An Exegesis of Luke 6: 20-26

PRECONCEPTIONS

At outset I must profess that I have preunderstandings which will influence the course of this study. In his work, Biblical Hermeneutics (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986), Duncan Ferguson describes preunderstanding as follows: " Preunderstanding [is] a body of assumptions and attitudes which a person brings to the perception and interpretation of reality or any aspect of it" (Ferguson, p. 6). I would assume that much of my preunderstanding is subliminal, subconcious, even beyond my wherewithal to bring it to surface. One good reason for the Bible to be read in community is that the insights and perspectives of other people can flush out our subconscious preunderstandings to our attention. Furthermore, the more broad the ecumenical scope of the community, the greater the opportunity for this objectivity.

At the heart of my conscious preunderstanding is a bias toward the Sermon on the Plain as a definitive Christian ethical manifesto. I tend to favor it over the parallel Sermon on the Mount beautitudes (Matthew 5:1-11), in part because the Lucan beatitudes are less readily spiritualized to practical irrelevancy. Thus my bias will be to see in this passage a radical judgment against arrogant power individually and corporately, and a corresponding beneficence to the lowly. But it is the truth that sets us free, thus I must bow to the truth of Christ and not let my eisegetical predilection have sway.

Some interpretive questions: (1) What exactly is meant by "blessed" and "woe"? Are these imputations meant for this age, or are they an eschatalogical promise? (2) Is this type of passage meant to be taken figuratively or literally to its original audience? (3) Inasmuch as these beatitudes run diametrically opposite to the heart of most cultural value systems, is this passage meant as a socio-political critique, or as a spur to eschatalogical hope? Would the era in which this book was authored bear upon the theological content of this passage (such as fall of Jerusalem 70 CE)? (4) What is meant by "Son of Man"? (5) What is meant biblically by "weeping", "laughing"? (6) What would be understood by 1st century people to the reference to "heaven" (v. 23)? What is meant by "reward"? (7) What distinguishes true prophets from false prophets (Lk.6:22,23,26)? Why would popularity be the key in this passage? (8) What theological purpose might explain Luke's differences to Matthew's use of the Sermon teachings? For example, Luke scatters the teachings in several sections of his book; Luke positions the teachings on a Plain, not a Mountain. (9) Finally, in distinction from the parallel beatitudes in Matthew 5, why does Luke choose to present the teachings with both the positive and its negative counterpart? Why does Luke address the second person rather than Matthew's third? Why are Luke's teachings "earthy" while Matthew's counterparts are "spiritualized" (poor vs. poor in spirit; hungry vs. hungry and thirsty for righteousness)? What are the conjectured original source materials?

TEXT OF LUKE 6: 20-26 (NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION)

Then he looked up at his disciples and said:

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

"Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.

"Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

"Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you,

and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy,

for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.

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

"Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.

"Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.

"Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

Translation reading for this text will be based upon English versions, inasmuch as I do not have the expertise to handle the Greek text with proficiency. I will be concentrating upon three different translations, based upon guidance from a work of Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, Chapter 2, "The Basic Tool; A Good Translation" (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.). The authors place several current translations upon "a historical-distance scale" (p. 35) as in the following chart (p. 36).

Literal Dynamic Equivalence Free

KJV RSV NRSV NIV GNB Phillips LB

NASB NAB JB

NEB

I have chosen the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) as my primary text inasmuch as it is primarily a literal (formal equivalent) text with some concessions toward the dynamic equivalence in particular with regards to gender inclusivity. According to Fee and Stuart, "The best translational theory is dynamic equivalence. A literal translation is often helpful as a second source; it will give you confidence as to what the Greek or Hebrew actually looked like" (p. 36). Accordingly, I have chosen as a second translation the New American Standard Bible (NASB) for a solidly literal translation, preferring this over the King James Version (KJV) for critical studies due to the more archaic language and the less ancient Greek source text of the KJV. I will concede that the NKJV would have softened some of these concerns. After considerable deliberation, I dismissed the Good News Bible (GNB) as a primary critical text for a dynamic equivalent translation because of its intentional approach to an elementary-level language. Instead, I chose the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) for a third, dynamic equivalent translation that strengthens the ecumenicity perspective inasmuch as it was forged in Catholic scholarship. Each of my three translations also has the advantage of being a committee translation which strengthens theological objectivity and scholastic interpretive accuracy. The free, paraphrased translations such as the Living Bible (LB), The Message (Petersen), and The Cotton Patch Version (Jordan) were rejected as inappropriate for critical study inasmuch as the authors have translated interpretively, and of course are not committee translations. Finally, the New International Version (NIV), the dynamic equivalent translation-of-choice for Fee and Stuart, was not selected for purely nonconformist reasons. My wife, four sons, and most of the members of our church use and appreciate the NIV. For some reason I back off from it, perhaps due to the smugness of its market position. Anyway, I cannot logically justify my position, and have consulted this excellent translation along with several others during the scope of this project (see Bibliography).

