interpreted in the context of Luke's historical situ­ation: the Lucan community should understand the divisions caused in households in terms of Jesus' own mission and suffering. Because Jesus suffered, his followers also suffer (cfpar 3.3 below). Their con­solation is that their suffering unites them with Jesus.

Jesus' reference to his own death in Luke 13:32-33 (the fourth prediction in the Gospel, the second in the travel narrative) was mentioned earlier in our discussion of Herod's persecution of Jesus (cf par 1.6 above). Although Herod wanted to kill him, he would walk his predestined way and die, like the prophets before him (cf also 11:49ff), in Jerusalem. Luke 13:33 (which according to Schnei­der 1977:310 is a redactional note) actually repeats the oblique refer­ence to Jesus' death (t:€A€lOUJ..UXl) in verse 32 and prepares the way for the Q-tradition (cf Mt 23:37-39) of the lament over Jerusalem. In Matthew's context (and most probably in Q's) the lament occurred in Jerusalem shortly before Jesus' passion. By transposing it to ap­proximately the middle of the travel narrative, Luke accentuates his notion that Jesus suffered throughout his life. The lament also testi­fies to the agony which Jesus' anticipation of his suffering caused him. He came to save Jerusalem, but the people of that city rejected their salvation by murdering him. Just before Jesus' entry into Jeru­salem, Luke repeats this motif by explicitly mentioning that Jesus wept (€KA<XUO'€V) over Jerusalem because she did not realise the things that make for peace (19:41-42). Luke therefore communicates clearly that Jesus did not predict his passion or regard it as divinely predestined in a purely rational way. Jesus' anticipation was in itself suffering- a painful and anxious awareness.

Luke's fifth prediction of the passion (17:25) appears in his minor eschatological discourse (17:22-37) which he borrowed from Q (cf

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 123

Marsha111978:656; Fitzmyer 1985:1164). In it Jesus refers to his coming in glory as the Son of man (17:24). However, Luke's readers should not misunderstand Jesus' exaltation: it was preceded by suf­fering. The Lucan Jesus' concept of his own exaltation does not ex­clude the foreknowledge he had of his suffering. In order to achieve this Luke actually repeats the part of his first prediction (cf 9:22) which refers to Jesus' suffering. Jesus must (DEL) suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. Luke shortens this prediction in the same way as he abridged the second Marcan one (cf 9:44 and 1.7.1 above). By deleting the reference to the death and resurrection, he focuses it more sharply on other aspects of Jesus' suffering (e g per­secution and trial). For Luke's community this has the further signi­ficance 'dass sie die Zeit der Bedrangnis und des Leidens als notwen­diges Geschehen vor der Parusie verstehen miissen' (Schneider 1977: 356; cf also 21:12).

Even after Jesus' resurrection Luke is still concerned with the motif of Jesus' suffering. The women at the tomb (cf 24:6b-7) are re­minded of his prediction(s) in Galilee - by the same token the reader of the Gospel is reminded that Jesus knew beforehand that he would suffer. Because God planned it, it is not to be viewed only in the context of the events in Jerusalem. Both the Emmaus disciples (cf 24:25-26) and the disciples at Jesus' last appearance (cf 24:44-46) should know that it was predetermined that the Christ would suffer in order to be resurrected. The three references after the passion (cf also 24:20) therefore reinforce the earlier ones. The reader should know that Jesus' life was one of suffering, and that God himself had preconceived it thus. Not only his death but his entire life was suffer­ing, and part of that suffering was the Lucan Jesus' anticipation of his death.

1.8 Conclusion

If we reconsider our discussion of Jesus' suffering throughout his life, certain points emerge very clearly.

Firstly, Jesus was rejected by nearly all people: his acquaintances in his home town, the leaders of his people and the political authorities (cf also Ac 4:27). Even those who were on the whole positively dis­posed towards him did not always understand him. The misunder­standing of the disciples (to which we referred in passing) reached a climax when they forsook Jesus during the final passion (cf 2.1.3

124 Chapter four

below). We also referred to sections of the crowd who followed Jesus but who, under the influence of the Jewish leaders, lated re­jected him. Even the Samaritans, towards whom Luke is very sympa­thetic in his Gospel (cf chapter 3, par 3.2), did not want to receive him (cf9:53).

Secondly, the scope of Jesus' suffering is not portrayed as limited to his death on the cross. The rejection of Jesus also took the form of insults, unjustified animosity towards him and ostracism. His birth occurred in humble circumstances. He was not always correctly un­derstood by his intimate circle (family and followers), and he had a painful and anxious awareness of his eventual suffering.

Thirdly, there seems to be a connection between the suffering of Jesus and the salvation he brought. His suffering was planned by God with the salvation of mankind in mind. While he suffered, he was continually busy alleviating the suffering of others. In fact, the priority he gave to the alleviation of suffering was often the reason why he ~as rejected.

Nearly all the above motifs Luke took from his sources. His con­tribution was to accentuate them through his specific redaction of the Marcan source, the insertion of other traditions and even the in­troduction of appropriate redactional notes.

2 ASPECTS OF LUKE'S PASSION NARRATIVE

Although in dramatic narratives it is customary for the denouement to be much shorter than the build-up to the crisis, it is nonetheless remarkable that Luke's passion narrative takes up two whole chap­ters (Lk 22-23) of his Gospel, as opposed to the one devoted to the resurrection and the ascension (Lk 24). This is in keeping with what we observed about the predictions of the Jerusalem events, where the suffering of Jesus was also underscored (cf 1.7 above). This is not a denigration of the importance of the resurrection, but rather emphasises the already observed motif that Jesus' final exaltation does not invalidate his earlier suffering, but presupposes it. Luke, however, does not differ much from Mark and Matthew in this re­spect. Mark, for example, devotes two chapters to Jesus' suffering and only eight verses (cf Mk 16: 1-8) to the resurrection.

It should also be borne in mind that in the passion narratives of all the synoptic Gospels the prelude to Jesus' death is integral to his

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 125

final suffering. In Luke the account of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus occupies a mere twenty verses (23:26-56), whereas the prelude takes up approximately 96 verses (22:1-23:25). This too does not di­minish the importance of Jesus' death (peculiarly Lucan features are noticeable there as well; cf 2.4 below), but serves to accentuate the comprehensiveness of Jesus' suffering (of which his death is, of course, part).

However, there are some significant differences between Mark's and Luke's presentations of Jesus' final suffering and these will re­ceive attention in this section. We shall endeavour to limit ourselves to selected and distinctive features which accentuate the suffering of the Lucan Jesus.

2.1 The defection of Jesus' followers

We have already mentioned (cf 1.8 above) that throughout his life Jesus was sometimes misunderstood by his intimate circle (e g 9:45-46; 18:34). In Luke's portrayal of Jesus' life, however, it seems as if the dominant Marcan motif of the disciples' misunderstanding of him and Jesus' problems with them is toned down (cf the omission of Mk 8:14-21; also 8:22-25/ /Mk 4:35-41; O'Toole 1984:178-180, contra Tannehill 1986:253). In the Lucan account the apostasy of the disciples in the passion narrative therefore comes as a greater shock to the reader. Their apostasy does not consist only in their miscon­ception of the serving nature of his death (22:24-30). Indeed, Jesus' suffering is exacerbated by the fact that his disciples failed him on many occasions, even when there is no indication of misunderstand­ing (e g on the Mount of Olives, 22:39-46).

In Luke's farewell discourse (22:21-38; cf Schiirmann 1977) the reader is confronted very directly with the disciples' defection. Jesus experiences (the dispute, 22:24-30) and predicts (betrayal, 22:21-23; denial, 22:31-34; unlawful sword-carrying, 22:35-38) their defection. The fact that the farewell discourse as a whole (four successive peri­copes) deals with the disciples' defection in itself underscores the motif. It is further emphasised by the repetitive effect of the predic­tion of their defection and its fulftlment in the rest of the passion ac­count (22:47-48; 22:54-62; 22:49-51).

Suffering is inflicted upon Jesus by two disciples who are men­tioned by name (Judas and Peter), as well as by the disciples as a group. We shall consider each of these in turn, paying particular at-

126 Chapter four

tention to the way in which Luke narrates their defection in order to accentuate Jesus' suffering.

2.1.1 The betrayal by Judas

Because most modern readers of the Gospel are overfamiliar with the fact that Judas betrayed Jesus, they may tend to forget that Judas was not one of Jesus' opponents, but a member of his inner circle. It is remarkable how Luke emphasises the suffering inflicted upon Jesus through his narration (the motif occurs in three pericopes) of Judas' betrayal.

By omitting Mark's version of the anointment in Bethany (Mk 14:3-9) and abridging the Jewish leaders' premeditation of Jesus' death (cf 22:1-2/ /Mk 14:1-2) the first phase of the betrayal by Judas (22:3-6) actually becomes the focus of the combined (cf Luke's eiofiA8€v Be in 22:3) pericope on the premeditation of Jesus' death by both the Jewish leaders and Judas. This underscores the fact that one of Jesus' own disciples joined the ranks of his enemies who had rejected him throughout his life and now wanted to kill him (22:2). Moreover, the passion narrative commences with the conspiracy be­tween Judas and the Jewish leaders, giving it even greater promi­nence. Other Lucan redactional changes also seem to accentuate Jesus'suffering:

Firstly, according to Luke Satan entered into Judas (22:3). This makes Judas the direct agent of Satan, who, as we saw in the tempta­tion pericope (cf 1.2), was the inflicter of acute suffering upon Jesus.

Secondly, Luke changes Mark's 0 EtC;; 1:WV O<lX)€KQ (Mk 14:10) to QV1:Q €K 1:00 apt8J..loO 1:WV oo,O€KQ (22:3). Especially the addition of €K 1:00 apt8J..loO emphasises that in betraying Jesus Judas was acting, not as an old enemy, nor as one of his many followers, but as a member of his innermost circle.

Thirdly, Luke's version of the conspiracy is more detailed than Mark's. Mark merely states that Judas had the intention to betray Jesus (Mk 14:10b-11a), whereas Luke reports the actual negotiations (O'UV€MtAllO'€V, 22:4) and agreement (uuve:8€vLO, €~wJ..loA61lYO'€v, 22:5,6).

Fourthly, the fact that Judas betrayed Jesus for money is common to Luke and Mark. However, in Luke's version this is not merely a promise (cf Mk 14:11) from the Jewish leaders, but an agreement explicitly entered into (€~WJ..lOA6nyO'€V) by Judas (22:6a). In the con-

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 127

text of Luke's Gospel as a whole the betrayal for money is signifi­cant. By this stage the reader of the Gospel is fully aware of the Lucan Jesus' views on money and possessions (cf chapter three, par 1). It can therefore be inferred that the suffering of the Lucan Jesus was exacerbated by the thought that one of his followers would be­tray him for the exact opposite of what he stood for (cf Jesus re­marks on nA€OV€~ia in 12:15).

The second pericope in which the motif of Judas' betrayal fea­tures is the one that recounts the foretelling of the betrayal (22:21-23/ /Mk 14:17-21). Luke makes this the introduction to the farewell discourse, placing it immediately after and closely linking it to (cf the nAf\V of 22:21) the institution of the Lord's supper (22:14-23). (In Mark's version it precedes the institution of the Lord's supper and, although taking place on the same occasion, it actually forms a sepa­rate episode- cf Mk 14:17-21.) Following immediately after the in­stitution, Luke clearly contrasts the action of the betrayer with Jesus' totally selfless act for the benefit of his followers. It is interesting to note that at the beginning of Luke's version of the institution scene (22:15), Jesus expresses his awareness that he will suffer (npO 1:00 JJ€ naEM:v). This corresponds to the anticipation of his suffering already observed in the treatment of the earlier predictions of his passion (cf 1.7 above). Jesus' earnest desire (e:m9uJJlQ e:n€9uJJT\aa) to celebrate the passover with his disciples underlines his awareness of the close relationship between him and his disciples which is to be broken by the betrayer. At that very moment, when Jesus is so intensely aware that he is going to sacrifice himself for the benefit of his followers, he also suffers the awareness that his betrayer is dining with him (22:20b-21):

This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.

The hand ofthe betrayer on the table with Jesus is not (as is the case with the dipping into the dish in Mark- cf Mk 14:20) a clue to the betrayer's identity, but simply emphasises that the betrayer is eating with Jesus. We have already referred to the close bond be­tween people who eat together (cf chapter three, par 6.2). Luke's version emphasises Jesus' suffering in that one of his inner circle,

128 Chapter four

who moreover has the effrontery to eat with him, would commit such an act. This motif is strengthened by Luke's addition of verse 23, in which the disciples are said to be questioning one another about which of them would commit the act, thus stressing the fact that the betrayer was one of Jesus' disciples. The motif that Jesus would be betrayed by one of the disciples who ate with him is also present in Mark (cf 14:18-20), but Luke places it within the imme­diate context of the institution of the eucharist. In fact, Luke's ver­sion is shorter than Mark's. The motifs of Jesus' suffering are actual­ly merged in his version: Jesus is aware that he is to suffer for his fol­lowers (22:15,19-20), one of them contributes to that suffering, and he is also painfully aware of that (22:21-23).

Judas's conspiracy with the Jewish leaders (22:1-6) and Jesus' awareness of his betrayal (22:21-23) frame and dominate the episode of Jesus' last meal with his disciples, casting a dark shadow on what was to Jesus a highly significant occasion (22:15) and in that sense contributing to his suffering.

The third pericope containing the motif of Judas' betrayal is that on the actual betrayal (22:47-48) which forms part of the arrest of Jesus (22:47-53). Luke's version is shorter than Mark's (cf 14:43-46), but his alterations again seem to highlight Jesus' suffering. He omits the Marcan details about the crowd that accompanied Judas from the Jewish leaders and the motif of the kiss as a sign to them (cf Mk 14:43b-44). The result is that in Luke's version the focus is on the figure of Judas, who acts as the leader of the crowd (cf npof)PX€1:O mJ"wuc; in 22:47 - cf Marshall 1978:835). Luke reiterates (like Mark) that he was one of the twelve (22:47), thereby underlining the 'enor­mity of the betrayal' (Marshall 1978:835). However, it is the motif of the kiss in particular which is used by Luke to accentuate Jesus' suf­fering. In Mark the latter functions as a sign to the crowd to arrest Jesus and to lead him away under guard (Mk 14:45). Luke does not mention the motif of the sign, nor even the actual arrest (cf the omission of Mk 14:46). Instead he introduces a response by Jesus as Judas approaches him: 'Iouoa, ~tAf)J.lCX1:t 1:0V utov 1:0U lxv8pwnou ncx­pcxOiowc;; (22:48). The position of ~tAf)J.lCX1:l at the beginning of Jesus' question is emphatic, stressing 'the enormity of using a kiss in such a hypocritical manner' (Marshall 1978:836). Jesus' question is the focal point of Luke's report of his arrest and clearly expresses and re­capitulates the suffering he experienced at the hand of Judas.

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 129

2.1.2 The denial by Peter

Two episodes concern us here: the prediction of the denial (22:31-34/ /Mk 14:26-31) and the denial itself (22:54-62/ /Mk 14:66-72).

Luke's version of the prediction of the denial (22:31-34) follows immediately after the dispute about greatness (to be discussed in 2.1.3 below) and is the third pericope in succession to deal with suf­fering inflicted upon Jesus by his own disciples. In Luke's context the prediction of the denial actually comes as a surprise after Jesus' po­sitive remarks to the disciples in response to their dispute about greatness (cf 22:28-30). Again his positive feelings towards the disci­ples (cf 22:15) are accompanied by a painful awareness that Peter, the leader of the disciples, will deny him.

Luke's version consists of a combination of his Sondergut (22:31-32) and part of the Marcan tradition (22:33-34/ /Mk 14:29-30; cf Schiirmann 1957:99-116; Marshall 1978:818-819; Fitzmyer 1985: 1421). In view of our theme, it should be noted that Luke's version softens the defection of the disciples, especially Peter's. He omits the Marcan remark that all the disciples will fall away (nool'r::€c;; m:OOIoa­AlO'SftO'€O'S€, cf Mk 14:27,50). The Lucan Peter also does not deny Jesus (Mk 14:32b: Jl€ im<XpvTtO"O) but only the fact that he knew Jesus (22:34: Jl€ im<XpvTtO"O €tO€Val; cf the recurrence in 22:57). In addition the Sondergut section (which resembles Jn 13:36 and 21:15-17 in ma­ny respects - cf Schweizer 1982:222; Grundmann 1974:338) portrays Peter positively as the leader of the church. None of these things, however, takes away the suffering which Peter's denial caused Jesus. It should be kept in mind that the prediction of the denial is placed in the scene of the Last Supper and forms part of Jesus's farewell. discourse to his disciples. In that scene Jesus anticipates that Judas will betray him. In addition he is aware that the leader of the dis­ciples (the one who will strengthen the brethren) will fail to support him. The double vocative (Simon, Simon) can be interpreted as part of Jesus' somewhat emotional awareness of what is to come. The re­ference to the sifting of the disciples (22:21) indicates that Jesus' passion means tribulation also for his followers (who had hitherto stood by him in his trials - cf 22:28). However, in the hour of his greatest~need they (and especially Peter) will add to rather than lighten his burden (cf22:45,61).

Peter's denial contrasts sharply with his confession of uncondi­tional readiness to suffer with Jesus (22:33). That this 'makes his

130 Chapter four

eventual failure the more heinous' (Marshall 1978:818) is true as far as the suffering it caused Jesus is concerned. However, there seem to be two (at first glance contradictory) motifs featuring simultaneously in Luke's portrayal of Jesus' suffering: Jesus suffers acutely because of Peter's defection; nonetheless the Lucan disciples are not as bad as their Marcan equivalents. While Jesus suffers because of their be­trayal (22:21-23), wrong attitudes (22:24-27) and denial (22:31-34), he still assigns them a kingdom (22:30) and prays that Peter and all of them may be strengthened (22:32). In the midst of his own suffer­ing he still cares about the suffering of the disciples (cf also 2.3 be­low).

Luke's version of Peter's actual denial (22:54-62/ /Mk 14:66-72) differs from Mark's in respect of both content and position in the narrative (in Luke immediately after the arrest and before the trial). Luke's passage is most probably based on Mark's (cf Taylor 1972:77-78; Schneider 1977:464; Fitzmyer 1985:1456; contra. Grundmann 1974:416; Marshall 1978:839-840). His redaction reveals, besides a more lenient view of Peter (cf the omission of Peter's swearing in Mk 14:71), at least three things that accentuate the suffering of Jesus:

Firstly, Luke changes Mark's sequence of Jewish trial- mocking­denial (cf Mk 14:53-64,65,66-72) to denial - mocking - Jewish trial (22:54-62,63-65,66-71). According to Schneider (cf 1969:137-139) this is due to the fact that the mocking and trial derive from his Sonder­gut, and the denial had to come before the trial because the session of the Sanhedrin commenced early the next morning (22:66; cf Schneider 1977:464). It is questionable, however, whether Schnei­der's explanation for the change in sequence covers Luke's full inten­tion. The effect of positioning the denial before the trial is that, immediately after the arrest of the Lucan Jesus, his chief disciple leaves him in the lurch. Thus Luke communicates that the Jewish and Roman authorities were not alone in causing Jesus' fmal suffer­ing; above all, the most important person in his own circle con­tributed to it. The Lucan Jesus had to face his passion alone, fully aware that he had been denied by Peter. This is an important aspect of the passion itself.

