/essay/
1. Intro
2. What might
the material on wealth and poverty in Luke-Acts suggest about his readers?
3. What might
it suggest about Luke’s understanding of the church’s mission?
4. What
might Luke’s view on wealth and poverty imply for the Church’s mission today?
5. Conclusion
Title: What might
the material on wealth and poverty in Luke and Acts suggest about Luke’s
readers and his understanding of the church’s mission? What might that imply
for the Church’s mission today?
1.
Intro.
“Money makes the world go round”
is a famous saying that the majority of people would agree to, if not in its
literal, at least in its metaphoric sense. In our age of consumerism most
people would like to be rich. The ‘I want it all and I want it now’ mentality
is not only today’s youths’
favourite credo, it has been the inner drive for many
generations all over the earth. The drive to accumulate wealth and have power
and standing is what really makes people live![1]
Even Christians have succumbed to the pressure of materialism and have started
preaching the ‘health-and-wealth’ gospel, instead of the gospel of Jesus
Christ.
But what does the Bible have to
say on the subject of wealth and poverty? Is wealth really a sign of God’s
blessing? What was the place of wealth in the world of the New Testament and
how it related to the Church’s mission? How does it relate to us and our role
in Christ’s Great Commission? In order to answer to all these questions I will
try to discuss the material in Luke and Acts on wealth and poverty. First I
will tackle the question of weather we can rely on this material in order to
identify Luke’s readers and their situation. Then I will try to see what Luke’s
theology of wealth and poverty is and how it applies to his understanding of
the mission of the Church. And lastly, I will point out some practical
suggestions regarding our use of material riches for the Church’s mission
today.
2.
What might the material on wealth and poverty in
Luke-Acts suggest about his readers?
Before identifying what the
experience of poverty in Luke’s ‘community’ was, it will be helpful for us to
take a glimpse on the development of the attitude to property and poverty in
the Old Testament times. A thorough study of the many respective passages leads
us to the following conclusions. First, property is not wrong in itself. It is
the way God has chosen to provide for his chosen people, Israel Israel
Later, in the Roman society, аpart
from the tiny aristocracy, the remaining majority were merchants,
day-labourers, beggars, slaves and debtors. Poverty was at times striking, and
was further deepened by high inflation and occasional famines, ‘resulting in
begging on a relatively large scale throughout the eastern parts of the Roman Empire ’[6].
In spite of the occasional acts of charity of the wealthy citizens, in each big
Roman city there were homeless people begging on the streets.
Such was the context of Luke’s
readers. The first time the word ‘poor’ is mentioned in the gospel of Luke is
in Jesus’ synagogue appearance[7].
If we agree to the suggestion that this makes this reference especially
significant for Luke’s readers, we should try to answer the question ‘What does
Luke mean here by ‘the poor’? As Nolland
suggests in his commentary[8],
it could be interpreted both literary as ‘beggars’ and parabolically, as ‘the
powerless’. Having in mind Jesus’ overall teaching in Luke’s and the other
gospels, and his concern for people from all social strata[9],
it seems to me that the latter interpretation is much more convincing. Thus
‘release’ in v. 18 would mean not just setting people free from physical
prisons, but freeing them from both physical and spiritual oppression. The
latter opinion is supported by the existence of many other verses pointing to
both dimensions of the word ptochoi (‘poor’) in Luke and Acts[10].
So, both should not be separated. Moreover, it is a well-known truth that poor
people are more willing to confess their need before God and to respond to the
good news, so the two levels of meanings can be related.
But it is one thing to interpret
the text, and totally different – to try to reconstruct what the community to
which the text has been written have been like. For example, Esler points out
to Luke’s literary artistry, the numerous references to rich people and all
Jesus’ warnings against the dangers of riches and takes them to be clues
suggesting that there were quite many people of noble status among Luke’s
community. He even interprets Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:26 as a hint that the
number of people of noble birth in Corinth has grown significantly and takes it
to suggest that the same holds true for Luke’s community.