VARIANTS IN TEXT

This Lucan passage does not pose textual source problems. The only mention in Bruce Metzger's, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), is that of 6:26, in which concerning the phrase "all men" ( ), "although copyists may have added in order to increase the force of the pronouncement, it is more probable that the word (which is a favorite of Luke's) was omitted in transcription, perhaps because it was felt to be inconsistent with the other member of the comparison ( )" (p. 141). In other words, is the word that means "all" or "every" contained in Luke's original autograph or has it been added in transcription for theological emphasis? Apparantly Luke is familiar with the word and its declensions, but inasmuch as the word referring to the "ancestors" (or fathers) does not have this augmentation (perhaps for theological reasons so as not to totally discredit Israel), the overall grammatical stylistic parallelism of this passage would seem to cast doubt that Luke originated in this passage. It is in light of these apparant problems that Bruce Metzger and the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament denoted this phrase as a [C].

In his work, The Gospel According To St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1950), John Martin Creed suggests some problems with the text in verses 24-26 when he states, "The four 'woes' ... are peculiar to Luke, and were perhaps not part of his source. They were not addressed to the disciples then present, but to the rich and successful who are absent. The disciples are again addressed at verse 27..." (p. 92). This of course gets to the question of what exactly did Jesus teach and what has been imputed to him. Creed however does not suggest this as a variant. Robert Leaney argues in favor of the originality of the "woes" in his book, The Gospel According To St. Luke (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1958), stating that their parallelism with the beatitudes "...is even stronger if the clause ‘and cast out your name as evil for the sake of the Son of Man’ may be regarded as an addition to the originial..." (p. 136). Leaney thus implies this clause as a variant reading due to it being abberant to the otherwise parallel structure of the passage. Joseph Fitzmyer apparantly concurs in his monumental work in the Anchor Bible Commentary Series, The Gospel According to Luke (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), arguing in favor of "the heavy incidence of Lucan vocabulary in these verses" (p. 627). Fitzmyer also notes another slight variant in verse 25, where the word ("now") is omitted from the "Ms. D and the Koine text-tradition" (p. 636).

In summary, this passage is considered by scholars to have textual consistency. The minor variants do not bear theological significance except in minutiae of emphasis. More significant matters lie with respect to the source from which Luke gained his material, but that is another matter.

TRIANGULATION

In order to achieve higher confirmation of linguistic expression in the English translation, a triangulation process is employed in which several English Bible versions are compared. The main versions selected were denoted earlier in this paper: The New Revised Standard Version; The New Jerusalem Bible; New American Standard Bible. Other versions will be consulted and noted if significant: The Good News Bible: Today's English Version (GNB); Young's Bible Translation; King James Version (KJV); New International Version (NIV); The Holy Bible (Berkeley); The Living Bible (LB); and The Cotton Patch Version. (See Bibliography). (Word comparison in bold type, ordered.).

NRSV (vs 20) Then he looked up at his disciples and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

NJB (vs 20) Then fixing his eyes on his disciples he said: How blessed are you who are poor: the kingdom of God is yours.

NASB (vs 20) And turning His gaze on His disciples, He began to say, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Commentary: (1)The NRSV implies that Jesus is in a lower physical situation (sitting?), and must look up, even though verse 17 states that they "stood" on a level place. KJV and Young's also have Jesus looking up, the other translations imply a fixing of gaze. (2)Young's, KJV, GNB, LB all use "happy" rather than "blessed". The Anchor Bible suggests "happy" as a good definition for "blessed" (makarios), although the fullness of this expression should be explained (Fitzmyer, p. 633). Interestingly, Clarence Jordan in Cotton Patch Version substitutes for the word "blessed" a theological phrase, "[you] are God's people."

NRSV (vs 21) "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

NJB (vs 21) Blessed are you who are hungry now: you shall have your fill. Blessed are you who are weeping now: you shall laugh.

NASB (vs 21) "Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

Commentary: No significant difference.

NRSV (vs 22) "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.

NJB (vs 22) 'Blessed are you when people hate you, drive you out, abuse you, denounce your name as criminal, on account of the Son of man.

NASV (vs) "Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and cast insults at you, and spurn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.

Commentary: (1)Gender inclusivity in Anchor Bible, Berkeley, LB, Cotton Patch. (2)Most other versions also use a form of "exclude", thus NJB rejected. (3)Most other versions also connote rejection of the name as evil. NJB may overstate.