Secondly, Jesus' awareness of Peter's denial is clearly communi­cated by Luke's insertion of 22:61a: Kat. (T1:pa~d~ 0 KUplO~ E:V€­/3A€I\J€V 1:ql IIhpq>. 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<; ... J,l€i~wv, cf 9:46; 22:24) that arose earlier in the Gos­pel in the context of an announcement of Jesus' passion (cf 9:44-48 and 1.7.1 above). It therefore seems significant that Luke's second dispute should be placed in the actual passion narrative. As part of Luke's farewell discourse during the passover meal (22:21-38), which as a whole reflects on the disciples' role in Jesus' passion (cf Tan­nehill 1986:253-274), its relation to Jesus' suffering needs to be examined.

The disciples' dispute about greatness contributes to Jesus' suf­fering in the sense that it concerns the exact opposite of what Jesus' stood for in his life and which, in the words of institution, he renders applicable to himself. Soon after his reference to his own fmal suf­fering for the benefit of his disciples (22:20), they displayed a totally antithetical attitude by squabbling about seniority. Jesus' reaction to the dispute explicitly reveals that his own death is a 'service' (cf Glockner 1975:177) to them (cf 22:27/ /Mk 10:45). By implication their desire to be masters rather than slaves not only reflects a com­plete misconception of Jesus' death and message, but actually denies that message. The fact that Jesus' inner circle failed to recognise the true meaning of his suffering for the benefit of his followers ironical­ly added to that suffering. Tannehill (1986:254-257) argues con­vincingly that the disciples' misconception (and hence Jesus' suffer­ing) is aggravated by the fact that they misunderstood the Lucan Jesus' central message regarding humility and service, despite Jesus' example and repeated instruction to them (cf 9:46-48; 11:43; 12:35-48; 14:7-11; 16:15; 17:7-12; 18:14; 18:15-17; 20:45-47). They also failed to grasp his repeated instruction about his future passion (cf the six Lucan passion announcements discussed in 1.7 above).

Jesus' sympathetic reference to the disciples in Luke 22:28 (UJ,l€l<; DE €0'1:€ Ol DtQJ,l€J,l€lIT\K01:€<; J,l€1:' €J,loO €V 1:ol<; 7t€tpQO'J,lOl<; J,lOU -Lucan redaction to Q; cf Marshall 1978:815-816; Jeremias 1980:290) does not detract from the suffering inflicted by their dispute. The fact that it refers to the disciples' role in Jesus' temptations (suffer­ing) supports our view that Jesus' experienced the dispute as painful. At a time when they are hurting him, he refers - probably with their future behaviour in mind - to times when they supported him. Their places of honour they will receive (22:29-30), but ironically this will only happen through their readiness to cease striving for such places and, by implication, to be humble and to suffer themselves (cf Tan-

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 133

nehill1986:262). The suffering inflicted upon Jesus by the disciples on the mount

of Olives (22:39-46 - Luke never mentions Gethsemane!) is best un­derstood in the light of two anticipatory remarks which only the Lu­can Jesus makes during his farewell discourse immediately before this episode (Tannehill 1986:263-264 mentions only the second re­mark). In 22:28 Jesus refers to the disciples' 'perseverance' (d Brown 1969) with him in his temptations, and immediately after­wards (verse 31) he tells Peter that Satan wants to 'sift' all (cfuJ..l&;) the disciples 'like wheat'. These two verses create suspense in the Lucan narrative, since both suggest that Jesus' imminent suffering represents a test of the disciples' perseverance. Hence the suffering of Jesus is linked to and will be influenced by the attitude of the dis­ciples. Tannehill remarks (1986:263-264):

Earlier the narrator reported that Satan had entered into Ju­das (22:3). Now Satan is at work in all the apostles. The apos­tles still have a chance to escape Satan's temptation, for at the Mount of Olives Jesus commands them, 'Pray not to enter in­to temptation' (22:40; see 22:46). Instead they fall asleep and lose their chance. They are trapped by Satan's temptation, as their behavior shows. So when Jesus says to the arresting crowd, 'This is your hour and the power (€~ouO'(a) of dark­ness' (22:53), it is not only Satan's work in Judas which de­monstrates the power of darkness but also Satan's power to 'sift' the other apostles and expose their faithlessness.

It is noteworthy that Luke explicitly (contra Mk 14:32) mentions that the disciples followed Jesus to the mountain (22:39b). In the Lu­can episode, moreover, it is not only Peter, James and John (d the omission of Mk 14:33) that accompany him, but all the dif>ciples (d 22:31,45). Up until the Last Supper they stood by Jesus in all his temptations (22:28), but in the hour of his greatest temptation they fail him (22:45). If the text-critically doubtful words about Jesus' agony (22:43-44) are read as part of the Lucan text (d Metzger 1971:177), the disciples' failure is even more conspicuous, since it follows immediately after this comment.

From the above one can conclude with a high degree of probabi­lity that Luke presented his material in such a way as to stress that the disciples' defection contributed significantly to Jesus' passion. On

134 Chapter four

the other hand, the previously discerned motif (cf 2.1.2 above) of sympathy for the disciples is again observable: Jesus' prays for Peter with a view to their ultimate strengthening (22:32); there is only one mention of the fact that they fell asleep (as opposed to three in Mk 14:32-38); the scene ends on a relatively positive note with Jesus en­couraging them to pray to be spared further temptation (22:46b). Luke also mentions that Jesus found them asleep 'for sorrow' (anD Uic;; AU1tT\C;;, 22:45b). According to Tannehill (1986:271) and Neyrey (1985:49-53) this remark actually aggravates the disciples' defection, since hU1tT\ (in Stoic philosophy) is one of the 'four cardinal passions which are to be avoided as vices' (Tannehill 1986:271). Whether Luke's semantic intention should be interpreted in terms of Stoic philosophy is, of course, debatable. In view of Luke's sympathetic portrayal of the disciples throughout the Gospel (cf 8:11/ /Mk 4:13; 8:24/ /Mk 4:38; 8:45/ /Mk 5:31; the omission of Mk 8:32-33 and 9: 10,28-29; 9:34/ /Mk 9:6; 9:45/ /Mk 9:32; 18:34; 19:39-40; 22:15; the omission of Mk 14:27,31,50,71; cf O'Toole 1984:178-181), the expres­sion is in our view best interpreted as communicating an extenuating circumstance. Nevertheless this does not imply that the disciples per­severed during the passion (contra Brown 1969:62). Their actions did indeed inflict suffering upon Jesus, but the Lucan Jesus (and Luke himself!) remained positively disposed towards them (contra Tannehi111986:262). This concern of Jesus' during his suffering seems to be an element of that suffering (cf 2.3 below).

Before we conclude this section, Tannehill's (1986:265-268) chal­lenging interpretation of the pericope of the two swords (22:35-38) deserves attention, since - if his exposition is correct - the pericope contributes to the suffering inflicted upon Jesus by the Lucan disci­ples. According to Tannehill the quotation from Isaiah 53:12 (Kat J..I.€'tCx avoJ..l.wv E:hoYla8Tl) refers not to Jesus' crucifixion between robbers on the cross (e g Glockner 1975:171; contra Karris 1985:95), but directly to the faithless disciples who have already bought two swords. The reason why Jesus commanded them to buy swords, it is argued, was not that he condoned the carrying of swords in view of changing circumstances (Edwards 1981:86), nor is it symbolically meant (cf Conzelmann 1964:74; Marshall 1978:823-825). He gave the command in fulfilment of the Scripture that he was reckoned with transgressors, who in this context are the unlawful sword-carriers, his disciples.

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 135

Tannehill's suggestion is feasible, since it accounts for the peri­cope's position in the present context (the farewell discourse). The idea of the disciples as unlawful sword-carriers tallies well with their defection which is portrayed in all three the other pericopes in the discourse (22:21-34), as well as the episodes that follow (especially the arrest, when Jesus stopped the disciples from using the swords­cf 22:49-50). It is a moot point, however, whether Luke would have portrayed Jesus as commanding his disciples to buy swords (even for the purpose of fulfilling Scripture) if it was directly contrary to his actual convictions. This would only be conceivable if the command was ironically meant (Jesus saying the opposite of what he actually felt), in which case the disciples (who took it literally and presented Jesus with two swords - cf 22:38) did not understand Jesus at all. Luke's intention would then be to portray the disciples as fearful, not understanding, faithless and unwilling to endure passively (with and like Jesus) during his impending passion. Although Tannehill's expo­sition (cf also the similar one of Minear 1964) does not resolve all the interpretive problems posed by the passage (e g the possible iro­ny referred to), in my view it presents the most feasible interpreta­tion.

In conclusion: by means of his farewell discourse, Luke portrays the effect on Jesus of the disciples' actions during the passion. Be­cause the farewell discourse anticipates their behaviour soon after­wards, their defection is actually reported twice and is thus accentu­ated. Moreover, the Lucan Jesus' predictions imply full awareness of their impending apostasy and when the defections occur, he is pain­fully aware of them (cf 22:46,48,51-53,61). The disciples' defection, coupled with the sympathetic attitude which he maintains towards them, therefore seems to be integral to Jesus' fmal suffering.

2.2 Jesus' innocent suffering

Whereas the first half of the passion narrative deals mainly with the disciples' role in Jesus' passion (22:1-62), the second half (22:63-23:56) relates the role of the Jewish leaders and the political authori­ties. Since we dealt in some detail with the latter in our description of Jesus' suffering throughout his life, we shall not make their role our point of departure in our treatment of the second half of the passion narrative. Instead we concentrate on some important motifs

136 Chapter four

in the narrative which seem to characterise and underscore Jesus' final suffering. In our treatment of these motifs (Jesus' innocent suf­fering, humiliated suffering and his care for others during his suffer­ing), the role of his opponents will obviously also be mentioned.

Although the motif of Jesus' innocent death is not absent from the other two synoptic Gospels (cf Mk 14:48; 15:10,14; Mt 26:55; 27:19,23), it is given special prominence by Luke. Luke communi­cates this motif through at least five characters (Jesus, Pilate, Herod, the penitent robber and the centurion at the cross). He also makes redactional notes referring to it in his text. We will deal with the re­levant pericopes only in so far as they contain this motif.

Firstly, Jesus himself refers to his innocent suffering when he quotes Isaiah 53:12 (Kat ~€La 6:v6~wv E:AOYl0"8n) in the pericope about the two swords (22:35-38). Whether the transgressors of 22:37 in Luke's context refers to the disciples or to the two criminals who were crucified with Jesus (cf 2.1.3 above) is immaterial to the fact that the quotation communicates that Jesus suffered innocently. The statement that he was reckoned with transgressors implies his own innocence. During his arrest Jesus also implies his own innocence with his question to the Jewish leaders (22:52/ /Mk 14:48): we;; E:nt ATJO"l:TtV E:~ftA8au: ~El:a ~(XtX(XtPWV Kat ~UAWV; A third reference by Jesus to his own innocence is probably to be found in the proverb about the dry wood which he cites to the women who lamented him (23:31; cf Schmithals 1980:225). The fact that these remarks are made by the Lucan Jesus himself suggests his awareness of his inno­cence, which adds to his suffering.

Secondly, Jesus is thrice declared innocent by Pilate. To achieve this Luke introduced the trial before Herod, with the result that Jesus actually appeared twice before Pilate. During Jesus' first ap­pearance (23:2-5/ /Mk 15:2-5) Pilate explicitly states (contra Mark, but in accordance with Jn 18:38!): OUOEV EUPlO"KW dll:tOV E:V l:@ 6:v-8pwncp LOUl:CP (23:4b). Luke adds to his account the false charges made by the Jewish leaders (perverting the nation, forbidding the payment of taxes, declaring himself king and inciting the people - cf 23:2,5). The notion of the Jewish leaders scheming to accuse Jesus falsely was introduced earlier in 20:20. The innocent suffering of the Lucan Jesus therefore seems to be compounded by their false charges.

The first scene of the second appearance before Pilate (23:13-16)

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 137

is unique to Luke and its sole purpose is to have Jesus declared inno­cent. In actual fact his innocence is referred to three times in the four verses. Pilate informs the Jewish leaders that after examining the case, he failed to fmd Jesus guilty on any of their charges (23:14). He himself concludes that Herod, when he tried Jesus, had likewise found him not guilty, and emphatically concludes: OOO€V a~tov 9ava-1:0U EO'dv 1t€1tpaYJlEVOV cxtl1:if] (23:16).

To communicate Pilate's third declaration of Jesus' innocence, Luke reworked the choice between Jesus and Barabbas into the se­cond scene of the second appearance before Pilate (23:17-25/ /Mk 15:6-15). The Lucan scene focuses not so much on the people's choice of Barabbas (cf his cursory summary of Mk 15:6-12 in 23:18-19) as - yet again - on Jesus' innocent suffering. The Lucan Pilate expands the question in Mark 15:14 (1:l yap E1tOlT\O'€V KCXKOV;) to 1:l yap E1tOlT\O'€V KCXKOV OU1:oc;; OOO€V al1:tOV 9ava1:ou €upov EV mhif] (23:22). Luke's addition to Pilate's words (6 a€ 1:pl1:OV €t1t€v) expli­citly indicates and emphasises to his readers that Jesus was thrice de­clared innocent by Pilate.

Despite finding Jesus innocent, Pilate, under pressure from the Jewish leaders and the crowd, handed Jesus over to be crucified (23:25). Luke uses Barabbas's case to accentuate Jesus' innocent suf­fering. In verse 23:25 (contra Mk 15:15) he clearly contrasts Barab­bas's guilt (O'1:aO'tC;;, ~OVOC;) with the unjust treatment of Jesus. This is repeated explicitly by Peter in Acts 3:14 «iytOC;; Kat alKatOC;; vs ~OV€Uc;;). Jesus' suffering thus included the fact that at the very mo­ment that he (an alleviator of suffering) was unjustly convicted, an inflicter of suffering was released. In 23:32 there is another indirect reference to Barabbas when mention is made of the €1:€pot KCXKOUp­YOt who were taken with Jesus to be crucified. Again Luke charac­terises the suffering of the innocent .Jesus: he does not merely die innocently, but as a criminal between criminals.

Our analysis of Pilate's declaration of Jesus' innocence compels us to take issue with Conzelmann's thesis (1964:128-135) concerning Luke's political apologia to the Roman authorities. Although Luke's portrayal of the Roman authorities may well have had the effect of recommending Christianity to the Romans (Conzelmann 1964:128), it is questionable whether this was Luke's intention with his portray­al of Jesus' trial. It can even be argued that Pilate is portrayed in a very bad light, since he allowed an innocent man to die (cf also the

138 Chapter four

reference to the Roman authorities as 'lawless men' in Ac 2:23; also Cassidy 1987:148-155). We would rather postulate that Luke used the character of Pilate (as he used other characters) to accentuate Jesus' innocent suffering. Since the Jewish leaders acted as inflicters of suffering on Jesus throughout his ministry, Luke had to use the highest judicial authorities (Pilate and even Herod) to declare Jesus innocent. That this was his primary motive is supported by the fact that in the same context (Jesus' trial) he further accentuated Jesus' innocent suffering by presenting his readers with the trial before Herod and by contrasting Jesus' case with that of Barabbas. We are not saying that the motive of political apology is totally absent from Luke-Acts, or that Luke would have been against offering one. We merely maintain that the main function of Pilate's declaration of Jesus' innocence is to highlight an important aspect of Jesus' suffer­ing.

Thirdly, Herod found no guilt in Jesus. Luke's trial before Herod (23:6-12) is unique to Luke's account and his redaction is apparent in nearly every verse (Jeremias 1980:301-303). The episode contri­butes considerably to two important motifs relating to Jesus' suffer­ing: his persecution by Herod (cf 1.6 above) and his innocence. Al­though Herod does not explicitly pronounce Jesus innocent (possibly because this would present too favourable an image of Jesus' old enemy), it is implied by the events of the episode. He asks Jesus ma­ny questions, but the latter keeps quiet like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:7 (Karris 1985:85). Despite the Jewish leaders' vehement accusations (€lrr:6vwc; KCX1:TlYOPOUV1:€C;, 23:10) Herod does not find Jesus guilty, but sends him back to Pilate. Herod first tortures him (23:11), however, thus reinforcing the motifs of innocent suffering and Herod's enmity against Jesus. Schmithals (1980:221) perhaps reads too much into the text when he suggests that the subsequent friendship between Pilate and Herod (23:12) developed because of their agreement on Jesus' innocence. It should be noted, however, that Luke uses Pilate to communicate directly to his readers that Herod too found no guilt in Jesus (23:15). It therefore seems as if Luke included the Herod episode mainly to accentuate Jesus' inno­cent suffering.

Fourthly, the penitent robber refe"ed to Jesus' innocence. Luke's is the only Gospel to report that one of the robbers on the cross re­pented (23:39-43). Part of the robber's penitence is that he recog-

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 139

nises Jesus' innocence. Being penitent, he becomes a trustworthy witness to that innocence. It is noteworthy that, just as Barabbas's guilt was contrasted with Jesus' innocence (23:25), so the penitent robber contrasts his own culpability with Jesus' blamelessness: a~ to

yap tilv E:np&~oJlEV anOAoJl/3&VOJlEV. oome; oE ouoEv a't1onov €npa~Ev (23:41). This verse stresses two interwoven aspects of Jesus' suffering: the utter humiliation of being crucified innocently as a cri­minal.

Fifthly, the centurion at the cross declared that Jesus was righteous. Luke's account of the centurion's confession (23:47) represents a specific redaction of Mark 15:39, as is attested by Jeremias (1980: 308; cf also Schneider 1977:486; Marshall 1978:874; Fitzmyer 1985: 1513). His most significant emendation is the change of Mark's ul.oe; SEOU to OtKOlOe;. The fact that this change occurs in the 'climactic episode' (Fitzmyer 1985:1512) of the passion narrative accentuates its importance. Karris (1985:16,17,21,110-111) argues convincingly that OtKoloe; (cf also Luke's use in Ac 3:14; 7:52; 22:14) has a wider meaning than merely Jesus' innocence (contra the RSV translation). Although this is also implied, Luke ends his portrayal of Jesus' inno­cence on an even more emphatic note: he interprets it positively by stating that Jesus was righteous (OtKatOe;), which implies doing God's will in the fullest sense (Karris 1985:16; Schrenk 1950:192; Louw & Nida 1988:744). Karris (1985:23) also makes the point that through­out his life the Lucan Jesus saw 'the will of God' as caring 'for the defenseless person' - in other words, as the alleviation of suffering in all its dimensions. This further accentuates Jesus' own suffering: he, the alleviator of suffering par excellence, dies a humiliating death and becomes the supreme sufferer in Luke's Gospel. This insight causes the centurion to praise God (23:47), since it implies his own salvation (cf also 3.2 below).

We can conclude that Luke edited the traditions of the passion narrative available to him in many ways in order to communicate that Jesus suffered innocently. Marcan motifs were taken over (e g 22:52) or modified (e g 23:13-23) and traditions from his Sondergut (e g 22:35-38; 23:6-12), as well as redactional notes (e g 22:65), were added. By emphasising Jesus' innocent death, Luke portrays the ut­ter humiliation and relentlessness of Jesus' suffering.