To this we could answer that the
fact that Paul says that at the time of their conversion not many of them were
wise or of noble birth suggests nothing more than what it says, namely, that
the majority of them were poor! Besides, it seems to me that Esler implies that
Luke was adapting its message simply to make it adequate for the needs of his
readers. But although Luke was a brilliant writer and redactor, he was also a
reputed historian. In the prologue to his gospel he had made sure his readers
knew that his real intent was to give a just ‘account of the things that have
been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by …
eye-witnesses’[11]
So, to try to reconstruct Luke’s community using only the arguments of Luke’s
redactional emphases is going too far. We may presume that among Luke’s readers
there were people of different social status, but we can say nothing more than
that.
3.
What might it suggest about Luke’s understanding of
the church’s mission?
The question of the relation of
the material on riches and poverty to Luke’s understanding of the mission of
the Church cannot be answered without first considering Luke’s theology of
wealth and poverty. The latter can be best done by the means of the comparative
study of the texts of the synoptic gospels. For lack of sufficient space for a
thorough study, we shall consider only a few examples.
Most of the references to the
poor in Luke don’t have synoptic parallels. Where there are such, Luke
elaborates more on the theme of poverty than the parallelled verses. For
example, in 6:20 ‘poor’ are, as Nolland puts it, ‘the literary poor who
presently have a hard life’ characterized by hunger and weeping[12].
The latter characteristics are not present in Matthew. So, even though the poor
here are not spiritualized in meaning, they are clearly shown to be Jesus’
disciples,[13]
so their poverty is related to their decision to follow Christ.
Another interesting example is
Luke 7:21f. Unlike Matthew, Luke mentions twice the details of Jesus’
liberating ministry. The emphasis on this is meant not to show that all who
believe in Jesus’ name can hope to have liberation from their physical
sicknesses, but rather as a statement confirming Jesus’ messianic identity in
answering John’s disciples’ query.
And if indirectly the gospel of
Luke depicts the desperate conditions of the prevailing members of society, in
Acts he is ready to show the renewing power of the Holy Spirit, working in all
spheres of life, including the believers’ economic situation. When referring to the poor, we can see that
Luke is concerned to show that after Pentecost the Church was empowered by the
Holy Spirit and came to a position to be able to take care of the needs of its
poor members[14].
As for the passages referring to
‘the rich’, only Luke 18:22-25 has synoptic parallels in Matthew and Mark. Some
of the texts show that Jesus deems it possible for the rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven
At the same time, by ‘rich’ Luke
does not mean necessarily people who possess lots of money or considerable
property. His definition is much broader and includes also those for whom money
is a higher priority than God. Preoccupation with money is in fact not only
characteristic of materially rich people, but also of the poor. The first
recorded sin in the life of the Church, caused by love for money, was committed
by people who apparently did not possess that much – Ananias and Sapphira. Even
the poorest and most pitiful members of the society, such as the beggars and
the crippled are not immune from materialistic desires[18].
So, both the gospel of Luke and
Acts show that the mission of the Church is incompatible with materialism. And
here Luke speaks from the vintage point of the whole Bible. The Church of Christ
4.
What might Luke’s view on wealth and poverty imply for
the Church’s mission today?
As shown above, materialism can
hinder evangelism and render it ineffective. Furthermore, it can prevent people
from renouncing their old lives and reaching the point of genuine conversion.
However attractive prospects life with Christ might offer and no matter how
gifted the evangelist, the attraction of material riches can blind the person
and render him or her a bad soil for the good news[22].
Secondly, materialism also puts
off the poor non-Christians from the Church. This holds true especially in
cultures such as Bulgaria
Instead of teaching and
practicing this doctrine, the Church should encourage rich Christians to
support the poor within the community. This can be done by organizing special
sell-outs, or creating a team that is responsible for connecting people in need
with their prospective donors. The church should learn to invest primarily in
people and this should be done wisely and carefully. Giving should be directed
not simply to relieving the symptoms of people’s poverty, but towards ‘people
and causes grappling with the systematic powers that hold people in bondage to
a cycle of poverty’.[25]
And here the local churches and every individual Christian need a good deal of
discernment for deciding ‘when, where and how to give money away.’[26]
And, lastly, evangelism is not only proclamation, but presence. For
the Church’s mission to be effective she needs to combine the oral proclamation
with the practically-expressed love of social work. Local churches might
fundraise for holding lunches or dinners for homeless people or beggars.