NRSV (vs 23) Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.

NJB (vs 23) Rejoice when that day comes and dance for joy, look!—your reward will be great in heaven. This was the way their ancestors treated the prophets.

NASB (vs 23) Be glad in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets.

Commentary: (1)Dance or leap should be described as an exuberant expression. (2)The Greek text has (lo, behold,see). NRSV omits. (3)Future or present tense? Other translations evenly divided. The expression points to a future reward in heaven. (4)Ancestors is more gender inclusive as well as accurate, and is consonant with the Greek .

NRSV (vs 24) "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

NJB (vs 24) But alas for you who are rich: you are having your consolation now.

NASB (vs 24) But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.

Commentary: (1)In Cotton Patch Version the theologically-loaded phrase, "It will be hell for you rich people," is footnoted by author Clarence Jordan as follows, "The Greek word, generally translated as "woe," is the sound of an agonizing groan, "o-o-oh," as from someone in great anguish or torment, as "in hell." The Greek word is , an interjection of sorrow. (2)The Greek word (a calling alongside for help) can be translated as comfort or consolation. Interestingly, a cognate is used to refer to The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John. To draw this thought out one might choose to use "comfort" for translation.

NRSV (vs 25) "Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. "Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.

NJB (vs 25) Alas for you who have plenty to eat now: you shall go hungry. Alas for you who are laughing now: you shall mourn and weep.

NASB (vs 25)"Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

Commentary: See note on "woe" () vs 24. No other significant translation choice difference.

NRSV (vs 26) "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.

NJB (vs 26) 'Alas for you when everyone speaks well of you! This was the way their ancestors treated the false prophets.

NASB (vs 26) "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets.

Commentary: (1)The Greek phrase, , is not violated by gender inclusivity. Living Bible translates as "crowds", a misleading choice. (2)"Ancestors" more gender inclusive than "fathers." See note for vs 23. Cotton Patch translates "false prophets" as "phony preachers," somewhat misleading but certainly contemporary.

GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS (LUKE 6:20-26 NRSV)

(vs 20) Then (adv) he (pronoun subject) looked (verb) up (adv) at his disciples (prepositional clause) and (conjunction) said: (verb) "Blessed (noun) are (present tense linking verb) you (predicate nominative pronoun) [Main Clause] who ( relative pronoun) are (pres. tense linking verb) poor (pred. nom.) [Subordinate Clause] for (coordinating conjunction) yours (possessive pronoun) is (pres. tense linking verb) the kingdom (pred. nom.) of God. (prep. clause)

(vs 21) "Blessed (noun) are (pres. tense linking verb) you (pred. nom. pronoun) [Main Clause] who (relative pronoun) are (pres. tense linking verb) hungry (pred. nom.) now, (adv.) [Subordinate Clause]

for (coordinating conjunction) you (pronoun) will be (future tense linking verb) filled (pred. nom.) [Subordinate Clause]

"Blessed (noun) are (pres. tense linking verb) you (pred. nom. pronoun) [Main Clause] who (relative pronoun) weep (intransitive pres. tense action verb) now, (adverb) [Subordinate Clause]

for (coordinating conjunction) you (pronoun) will laugh. (intransitive future tense action verb) [Subordinate Clause]

(vs 22) "Blessed (noun) are (pres. tense linking verb) you (pred. nom. pronoun) [Main Clause] when (subordinating conjunction) people (subject noun) hate (transitive pres. tense action verb) you, (direct object pronoun) and (coordinating conjunction) when (subordinating conjunction) they (pronoun) exclude (trans. pres. tns. act. vb.) you (direct object), revile (trans. pres. tns. act. vb.) you, (direct object) and (coordinating conjunction) defame (trans. pres. tns. act. vb.) you (dir. obj.) on account (prep. phrase) of the Son of Man (prep. phrase).

(vs 23) You (understood subject pronoun) Rejoice (intransitive pres. tns. act. vb.) in that day (prep. phrase) and (coordinating conjunction) leap (intransitive pres. tns. act. vb.) for joy, (prep. phrase) [Main Clause] for (coordinating conjunction) surely (adv.) your (possessive pronoun) reward (noun) is (pres. tns. linking vb.) great (pred. nom.) in heaven; (prep. phrase) for (coord. conj.) that (relative pronoun) is (pres. tns. linking vb.) what (pred. nom.) their (possessive pronoun) ancestors (noun) did (intransitive pres. tns. action vb.) to the prophets. (prep. phrase) [Subordinate Clause]