140 Chapter four

23 Jesus' care for others during his suffering

A striking feature of the Lucan passion narrative is the way in which the Lucan Jesus continues to care for sufferers during his own suf­fering. Because this quality is integral to Luke's view of the sotorio­logical meaning of Jesus' suffering, it will receive more particular at­tention in paragraph 3.2 below. However, we contend that Jesus' care for others in the midst of his own suffering, no less than his in­nocence, is a significant feature of that suffering. It is also related to his innocence, since it contributes to the motif of the 'innocently suf­fering righteous one' (Karris 1985:107). This motif of Jesus' care for others, which we consider very briefly with reference to Jesus' own suffering, occurs at least five times in the passion narrative:

First, Luke adds Jesus' prayer for Peter (22:31-32) from his Son­dergut to the tradition of Peter's denial (22:33-34), thereby juxtapos­ing Jesus' care for Peter (and the brethren) with his painful aware­ness that Peter will deny him. The same motif is also present else­where: when the disciples were arguing about greatness (22:24), Jesus spoke of his serving them (22:27b) and also promised them a kingdom (22:29-30). When they failed him on the mount of Olives (22:45), he encouraged them to pray (cf22:46/ /Mk 14:38-42).

Secondly, the healing of the high priest's slave (22:50-51) was men­tioned previously in our discussion of Luke's emphasis on physical suffering (cf chapter three, par 4.1). While Jesus is being arrested by men carrying swords (22:52), he heals one of his enemies who was wounded by one of his disciples. Jesus himself accentuates the con­trast between his righteous and innocent ministry and the action of his arresters (22:52-53). Despite his own suffering over their unjust treatment, he still cares - even for his enemy.

Thirdly, Luke's is the only Gospel which relates (from his Sonder­gut) Jesus' concern for the women who lamented (hom:ov1:O Kat

e8piJVouv) him (23:26-31). True to his sympathetic attitude towards women and children throughout his ministry (cf chapter three, par 2.4-5), Jesus explicitly directs their attention away from his suffering to their own and their children's. In the proverb in 23:31 he also con­trasts his own (innocent - cf Schmithals 1980:225) suffering with that of the women, implying that theirs will be worse (contra Schmithals 1980:225). The episode not merely portrays Jesus' care for the women and their children, but also depicts his selflessness as far as his own suffering is concerned. This selflessness entails extreme self-

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 141

humiliation (cf 22:27), which in fact increases the suffering. Fourthly, the authenticity of Jesus' prayer for his crucifiers (23:34)

was mentioned earlier (cf chapter three, par 6.1). Just as Stephen was to do later (Ac 7:60), and true to his own instruction (6:28,37), Jesus prays that the sin of his enemies should be forgiven. He does this at the very moment when they are inflicting the utmost suffering on him.

In the fifth place, Jesus promises paradise to the penitent robber (23:41-43). It should be noted that the salvation is not promised for the distant future when the kingdom ultimately comes, but for that very day (m1J,.I.€pov). Part of Jesus' merciful care is that the suffering will be alleviated immediately, as happened so often during his mi­nistry (4:21; 4:39; 5:25; 8:44; 13:13; 18:43; 19:9). The Lucan Jesus ex­presses this righteous care while he is enduring the spiritual and phy­sical suffering of hanging innocently on a cross.

24 Jesus' crucifixion as extreme suffering and bumiJiation

It is often argued that Luke's omission of Jesus' cry My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me (Mk 15:35) and his insertion of the cry Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit (23:46) indicates that Luke's Jesus died more serenely than Mark's, implying that his suf­fering was less acute. Examples of such an interpretation include Marshall's (1978:874) reference to 'the peacefulness of his dying' and Edwards' (1981:93) remark that 'Luke's crucifIXion story is almost tranquil'. In view of our discussion of the depth and intensity of Jesus' suffering throughout the Gospel and in most of the passion narrative, such an interpretation of Luke's redaction of the cruci­fixion story is highly debatable. On the basis of his account of the crucifixion we will attempt to show that Glockner's (1975:171-173) interpretation of the Lucan Jesus' death as 'Vollendung des Weges in die Emiedrigung' is more apposite.

Luke's account of the crucifixion (23:26-49/ /Mk 15:21-41), al­though most probably based on Mark's, is a fairly radically edited version of the latter, possibly including material from his Sondergut (e g 23:27-31,39-43; cf Marshall 1978:862; Schmithals 1980:225: Fitz­myer 1985:1494; contra Grundmann 1974:431).

The first important change to the Marean narrative is Luke's in­corporation of Jesus' reaction to the weeping women (23:27-31), to which we referred above (cf 2.3). We also mentioned that Jesus di-

142 Chapter four

rected the women's attention away from his suffering to their own, thereby evincing an attitude of selfless, humble self-humiliation (Er­niedrigung).

Lest his readers gain the impression that Jesus was only in good company on his way to the cross, Luke immediately adds a redac­tional note (23:32) about the two criminals who were to be crucified with him. Not only on the cross, but also on the way to the cross Jesus was 'reckoned with them' (cf 22:37; Mk 15:27-28). Glockner (1975:171fi) bases much of his argument that Jesus' death meant his final humiliation on Luke's citation from Isaiah 53:7-8,12 in 22:37 and Acts 8:32-33 (note1:CX1tetVwO'le;; in Ac 8:33!). As argued above, it is debatable whether 22:37 refers primarily to Jesus' crucifixion (cf 2.1.3). However, even if the quotation refers only to the disciples, it still expresses Jesus' humiliation. It can even be interpreted as rein­forcing the motif of his humiliation, for in the crucifixion episode Luke relates (in even more detail than Mark) that Jesus was cruci­fied between, and therefore 'reckoned with', transgressors. The re­ference to DtKCXlOe;; in 23:47 also reminds the reader of Barabbas (another criminal with whom Jesus was reckoned). Jesus' humilia­tion is spelled out even more minutely in Luke's account, since one of the criminals contrasts their rightful condemnation with Jesus' in­nocence (23:41). Glockner's thesis that the Lucan Jesus' death im­plied his extreme humiliation therefore seems to be substantiated. We are of the opinion that Glockner could have developed the motif even further by also taking account of the motifs of the defection of the disciples, the mocking of Jesus, his innocent suffering and self­less care for others during his suffering.

The third important difference between the Lucan and Marcan cruciftxion accounts is Luke's unique report that Jesus, in martyrlike fashion, prayed for his executioners (23:34; cf 2.3 above). In our view Jesus' prayer should not be interpreted as indicating that Jesus was able to pray for his enemies because he experienced no suffering (the phrase 1:t TtOlOUO'lV suggests keen awareness of suffering). His prayer rather testifies to his selfless care for his executioners which implies self-humiliation. The same motif of selfless care is also evi­dent in Luke's unique reference to the salvation which Jesus pro­mised the penitent robber (23:43). In fact, the reader has already learned from Jesus that serving (= caring) implies being the least (22:26-27). Jesus' saying, EYW DE EV IJ.€O'Cfl UIJ.@V elIJ.l we;; 0 DlCXKOV@V

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 143

(22:27h) seems to find 'its fulfilment in his selfless care for others during his cruciftxion.

Luke omits Mark 15:23, which reports that the executioners of­fered Jesus spiced wine ('Betaubungstrank' - Grundmann 1973:313), thereby avoiding the impression that Jesus received any support dur­ing his cruciftxion. Indeed, the soldiers, rather than alleviating Jesus' suffering, offered him vinegar as part of their mockery and humil­iation of him (23:36). 'oo. der Betiiubungstrank ist hier zu einem Spott­vorgang geworden' (Grundmann 1974:433).

The executioners' division of and casting lots over Jesus' garments (a motif which Luke retained from Mark, cf 23:34/ /Mk 15:24) exa­cerbates Jesus' humiliation in two ways. Firstly, it suggests Jesus' nakedness while hanging on the cross. Karris (1985:86) refers to cer­tain Old Testament texts (cf Dt 28:48; Is 20:2-4; Ez 16:38-40) and re­marks that 'to be deprived of one's clothes was to lose one's identity', signifying 'utter humiliation'. Secondly, the casting of lots over Jesus' garments implies covetousness, and therefore disregard of an impor­tant element of his teaching (e g 12:15,22-31).

On the cross the Lucan Jesus is derided by the rulers, soldiers and one of the two thieves (23:35-39/ /Mk 15:27-32). He is taunted because he could save others but not himself (23:35), and because he, the king of the Jews and the Christ, cannot save himself (23: 37,39). Luke omits Mark's reference to the destruction and rebuild­ing of the temple (Mk 15:29) and adds the salvation motif to the mockery of the robber (22:39), thus making salvation the dominant motif of the derision scenes. In this way Luke communicates to his readers that Jesus is not the Saviour because he had the power to save at will and for his own sake, but because he was prepared to en­dure humiliation. At this point in the passion narrative the theme of the mockery of Jesus, which also occurred in 22:63-65 and 23:11, reaches a climax. The Lucan reader realises that the physical agony of the cruciftxion was by no means the only (or even the major) com­ponent of Jesus' fmal suffering: the psychological, social and spiritual rejection and humiliation which he suffered were even more painful.

As observed in our discussion of Jesus' being reckoned with cri­minals, the motif of Jesus' innocent SUffering is also expressive of his humiliation. Like the motif of the mockery of Jesus, it also occurs in the prelude to the crucifIXion (cf 2.2 above) and reaches its climax in the crucifixion episode. Luke omits Mark's rather matter-of-fact re-

144 Chapter four

ference to Jesus' guilt (al'tla, cf Mk 15:26//23:38) for according to him there was none (cf Pilate's repeated declarations in 23:4,14,22). In the crucifixion episode Jesus' innocence is also explicitly con­fessed by the penitent robber and the centurion (23:41,47, contra Mark). Jesus' humiliation does not merely consist in dying in the company of transgressors. Luke makes his point even more emphatic by explicitly communicating that Jesus was innocent - indeed, one who did God's will in the fullest sense of the word, (OlKatOC;;, 23:47).

According to Tannehill (1986:271-272) the fact that the disciples stood at a distance (23:49) during the crucifIxion is a sign of 'weak­ened discipleship' and therefore actually part of their defection of Jesus. This suggestion is tempting, particularly when the positive re­action of the centurion and the crowd to Jesus' death (23:47-48) is contrasted with that of the disciples, whose unbelief persisted till af­ter the resurrection (24:11). Nevertheless it should be noted that Luke's portrayal of the disciples is still more sympathetic than Mark's, who depicts the disciples as fleeing already at the time of Jesus' arrest (Mk 14:50).

We have seen that the characteristics of Jesus' fmal passion (the disciple's defection, his innocence, the mockery and his selfless care) are fIrst dealt with by Luke in the prelude to the crucifIxion. These motifs are all concentrated as in a prism in the crucifIXion scene. In conclusion we return to Jesus' words on the cross. It is our conten­tion that Luke's omission of Mk 15:34 (U'hy hast thou forsaken me?) and his insertion of 23:46 (Into thy hands I commit my spirit) should be interpreted in terms of these specifically Lucan features and do not suggest a 'tranquil' or 'peaceful' death, which would diminish Jesus' suffering. Luke may well have felt that the inclusion of Mk 15:34 (although an expression of extreme suffering) would have weakened the motif of Jesus' selflessness, since to his mind it ex­pressed too much concern for himself (contra the Lucan Jesus, cf 23:28). Because the Lucan cry (€tc;; x€tpac;; eJOu 1tapa'ti8€~at 'to 1tv€Q~a JJ.ou) expresses Jesus' selflessness and humility, our explana­tion for the omission of the Marcan version seems the more feasible one. The Lucan Jesus did not die a serene death (his cry is still a cry, ~wvfto"ac;; ~wvfj JJ.€yMll, 23:46a), but one which consummated his humiliation (cf 22:26-27; Ac 8:33).

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 145

3 THE SUFFERING OF JESUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS

So far we have treated ordinary human suffering (chapters two and three) and the suffering of Jesus (above) as separate categories. In this section we attempt to relate Jesus' suffering to that of ordinary human beings. To this end we pay attention to the comprehensive­ness of Jesus' suffering, the analogy between Jesus' suffering and that of his followers, and the benefit that Jesus' suffering entailed for his followers (soteriology).

3.1 The comprehensiveness of Jesus' suffering

In section one of this chapter it was demonstrated that in Luke's Gospel the suffering of Jesus is not confmed to his fmal passion (22-23), since it portrays Jesus' rejection and suffering throughout his life, starting from his birth. In this sense Luke seems to depict Jesus' suffering as no different to ordinary human suffering which contin­ues throughout the human lifespan (cf chapter three on children, old age, etc). The relation between Jesus' suffering and ordinary human suffering can be determined even more effectively by establishing whether the dimensions of suffering distinguished in chapters two and three are also discernible in Jesus' case. Proceeding from the six dimensions which we have distinguished, we shall attempt to relate Jesus' suffering to ordinary human suffering as discussed in chapter three.

As far as economic suffering is concerned, the Lucan Jesus is not merely poor, but actually renounces possessions. Luke is the only Gospel writer to transmit the traditions about the deprived circum­stances of his birth (2:7), his parents' offer of the sacrifice of the poor (2:22-24, cf 1.1 above) and his female disciples who served him with their possessions (implying that he had very little - cf 8:3). The Lucan Jesus most probably also did not own a house (cf the redac­torial changes to Mk 2:1-2; 2:15; 9:33 in Lk 5:17; 5:29; 9:46 respec­tively, as well as the transmission of the Q-saying about the Son of Man having nowhere to lay his head in Lk 9:58). It seems as if Luke portrayed a Jesus who complied with his own teaching on poverty and possessions (cf chapter three, par 1).

The social rejection which Jesus suffered is reflected particularly in the Jewish leaders' taunt in Lk 7:34 (Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!; cf 7:30). The fact that

146 Chapter four

their words are quoted by Jesus himself testifies to his awareness of their rejection. Because Jesus accepted social outcasts (especially toll-collectors and sinners, by dining with them), he was himself os­tracised by the Jewish leaders (e g 5:30; 15:1-2; 19:7; cf chapter three, par 2.1 and 1.5 above).

Jesus also suffered politically, mainly because of his criticism of Jewish exclusivism, as noted in our discussion of the Nazareth peri­cope (cf chapter two and 1.3 above). Because Jesus referred to the alleviation of gentiles' suffering (4:25-27), the Nazarenes tried to kill him (4:29). According to Karris (1984:16-23) Jesus was crucified be­cause of his righteous life style (= caring for sufferers), which pre­sented a challenge to both the Jews and the Romans (cf chapter three, par 3.1, 3.3). Although Jesus died innocently, one cannot evade the truth that his crucifIXion was in the fmal analysis a political action against him by both the Jewish leaders and the Romans (cf Reicke 1968:186). As a Jew he also met with political enmity on the part of the Samaritans (9:51-56).

As far as physical suffering is concerned, Luke never relates that Jesus was sick or hungry. Jesus' physical suffering was caused mainly by people who assaulted him. This is implied inter alia in the episode of the a"est (cf Jesus' reference to the 'swords and clubs' of his ar­resters in 22:52). In the derision episodes too Jesus was beaten (cf 22:63). Then there was the crucifixion with all the physical suffering that this form of execution entailed, familiar both to Jews and to Luke's hellenistic readers. Because 'the theology of the cross' (cf Schneider 1964:575-577) tends to encourage purely 'spiritual' reflec­tion on the crucifixion, it seems appropriate to stress the physical suffering which Jesus endured on the cross (without the help of any narcotic - cf 2.4 above). In this regard we quote Reicke (1968:185-186):

... to the place of crucifixion, Jesus, as was customary, had to carry the transverse beam (Latin patibulum) of the cross be­tween the rows of spectators ... Upon the hill stood several permanent uprights ... The condemned person was sometimes offered a narcotic ... The prisoner was stripped and his arms were tied to the transverse beam; nails were sometimes driven through his hands ... He was then placed on the seat, the transverse beam and his feet were tied to the upright, and the notice of the complaint was attached to the top ... The vic-

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 147

tim was to hang in this agonising position until released by death, which usually came about through difficulty in breath­ing and stoppage of circulation, not so much through loss of blood. If it took too long, the end was often hastened by means of a club or poison ... The usual Roman practice was for the officials to leave the body of a crucified person until it rotted; according to Jewish law, however, the body of a hanged man had to be buried on the day of the execution ...

Cicero referred to crucifIXion as 'the most cruel and abominable penalty' (crode/issimum taeterrimumque supplicium, Ve" V 64,165, quoted by Schneider 1964:573) and Josephus called it 'a most miserable death' (BJ 7,203).

The mockery of Jesus by the Sanhedrin's guard (22:63-65), He­rod's guard (23:11) and the Roman soldiers at the cross (23:36) can be interpreted as psychological SUffering inflicted upon Jesus. The de­fection and misunderstanding of the disciples, to which Luke gives considerable emphasis (cf 2.1 above), can also be interpreted thus, as can the misunderstanding of his parents (2:48-49) and family (8:19-21). Luke also mentions twice that Jesus wept (cf chapter three, par 5.1) over Jerusalem (13:34-35; 19:41-44).

According to Luke, Jesus' spiritual suffering was not caused by sin, but precisely because he was not a sinner. However, being re­garded as a sinner by the Jewish leaders (23:2,5), he was reckoned with transgressors (22:37) and thus suffered the same social rejection as sinners (cf chapter three, par 6.2). Jesus' spiritual suffering was further aggravated by the fact that, although regarded as a sinner, he was 'the innocently suffering righteous one' (Karris 1985:107).

Despite differences between Jesus' suffering and ordinary human suffering, we conclude that Luke portrays Jesus' suffering as being no less comprehensive than ordinary human suffering, since all the dimensions of the latter are discernible in the suffering of Jesus. The fact that Jesus was the Son of God (e g 3:22) by no means implies that he could not suffer, or that he could endure suffering more easi­ly. On the contrary, the fact that he suffered as the Son of God was the supreme humiliation (cf 1.2 above).

3.2 The analogous suffering of Jesus' followers

The parallel between the suffering of Jesus and that of ordinary hu­man beings is not limited to its comprehensiveness. There are also

148 Chapter four

references to the fact that his followers would (e g 9:23) and did (cf Acts) suffer in the same way as Jesus.

The Lucan Jesus demands from his followers to bear their cross (9:23) and follow him - in other words, follow him even to death (Fitzmyer 1986:784). Luke's omission of Peter's misunderstanding (Mk 8:32-33) and Mark's introduction (Mk 8:34) links this demand very closely to Jesus' prediction of his own suffering (9:22). In other words, Jesus is saying that he will suffer and his followers will suffer too. By adding the KOS' TtJl€pav, Luke - even more explicitly than Mark - relates the saying to the daily lives of Jesus' followers. The latter should deny themselves and be prepared to lose their life for Jesus' sake (9:23-24), implying the same humiliation as Jesus suf­fered. Fitzmyer (1986:784) remarks aptly: 'Coming immediately after his declaration about his own suffering, repudiation, and death, the sayings reveal how radically Jesus challenges those who would follow him.' The importance of this motif for Luke is evident from his repe­tition of the saying (from Q) elsewhere in his Gospel (14:27)­where it is similarly associated with the demand for a selfless life (14:25-27).