Second-hand clothes could be collected for children in orphanages or other
people in need. A decision, made by the church board, for using 50 percent of
the money allotted to evangelism to be spent on social projects for needy
non-believers, could make the evangelism of the church much more effective and
fruitful. Examples can be multiplied and adapted to the different contexts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Luke tackles the
theme of the wealth and poverty in a much bigger detail then in the other
synoptic gospels. He is particularly interested in Jesus’ teaching on material
wealth and how it relates to evangelism. Luke shows that poverty is not a
virtue in itself, but sometimes it may lead to a contrite spirit. On the other
hand, he demonstrates that riches are not a sin in themselves, but also that
more often they lead to independence from God. Luke believes that whenever the
rich are challenged by the gospel they should respond in sacrificial giving to
the poor. At the same time, Luke makes it clear that this would not result in
overnight solving the problems of all poor Christians. Rather, he states that
the rich people’s response (or lack of it) will show whether they have really
genuinely accepted the good news of Jesus Christ. Materialism, like all other
“-isms”[27]
is the real issue as it can be a stumbling block not only for the rich, and
because is completely incompatible with Christian discipleship and evangelism.
Thus Luke and Acts challenge us to humbly consider once again what the real
priorities of our lives are, ask God for forgiveness and courage to set them
right.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
OTC, Distance Learning Degree in
Theology, Acts
Marshal, I.H., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, IVP,
1980
NIV Study Bible, Hodder & Stoughton, Zondervan, 1985
Hughes, K., ed, L2/NT1: Luke-Acts, ОTC
Nolland, J., 35A Word Biblical Commentary, Luke 9:21-18:34,
Word, 1993
Nolland, J., 35B, Word Biblical Commentary, Luke 1-9:20,
Word, 1989
Green, M., Eva ngelism
Through The Local Church , Hodder & Stoughton
Banks R. & Stevens R.P., The
Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, IVP, 1997
[1] Banks &
Stevens, The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, p. 1102.
[2] Distance Learning Degree in Theology, L2, Luke 15.20,
Guidelines, 1.
[3] See Isa.
5:8-9; 10:1-3; Amos 5:12, 8:4-6, etc.
[4] Distance Learning Degree in Theology, L2, Luke 15.4.
[5] Ibid., 15.5.
[6] Ibid., 15.6.
[7] Luke
4:16-30.
[8] Nolland,
J., World Biblical Commentary, Luke 1-9:20, p. 197.
[9] See Luke
19:10, Matt. 9:12,13.
[10] Luke 14:13,
21; 16:20,22; 6:20; 7:22; 16:20; 18:22; 19:8; 21:3; 4:25f; 1:77; 3:3; 24:47;
Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18.
[11] Luke 1:1-4.
[12] Ibid., 6:21
– see Nolland, J., World Biblical Commentary, Luke 1-9:20, p. 282.
[13] Ibid., 6:20a.
[14] See Acts 3:2-10, 6:1-6, 9:36, 10:2, 11:29.
[15] Luke
18:25-27; Acts 10:2.
[16] Luke
6:24-26; 16:14f; 18:10-14; Acts 5:1-11; James 2:6f;
[17] Luke 19:8.
[18] Acts 3:5.
[19] See John 17, 1
Cor 12, 13, Eph 4, etc.
[20] Jas
3:14-16.
[21] Matt 6:21.
[22] Luke
14:18-20.
[23] Very often
the pastors boast with their expensive western cars, nice homes and churches,
whereas this puts off common people.
[24] Deut 5:14.
[25] Banks &
Stevens, The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, p. 1105.
[26] Ibid.
[27] See Luke
12.21; Deut. 5:14.