(vs 24) "But (contrasting coordinating conjunction) woe (interjection) to you (prep phrase) who (relative pronoun) are (pres. tns. linking vb.) rich, (pred. nom.) [Main Clause] for (coord. conj.) you (subj. noun) have received (transitive present perfect verb) your (possessive) consolation. (direct object) [Subordinate Clause]

(vs 25) "Woe (interjection) to you (prep. phrase) who (rel. pronoun) are (pres. tns. linking vb.) full (pred. nom.) now, (adv.) [Main Clause] for (coord. conj.) you (noun) will be (present tense linking verb) hungry. (pred. nom.) [Subordinate Clause] "Woe (interjection) to you (prep. phrase) who (rel. pronoun) are laughing (intransitive present progressive action verb) now, (adv.) [Main Clause] for (coord. conj.) you (noun) will mourn (intransitive future tense action verb) and (coord. conj.) weep. (intrans. future tense action verb) [Subordinate Clause]

(vs 26) "Woe (interjection) to you (prep. phrase) when (rel. pronoun) all (subj. noun) speak (intransitive present tense action verb) well (adv.) of you (prep. phrase) [Main Clause] for (coord. conj.) that (rel. pronoun) is (prs. tns. linking vb.) what (pred. nom.) their (possessive) ancestors (noun) did (intransitive pres. tns. action vb.) to the false prophets. (prep. phrase) [Subordinate Clause]

Commentary: The word "you" is plural (Fitzmyer, p. 632). The style is in parallel construction, positioning each didactic statement with a positive and its parallel opposite. The first couplet in verse 20 has a different verb tense in the subordinate clause than its correspondent in verse 24. Verse 24 abbreviate the correspondence of verse 22. The "woes" use the interjection, ouai, and are not fully parallel to "blessed" (Fitzmyer, p. 636).

HISTORICAL - LITERARY / CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The author of the book of Luke is anonymous, but since the time of Irenaeus near the close of the second century has traditionally been recognized as Luke, the Gentile physician and companion of Paul (Fitzmyer, p. 37). This is now heavily debated. Three of Paul's writings mention Luke (Philemon 24; Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11). However, inasmuch scholars almost universally agree that the books of Luke and Acts were written by the same author, some have taken exception to seeming discrepancies between Paul's letters and the book of Acts (Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Luke, Atlanta: John Knox, 1984, p. 6). Others vigorously argue in behalf of Lucan authorship from the testimony of early written church documents such as SQE, 533, and writings of Tertullian, Jerome, Origen (Fitzmayer, pp. 38-40). Renan writes, "The placing of a celebrated name at the head of a work ... was in no way repugnant to the custom of the times. But to place at the head of a document a false name and an obscure one withal, that is inconceivable ..." (Les Apres, p. xviii., Eng. tr. p. 11) (Quoted in Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, ICC Series. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922, 1951. p. xvii).

Tradition also weighs heavily that the author was a physician, which would be true if he is the same Luke testified by Paul (Col. 4:4). Some scholars feel it is spurious to argue from sylistic phrases referring to medical situations that the author is a physician. As Frederick W. Danker argues in his Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988, p. 1), "Ancient medicine was not nearly so technical as it is today, and numerous writers outside the medical profession used expressions similar to those found in the Third Gospel."

To those who hold the author as a companion of Paul, the man is conclusively a Gentile Christian. "Whether he was a Jewish proselyte before he was a Christian must remain uncertain; his knowledge of Jewish affairs and his frequent Hebraisms are no proof" (Plummer, p. xix). For certain, the author was well-versed in Greek culture, a gifted writer, and facile to convey Hebrew culture, history, and theology into a Greco-Roman audience (Danker, p. 3).

That the same author wrote Luke and Acts is essentially undisputed, both on stylistic grounds as well as the parallel dedication of each work to a certain ambiguous Theophilus. The dating, however, is more uncertain and debatable. Some scholars presuppose the seige of Jerusalem in Luke 21:20-24 as historical knowledge, thus positing a date after 70 CE (Schweizer, p. 6; Creed, p. 22; Danker, p. 17; Fitzmyer, p. 57.). Others caution that the book of Acts does not mention the death of Paul at about 63 CE, a seemingly glaring omission if the book was written post 70. Furthermore, Acts does not mention matters indicative of familiarity with the Pauline epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians. Alfred Plummer writes, "The prophecy of Agabus respecting the famine...was [mentioned as] fulfilled" in Acts 11:28, yet the prophecy of Christ in Luke 21:5-36 is not mentioned as fulfilled (Plummer, p. xxxii.) Plummer nevertheless opts for a date of 75-80 CE. Some scholars even suggest a late date of about 100 CE on the suggestion that the author was familiar with the works of Josephus (Plummer, p. xxx.).