We pointed out that in his minor eschatological discourse (17:22-37; cf 1.7.2 above) Luke introduced a prediction by Jesus of his own suffering which would precede the apocalypse. In the major dis­course (21:5-35), Marcan references to the future suffering of the dis­ciples are retained (21:12-19; cf Marshall 1978:766; Fitzmyer 1985: 1324) and even modified to suit Luke's own situation (Schmithals 1980:201). The disciples' suffering will precede (21:12: npO DE "[06-

"[wv neXv"[wv) the end, analogously to Jesus' (npw"tov DE DEt oohov nOAAclna8EtV, cf 17:25). The nature of their suffering is also remini­scent of Jesus', for what the Lucan Jesus predicts concerning their future suffering (21:12,16; cf also 12:11) largely applies to his own passion as well. Marshall (1978:766) points out that the wording of 21:12-19 points forward to the experiences of the church in Acts. The following table (cf O'Toole 1984:82-86) illustrates the analogy be­tween the suffering of the Lucan Jesus and that of his followers:

PREDICTION: LK21:12-19

Persecution (12a)

JESUS' SUFFERING

Jewish leaders, Herod, cf 1.5-6

FOLLOWERS IN ACTS

Apostles (5:18), Christians (26:11) Paul (22:22; 25:3)

Handing over to Jewish authori­ties (12b) Bringing before kings and governors (12b) Betrayal by family and friends (16a) Martyrdom (16b)

The sUffering of the Lucan Jesus 149

Trial before Sanhedrin

Trial before He­rod and Pilate Betrayal by Judas

Cruciftxion

Apostles (4:7; 5:27) Stephen (6:12) Paul (22:30) Paul (18:12; 24:2; 25:6-7; 25:23)

Stephen (7:54-60) James (12:2) Christians (26:10)

That Luke portrays Jesus' suffering and that of his followers in much the same fashion is attested by the Lucan Jesus' explicit corre­lation of his own suffering with theirs in his farewell discourse (22:28,31; cf 2.1.3 above). It is also remarkable that Luke applies vir­tually the same saying about 'suffering and exaltation' (cf 3.2.2 be­low) to both Jesus and his followers. Jesus asks the Emmaus dis­ciples: Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? (24:26; cf also 24:46b; Ac 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). On their return from the ftrst misionary journey, Paul and Barnabas strengthened the Christians in Antioch with the words: ... through ma­ny tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God (Ac 14:22; cf also Ac9:16).

33 Jesus' suffering as salvation for his followers

The third parallel between the suffering of Jesus and that of his fol­lowers concerns the soteriological signiftcance of Jesus' suffering for the beneftt of his followers. Our treatment here is based on the ex­position of Glockner (1975:96-240), since in our view his approach accords well with Luke's comprehensive view of the suffering of both Jesus and ordinary humans. Naturally, since we are concerned with Luke's soteriology as it relates to the suffering of Jesus, we shall con­ftne ourselves to this specifIc area.

Glockner (1975) starts his exposition with an outline of the pro­blem of research into Lucan soteriology which we shall not repeat here. It need merely be noted that he (with Flender 1965:140-142) concludes that the term 'soteriologisches Loch' (Haenchen 1968:689; 1977:141; cf also Marshall 1970:175; Fitzmyer 1985:1516) is not ap­plicable to the soteriological signiftcance of the Lucan Jesus' death, since it is based on Paul's soteriological premise concerning the expi-

150 Chapter four

ation of sin through the blood of Christ. Glockner (1975:104) refers to Flender (1968:141), who argued that 'Das Kreuz Jesu ist inner­halb des ganzen Heilsgeschehens zu verstehen', and to Kessler (quoted by Glockner 1975:113) who stressed that 'Gott wirkt das Heil nicht speziell oder gar exldusiv im Tod Jesu, sondern Gott wirkt das Heil durch Jesus' (Kessler 1970:252). Referring to Flender, Glockner (1975:104) remarks:

Entscheidend aber ist fur die Untersuchungen Flenders vor aHem, dass die Probleme der Soteriologie von der aus­schliesslichen Binding an die Sterbeformelo1t€9av€v lI1tep 'twv oJ..lap'ttWV befreit werden.

He concludes (Glockner 1975:113):

Die Restriktion der Soteriologie auf Staurologie ist wegen des bildhaft-fragmentariscen Charakters der Terminologie vom Suhneleiden unangemessen ... Darin liegen Hinweise damr, dass Lukas sehr wohl eine inhaltlich gefiillte Soteriologie ver­kiinden kann, die einerseits das Leiden Christi zentral heraus­stellt, ohne es aber zum alleinigem "wie" und "wodurch" der Erlosung zu machen.

To determine the unique character of Luke's soteriology one should therefore examine it in its own right. Jesus' saving act through his humiliating death does not appear to be distinct from the liberating activity of his entire ministry, which consisted in the al­leviation of suffering and the exaltation of the lowly. On the contra­ry, the salvific meaning of his fmal suffering seems to be interpreted in terms of the same concept of salvation described throughout the Gospel. We shall now attempt to define Luke's concept of salvation, with the least possible repetition of observations made elsewhere in this study.

3.3.1 Salvation as the exaltation of the lowly

According to Luke, salvation implies the alleviation of all the various kinds of suffering- in other words, the exaltation of the lowly. This the reader learns at the outset, when the Magnificat (1:46-56) refers to God as O'wn1P (1:47) and describes his salvific activity in terms of the reversal of the fortunes of different kinds of sufferers (e g Mary,

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 151

the lowly, the hungry, Israel; cf Glockner 1975:122-123; chapter two, par 2.5 above). The fact that salvation implies a reversal of fortunes is reiterated, almost explicitly, by Simeon. After referring to Jesus as 'to O'OO'tTtPlOV (2:30), he tells Mary that Jesus 'is set for the fall (n't@O'lC;;) and rising (avaO''taO'lC;;) of many in Israel' (2:34). Accord­ing to Glockner (1975:122), 'die Geschichte Jesu als KUPlOC;; and O'oo'tf\p wird also ein wesentlich "kritisches" Moment erhalten und zwischen die extremen Pole n't@O'lC;; und avaO''taO'lC;; gespannt sein'. The 'critical element' in Jesus' salvation lies in the fact that salvation from suffering is often (e g in the Magnificat) accompanied by the humiliation of the exalted who inflict suffering (negative reversal of fortunes). In order to see how this applies to all the dimensions of suffering, we shall deviate from Glockner's exposition and, on the basis of the six dimensions of suffering, briefly cite instances where terms indicating salvation (e g O'ciJ~€lV and its derivatives, as well as Au'tpo00'9al and pu€0'9al) are employed with reference to the al­leviation of suffering.

Economic suffering: Because God is O'oo'tTtP, the fortunes of the hungry in the Magnificat will be reversed (double reversal- cf 1:47,53).

Political SUffering: According to the Benedictus, Israel will be de­livered (AU'tPOOO'lC;;, O'oo'tTlpia, pu€0'9al) from its enemies (1:68-75; cf also 1:52,54; 2:30-31; 2:38; 3:6).

Social suffering: The saving of the lost (O'@O'al 'to anoAooMc;;) in the story of Zacchaeus includes their social acceptance by Jesus (19:9,10; cf also 1:48).

Physical suffering: Luke retains from Mark Jesus' frequent use of the expression it nlO''tlC;; O'ou O'€O'OOK€V O'€ after physical healings (8:48; 18:42), and he adds the case of the grateful Samaritan (17:19; cf also 6:9; 7:50; 8:50; 23:35,37,39).

Psychological suffering: Luke is the only Gospel writer who uses the term O'4>~€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 €~o­ooc;; (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 4:10-11; 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:

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)

The suffering of the Lucan Jesus 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<rr:TW' Be;; 0' av anOAEO"(l nlv IJlUXTtv aU"toO EV€K€V E:J..loO,oo"tO«;; O'WO'€l aUn1V (9:24). Alhough Jesus spoke these words with reference to the suffering of his followers, he did so pre­cisely because they were pertinent to his own. In our discussion of the crucifixion scene, we noted that the theme of salvation actually dominates the passage (cf 2.4 above). Jesus is repeatedly ridiculed for his inability to save himself from the cross. This inability is part of his humiliation and, ironically and paradoxically, a condition for his exaltation and the salvation of his followers.

One last question remains: how does the Lucan Jesus' humble death effect salvation for his followers? During the crucifixion the penitent robber experienced salvation because he realised that Jesus was dying innocently (= in humiliation) and because he humbled himself and turned to Jesus. Insight into the irony that it is a power­less, selfless, humiliated, dying Jesus who saves, effects salvation. This is borne out by the reaction of the centurion. At the moment when Jesus died in utter selflessness (cf his selfless cry, 23:46), the centu­rion realised that he was righteous (23:47). The same insight caused the crowd to beat their breasts (23:48), a sign of repentance which implies salvation (cf 18:13-14).

We conclude that, according to Luke, it is not so much the blood of Christ that saves (cf 22:19) as the humiliation of his death. Both the breaking of his body and the shedding of his blood are expressive of this humiliation and salvation - salvation not only from sin, but from all kinds of suffering. Those who assimilate this insight (e g Jesus' followers in Acts) continue to effect salvation through similar humble service to all who suffer.

Chapter five

CONCLUSION

1 FINAL COMMENTS ON LUKE'S VIEW OF SUFFERING

In this study we distinguished between six dimensions of suffering in Luke's Gospel in order to assess the comprehensiveness of his view of suffering. We found that Luke pays much the same attention to five other areas of human suffering as he does to poverty - the Lu­can concern with which has rightly been the focus of keen scholarly interest in recent years.

As far as poverty is concerned, we saw that if we approach it from the angle of Luke's view of suffering (in terms of which poverty is but one of six dimensions of suffering), one obtains an interesting new perspective on the theme of poverty and riches. Poverty is not the only type of suffering on which he concentrates in his Gospel. At the same time, the Lucan concept of the poor cannot be spirit­ualised.

Luke's preoccupation with poverty and riches arises from his compassion for those who suffer. He sympathises with the poor not because of any economic ideology, but simply because their suffering moves him. Although the kingdom promised to the poor appears to be eschatological (6:20), he is definitely concerned about the amelio­ration of their lot in this world. To this end the rich are sharply ad­dressed and encouraged to be charitable to the poor. This explains why so much of the material on poverty and riches is addressed to the rich.

The paradox of his call to the rich both to renounce their posses­sions and to be charitable (while retaining possessions) is also clari­fied to some extent if one views it from the angle of Luke's emphasis on suffering. Renunciation of possessions is not an expression of some ascetic ideal, but should be for the benefit of the poor. Luke's

159

160 Chapter five

marked emphasis on austere living does not imply that he is advocat­ing economic suffering for the rich, as is clear from Jesus' promise that these things shall be yours as well (12:31). It is also evident from his portrayal of the early Jerusalem community, in which members who had disposed of their possessions 'partook of food with glad and generous hearts' (Ac 2:46), there being 'not a needy person among them' (Ac 4:34).

Although Luke strongly advocates the renunciation of all posses­sions, which seems to be his ideal for Christian life, he does not make it an absolute requirement (Ac 5:4). He also advocates charity (the making of friends by means of unrighteous mammon, 16:9) as a means of ameliorating the lot of the poor. This is dramatically illus­trated by the story of Zacchaeus, who (after Jesus had alleviated his social suffering) was called a son of Abraham, having given half his possessions to the poor (19:6-10). Charity is also advocated by Paul in Acts 20:32-35.

Luke's attitude towards the poor is therefore dominated by com­passion for their suffering. Regarding the renunciation of all posses­sions, he seems to adopt an approach of 'he who is able to receive this, let him receive this' (Mt 19:12). At the very least, however, the rich should be charitable to the poor. If they are not, it means that they lack compassion towards those who suffer and do not share the religion of the Lucan Jesus. They are like the seed which fell among the thorns, 'choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life' (8:14). The woe saying of 6:24 applies to them and the fate of Dives apparently awaits them.

Luke also has a message for the poor themselves. They too can contribute to the alleviation of their own suffering. The poor who have a little should be prepared to share with those who have abso­lutely nothing. This is communicated in the ethical teaching of John the Baptist (3:11), as well as in the portrayal of the Jerusalem church in Acts.

The consistency of Luke's compassion for those who suffer emer­ges from his portrayal of social suffering. Ironically, he shows sympa­thy for people who were ostracised because they inflicted economic suffering (toll-collectors), or were perceived as being thieves and swindlers (shepherds), or who robbed people by violence (soldiers). His positive attitude towards these groups in no way implies condo-

Conclusion 161

nation of their practices (3:12-14), but reflects acceptance in the face of the ostracism that they suffered. In Zacchaeus's case it was pre­cisely this social acceptance by Jesus that prompted him to give half his goods to the poor and to restore fourfold (the normal recom­pense was the amount plus one fifth, Lv 6:5; Marshall 1978:698) what he had defrauded (19:7-9).

Luke's concern for women and children also illustrates that with­in the social sphere he did not favour only certain groups. Luke is particularly conscious of the close and tender relationship between mothers and their children (1:25; 2:35,51; 7:12-13; 23:28). He shows great concern for the unenviable social position of widows. His sym­pathy for women extends also to the religious sphere in which it was considered improper for women to fully participate. Luke's feminism is not of the kind that attempts to prove women better than men and give them social dominance over men. His introduction of comple­mentary parallelisms rather indicates that men and women are on an equal footing before God. The same conclusion may be drawn from his attitude towards children, in which regard he appears to advocate the restoration of parental affection and not the 'empowerment' of children.

As far as political suffering is concerned, Luke's apparently para­doxical attitude towards the relation between Jews and gentiles can be explained from the angle of his emphasis on suffering. With re­gard to the Jews, Luke's approach appears to be ambivalent. They are criticised for their share in the cruciflXion of Jesus and especially because of their segregationism vis-a.-vis gentiles and Samaritans. On the other hand, the Gospel reflects an empathy for the Jews because of the oppression they suffered under the Romans. Although oppres­sive authorities are criticised verbally, the use of violence (which im­plies the infliction of physical suffering) is ruled out. There is, how­ever, a positive response to oppression. Thus he advocates humility and service - values which the Romans did not share· (cf their con­tempt of the poor, women, etc). If practised universally (also by Ro­man citizens), this would have posed a threat to the empire (Cassidy 1980:79). On the other hand, he does not propagate hatred of the Romans. Indeed, the Jewish hatred of the Romans is criticised.

The category of physical suffering mainly comprises the healings of Jesus, although Luke also deals with physical assault, danger and

162 Chapter five

hunger. In his portrayal of Jesus' healings, one is struck by Luke's fo­cus on the alleviation of the healed persons' suffering. Their suffer­ing is often described in detail; the healings are reported to occur in­stantly and are usually followed by reactions of joy. Mark's accentua­tion of the misunderstanding of the disciples and Jesus' miraculous powers fades into the background. From a narratologica1 viewpoint, Jesus' role in the healing episodes is characterised as that of one who cares intensely about those who suffer, and he often experiences re­jection because of his concern (e g the sabbath healings). Luke em­phasises this angle more heavily than his sources do, so that there appears to be a parallel between Jesus' attitudes towards the poor and towards the sick (cf 4:18; 7:22; 14:13,21). This does not permit the interpretation of the term 'poor' as an umbrella term referring simultaneously to both the sick and the poor. The parallel rather re­sides in an attitude of compassion for the suffering of both the poor and the sick.

What was observed in regard to physical suffering applies equally to psychological suffering, especially demon possession. Although in Jewish thinking of that time the latter was associated with sin (sin was caused by demons, and demoniacs were regarded as sinners - cf Glockner 1975:135-136), it is not certain that Luke was fully familiar with the religious background to exorcism. At all events, if he had known about the association of demon possession with sin, his com­prehensive view of suffering would have been confIrmed rather than otherwise. His portrayal of the exorcisms indicates that he viewed the demoniac's situation as one of suffering, and he stresses Jesus' alleviation of that suffering in much the same way as in the case of the sick.

The distinction of the category of psychological suffering drew at­tention to Luke's empathy for the aged, which is often overlooked in Lucan studies, and in any case is not seen as analogous to his con­cern for the poor and social outcasts. Moreover, his concern for all categories of suffering is expressed in such general terms as blessed are you that weep now (6:21), indicating that Luke portrays Jesus as compassionate to the psychological effects of any kind of suffering. The inclusion of this beatitude in Luke's Gospel makes it quite clear that there is no type of suffering imaginable for which Jesus did not have empathy.

Conclusion 163

As far as spiritual suffering is concerned, it is noteworthy that the Lucan Jesus' concern for sinners is not expressed through the meta­phorical use of terms like 'the poor' or even in his portrayal of exor­cisms. In the healing of the paralytic there seems to be a close link between paralysis and sin. However, the paralytic is not blamed for his condition as if it were caused by his own sin. The fact that Jesus healed him by announcing the forgiveness of his sins does reflect a world view which regards sin as the cause of sickness. To what extent Luke shared this view, we do not know. What is communicated by the narrative is that Jesus can and is prepared to forgive sin and has compassion for sinners. The fact that this forgiveness includes physi­cal healing only confirms the comprehensiveness of Luke's view of suffering.

Our investigation of the soteriological meaning of Jesus' death led us to conclude that the Lucan Jesus does not primarily die for the atonement ·of human sins. In Luke's Gospel forgiveness of sins is therefore not the overriding concern or the exclusive (or even pri­mary) sphere of God's soteriological activity. The salvation which Luke propagates embraces all kinds of suffering, of which sin is but one dimension. This in no way implies that Luke underplays the for­giveness of sins. In fact, his Gospel may be said to deal with this theme in greater depth than any of the other Gospels! In his treat­ment of sin the person of the sinner is usually the focus of attention. Forgiveness of sin is not a mechanical process, as if it did not involve a human being with the capacity to suffer (cf e g the emphasis on the person of the sinful woman - 7:36-50). It is therefore not surprising that Luke is equally concerned about the ostracism which sinners suffered. In fact, in dealing with sin and sinners Luke pays considera­ble attention to the difference between Jesus' attitude towards sin­ners and that of the Jewish leaders. For the Lucan Jesus sinners were objects of compassion because of their sins; for the Jewish reli­gious leaders they were, for the same reason, objects of hatred.

From our analysis of Jesus' suffering it appears that in Luke's Gospel Jesus functions as the sufferer par excellence. From a narra­tological point of view it should be noted that the protagonist or hero suffers throughout the narrative, and that towards the end of it his suffering reaches a climax in his death. Ironically, his death appears to be humiliating rather than heroic. From the narrator's viewpoint, this humiliating death is a prerequisite for the denouement of the plot (the exaltation through the resurrection and ascension).

164 Chapter five

From our analysis the sUffering of Jesus appeared to be closely re­lated to ordinary human suffering. It is his unwavering compassion for those who suffer that incurs the rejection of the religious leaders. The conflict arose not merely because Jesus healed on the sabbath, but also because of his acceptance of social outcasts, his forgiveness of sins, and his attitude towards poverty and riches. The example of the Lucan Jesus therefore communicates that an unwavering com­passion for sufferers which fmds expression in deeds of benevolence tends to provoke hostility (also experienced by Jesus' followers in Acts). Following Jesus therefore requires self-denial and the readi­ness to suffer. Such self-denial is not, however, aimed at masochistic satisfaction or eventual self-exaltation. For Luke the goal is always the alleviation of suffering in the widest sense of the word.

2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study raised certain issues which to our mind merit further in­vestigation. We mention some of these briefly.

21 Luke's situation

In the introduction to this study we stated that we postulate the his­torical situation in which Luke wrote in general terms only. Van Aarde (1988b:18, following Schmithals 1985) postulates a more spe­cific context, namely 'the fierce persecution that the Christians of Asia Minor experienced at the hands of the Roman state at the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian from AD 81 to AD 96'. It is de­batable, however, whether Domitian in fact persecuted Christians (cf Botha 1988:98). In addition it is questionable whether persecution was prevalent in Luke's community. Seccombe (1983:13-16) indi­cated that certain texts in Luke's Gospel suggest a situation in which the Christians were 'choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life' (8:14; cf also 12:45; 17:26-37). However, Van Aarde's (1988b:18) endeavour to construe an "'imagined" social context in which the story in Luke-Acts makes sense' is praiseworthy, since an attempted construction is better than simply avoiding the issue. It would there­fore be worthwhile to undertake a study aimed exclusively at con­struing the historical context of Luke-Acts (cf Scheffler 1991b:63-70).