It is conceded that the Gospel was written before the book of Acts, although both works were

probably an envisaged whole. The intended audience appears to be "Gentile Christians in a predominantly Gentile setting" (Fitzmyer, p. 59). Many clues suggest this, including the "elimination of materials from his sources, "Mk" or "Q," "that are predominantly Jewish preoccupations...the controversy about what is clean or unclean, Mark 7:1-23" (Fitzmyer, p. 58). The place of writing is unknown other than to unsubstantiated traditions. Due to the author's seeming unfamiliarity with certain details of Palestine, it appears almost certain that it was not written in that locale (Fitzmyer, p. 57). Finally, the author himself of Luke reveals his purpose, to "set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and servants of the word... so that you may know the truth" (Lk. 1:1,2,4).

SOURCE ANALYSIS

Much study has gone into analyzing the source materials from which the author of Luke fashioned his Gospel. Essentially all critical scholars hold to varying views in which Luke is drawn from the Gospel of Mark and another hypothesized source designated as Q. Although some hold that Luke may have drawn from Matthew as well, difficulties in reconciling the omission of pertinent explanatory Matthean details in Luke suggest a better rationale that Matthew and Luke were both familiar with a common source material Q. Some scholars work from a three source theory containing also a source not common to the other synoptics, designated as L (see Fitzmyer, p. 66). In addition to these sources, Danker writes, "Luke ranges freely in the Greek bible (Septuagint), with special interest in the prophet Isaiah, and appears to have more than a passing acquaintance with wisdom literary tradition" (p. 16).

Luke 6:20-26 obviously has close parallel with the beatitudes of Matthew 5, a fact which has engaged scholars and commentators since the early church age. Inasmuch as no reference to this material is found in Mark (or John), Q source is almost universally accepted for Lk. 6:20b-23 (=Matt. 5:3,4,6,11-12). Various hypotheses for the discrepancies have been ventured to explain the differences between Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's Sermon on the Plain. Luke's version may have omitted Q material suited especially to Jewish audiences that would have attracted Matthew. (Fitzmyer, p. 628). Luke may, however, have kept the original order and setting in contrast with Matthew's highly organized and bundled work (Fitzmyer, p. 628). As for the inclusion of the complementary negative to the beatitudes in the Lucan "woes," although this interjection ouai and related forms are found in Q, and in the LXX, the fact that the word Paraklesis in 6:24 is used only by the author of Luke and Acts, and not by Mark or Matthew, suggests non-Q source (Fitzmyer, p. 636). Finally, comment must be made about the abundant references in Luke to the Old Testament indicating the author's familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures. Following detailed vocabulary study, Joseph Fitzmyer posits that Luke is especially dependent on the Greek LXX, that "90 per cent of his vocabulary is found in the LXX (Fitzmyer, p. 113), and that even most of the semitisms are in the LXX (Fitzmyer, p. 114). A puzzle yet exists, however, in that Luke utilizes Hebraisms when there is no evidence otherwise that the author knew Hebrew (Fitzmyer, p. 118).

FORM CRITICISM

Luke 6:20-26 belongs to a biblical form, "paradigm," according to a system of forms systemetized by Martin Dibelius. Paradigms are "stories which focus on the significant sayings and deeds of Jesus" (Ferguson, p. 76). It is midrashic interpretation of Torah having to do with halakah, the "regulation of conduct" (Longenecker, Richard. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1975. p. 23.). This didactic instruction is typical of rabbis of the First Century. The Sermon on the Plain in Luke and the parallel Sermon on the Mount in Matthew are examples of commentary and exposition of Torah. It seems likely that Jesus was familiar with parallel rabbinic teachings circulating among the Palestinian and Hellenist Jews of his time, and would have constructed his teachings along these well-known constructs, flavoring them with his own radical teachings concerning the universalism of God's love to even the enemy, the poor, and the oppressed.

Luke 6:20-26 is in the form of stophic poetry, utilizing a genre "related to macarisms found in Egyptian, Hellenistic, and OT literature...In the Greek world the adjective makarios denoted a person's inner happiness...In the Jewish and Christian tradition... makarios, "blessed," emphasizes rather the person's resultant happy, prosperous, or fortunate condition...[as a result] from God's blessing" (Fitzmyer, p. 633).

REDACTION CRITICISM

It is clear that in this Lucan pericope Jesus is shown taking on the mantle of the Old Testament prophets, inasmuch as the theme so pointedly emphasizes justice over against oppression and suffering. The message is urgent, the time to act is now. Good and evil are clearly delineated, although this might only be evident to the spiritually awakened found chiefly in the lower classes (Lecture, Dr. Glenn Koch, "Jeremias's interpretation of Jesus' Parables," Ripley, WV June 9, 1995). This would be even more so than in Matthew's parallel beatitudes which are more spiritualized. The book Luke has a high emphasis on social ethics. Concerning the issue of wealth and poverty, "one verse out of seven in the gospel of Luke (165 verses) [is] the most concentrated and thorough book of New Testament teaching on the subject" (Sabath, Bob. "The Bible and the Poor," Sojourners, Feb. Mar. 1974).

Nevertheless, it appears that the main object of Luke was to write a "history and not polemical or apologetic treatises" (Plummer, P. xxxvi). If so, the strong social teachings of Jesus carry even more impact to our times. According to A.R.C. Leaney, the "central theme is the kingship of Jesus" (Leaney, p. 32). This is echoed continuously through the commentary of Joseph Fitzmyer, who states, "One of the ways Luke presents the kerygma is to cast it in terms of salvation-history—he plays it in this key" (Fitzmyer, p. 18). It then seems probable that Luke bundles the aspirations of historical Judaism into a universal realization and actualization in the Christ-event. And during a time of turmoil in Judaism— especially if the Temple had indeed been razed—the proclamation that in Christ the poor would be exalted and the rich brought down would bring fresh encouragement and hope to believers. Yet nevertheless Matthew's Gospel, more directed to Jewish believers, is not as politically direct as Luke's hellenized Gospel. It then seems that Frederick Danker encapsulizes Luke best through the key of "The New Age," an event both actualized and inaugurated in Jesus Christ, that is, "Luke's emphasis on the presence of the future" (Danker, p. 22). This key flows smoothly through all the themes of Luke and Acts, both in the person and ministry of Jesus, and later in the witness of the early church. The roots to Judaism are established and nourished, yet the universalist outreach is at all times envisioned. Inasmuch as Jesus is the King of this New Age, the political and religious powers are shown as judged. Finally, the power of this New Age is conclusively demonstrated, in Jesus' triumph over the devil in the wilderness, physical healings to Jews and Gentiles, his triumph over death and the powers in the cross, and the infilling power of the Holy Spirit upon the new community in Acts 2 and post-following.

Through a careful construction of this theme from the birth narratives that connect the historical Hebrew aspirations and prophecies, to a radical re-interpretation and universalizing of Torah (Sermon on the Plain, Parables), to the conquest of evil, to the universal healing, salvation, and reconciliation of Jew and Gentile, Luke takes his source materials to weave together a marvelous flowing exposition of the meaning of the Christ event.

Thus coming back to Luke 6:20-26, the hermeneutical key "Luke's emphasis on the presence of the future" (Danker, p. 22), takes meaning. For those who are poor, hungry, who suffer and are persecuted, their place as citizens in the reign of the resurrected King Jesus is already actualized, even though the manifestations are in the realm of hope and faith. But surely these things will come to pass, as Luke makes evident from his theologically-constructed historical narrative. The witnesses are many that cry forth that the low will be lifted up, the high and mighty brought low—Mary in her magnificat; John the Baptist in his wilderness cry; Jesus in his inaugural synagogue address; the healings and deliverances; the crucifixion and resurrection; the common sharing of the early Church.

Indeed these things are coming to pass, and Luke more than Matthew seems to emphasize the here and now. "His introduction of 'now' (6:21a,c; 6:25a,c) reveals his concern for Christian life here and now" (Fitzmyer, p. 630). "He thus contrasts the present earthly condition of individual Christians with that following their death" (Fitzmyer, p. 633). Thus a paradox is employed, a reversal of values seemingly successful in the present age that will be reversed in the eschaton (Fitzmyer, p. 633). Luke presses the auditor to a choice—the present kingdoms of this world and their succulent sweets destined for downfall, or the promised kingdom of Christ with its present sufferings and future bliss.

CONCEPT ANALYSIS

Blessed is a translation of the Greek makarios, and denotes the happy condition as a result of God's favor (Fitzmyer, p. 632 ff). It is the condition of "people who are the privileged recipients of God's special gifts. God is for them, not against them" (Danker, p. 138). Arabic cognates of the Hebrew ashere ("blessed") suggest an interpretation that God prefers the recipient of His favor (Dr. Tom McDaniel, lecture, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, September, 1994).

Woe is a translation of the Greek ouai that "expresses a sense of dreadful doom approaching" (Danker, p. 142). Clarence Jordan, a Ph.D New Testament Greek Scholar, notes that ouai "is the sound of an agonizing groan, 'o-o-oh,' as from someone in great anguish or torment, as 'in hell'" (Jordan, Cotton Patch, Luke, p. 31). The "woes" reflect the opposite of the beatitudes and are aimed at those self-sufficient and autonomous from God (Danker, p. 142).