Conclusion 165

2.2 Suffering in Acts

In the introduction we stated as one of our operational premises that the primary focus of the study would be Luke's Gospel. In the course of the study it emerges quite clearly that many aspects of Luke's comprehensive approach to suffering are also reflected in Acts. Hence there appears to be scope for a formal study of the same theme in Acts, following the example of Cassidy (1980 and 1987) who investigated the theme of politics and society in two separate studies of Luke's Gospel and Acts.

2.3 Luke's view of the kingdom, the gospel and faith

It appeared from our study that Luke's view of suffering had a major influence on certain key concepts in the thinking of early Christiani­ty. The concept of the kingdom of God, the use of the term EuaYYE­Xi~E0'8at and the concept of faith are all affected by his view of suf­fering and its alleviation. Although the kingdom retains its basic fu­ture dimension, the term is also employed in many instances of this­worldly alleviation of suffering (e g 4:43; 11:20; 17:21; 23:42-43). The same holds true for the use of the term EuaYYEXi~E0'8at (1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18; 7:22; 9:6). As far as faith is concerned, Luke appears to use the term in contexts in which he advocates humility (e g 17:5-10). Thus the recurring expression 'your faith has saved you' (e g 7:50; 8:48; 17:19) appears to refer to a humble attitude. An investigation of Luke's use of these terms is therefore indicated.

2.4 Luke's view of non-sufferers (topdogs)

Luke's Gospel contains passages which reveal a critical attitude towards the rich and the Jewish leaders, but there are also passages in which an appeal for compassion is made to the topdog (cf the el­der brother in the parable of the prodigal son). Although it is ge­nerally accepted that Luke's Gospel is addressed partly to the rich Christians of his day (e g Van Tilborg 1988:212), an investigation is needed of Luke's view of the topdogs in all social categories (e g the Romans, the religious leaders, men, parents, the rich, etc). One aim of such a study could be to determine whether there is a consistent attitude towards the various social majority groups and whether this attitude relates in any way to his compassion for sufferers.

166 Chapter five

2.5 What does Luke's view of suffering communicate?

After a study such as this the question inevitably arises whether Luke's view of suffering has any relevance to the twentieth century world. The relevance of his thoughts for today cannot be explored in a few cursory remarks, since it encompasses such matters as cultural relativism (cf Nineham 1976; Barton 1979a and 1979b), the possibili­ty of intercultural communication (Kraft 1987) and an analysis of the social and religious situation to which the thinking of the Gospel is to be applied. A proper appreciation of Luke's intention would therefore require a separate hermeneutical study of the specific situation.

In liberation theology, for example, the Gospel tends to function in either a positive (e g Boesak 1977:20-26) or a negative way (cf Mosala's [1987:155] reference to Luke's 'ideological suppression of the social revolutionary class'). Our study indicates that liberation is a cardinal aspect of Luke's thought (cf also Scheffler 1991a). The dif­ference between Luke and some modern liberation theologians seems to be that he views liberation as salvation across the full spec­trum of human suffering, whereas in some versions of liberation theology political suffering is inclined to dominate (although other dimensions of suffering are not denied - cf West 1983:74). Luke's view also imposes certain constraints as far as the accomplishment of liberation is concerned. In his view, it would seem, liberation from suffering should be achieved by criticising the oppressors verbally, by humble service and by willingness to suffer, rather than by inflicting any form of suffering (e g violence) on others.

On the other hand the Gospel speaks out forcefully against a theology which spiritualises concepts like the 'poor' and the 'rich', and which underplays the political and economic dimensions of suf­fering by limiting salvation to the strictly religious sphere (e g Lind­hout 1987:322-323). In fact, Luke's view of authentic religion implies compassion (similar to that of Jesus) for any kind of suffering- in­cluding those which are underplayed by any onesided theology, be it liberation, 'establishment', 'evangelical' or whatever. Such a concept of authentic religion would result in a dynamic attitude of humility and service to all sufferers.

BffillOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, P J 1975. The Lucan perspective on the miracles of Jesus: a preliminary sketch. JBL 37,547-562.

Aland, K, Black, M, Martini, eM, Metzger, B M & Wikgren, A (eds) 1979. Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung.

Albertz, R 1983. Die Antrittspredigt Jesu im Lukasevangelium auf ihrem alttestamentlichen Hintergrund. ZNW74, 182-206.

Bammel, E 1959. s v 7t1:Wx6f; K1:A. ThWNT. Barr, J 1969. The semantics of biblical language. London: Oxford

University Press. Barton, J 1979a. Reflections on cultural relativism - I. Theology 82,

103-109. Barton, J 1979b. Reflections on cultural relativism - II. Theology 82,

191-199. Bertram, G 1950. s v €8voc; K1:A. Th WNT. Bietenhard, H 1977. s v 'Volk' TBLNT. Boesak, A A 1977. Farewell to innocence: a socio-ethical study on

black theology and black power. New York: Orbis. Bornhauser, K 1934. Studien zum Sondergut des Lukas. Giitersloh:

Bertelsmann. Bornkamm, G 1975. Jesus von Nazareth. 10.Aufi. Stuttgart: Kohl­

hammer. Bosch, D J 1988. Mission in Jesus' way: a perspective from Luke's

gospel. Paper to be presented at the South African Missiological Society, Pretoria.

Botha, P J J 1988. God, emperor worship and society: contemporary experiences and the book of Revelation. Neotestamentia 22, 87-102.

Bovon, F 1985. Lukas in neuer Sicht: Gesammelte Aufsiitze. Neukir­chen: Neukirchener Verlag.

Braumann, G (Hrsg.) 1974. Das Lukasevangelium: Die redaktions­und kompositionsgeschichtlice Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissen-

167

168 Bibliography

schaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Breytenbach C 1984. Nachfolge und ZukunJtserwartung nach Markus:

eine methodenkritische Studie. Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag. Brink, A P 1987. Vertelkunde: 'n inleiding tot die lees van verhalen de

tekste. Pretoria: Academica. Brown, R E 1977. The birth of the Messiah. London: Macmillan. Brown, S 1969. Apostasy and perseverance in the theology of Luke.

Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Bruners, W 1977. Die Reinigung der zehn Aussiitzigen und die Heilung

des Samariters Lk 17,11-19: ein Beitrag zur lukanischen Interpreta­tion der Reinigung von Aussiitzigen. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel­werk.

Brutscheck, J 1986. Die Maria-Marta-Erziihlung: eine redaktionskriti­sche Untersuchung zu Lk 10,38-42. Bonn: Peter Hanstein.

Bultmann, R [1921] 1967. Die Geschichte der synoptische Tradition. 7Aufl. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck.

Busse, U 1978. Das Nazareth-Manifest lesu: eine Einfiihrung in das lukanische lesusbild nach Lk 4,16-30. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

Cassidy, R J 1980.1esus, politics and society: a study of Luke's Gos­pel. New York: Orbis.

Cassidy, R J 1987. Society and politics in the Acts of the Apostles. New York: Orbis.

Cassidy, R J & Scharper, P J 1983. Political issues in Luke-Acts. New York: Orbis.

Coenen, L 1977. s v 'Arm'. TBLNT. Cohen, A 1968. Everyman's Talmud. London: Dent & Sons. Coleman, J C, Butcher, J N & Carson, R C 1980. Abnonnal psychol-

ogy and modern life. 6th ed. Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Com­pany.

Combrink, H J B 1973. The structure and significance of Luke 4:16-30. Neotestamentica 7, 27-47.

Conzelmann, H 1964. Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas. 5Aufl. Tiibingen: Mohr.

Creed, J M 1930. The gospel according to St. Luke. London: Macmil­lan.

Degenhardt, H-J 1965. Lukas- Evangelist der Annen: Besitz und Be­sitzverzicht in den lukanischen SchriJten. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

Bibliography 169

Deist, FE 1983. Again: methodes) of exegesis. Old Testament essays 1,73-88.

De Villiers, J L 1980. Teologie van die Lukasevangelie, in Du Toit, A B (red), Handleiding by die Nuwe Testament: Band W: Die sinoptiese evangelies en Handelinge: Inleiding en teologie, 178-201. Pretoria: N G Kerkboekhandel.

Dibelius, M [1921] 1964. Der Brief des Jakobus. llAufl. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck.

Du Plessis, I J 1988. Reading Luke 12:35-48 as part of the travel nar­rative. Neotestamentica 22, 217-234.

Du Plessis, J G 1985. Clarity and obscurity: a study in textual com­munication of the relation between sender, parable and receiver in the synoptic gospels. DTh thesis, University of Stellenbosch.

Du Plessis, P J & Lategan, B C 1983. Agtergrond en geskiedenis van die Nuwe Testament. Pretoria: Academica.

Du Toit, A B 1965. Der Aspekt der Freude im urchristlichen Abend­mahl. Wintherthur: Keller.

Edwards, 0 C 1981. Luke's story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Ellis, E E 1974. The Gospel of Luke. London: Oliphants. Engelbrecht, J 1983. Die funksie van die wondervertellings in Mar­

kus. DTh-proefskrif, Unisa, Pretoria. Esser, H H 1977. s v m:wx6c;. TBLNT. Fitzmyer, J A 1986. The Gospel according to Luke I-IX: Introduction,

translation, and notes. New York: Doubleday. Fitzmyer, J A 1985. The Gospel according to Luke X-XXW: Introduc­

tion, translation, and notes. New York: Doubleday. Flender, H 1968. Heil und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas.

Miinchen: Kaiser Verlag. Ford, J M 1976. Zealotism and the Lukan infancy narratives. NT 18,

280-292. Ford, J M 1984. My enemy is my guest: Jesus and violence in Luke.

New York: Doubleday. Geldenhuys, B P & Du Toit, S I 1973. Psigopatologie. Pretoria: Aca­

demica. Gerleman, G 1966. s v 'Samaritaner'. BHH. Glockner, R 1975. Die Verkilndigung des Heils beim Evangelisten Lu­

kas. Mainz: Matthias-Griinewald. Gollwitzer, H 1952. Die Freude Gottes: Einfiihrungin das Lukasevan-

170 Bibliography

gelium. 2Aufl. Berlin: Burckhardthaus. Goppelt, L 1981. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 3. Aufl. Got­

tingen: Vandenhoeck. Grundmann, W 1973. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 6Aufl. Berlin:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Grundmann, W 1974. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 7 Aufl. Berlin:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Guthrie, D 1970. New Testament introduction. 3rd ed. London: Tyn­

dale Press. Haenchen, E 1968. Die Apostelgeschichte. 6Aufl. Gottingen: Van­

denhoeck. Haenchen, E 1974. Historie und Verkiindigung bei Markus und Lu­

kas, in Braumann 1974:287-316. Haenchen, E 1977. Die Apostelgeschichte. 7Aufl. Gottingen: Van­

denhoeck. Hjelle, LA & Ziegler, D J 1976. Personality theories: basic assump­

tions, research, and applications. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. Hollenbach, P 1987. Defining rich and poor: using social sciences, in

Richards, K H (ed), SBL 1987 seminar papers, 50-63. Atlanta: Scholars.

Horn, F W 1983. Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck.

Hoyt, T 1977. The poor in Luke-Acts. Michigan: University Micro-films.

Jeremias, J 1958. Jesus promise to the nations. London: SCM. Jeremias, J 1964. s v LOJ,I.(XPELa K'tA. ThWNT. Jeremias, J 1970. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. 8.Aufl. Gottingen: Vanden­

hoeck. Jeremias, J 1971. Neutestamentliche Theologie: erster Teil: die

Verkilndigung Jesu. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn. Jeremias, J 1974. Jerusalem in the time of Jesus: an investigation into

economic and social conditions during the New Testament period. London: SCM.

Jeremias, J 1980. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-MarkusstofJ des dritten Evangeliums. Got­tingen: Vandenhoeck.

Jervell, J 1972. Luke and the people of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House.

Johnson, L T 1977. The literary junction of possessions in Luke-Acts.

Bibliography 171

Michigan: University MicrofIlms. Karris, R J 1978. Poor and rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben, in Talbert

178:112-125. Karris, R J 1985. Luke: artist and theologian: Luke's passion account

as literature. New York: Paulist Press. Kessler, H 1970. Die theologische Bedeutung des Todes Jesu: eine

traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag. Kimmel, D C 1974. Adulthood and aging: an interdisciplinary, deve­

lopmental view. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Klein, H 1987. Bannherzigkeit gegenuber den Elenden und Geiich­

teten: Studien zur BotschaJt des lukanischen Sonderguts. Neukir­chen: Neukirchener Verlag.

Klostermann, E [1929] 1975. Das Lukasevangelium. 3.Aufl. Tu­bingen: Mohr.

Kraft, C H 1987. Christianity in culture: a study in dynamic biblical theologizing in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Orbis.

Kummel, W G 1974. Lukas in der Anldage der heutigen Theologie, in Braumann 1974:416-436.

Kiimmel, W G 1983. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 21Aufl. Hei­delberg: QueUe.

Lindhout, A 1987. Die lofsange van Maria, Sagaria en Simeon. 'n Eksegetiese en openbaringshistoriese studie met besondere ver­wysing na die teologie van bevryding. ThD proefskrif, PU vir CHO, Potchefstroom.

Louw, J P 1982. Semantics of New Testament Greek. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Louw, J P & Nida, E A 1988. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testa­ment based on semantic domains: Volume 1: Introduction & do­mains. New York: UBS.

Mazamisa, L W 1987. Beatific comradeship: an exegetical-henneneuti­cal study on Lk 10:25-37. Kampen: Kok.

Marshall, I H 1978. The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text. Exeter: Paternoster.

Metzger, B M 1971. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testa­ment. London: UBS.

Minear, P S 1964. A note on Luke xxii 36. NT 7, 128-134. Moore, W E, McCann, H, McCann, J 1985. Creative and critical

thinking. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mosala, I J 1987. Biblical hermeneutics and black theology in South

172 Bibliography

Africa. PhD thesis, University of Cape Town. Navone, J 1970. Themes of St. Luke. Rome: Gregorian University

Press. Neyrey, J 1985. The passion according to Luke: a redaction study of

Luke's soteriology. New York: Paulist Press. Nineham, D 1976. The use and the abuse of the Bible. London: Mac-

millan. Oepke, A 1953. s v yuvil. Th WNT. Oepke, A 1954. s v note;; K'tA. Th WNT. O'Toole, R F 1984. The unity of Luke's theology: an analysis of Luke­

Acts. Wilmington: Michael Glazier. Plummer, A [1896] 1981. The Gospel according to St Luke. Edin­

burgh: T & T Clark. Prince, G 1982. Narratology: the form and functioning of narrative.

Berlin: Mouton. RadI, W 1988. Das Lukasevangelium. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschaft. (Ertrage der Forschung.) Reicke, B 1968. The New Testament era. London: A & C Black. Rengstorf, K H [1937] 1974. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck. Rese, M 1985. Das Lukasevangelium: ein Forschungsbericht. Auf­

stieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. II 25.3. Rienecker, F 1970. Sprachlicher Schlilssel zum Griechischen Neuen

Testament. Giessen: Brunnen-Verlag. Rohde, J 1966. Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode: Einfiihrung und

Sichtung des Forschungsstandes. Hamburg: Furche-Verlag. Scheffler, E H 1985. Micah 4:1-5: an impasse in exegesis? Old Testa­

ment Essays 3, 46-61. Scheffler, E H 1988a. On suffering in Luke's Gospel, in Breyten­

bach, C (redjed), Church in context: Early Christianity in social context. Kerk en konteks: Die vroee Christendom in sosiale ver­band, 23-47. Pretoria: N G Kerkboekhandel.

Scheffler, E H 1988b. A psychological reading of Luke 12:35-48. Neotestamentica 22, 355-371.

Scheffler, E H 1989. Emmaus: A historical perspective. Neotesta­mentica, 23, 251-267.

Scheffler, E H 1990. The social ethics of the Lucan Baptist. Neotesta­mentica 24, 21-36.

Scheffler, E H 1991a. Reading Luke from the perspective of libera-

Bibliography 173

tion theology, in Hartin, P J & Petzer, J H (eds), Text and inter­pretation: New ApproaclJes in the criticism of the New Testament. Leiden: Brill.

Scheffler, E H 1991b. Die teologie van die Lukasevangelie in kon­teks: Bevryding uit lyding, in Roberts, J H, Vorster, W S, Vor­!iter, J N & Van der Watt, J G (reds), Teologie in konteks, 62-92. Halfway House: Orion.

Scheffler, E H 1992. Naasteliefde in 1i.ukas-Handelinge, in Lategan, B C & Breytenbach, C (reds), Geloof en opdrag. Stellenbosch: Scriptura.

Schlatter, A 1960. Das Evangelium des Lukas aus seinen Quellen er­klart. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag.

Schmithals, W 1975. Lukas - Evangelist der Armen, in Theologia Viatorum XII: 1973/1974: Jahrbuch der kirchliche Hochschule Berlin, 153-167, hrsg von Dr Michel. Berlin: Die Spur.

Schmithals, W 1980. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Ziirich: Theologi­scher Verlag.

Schmithals, W 1985. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Schneider, G 1969. Verleugnung, Verspottung und Verhor Jesu nach Lukas 22,54-71. Miinchen: Kosel.

Schneider, G 1977. Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kapitel1-10. Wiirz­burg: Giitersloh.

Schneider, G 1977. Das Evangelium nach Lukas: KapiteI1l-24. Wiirzburg: Giitersloh.

Schottroff, L & Stegemann, W 1978. Jesus von Nazareth - Hoffnung der Annen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Schrenk, G 1950. s v OtKawc; ThWNT. Schulz, S 1972. Q: die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Ziirich: Theolo­

gischer Verlag. Schiirmann, H 1977. Jesu Abschiedsrede Lk 22,21-38: III. Teil einer

Quellenkritische Untersuchung des Lukanischen Abendmahlbe­richts Lk 22,7-38. 2Aufl. Miinster: Aschendorff.

Schiirmann, H 1969. Das Lukasevangelium: erster Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1- 9:50. Herder: Freiburg.

Schiitz, F 1969. Der leidende Christus: die angefochtene Gemeinde und das Christuskerygma der lukanischen Schriften. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Schweizer, E 1975. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Gottingen: Van-

174 Bibliography

denhoeck. Schweizer, E 1982. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Gottingen: Vanden­

hoeck. Seccombe, D P 1983. Possessions and the poor in Luke-Acts. Linz: A

Fuchs (SNTU). Sellin, G 1974. Lukas als Gleichniserzahler: die Erzahlung yom

barmherzigen Samariter (Lk 10,25-37). ZNW65, 166-189. Sellin, G 1975. Lukas als Gleichniserzahler: die Erzahlung yom

barmherzigen Samariter (Lk 10,25-37). ZNW66, 19-60. Stahlin, G 1973. s v xftpa. ThWNT. Stahlin, G & Grundmann W 1953. s v QJ.,lap1:cXvW K1:~. Th WNT. Talbert, C H 1978. Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Edinburgh: Clark. Tannehill, R C 1972. The mission of Jesus according to Luke IV 16-

30, in Eltester, W (Hrsg), Jesus in Nazareth, 51-75. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Tannehill, R C 1974. The Magnificat as poem. JBL 93, 263-275. Tannehill, R C 1986. The na"ative unity of Luke-Acts: a literary inter­

pretation: Volume 1: The gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Taylor, V 1972. The passion n~ative of St Luke: a critical and histo­rical investigation. Cambridge: University Press.