Poor is translated from hoi ptochoi, referring in particular to the masses of economically stressed people in Palestine, the anawim (Danker, p. 138). In light of the parallel Matthew 5:3 passage "poor in spirit," and the context of persecution for the witness to Christ (Lk. 6:22; Mt. 5:10,11), "poor" might mean more specifically those who have forsaken all to follow Jesus. In his classic work, The Cost of Discipleship (New York:Macmillan 1937, 1949. p. 120), Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes, "In following him they lost even their own selves, and everything that could make them rich. Now they are poor—so inexperienced, so stupid, that they have no other hope but him who called them." In a piece written to discuss Amos' critique of Israelic polity to the poor, Thomas John Finley suggests four Hebrew understandings for "the poor." Saddiq is descriptive of one who is a victim of an oppressor. The ’ebyôn, which indicates one who is lacking basic necessities of life such as food, water, shelter. The ’ebyônim are thus in need, and because of their need are vulnerable to exploitation. The dal are those who are poor in relative comparison to the rich. These are the "have-nots" who grind out their needs in bare-bones existence. The last classification is ‘anawîm, the afflicted, distressed, suffering poor. Finley suggests this term is most frequently paired with ’ebyôn, the needy. (Finley, "An Evangelical Response to the Preaching of Amos," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1985, 28(4), 411-420.).

Laughter from galeo is found in the New Testament only in this passage and in James 4:9. Concerning laughter, Fitzmyer writes that it "is to be understood here as the carefree expression of contentment with the success of the present. In OT Wisdom literature it is sometimes the mark of the fool (Sir. 21:20; 27:20; Qoh 7:6), and the Lucan Jesus may be alluding to such an attitude" (Fitzmyer, p. 636). Referring to those like Hillel who counseled asceticism to keep the mind fixed on Torah, and the general apocalyptic tenor of the times, Alfred Plummer suggests laughter as indicatative of apathy to the pressing need for concentrated faithfulness to God (Plummer, p. 182). Plummer's hypothesis would then be congruent with the corresponding "mourn" like in "those who mourn and weep for Zion" as a derivative from Isaiah 61:2,3. Fitzmyer suggests "weeping" as a reference "to oppression of some sort (cf. the following beatitude)," which could imply that they who laugh are oppressors (Fitzmyer, p. 634).

Son of Man from hyios tou anthropou, which according to Frederick Danker is Luke's "identification of Jesus as 'the Son of humanity'"(Danker, p. 141). A.R.C. Leaney sees "Jesus as the Son of Man but as such includes within his corporate personality all who belong to him" (Leaney, p. 136). Fitzmyer simply sees the expression as the term used by Jesus to reflect his active earthly ministry in distinction from his eschatalogical personality (Fitzmyer, p. 635).

Reward in heaven "does not intend to motivate conduct through expectation of a reward. Rather, the words are consolatory...Reward as motivation is condemned in Luke 17:7-10" (Danker, p. 141). Fitzmyer sees misthos as "denoting payment or salary for work done. It was used figuratively in both the Greek world and the LXX in a religious sense as a 'reward' for moral or ethical conduct." Fitzmyer sees "heaven" primarily in terms of being favored to enter into the course of salvation history, rather than 'booked' in heaven (Rev. 20:12)" (Fitzmyer, p. 635).

False prophets, the pseudoprophetes, are "not people who teach wrong doctrine but are, rather, those who make hypocritical claim to being God's mouthpieces" (Danker, p. 143). These are religious leaders who appease the powerful for their own gain through a religious guise. Both Luke and Matthew are reminiscent of the Old Testament prophets in their scathing denunciation of these phony, self-serving religious types. In contrast, the true prophets remain obedient to declare God's word, and suffer. Luke's audience will recognize this connection of Jesus to the Old Testament prophets.

CONTEXT

In Luke's Gospel the Sermon on the Plain follows the completion of choosing the twelve Apostles. Prior to this are a number of stories demonstrating Jesus' power and will to heal sicknesses and cast out unclean spirits. Jesus has showed his continuity with John the Baptist through his baptism, but his non-asceticism has drawn comment, as well as has his Sabbath practice. He has been rejected in his hometown Nazareth, and has been disparaged by the Pharisees. Up to this point there has been no direct ethical teaching. The Sermon on the Plain launches Jesus' commentary on Torah, but unlike Matthew's Gospel, this "sermon" is interspersed throughout following narratives that involve further healings, interactions with various cities, and the teaching through parables. Fitzmyer suggests that Luke's Gospel is presented in more natural in settings in comparison to Matthew's more topical arrangement (Fitzmyer, p. 628). Luke's setting has Jesus coming down from a mountain to a level place, in contrast to Matthew's setting of Jesus ascending to a mountain. Fitzmyer quotes H. Conzelmann (Theology, 44) as "characterizing the plain as 'the place of meeting with the people'"(Fitzmyer, p. 623). The audience includes the Twelve, and great multitudes of people from the larger region including Gentile territory, perhaps a foretaste of Luke's universalism (Schweizer, p. 116). The immediate setting transpires during Jesus' healings and power, giving authority to his Sermon.

HERMENEUTICAL PERSPECTIVE

Jesus' teachings in Luke 6:20-26 comprise an ethical treatise concerning the law or will of God for human attitudes and conduct. Jesus practices midrashic exegesis, defined by Longenecker as "attempts to penetrate into the spirit of the Scriptures..." (Longenecker, p. 32). Yet the emphasis of Luke on Jesus' teaching authority shows that the author clearly intends his audience to take these teachings in a literal sense. From now on Jesus' teachings are definitive, and all other Scripture is commentary, although Matthew punches this point home much more forcefully (Matt. 5:38,39; 43,44; 7:21-28). On the other hand, Luke is more earthy than Matthew's more spiritualized parallel. Indeed Luke's Sermon is more dangerous for misapplication, for on the one hand it is tempting to co-opt for those who seek materialistic revolutionary justification, and on the other hand it is tempting to ignore in favor of the Matthean account for those who seek to justify material complacency .

On final analysis, it seems that the best strategy in approaching the exposition of Luke 6:20-26 is to pair the passage to some degree with the parallel Mathean passage. For example, Luke's "blessed are the poor" and Matthew's "blessed are the poor in spirit" seem to fit well together in concert. As noted earlier, Bonhoeffer writes (prophetically!!) that those who have spritual poverty, a recognition of utter dependence upon and abandonment to Jesus and His way, are likely as a result to end up in material poverty (Bonhoeffer, p. 120). The converse is also possible, that is, those who lack materially may be more receptive to dependence upon God. But the bottom line is not a blessing upon physical poverty, but rather blessing for dependence upon God. In this type of interplay, the other verses fall into line coherently. And it is within this contextual framework that the preacher or teacher should bring her or his presentation, through a midrashic exegesis of this literal teaching of the inbreaking Messianic Age. The preaching or teaching should seek to exhort, challenge, and yes, warn the audience to the attitude and cruciform way of those who would be disciples of the One who truly has the mantle and authority of God.

EXEGETICAL CONCLUSION

The passage in Luke 6:20-26 is only going to really make sense to Christians who because of their total commitment and dependence upon Jesus are indeed poor, hungry, in mourning, and persecuted. The rest of us will blithely spiritualize its scandalous potency away, that is if we even deal with the passage at all. Matthew's beatitudes are so much more managable.

So how does one bring the full force of the hard, literal-intentioned teachings of Jesus into the comfortable pews of North American churches? The passage, after all, warns strongly against the false prophets who peddle false consolation. Yet Luke gives a clue within the larger context of the passage. The teachings are given forth within the midst of a demonstration of healing and delivering power by the Teacher Himself (Lk. 6:17-19). First, Jesus goes out to the people (rather than people coming to the church). Jesus ministers to all people groups (presumably both "believers" and "unbelievers."). Jesus also is "prayed-up" (Lk. 6:12). It therefore seems appropriate that this text be preached and taught most effectively to a church that is actively engaged with the world on the world's turf. This passage would have been understood by the civil rights advocates of the 1960's, or the Russian underground church of most of this century. But even to those in more conventional USA society who befriend the outcast, who selflessly serve the marginalized, who take an unpopular stand for truth at cost of career promotion or church position, this passage can give strength. This passage, finally, is for all those who desire for the Kingdom of God, yet who have no strength in themselves but only in God.

And if this passage, proclaimed in its full strength, elicits hostility—if apathy, then it has been preached amiss!—this hostility can be directed by the skillful expositor to the path that is open for all, the path of repentance that leads to Life in Christ. Indeed, it is a path each of us is invited to journey upon. It is the direction we face, not the distance we travel, that is the critical choice. Will that direction be toward the One who was crucified, buried, and risen, or will it be toward our own autonomy? In final sum, this passage is not difficult to critically exegete its meaning or to execute the hermeneutical question into present day culture. The difficulty is in having the honesty and "guts" to hear it, do it, proclaim it. May this scripture not rest easy on our hearts until then.