Tolbert, M 1974. Die Hauptinteressen des Evangelisten Lukas, in Braumannn 1974:337-353.

Tyson, J B 1986. The death of Jesus in Luke-Acts. Columbia: Univer­sity of South Carolina.

Untergassmair, F G 1980. Kreuzweg und Kreuzigung Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur lukanischen Redaktionsgeschichte und zur Frage nach der luka­nischen ''Kreuzestheologie''. Paderborn: Schoningh.

Van Aarde, A G 1988a. Jesus en die sosiaal-veragtes. Paper pre­sented at the C B Powell-Bible schoo~ UNISA, Pretoria.

Van Aarde, A G 1988b. Narrative point of view: an ideological read­ing of Luke 12:35-48. Neotestamentica 22, 235-252.

Van Aarde, A G 1989. Proefskritbespreking: E H Scheffler 1988: Suffering in Luke's Gospel. HTS 45,183-190.

Van den Berg, J H 1973. Kroniek der psychologie. Nijkerk: Callen­bach.

Van Tilborg, S 1988. Luke 12:35-48: an interpretation from the ideo­logy of the text. Neotestamentica 22, 205-215.

Vorster, W 1979. 'n Loflied van 'n arm vrou- die Magnificat (Lukas

Bibliography 175

1:46-55), in Loader, J (red), 'n Nuwe lied vir die Here, 13-28. Pre­toria: HAUM.

Voss, G 1965. Die Christologie der lukanischen Schriften in Grnnd­zilgen. Brugge: Desc1ee de Brouwer.

Walaskay, P W 1983. 'And so we came to Rome': The political per­spective of St Luke. Cambridge: University Press.

Wellhausen, J 1904. Dos Evangelium Lucae. Berlin: Reimer. West, C 1983. Black theology of liberation as critique of captalist

civilization. Journal of the 1. T.C 10, 67-83. Winter, P 1954. Magnificat and Benedictus - Maccabean psalms?

BJRL 37, 328-347.

INDEX OF AU1HORS

Achtemeier, P J, 87-88 Aland, K, 131 Albertz, R, 60 Augustine, 85 Bammel, E, 61, 62 Barr, J, 61 Barton, J, 166 Bertram, G, 81 Bietenhard, H, 81 Black, M, 167 Boesak, A A, 46, 166 Bornhauser, K, 33, 72 Bornkamm, G, 98 Bosch, D J, 60 Botha, P J J, 164 Bovon, F, 167 Braumann, G, 167 Breytenbach C, 22 Brink, A P, 23 Brown, R E, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 Brown, S, 133-134 Bruners, W, 80 Brutscheck, J, 73 Bultmann, R, 29, 97 Busse, V, 25, 27, 29-31,40,41,44,45,

109 Butcher, J N, 168 Carson, R C, 168 Cassidy, R J, 19, 78, 138, 161, 165 Cicero, 147 Coenen, L, 56 Cohen,A,72 Coleman, J C, 95 Combrink, H J B, 26 Conzelmann, H, 12, 15, 19,48,79,108,

117, 134, 137 Creed, J M, 131, 153 De Villiers, J L, 74 Degenhardt, H-J, 11, 12, 15, 66 Deist, F E, 24 Dibelius, M, 29, 51

176

Du Plessis, I J, 121 Du Plessis, J G, 64, 65 Du Plessis, P J, 71 Du Toit, A B, 13 Du Toit, S I, 95 Edwards, 0 C, 134, 141 Ellis, E E, 64, 65, 98, 153 Engelbrecht, J, 89, 95 Erikson, E, 91-92 Esser, H H, 56 Fitzmyer, J A, 43, 51-52, 69, 72, 106,

111, 123, 129, 130, 131, 139, 141, 148, 149, 153, 156

Flender, H, 47, 73, 149, 150 Ford, J M, 76, 78 Geldenhuys, B P, 95 Gerleman, G, 79 Glockner, R, 17, 103, 106, 107, 108,

132, 134, 141, 142, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 162

Gollwitzer, H, 56 Goppelt, L, 171 Grundmann, W, 29, 58, 79, 81, 85, 92,

96, 100, 104, 105, 107, 120, 129, 130, 141, 143, 153

Gunkel, H, 54 Guthrie, D, 11, 81 Haenchen,E,29, 103, 149, 155, 156 Hjelle, L A, 91 Hollenbach, P, 13 Horn, F W, 11, 19,48,50,51-52-53,

54,64,69 Hoyt, T, 12, 16 Jeremias, J, 29-31, 33, 50, 51, 52, 57,

62,70,71,79,81,91,101,106,112, 121, 132, 138, 139

Jervell, J, 79 Johnson, L T, 16, 17 Josephus, 147 Karris, R J, 20, 134, 138, 139, 140, 146,

147

Kessler, H, 150 Kimmel, D C, 91 Klein, H, 20-21, 81, 89, 101 Klostermann, E, 29, 39, 49, 54 Kraft, C H, 166 Kiimmel, W G, 171 Lategan, B C, 71 Lindhout, A, 166 Louw, J P, 23, 61, 62, 139, 153 Malina, B, 13 Marshall, I H, 49, 63, 71, 80, 81, 96,

98, 105, 106, 114, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 139, 141, 148, 149, 152, 153, 161

Martini, CM Mazamisa, L W, 79, McCann, H, 21, 171 McCann,J,21,171 Metzger, B M, 49, 99, 131, 133 Minear, P S, 135 Moore, W E, 21 Mosala, I J, 166 Navone, J, 47, 73 Neyrey, J, 134 Nida, E A, 61, 62, 139, 153 Nineham, D, 166 O'Toole, R F, 125, 134, 148, 152 Oepke, A, 72, 74 Plummer, A, 74 Prince, G, 23 Radl, W, 172 Reicke, B, 146 Rengstorf, K H, 92 Rese,M,85 Richards, K H, 170 Rienecker, F, 61 Rohde, J, 22 Scharper, P J, 19

Index of authors 177

Scheffler, E H, 21, 57, 165, 166 Schlatter, A, 53, Schmithals, W, 12, 16, 29, 32, 43, 45,

46,61,72,99,101,104,136,138, 140, 141, 148, 164

Schneider, G, 106, 121, 122, 123, 130, 131, 139, 146, 147, 153, 155

Schottroff, L, 18, 46, 56, 63, 66, 96 Schrenk, G, 139 Schulz, S, 71 Schiirmann, H, 29-30, 41, 49, 52, 55,

105, 106, 108, 111, 125, 129, 131, 153, 155

Schiitz,F, 108, 110, 111, 112, 115 Schweizer, E, 41, 43, 77, 90, 129 Seccombe, D P, 16, 18-19, 164 Sellin, G, 79, 80 Stahlin, G, 73, 96 Stegemann, W, 18,46,56,63,66,96 Strack-Billerbeck, 82 Talbert, C H, 174 Tannehill, R C, 29, 49, 73, 97, 108,

125, 132-135, 144 Taylor, V, 130, 131 Tolbert, M, 174 Tyson, J B, 174 Untergassmair, F G, 174 Van Aarde, A G, 13, 164 Van den Berg, J H, 90 Van Tilborg, S, 66 Vorster, W, 53 Voss, G, 155 Walaskay, P W, 175 Wellhausen, J, 28-29,48,72 West, C, 166 Wikgren, A, 167 Winter, P, 55, 77 Ziegler, D J, 91

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES

Emdus 158 6:19-21 68

20:5 77 53:12 134, 136, 142, 8:5-13 83

156, 157 8:6 88

Leviticus 58 33 8:11 83 58:6 37-39 8:12 83

6:5 161 61:1 36,38,40,64 8:24 87 12:6 105 61:1-2 25, 31, 33, 36, 10:5 22,81,82 12:8 33, 105 37-41,83 10:34-46 121

61:1-3 38 11:5 61,63,88 Deuteronomy 61:2-3 40 11:17-19 70

15:4-11 66 11:19 100,112

EzeIciel 12:22-30 95 15:10 66 12:22 87,93 28:48 143 16:38-40 143 12:24 114

1 Samuel 7Lp/ItBIiDIt 12:27 113 12:38 113,114

2:1-10 50 3:12-13 51 13:53-58 30 13:58 33,95

lKin&f ~ 15:2 114

17:8-16 4:6 74 15:21-32 99

47 15:26 82 17:9-10 29,31 18:12-14 71 17:17 47 MaJthew 18:15-17 70 17:18-24 81 1:6 107 18:16 74

1:21 76 18:17 99 2Kin&f 2:11 105 19:12 160

5:1-27 31,47,80 2:1-12 71 19:13-15 74 17:24 79 3:1 82 23:1-39 114

3:7 70,110 23:6 114 2Chronides 4:13 30 23:13 114

5:1-12 58 23:23 114 28:8-15 81 5:3 61,63 23:25-26 63,67

5:6 61,86 23:29-36 114 JsaiIJh 5:11-12 75 23:37-39 122

20:2-4 143 5:27 100 25:36 77

40:3-5 82,97 5:32 100 25:43 77

42:6 82 5:38-42 63 26:25 85

49:6 82 5:43-48 70 26:55 136

53:4 156 5:48 11 26:75 131

53:7 138 6:12 99 27:19 136

53:7-8 142, 156, 157- 6:25-33 68 27:23 136

178

Index of scriptural references 179

MDIIhew (cont.) 5:23 88 10:32-34 118

27:27-31 72 5:30 95 10:35-41 120 5:31 134 10:35-45 131

27:44 99 6:1 29 10:38 122

Mark 6:1-6 26, 29-35, 45, 10:41-45 156

108 10:42-45 120 1:1-4 82 6:2 29,32,33,108 10:45 132, 156 1:2-6 97, 101 6:2-3 32,33 10:46-52 84 1:4 82 6:3 29, 33, 34, 108, 11:12-14 101 1:14 35-36,43 109 11:20-25 101 1:14-15 35-37 6:4 29 12:13-40 80 1:15 22,35-37 6:5 33,95 12:28-34 80 1:16-20 41,46 6:6 108 12:42 62 1:23-28 94 6:14-34 117 14:1-2 126 1:26 46,94 6:16 117 14:3-9 62,63,101, 1:27 89,93,94 6:34 88 113,126 1:29-31 93 7:1-5 114 14:4-5 113 1:30 88 7:27 82 14:7 62, 101 1:32-34 93 7:31-37 89 14:10 126 1:40 88 7:37 89 14:10-11 126 1:43 88 8:11 113,114 14:17-21 127 1:45 88,94 8:14-21 125 14:18-20 128 2:1-2 68, 110, 145 8:21 89 14:22-24 156 2:1-3:6 110 8:22-26 89 14:26-31 129 2:1-12 97, 101 8:27-10:52 90 14:27 129, 134 2:13-17 70 8:27-30 118 14:31 134 2:15 68, 112, 145 8:31 118 14:32 129, 133 2:15-17 100, 101 8:31-33 89, 118 14:32-38 134 2:16 111 8:32-33 118,134, 148 14:33 133 2:24 111 8:34 148 14:38-42 140 3:1 88,89 8:35 94,97 14:43-46 128 3:1-6 89 8:36 94 14:47-48 85 3:2 111 9:6 134 14:48 136 3:4-5 111 9:14-27 95 14:50 129, 134, 144 3:5 89 9:14-29 118 14:53-64 130 3:6 89,90,111 9:18 88 14:65 130 3:7-12 93 9:19 119 14:66-72 129, 130 3:8 88 9:23 95 14:71 134 3:22 114 9:23-24 33 15:2-5 136 3:29 97 9:28 119 15:6-15 137 4:13 134 9:30-32 118-119 15:10 136 4:35-5:43 33 9:32 134 15:14 136 4:35-41 86-87,125 9:33 68,119,145 15:16-20 72 4:37 87 9:35 74 15:21-41 141 4:38 87,134 9:37 74 15:23 143 4:40 87 9:42-50 120 15:24 143 5:1-20 83,94 10:13-16 74 15:26 143 5:15 94 10:17-31 63 15:27-28 142 5:16 151 10:21 68 15:27-32 143 5:19-20 88,95 10:28 62 15:29 143

180 Index of scriptural references

JIIII'k (CtJJfL) 1:51-53 53, 75 2:25-38 73,92

15:32 99 1:51-53 74 2:25-52 50

15:34 144 1:51-55 49-50, 53, 76 2:28-32 50

15:35 141 1:52 54,55,76,151 2:29 67,92

15:39 72,139 1:52-54 54 2:30 74, 106, 150, 1:53 56, 62, 63, 64, 155

16:1-8 124 76,86,151 2:30-31 151

Luke 1:53 61 2:30-32 82 1:54 51,54,76,151 2:32 76, 106

1-2 52 1:54-55 53-54 2:33 33 1:4-7 50 1:57-80 52 2:34 43, 106, 150, 1:5-25 52 1:57-80 52 155 1:5-80 57,91-92 1:58 104 2:35 106, 161 1:7 57,91 1:63 33 2:37 29,57,73,92 1:15 74 1:64 87,88,109 2:38 73,92,106, 1:16-17 76 1:66 74 151 1:17 51,74 1:67-79 50, 74, 77 2:39 104 1:18 92 1:68 51, 77 2:40 106 1:19 36, 165 1:68-69 77 2:41-52 106 1:25 49, 57, 72, 92, 1:68-75 77, 151 2:48 74,106

109;161 1:69 50,77 2:48-49 147 1:26 104 1:71 39,56,77 2:49 106 1:26-38 52, 76 1:74 77, 78 2:50 106 1:28 52 1:76 74 2:51 73,74,104, 1:30 52 1:76-79 97 106, 161 1:32 50 1:77 39, 46, 51, 77, 3:1 116 1:32-33 76 97, 102, 151 3:1-2 82 1:33 76 1:77-79 77, 78 3:1-6 82,97 1:34-35 73 1:78 77 3:3 39, 46, 82, 107, 1:36 49,92 1:79 77,78,82 151 1:38 52 2:1-3 104 3:3-6 77 1:39-56 48,52,52 2:1-20 104 3:4-6 40 1:41-44 74 2:1-52 52,104-107 3:6 40,82,151 1:43 52 2:4 104 3:7 110 1:46 49 2:6-7 104 3:10 41,67 1:46-47 53 2:7 33, 104-105, 3:10-14 11, 19,41,57, 1:46-50 53 147 64,67,70 1:46-55 12, 18, 19, 23, 2:8-20 71,155 3:11 50,67,86,160

25, 48-56, 76- 2:10 36, 71, 165 3:12 70 77, 150 2:11 71,104,155 3:12-14 161

1:47 76, 150, 151 2:12 67,74,105 3:13 70, 72 1:48 33,51-52,54, 2:14 50,82 3:14 69, 72

55,67,72 2:16 74,105 3:15-16 41 1:48 151 2:17-18 71 3:18 36, 165 1:48-50 53, 76 2:18 33, 71 3:19 116 1:48-55 55, 76 2:21-52 105 3:20-4:44 31,41 1:49 51 2:22-24 105, 145, 155 3:21-22 107 1:49-50 51 2:24 33 3:21-38 155 1:50 53,54 2:25-26 92 3:22 107, 109, 147, 1:51 54,56,76 2:25-35 74,76 155

Index of scriptural references 181

LI* (Ct1IfI..) 4:32-37 50 6:7 111,114

3:23 107 4:33-37 94 6:8 89, 111

3:23-38 107 4:35 46,94 6:9 151

4:1-13 107, 109, 155 4:36 94 6:9-10 111

4:13 108 4:38 88 6:11 90

4:14 35, 107 4:38-39 42,46,87,93 6:17-19 88,93,94

4:14-15 28,42 4:39 67,88,93,141 6:17-49 18

4:15 33 4:40 99 6:18 88,93

4:16 29, 30, 35, 104, 4:40-41 42,88,93 6:19 93,99

109 4:41 42,93 6:20 57, 60, 61, 63, 4:16-21 30,35-36 4:42-44 42 64, 67, 69, 95,

4:16-30 12,18,23,25- 4:43 36-37, 42, 95, 159

48 165 6:20-21 42,46,64

4:16-43 37 4:43-44 44 6:20-22 40 4:17 31,40 4:44 42, 79 6:20-24 19,57

4:17-21 29, 31, 32-33 5:1 41 6:20-26 51,56

4:18 25, 28, 35, 36, 5:1-6:11 110-113 6:21 57, 61, 63, 86,

38,39,45,46, 5:3-5 94 91, 162 60, 61, 64, 90, 5:8 96 6:22 44,50,58,75

93, 94, 97, 109, 5:10 96 6:22-23 75 151, 155, 162, 5:12 88 6:24 14,50,62,64,

165 5:12-16 87 65, 160 4:18-19 36,37-38 5:15 88,94 6:24-25 64 4:19 35,36,84 5:15-16 90 6:25 91 4:20 40 5:17 39,68,110, 6:27 99 4:21 33, 35, 36, 67, 112,145 6:27-35 50

141 5:17-26 39, 47, 57, 87, 6:27-42 63 4:22 29,80,108 97, 110 6:28 141 4:23 29-30, 32, 34, 5:21 110 6:30 63

38, 39,41-42, 5:23 39 6:32-35 99 43,46,94 5:23-24 57 6:35 63

4:23-27 33 5:24 39,97 6:36 11,18

4:24 29,34,109 5:25 67,88,109, 6:37 63,99,141

4:25 73 141 6:38 63 4:25-26 28,81 5:25-26 90 7:1-10 58,72,82,87

4:25-27 30, 31, 32, 34, 5:27 69 7:1-17 73

40, 44, 45, 47, 5:27-32 57,59,110- 7:2 88

61, 78, 83, 109, 111,115 7:9 58 146 5:29 58,68,112, 7:10 83

4:25-28 73 145 7:11-17 43, 73, 75, 81,

4:26 47 5:30 57, 110-111, 87

4:27 38,80 116,146 7:12 29, 73, 75 4:28-29 108, 155 5:30-32 152 7:12 88 4:28-30 30,32,34 5:32 57 7:12-13 161

4:29 146 5:33 111 7:13 73

4:30 25 6:1-5 86,111 7:16 77,109

4:31-32 28 6:1-6 89 7:19-20 84

4:31-37 42 6:2 111 7:21 88

4:31-39 72 6:6 88,89 7:21-22 84

4:31-44 39, 155 6:6-11 87,89,111 7:22 36, 40, 42, 45,

182 Index of scriptural references

l.uIr,e (coni..) 8:56 29,31 10:36 84 7:22 58, 61, 63, 88, 9:1 29,31 10:36-37 80

162, 165 9:1-6 15,117 10:37 53,85,90 7:29-30 70 9:2 95 11:4 99, 151 7:30 110, 112, 145 9:6 36, 165 11:14 87,90,93,113 7:31 112 9:7-9 117 11:14-23 95 7:34 112, 115, 145 9:10-17 86 11:14-54 113 7:35 100 ~:11 88,95 11:15 113,114 7:36-47 102 9:22 118,123,148, 11:16 108,113,117 7:36-50 13, 63, 73, 75, 153 11:17 114

101, 112-113, 9:23 118,148 11:19 113,114 163 9:23-24 148, 152 11:20 37, 67, 95, 113,

7:37 101,115 9:23-27 98 165 7:39 96, 101, 113 9:24 151, 158 11:28 114 7:39 116 9:31 59, 118, 153 11:37-54 114,155 7:41-43 101 9:34 134 11:39 63 7:44-47 101 9:37-43 34,95,118 11:39-41 67, 114 7:47 113 9:37-45 75 11:41 68,85,89 7:48-50 101, 102, 112 9:38 75,88,95 11:43 114, 132 7:49 98 9:41 119 11:49 122 7:49 113 9:43-45 118-119 11:53 111,114

7:50 95,98,151, 9:44 123 11:53-54 114,116 165 9:45 134 12:11 148

8:1 36 9:45-46 125 12:13-15 68 8:1-3 19, 73 9:46 68, 119, 132, 12:13-21 152 8:3 145 145 12:13-34 15, 19 8:11 134 9:46-48 119, 121, 132 12:15 69, 127, 143 8:12 151 9:48 75,119 12:16 62 8:14 16, 160, 164 9:49-50 95,119 12:16-21 64,68

8:19-21 109, 147 9:51 22,59, 79, 80, 12:21 68 8:22-25 86-87,125 118, 120, 153 12:22-31 68, 143 8:23 87 9:51-19:27 79 12:31 68, 160

8:24 87, 134 9:51-56 22,79,81,146 12:32-33 95 8:26-39 83,94 9:52 22, 79 12:33 56,63,68 8:27 94 9:53 124 12:33-34 68

8:29 94 9:56 151 12:35-48 132

8:34 94 9:58 104, 145 12:42-43 152

8:36 94, 151 10:9 95 12:45 16, 73, 164 8:39 39,88,95 10:25 113 12:49-50 121 8:40-42 87 10:25-28 85 12:50 121-122 8:40-46 75 10:25-37 22,56,58,80 12:51-53 121-122 8:42 75,88 10:28 23 13:1-5 101, 102 8:43-48 87 10:28-29 80 13:8 101

8:44 67,88,141 10:29 53,80,84 13:10-11 88

8:45 134 10:30 85 13:10-17 73,87,89,115

8:47 67,88 10:30-37 81,84 13:11 46,93 8:48 95, 151, 165 10:33 85 13:13 67,88,109,

8:49-56 87 10:34 58 141 8:50 151 10:34-35 85 13:14 115 8:55 67,88 10:35 58 13:14-16 89

Index of scriptural references 183

LJk(COIfL) 15:20-24 98 17:34-36 73

13:17 115 15:23 59 18:1-14 73

13:22 67 15:25-32 100, 115 18:3 29, 73

13:22-30 83 15:28-29 115 18:9-14 59,70,102,

13:23 151 16:1 62 152

13:28-30 95 16:1-8 65 18:11 59,96

13:29 83 16:1-12 115 18:11-12 100

13:30 53,83 16:1-31 15, 19, 45, 64, 18:12 65

13:31 111,117 65,66 18:13-14 158

13:31-35 121 16:5-7 62 18:14 54, 75, 83, 100,

13:32 78,88,93,117, 16:9 62,65,66,160 132

122 16:9-13 65 18:15-17 74, 132

13:32-33 122 16:11 65 18:17 99

13:34-35 117,147 16:13 62,65,66,115 18:18-30 63,66

14:1-6 84,87,89,115 16:14 62,65,115 18:19 152

14:1-24 84 16:14-18 64 18:22 62,68

14:3 89 16:15 65,132,152 18:23 62

14:7 152 16:15-18 65 18:25 62

14:7-11 114, 132 16:19 62 18:26 151

14:7-35 15 16:19-26 20,51,64, 152 18:28 62

14:11 54,75,83,152 16:19-31 62,64 18:28-30 120

14:12 61,62 16:20 61 18:31-34 120, 121, 157

14:12-14 53 16:20-21 61, 116 18:32-33 153

14:13 40, 42, 58, 60, 16:21 62,66,86 18:34 120, 121, 125,

61,63,84,162 16:22 61,62 134

14:15-24 58,64,95 16:22-23 64 18:35 84

14:16 61 16:23 66 18:35-43 46,84,87

14:18 58 16:23-24 64 18:42 95,151

14:19 61 16:23-25 65 18:43 67, 88, 90, 109,

14:21 40, 42, 58, 60, 16:24 64 141

61,64,84,162 16:26 64 19:1-10 19, 59, 66, 70,

14:25-27 148, 152 16:27-31 64,65 102

15:1 96, 100, 102 16:29 65 19:2 11,62,66,69,

15:1-2 21, 70, 115- 17:3-4 99 70

116, 146 17:5-10 95, 152, 165 19:5 67, 70

15:1-32 58,59 17:7-10 21 19:6-10 160

15:3-10 97 17:7-12 132 19:7 23,70,100,

15:4-6 71 17:11 22, 79 116, 146, 152

15:4-10 73 17:11-19 22, 43, 59, 80, 19:7-9 161

15:7 96 81,87 19:8 70

15:8-10 102 17:15 88, 109 19:9 66,69,141

15:8-32 71 17:18 53,59,80 19:9-10 101, 151

15:10 96 17:19 151, 165 19:28 110

15:11-32 70, 74, 97, 102 17:21 37, 67, 95, 165 19:28-24:53 104

15:13-16 98 17:22-37 122, 148 19:39 116

15:17 59 17:24 123 19:39-40 134

15:17-20 98 17:24-25 153 19:41-42 122

15:18-19 98 17:25 121, 122, 148 19:41-44 147

15:19-21 98 17:26-37 164 19:46 111

15:20 98 17:33 152 19:47-48 116

184 Index of scriptural references

LuU (COllI..) 22:29-30 78, 132, 140 23:10 116,138 20:2 116 22:30 130 23:11 143, 147 20:19 111,116 22:31 133, 149 23:13-16 136-137 20:19-47 80 22:31-32 140 23:13-23 139 20:20 136 22:31-34 125,129-130 23:14 144 20:20-22 116 22:31-38 132 23:15 138 20:25 78 22:32 134 23:17-25 137 20:26 33 22:33-34 140 23:22 144 20:27 116 22:35-38 78, 125, 131, 23:25 138 20:40-41 80 134-135,136, 23:26-31 73, 140, 144 20:45-47 132 139 23:26-43 59 20:47 29, 73 22:37 120, 142, 147, 23:26-49 141 21:1-4 13,62,63,73 146,157 23:26-56 125 21:2 29,62,73 22:38 135 23:28 73, 144, 161 21:5-35 148 22:39-46 108, 125, 131, 23:31 136, 140 21:12 123 133-134 23:32 137, 142 21:12-19 148 22:40 133 23:33-43 99 22-23 12,59,124- 22:43-44 133 23:34 99, 102, 141,

144, 145 22:45 129, 133, 140 142,143 22:1-2 116,126 22:46 133, 135, 140 23:35-39 107, 108, 143, 22:1-6 111, 128 22:47-48 125,128 151 22:1-23:25 125 22:47-53 128 23:36 72, 143, 147 22:1-62 135 22:48 135 23:38 144 22:1-71 20 22:49-50 135 23:39-43 99, 102, 138-22:3 108, 126, 133 22:49-51 78, 125 139 22:3-6 126 22:50 85 23:41 59, 142, 144 22:11 104 22:50-51 84-86, 87-88, 23:42-43 95,165 22:14-23 127 140 23:43 67, 142 22:15 127, 128, 129, 22:51-53 135 23:46 141, 144, 158

134 22:52 136, 139, 140, 23:47 59,72,83,139, 22:16-17 95 146 142, 144, 158 22:19 156,158 22:52-53 86, 116, 140 23:47-48 144, 158 22:19-20 128, 155 22:53 133 23:49 144 22:20 132, 156 22:54-62 59, 125, 129, 23:55-24:35 72 22:20-21 127 130-131 24:1-52 124 22:21 129 22:57 129 24:6-7 123 22:21-23 125, 127, 128, 22:61 129, 130-131, 24:7 96, 153, 154,

130 135 157 22:21-34 135 22:62 131 24:10-11 73 22:21-38 125 22:63 146 24:11 144 22:24 132, 140 22:63-23:46 135 24:12 68 22:24-27 78, 121, 130, 22:63-65 59, 130, 131, 24:19 88

156 143, 147 24:20 123, 154 22:24-30 125,131 22:65 139 24:21 78 22:26-27 142, 144, 152 22:66-23:1 116 24:25-26 123 22:27 132, 140, 141, 22:66-71 130 24:25-27 120

143, 156-157 23:2-5 136, 147 24:26 149, 153, 154 22:28 108, 129, 132, 23:4 144 24:32 120

133, 149 23:6-12 116,117,138, 24:44 31 22:28-30 129 139 24:44-46 45, 123

Index of scriptural references 185

Uk(conL) 5:27 149 22:30 149

59, 120, 149, 5:30-31 153 24:2 149

24:46 5:31 39,46,97,154 25:3 148 153, 154 5:41 52 25:6-7 149

24:47 39,46,81, 97, 6:3 33 25:23 149 102 6:12 149 26:10 149

24:50-53 59 7:23 77 26:11 148 7:52 139 26:18 39,46,97

John 7:54-60 149 26:23 149

1:46 104 7:60 99, 141 28:23 31

4:4 79 8:1-25 81

4:9 79 8:5 22, 79 Ronums

8:48 79 8:5-8 80 5:6 103

13:36 129 8:32-33 142, 144, 156, 5:8 103

18:10 85 157-158 15:26 51,67

18:38 136 9:16 44, 149, 152,

21:15-17 129 153 9:31 81 1 Corinthions

.Acts 9:32-42 73 2:2 104, 106 10:1-45 46, 72 11:3 72

1:7-8 78, 79 10:22 33 11:7 72 1:8 22,44,79,80, 10:28 82 15:3 103

81 10:34 82 2:23 120,137-138, 10:37-38 46,88 2 Corinthions

157 10:38 42,93,107 2:33 154 10:43 39,46,97 8:4 67 2:38 39,46,97 12:2 149 5:14-15 103 2:42-47 19,56 13:26-30 154 2:43-47 50 13:38 39,46,97 GoJmions 2:44 16 i4:3 33

1:4 103 2:44-47 67,86 14:22 149, 152, 153

2:10 51 2:46 160 15:3 81 3:13 103 3:7 67,88 15:7 36

3:12-26 120 15:14 77 Cobmions 3:13 154 16:13-34 73

3:14 137, 139 16:23 85 3:18 72 3:17 99 16:23-40 72 3:18 149 17:3 149, 153 1 r""o"" 4:7 149 17:34 73 4:10-11 154 18:12 149 2:11-14 72

4:13 33 20:17-35 19 2:12 73

4:27 123 20:19 152 4:32 62 20:23-24 152 Htbtrws 4:32-37 19,50 20:28 155 2:6 77 4:34-35 86, 160 20:32-35 160 5:1-11 73 22:12 33 Janu::s 5:4 160 22:14 139 5:18 148 22:22 148 1:27 77

INDEX OF SUBJECfS

Abraham, 64-65; son of, 66, 160 Acts (book of), 11, 14, 19, 22, 26, 33,

80,90,102,148,155,158,165 Addressees of Luke (see readers) Adultery, 65, 98 Affliction, 57, 90-91 Alexandrinus (codex), 28 Allegorical interpretation, 46 Almsgiving, 16, 18, 63, 68-69, 114 Amazement (see also joy, praise), 31,

33 Anawim, 50-51, 61 Anna (the prophetes), 47, 73, 92, 106 Annunciation, 52, 76 Antagonists (see opponents) Aorist, 54-55 Apology, 58, 59, 100 Apostasy (see followers) Apostles (see also followers of Jesus),

96,97,148-149,154 Arrest of Jesus, 103, 128, 130, 135, 136,

140, 146 Ascension, 59,120, 124, 153-154, 163 Assault, 58, 84-86, 87-88, 90, 146, 161 Assyrian exile, 79 Augustus, 104 Austerity, 67, 68 Author, 80; authorial intention (see

also Luke), 17, 22-23 Baby, 74, 105, 155 Baptism of Jesus, 107, 121-122, 155 Barabbas, 137, 138-139, 142 Battle hymn, 55, 77 Beatitudes, 19-20, 42, 57-58, 61, 75, 86,

91, 152, 162 Beelzebub, 95, 113 Begging,beggar,46,56,61,62,84 Benedictus, 20, 39,54,74,76,77-78,82,

92,97,151 Betrayal of Jesus (see Judas) Birth of Jesus, 44, 52, 56, 71, 72, 74, 77,

92, 103, 104-105, 145 Blindness, the blind (see also physical

186

suffering), 39, 46, 58, 60, 83-84, 87, 88,89-90

Caesar, 78 Capernaum (see also ministry), 31, 34,

33, 35, 40, 41; episode, 41-42, 46, 90 Captives, captivity, 42, 46, 90, 91, 94, 97 Care (see compassion) Census, 104 Centurion, 72, 83; at the cross, 59, 83,

136, 139, 144, 158 Characterisation, 12, 23, 28, 72, 86, 89,

92, 102, 104, 116, 136, 138, 161 Charity, 11, 16, 18, 20, 66, 67-69, 85, 95,

159, 160, 164 Chiasm, 54 Childhood of Jesus, 52, 74, 82, 92, 104-

107, 109, 155 Childlessness, 49, 57, 91-92 Children (see also social suffering), 11,

55,74-75,81,95,105,140,145,161 Christ (see Messiah) Christianity, Christians (see also

church), 18, 50-51, 63, 66, 67, 72,97, 102, 137, 148, 149, 160, 164, 165

Christology of Luke, 25, 33 Chronology, 35 Church, 12, 15, 18, 19, 148; early

church, 18,51,56,67, 160 Colon, 23 Communication, 21, 45, 47, 59, 81, 109,

130, 136-137, 139, 143, 163, 164 Community, 50-51, 67, 160; of Luke

(see also situation), 16, 18, 22-23, 51,56,102,122,123,164

Compassion (concern, caring for suf­ferers), 11,17-18,20,21,34,59,66, 69, 73, 80, 85, 87-89, 90, 95, 96, 98, 99, 102, 109, 112, 113, 114-115, 130, 134-135,136, 139,140-141,142,144, 145, 159, 160, 162, 163-164, 165, 166

Composition, of Luke, 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 41-44, 45, 52, 79, 118, 121; eri ticism, 22, 27

Confession, 98 Context (see situation) Conversion (see repentance) Cornelius, 72, 82 Covetousness (see greed) Creative re-interpretation, 81 Cripple (see also maimed), woman, 89,

93,115 Cross (see crucifixion) Crowd (see also people), 114, 124, 128,

137, 144, 158 Crucifixion, cross, 14, 20, 43, 99, 103,

104, 106, 108, 110, 116, 124, 125, 134, 139, 141-145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 154, 155, 157-158, 161

Cultural relativism, 166 I>anger, 84, 86-87, 90, 161 I>eaf, 58, 84, 89 I>eath, 12, 58, 84, 87, 91; of Jesus, 17,

42,56, 72, 90, 99, 103, 108, 117-124, 125, 132, 139, 142, 144, 148, 149, 150,153-158,163

I>eliverance (see liberation) I>emon, 31, 92-95, 113; possession, 46,

83,90,92-95,117,162 I>enial (see Peter) I>enouement, 124, 163 I>erision (see mocking) I>espair,91 I>evil, 31, 95, 107-108, 109, 126, 133 I>imensions of suffering (see suffering) I>isciples, discipleship (see followers of

Jesus) I>iscourse analysis, 23 I>ispute about greatness, 131-132, 140,

156 I>omitian, 164 I>ramatisation, 44 I>ropsy,84,87,89,115 I>umbness, 87, 89, 93, 113 Eating with sinners (see sin, social

acceptance) Ebionitism, 20, 51, 52, 64; Economic suffering (see also poverty),

11,15,21,34,45,51,56,57,58,60-69, 70, 83, 85, 98, 145, 151, 159-160, 166

Ego integrity, 91 Elisabeth (relative of Mary), 48, 49, 57,

72,74,91 Emmaus (disciples), 123, 149 Enmity, enemies (see also opponents

Index of subjects 187

of Jesus), 34, 63, 77, 86, 99, 110, 116, 117, 161, 163, 164; of Israel, 34,40, 54, 56, 109; between Jews and gen­tiles, 47; between Jews and Samari­tans, 22, 58, 79, 84

Epilepsy, 90, 95 Eschatology, eschatological, 54, 67, 69,

151, 159; de-eschatologisation, 55; discourse, 122, 148; hymn, 54-55

Eternal life, 113 Ethics, 12, 15, 16, 18-19, 57, 66, 67, 70,

160 Eucharist (see Lord's supper) Exaltation, 120, 149, 158; of Jesus, 105,

106, 107, 109, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 153-154, 163; of the lowly, 17, 36,49,51,52,149,150-154,155

Exc1usivism, 34, 50, 58, 75-76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 145 .

Exegesis, 21-24; text-immanent, 17, 23; historical, 23-24

Exodus, 59, 153 Exorcism(s) (see also demon posses­

sion), 42, 92-96,113-114,119,162 Expiation, 103, 155-156, 158 Faith(fulness), 16, 19, 33-34, 65, 72, 75,

83,87,95,98,151,152,165 Faithlessness, 119, 133, 134-135, 144 Farewell discourse, 125, 127, 129, 132-

133, 135, 156, 157 Fasting, 111, 112 Fatherhood (see parenthood) Fatherland (patris), 44 Fellowship, 18 Feminism (see woman) Fever, 87, 93 Followers of Jesus (see also Emmaus,

liberation), 14, 15, 16, 18, 57, 67, 68-69, 73, 86-87, 89, 95, 102, 103, 110-111,117, 120-121, 123, 136, 140, 142, 144, 145, 153, 158; their defection (apostasy), 23, 123, 125-135, 142, 144, 147; their misunderstanding, 79, 89, 118, 119, 120-121, 123, 124, 125, 132, 135, 147, 148, 162; their perseverence, 133; their persecution and suffering, 58, 75, 118, 122, 145, 147-149, 164; sympathy towards, service of, salvation of (see also lib­eration), 134-135, 140, 144, 154-158

Forgiveness (see sin) Freedom song, 55

188 Index of subjects

Fulfilment, 125; of the law, 85, 89; promise and, 41, 45; of scripture, 36,41, 134-135; of time, 35, 36

Galilee, 35, 79, 104, 110, 119, 121, 123 Garasene demoniac, 83, 94-95, 151 Genealogy of Jesus, 107, 155 Genre, 53, 54-55 Gentiles (see also Romans) 11, 18,22,

25, 28, 34, 44, 47, 69, 81-83, 99, 109, 120, 145, 161

Glory, 153-154 God (see also predestination), 65, 69,

71, 75, 78, 82, 97, 98-99, 120, 123, 124, 152; his mercy, 54, 98-99, 100, 101; as Saviour, 53, 55, 76, 150, 151; 107, 113, 115-116

Gospel (as a book, see also Luke, Mark), 104, 124

Gospel (as message), 35-36, 44, 61, 95, 165

Grateful Samaritan (see Samaritans) Greed, 127, 143 Guilt, 96,144 Hades, 65 Haemorrhage, 87 Hannah's song, 50 Hatred (see enmity) Healing(s), 38, 95; of Elisha, 80-81; of

Jesus, 17, 21, 34, 38-39,41,46,57, 58, 75, 84, 85-86, 87-90, 93, 97-98, 110, 112, 115, 140, 155, 161, 162, 163

Hellenism, 72; hellenistic style, 30-31 Herod, 72, 78, 116-117, 122, 136-138,

147, 148-149 High priest's slave, 84-86, 87-88, 140,

157 Historical note, 104 Holy Spirit, 16, 31, 74, 107, 109, 155 House: of Jakob, 76; and Jesus, 68, 105,

119,145 Humility, humiliation, humbleness, 21,

49, 55, 71, 76, 78, 91, 95, 98, 120, 132, 139, 151, 152, 158, 161, 165; of Jesus, 33, 43, 104, 105-107, 108, 109, 114,119, 120-121, 124, 132, 136, 139, 141-145, 147, 148, 150, 154, 155, 157-158, 163, 166

Hunger, the hungry, 20, 42, 46, 56, 57, 61,84,86,90,91,98,112,146,151, 161

Hymn (see also praise, eschatological, battle),77-78

In:tmediately (see now) Infancy narrative, 48, 50, 52, 55, 71, 74,

77-78,104-107 Inn (see upper room) Innocence (see suffering of Jesus) Institution of eucharist (see Lord's

supper) Intention (see author, Luke) Intertestamental texts, 18 Irony, 85, 107, 109, 113, 132, 135, 158,

160, 163 Israel, 28, 34, 47, 51, 54, 55, 56, 72, 76-

78, 82, 83, 151; salvation of, 18, 54, 55,92,106,151

Jairus,95 James (Ac 12:2), 149 Jerusalem, 20, 22, 59, 67, 73, 79, 92,

102, 106, 110, 116, 120, 122, 123, 124, 147, 153, 160

Jesus, (see also arrest, baptism, birth, childhood, compassion, crucifixion, death, exaltation, exorcisms, gene­alogy, healings, ministry, miracles, mission, mocking, passion, persecu­tion, presentation, resurrection, selflessness, suffering, temptation, trial), 11, 14, 16, 102, 118, 136, 151; authority of, 93; historical, 78; his innocence (see also suffering of Jesus), 23, 72, 86, 119, 121; as prophet, 17, 29, 101, 113; rejection of, 29-30, 43, 72, 80, 106, 108-117, 118, 123, 124, 155, 162; the right­eous one, 20, 59, 139, 142, 144, 147, 158; the saviour, 53, 104, 106, 143, 154; as son of God, 93, 106, 107, 139, 147, 155; as Son of man, 89, 97, 120, 123; teaching of, 33, 39, 88, 89, 94, 102, 132; wisdom of, 74, 106, 108

Jewish leaders, 17, 20, 23, 80, 89, 109, 110-116, 117, 118, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 135, 136-138, 145-146, 147, 148-149, 154, 155, 163-164, 165

Jews, Judaism (see also Israel) 22, 23, 34, 41, 44, 50-51, 53, 58, 63, 69, 70, 72,75, 76-78, 79, 80, 81, 96, 98, 100, 109, 114, 120, 143, 146, 147, 161, 162

John the Baptist, 41, 50, 52, 57, 58, 61, 70, 72, 74, 77, 82, 86, 88, 112, 116-117, 160; the birth of, 52, 104; chil­hood of, 52, 74; his ministry, 97; narrative about, 52, 106

Joseph (father of Jesus), 104, 109 Joy (see also praise), 31, 90, 98, 100,

162 Judas, 108, 125; his betrayal of Jesus,

125, 126-128, 129, 131, 149 Judea, 42, 110, 112 Justice, 114 Kingdom (of God), 18, 35-37,42,64,

65, 67, 68, 69, 76, 95, 130, 140, 141, 149, 159, 165

Kurios, 104, 105, 151 Lame (see paralysis) Law{less) (see also sabbatical, fulfil­

ment), 85, 95, 157; and the prophets (see Old Testament); teachers, 114

Lazarus (see parable) Leprosy, lepers 28, 47, 59, 60, 75, 80,

84,87,88,94,113 Levi, calling of, 57, 59,100,110-111 Liberation (salvation, see also Israel,

soteriology, sin), 13, 14, 16-18, 33, 34, 35, 36-37, 39, 40, 42, 46, 50-51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 67, 69, 74, 76, 77-78, 82, 84, 92, 94, 97, 101, 103, 104, 105-107, 122, 124, 139-143, 145, 149-158, 163, 166; theology, 166

Literary analysis, 16-17, 20, 23, 44-45 Lord's (last) supper, 127-128, 129, 131-

132, 133; institution of, 155, 156 Lord's prayer, 99 Love (see also compassion), 16, 80,

114; commandment, 80, 85; of enemies, 99, 140-141

Lowliness, the lowly (see also underdog, sufferers, exaltation), 17, 54,55,104,105,150-154

Luke, 91; as hellenist, 18, 22, 63; his Gospel, 14,41,43,45, 48,52,57, 59, 60, 61, 72, 78, 81, 82, 90, 102, 112, 118, 124, 127, 140, 141, 145, 150, 153, 155-156, 158, 159, 161, 163, 165, 166; his intention, view, 20-21, 22-23,43,44,45,53,104,107,130,134, 138, 152, 159-164, 165-166

Luke-Acts, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 60, 81, 82, 138, 155, 164

Macrostructure (see composition) Magnificat, 12, 19-20, 23, 25, 48-56, 61,

64,72,76,82,150 Maimed (see also cripple), 60, 62, 84 Mammon, 65, 66, 115, 160 Manger, 104-105

Index of subjects 189

Mark, his Gospel, 21-22, 26, 30, 44, 63, 71, 92-93, 101, 112, 113, 116, 118, 124, 129, 139, 141, 153, 155

Martha, 73 Martyrdom, 14,33, 120, 142, 149 Mary, 73; mother of Jesus, 48-49, 52,

54, 55, 56, 57, 71, 72, 74, 76, 104, 106, 150, 151

Matthew, 70; his Gospel, 30, 57, 58, 112,131

Maturity, 91 Mercy (see compassion, God) Messiah, messianism, messianic age,

41,50,56,74,77,82,84,88,90,92, 105, 143, 149, 153, 158

Metaphor(ical), 46-47, 61, 63, 71, 76, 85,86,163

Methodology, 21-24, 26 Midrash, 106 Mighty, the (see also politics), 54, 76 Ministry of Jesus, 41, 45, 46, 58, 84, 87-

88, 90, 102, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 118, 138, 140, 141, 150, 155; in Capemaum (see also Capemaum), 28, 36, 39, 41-42, 94; in Galilee, 28, 82, 94, 110-113; in Nazareth (see also Nazareth), 36, 39, 41-42, 95; in Samaria, 82;

Miracles, 21, 33-34, 87, 109 Mission, 25, 44, 47, 81, 149; of Jesus,

37, 100, 122 Mocking of Jesus, 117, 120, 130, 131,

142, 143, 146, 147, 157, 158 Moses, 65, 153; and the prophets (see

Old Testament) Naaman the Syrian, 28, 34, 43, 46, 47-

48, 80-81, 83 Nain (see widow) Narrative, narration, narratology, (see

also infancy, passion, John the bap­tist), 22-23, 80, 124, 125, 163; of annunciation, 57; of the exegete, 24; of Mark, 31, 141; of Luke, 17, 21, 28,45,47,48,90,103,106,116,120, 130, 133, 136, 157, 162, 163; struc­ture,26,64

Nation(s) (see also gentiles), 75, 106 Nationalism, 55, 76, 82 Nazareth, 30, 34, 104, 108, 155, episode,

12, 23, 25-48, 60, 61, 75, 80, 83, 88, 90,95,97,108-110,145

Neigbour (see also love), 58, 80, 84, 85

190 Index of subjects

Now (see also today), 68, 69, 86, 88 Nunc Dimittis, 74, 76, 82, 92, 106 Old age, 57, 91-92, 145, 162 Old Testament, 18, 41, 45, 47, 81;

quotation(s), 31, 37-41, 44-45, 50, 65-66, 142, 143

Olives (mount of), 125, 133, 140 Opponents of Jesus (see also Jewish

leaders, Romans), 17, 45, 86, 99, 108,109,110-117,126,131,136,138, 140, 141, 142, 146

Oppression (see politics); the op­pressed (Lk 4:18), 38-39, 42, 46, 90, 94,97

Orality,20 Orphans, 51 Ostracism (see social suffering) Outcasts (see social suffering) Parable: of the creditor with the two

debtors, 101; of the fig tree, 101; of the good Samaritan, 58, 80, 81, 84-85, 165; of the great banquet, 58, 61, 64; of Lazarus and the rich man, 19-20,53,61,64-65,67,86,116,152; of the lost coin, 58, 98; of the lost sheep, 58, 98; of the prodigal son, 53, 58-59, 70, 98, 100, 115; of the rich fool, 64, 68; of the toll-collector and Pharisee, 53,59,70, 100-102; of the unjust steward, 65; of the widow and the judge, 73;

Paradigmatic meaning 12, 16 Paradox, 105-107, 109, 118, 153, 158,

159,161 Parallelism: asyndetic 84; antithetic, 54;

complementary, 47, 161 Paralysis, 39, 53, 57, 58, 84, 87, 97, 110,

163 Parenesis, 17, 19-20,53 Parenthood, 74, 161, 165 Passion narrative, 12, 14, 20, 59, 72,

103, 104, 108, 119, 120, 124-144, 153 Passion of Jesus, (see also suffering of

Jesus) 108, 109, 118, 120-122, 123, 130, 135, 144, 145, 148, 154, 157

Passion predictions, 117-124, 127, 132, 148, 153

Passive resistance, 78 Patience, 101 Paul, 148, 149, 149, 155 Penitent robber, 59, 99, 134, 136, 138-

139, 141, 142, 144, 157, 158

People (see also crowd), 114-116 Peripatetic historiography, 31, 44 Persecution (see also followers of

Jesus), 16, 91, 164; of the anawim, 50; of Jesus, 110-117, 122, 123, 138, 155

Peter, 62, 82, 88, 93, 96, 118, 125, 133, 134,140,148; his denial of Jesus, 59, 125, 129-131, 137, 140

Pharisees, 12, 16,57, 58, 65, 67, 70,72, 84,89,96,100-102,110-116,117

Physical suffering, 13, 21, 34, 46, 57, 58, 59, 61, 80, 83-90, 91, 97, 140, 141, 143, 146-147, 151, 161-162

Pilate, 78, 117, 136-138, 144, 149 Pity (see compassion) Political suffering (see also enemity),

13, 21, 34, 44-45, 47, 56, 58, 69, 75-83,85,146,151,161,166

Politics, political (see also Romans), 19, 47, 50, 54, 55, 75-83, 116, 123, 146, 149, 161, 165; apologetic, 19, 116, 137-138; oppression (see also political suffering), 19, 55, 56, 58, 75-78,91,83,161,166

Possessions, 15, 16-21, 62, 68, 127, 152; renunciation of, 15, 18, 20, 67-69, 120-121, 145, 159, 160; sharing of (see also charity), 18-19, 50, 66, 67, 68-69, 86, 160, 161

Poverty, the poor (see also economic suffering), 11-12, 14-21, 23, 25, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45-46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60-69, 71, 73, 75, 78, 83, 84, 86-88, 91, 101-102, 105, 116, 155, 159-160, 161-162, 164, 166

Praise (see also joy), 31, 52, 88, 109, 139; song of, 53, 54, 56

Prayer (see also Lord's prayer), 73, 99, 130, 140, 141, 142, 157

Preach, 35, 36 Predestination, 122, 123, 153 Presentation of Jesus, 105 Professions (despised, see toIl-collec­

tors, shepherds, soldiers) Programme, programmatic: Lucan, 25-

26, 39, 41, 80, 88, 93, 109; Marcan, 35-37,41,42

Protagonist, 44-45, 163 Psychological suffering, 13, 38-39, 46,

57,59,90-96,122,143,147,151,162 Psychology, 90; developmental, 91

Punishment (divine), 92 Q-source, 11, 21, 22, 29-31, 40, 61, 63,

67,68,70-71,83,87,93,95,100,108, 110, 112, 114, 121-122, 132, 145, 148

Qumran, 41 Rabbinic, 96; literature, 71, 81,105 Ransom (see also expiation), 106, 151,

156 Rea'der(s) of Luke's Gospel, 65, 66, 99,

104, 109, 116, 123, 126, 127, 137-138, 142, 143, 146, 150

Reconciliation (see also expiation), 154 Redaction, 29-30, 50, 63, 94, 102, 121,

124, 126, 130, 131, 132, 138, 139, 141, 156; criticism, 15,20-21,23,26, 32-45, 51-53; redactional note(s), 21, 28, 41, 73, 100, 104, 107, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 136, 139, 142; free redactional rendering, 29, 31-32; redactor, 23, 28, 80; specific, 21-22, 24, 32-34, 51, 124,139;

Release (see liberation) Religious suffering (see spiritual) Repentance, 70, 95, 98-99, 100, 101,

107, 131, 138, 158 Restitution, 70 Resurrection of Jesus, 17,25,43, 56,

59, 106, 118-119, 123-124, 144, 153-154, 163

Reversal of fortune, roles, 16, 52-56, 64,70,76,83,103,106,150,151

Rich, riches, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 50-51, 54, 60-69, 70, 71, 102, 159-160, 164, 165, 166

Righteous (see Jesus) Romans, 58, 75, 78, 79, 82, 146, 147,

161, 165; Roman authority, 19, 69, 78, 104, 116, 123, 130, 135, 136-138, 149, 161, 164

Sabbath, sabbatical (see also healings), 35, 111, 112, 155, 162, 164; laws, 84, 86,89,111,115

Sadducees, 57, 70,92, 102, 110-116 Salvation (see liberation) Samaritans, Samaria, 11, 17,21,22,43,

53, 58, 59, 69, 75, 79-81, 84-85, 124, 146, 151, 161

Satan (see devil) Saviour (see God, Jesus) Scribes, 73,96,100,111-112,115 Scripture (see Old Testament)

Index of subjects 191

Second coming, 12, 16, 123 Self-justification, 152, 164 Selflessness, 127, 140, 142, 144, 148,

152, 157, 158, 164 Septuagint, 30,37-38,40,82 Service, servant, 55, 65, 76, 77, 78, 116,

132, 140, 142, 152, 154-158, 161, 166 Share (see possessions) Shepherds, 69, 71,96, 105, 160 Sickness, the sick (see also physical

suffering), 13, 19, 42, 46, 51, 61, 75, 84, 85, 87-90, 91, 93, 95, 112, 116, 117, 146, 162, 163

Sign, 114, 117, 128, 155 Simeon (Lk 2:25-35), 43, 47, 74, 82, 92,

106, 151; the leper, 113; the Phari­see, 113

Sin, sinners (see also spiritual suffer­ing), 12, 16, 45, 46-47-48, 56, 57, 58, 59, 70, 76, 77, 85, 96-102, 103, 110, 112-113, 115, 116, 147, 155, 158, 162, 163; expiation of, 149-150; forgive­ness (release) of, 12,21,36,39,42, 46-47, 57-59, 76, 77, 96, 97-99, 101, 107, 110, 112, 113, 151, 163, 164; social acceptance of, 21, 96, 99-102, 112, 145-146, 151

Situation, 18, 166; of Luke, 12, 15, 16, 22, 122, 148, 164, 165

Social acceptance (see sin, social suf­fering)

Social suffering, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 44, 46,47,56,57,58,59,69-75,78,86, 96, 99-102, 105, 112, 113, 115, 116, 143, 145-146, 147, 151, 155, 160-161, 163, 164

Society, 19, 165 Soldiers, 11, 57, 58, 72, 143, 146, 160 Son of mamjGod (see Jesus) Sondergut, 20-21, 22, 29, 32, 35, 47, 51,

59,64,68,70,81,87,89,93,98,101-102, 112, 121, 129-130, 139-141, 152

Soteriology (see liberation) Sources (Luke's use of), 63-64, 71, 102,

108, 114, 124, 130, 131, 156, 162 Spiritual suffering (see also sin), 13, 16,

47-48, 57, 58, 59, 63, 78, 96-102, 113, 141, 143, 147, 151, 163

Spiritualisation, 12, 56, 61, 68, 77, 146, 159, 166

Standespredigt, 11,41 Stephen, 141, 149

192 Index of subjects

Stoic philosophy, 134 Story world, 22, 117 Stranger, 58, 59 Structure, 42, structural analysis, 23,

26-27, 49, 53-54 Suffering of Jesus (see also compas­

sion, crucifixion, followers of Jesus, liberation, passion), 12, 14, 15, 17-18, 20, 23, 25-26, 44, 55-56, 59, 73, 80, 99, 102, 103-158, 163-164; its comprehensiveness, 125, 145-147, 149; its innocence (see also Jesus), 131, 135-139, 140, 142, 143-144, 146, 147, 157, 158; its various dimen­sions, 143, 145-147, 157; its salvific meaning, 154-158

Suffering servant, 55, 76, 138, 157 Suffering, sufferers (see also economic,

exaltation of the lowly, followers of Jesus, physical, political, psychologi­cal, social, spiritual, suffering of Jesus), 11, 12, 17, 25, 33, 34,48,67, 85,91,94,95,102,109,152,159-164, 165, 166; alleviation of, 14, 20, 36, 37, 41, 47, 54, 56, 57, 67, 69, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93-94, 95, 97, 102, lO9, 115, 119, 124, 139, 141, 143, 145, 150, 155, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165; compre­hensive view, 12, 13, 14, 19, 25-59, 83, 85, 90, 91, 99, 102, 103, 104, 145-147, 159, 162, 163; of Israel, 18-19; ordinary human, 12, 14, 15, 25, 102, 145, 147, 149, 164; various dimen­sions of, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25-26, 40, 45, 48, 55-58, 59, 60-102, 103, 145, 152, 158, 159-164

Summarium, summary, 33, 41, 88, 93, 94

Suspense, 108, 111, 117, 133 Swords (the two), 134-135, 136, 157 Symbolism, 16-18,34, 90, 104, 134 Sympathy, sympathetic (see compas-

sion) Tax (payment), 136 Tax-collector (see toll-collector) Temple, 92, 106, 143; piety, 50 Temptation, 133-134; of Jesus, 35, 107-

108, 113, 126, 132, 155 Textual: criticism, 27-28, 42, 133; de-

marcation, 27 Thanksgiving song, 55 Today (see also now), 33, 35, 36-37, 67,

141 Toll-collectors, 11, 14, 17, 22, 57, 58, 59,

66, 69-71, 72, 96, 99, 100, 102, 110, 112, 115, 145-146, 160

Topdog(s), 13,52,54,152,155,165 Topography, 35 Tradition, 20, 22, 26-27, 29-32, 48, 49,

50-51, 56, 57, 67, 70, 71, 79, 81, 90, 96, 102, 112, 113, 116, 119, 121, 139; criticism/history, 21,27,29-32, 50-51; oral,20;

Transfiguration, 153 Transparent history, 22 Travel narrative, 22, 79-80, 82, 113-116,

118, 120, 121, 122, 153 Trial(s) of Jesus, 103, 116, 123, 130,

136-138, 149 Unbelief (see faithlessness) Underdog (see also sufferers), 13,52,

55 Universalism, 11, 34, 38, 40, 41, 44-45,

51,55,56,75,76,78,82,83 Upper room, 104 Vicariuos death (see also expiation),

156,158 Violence, 19, 78, 161, 166 Visit( ation), 77 Washing of hands, 114 Wealth (see rich) Weep, 91, 122, 131, 157 Widow(s), 13, 28, 47, 51; of Nain, 43,

47, 73, 81, 95; of Zarephath, 28, 34, 43, 45, 47-48, 62-63, 73, 81, 83, 92, 161

Wisdom (see also Jesus), 91 Withered hand, 87, 89, 90, 111-112 Woe-sayings, 19,65, 114-115 Woman, 11, 13, 17, 19,47,55,56,57,

63, 72-73, 82, 92, 101, 112-113, 123, 136, 140, 141-142, 145, 157, 161

Yahwism,79 Zacchaeus, 59, 66, 70, lOO-101, 116,

151, 160, 161 Zealotism, 76, 78 Zechariah (John's farther), 47, 57, 72,

74,91-92