On Luke 4:16-30
Dan Trabue, in a comment thread at Stones Cry Out on Black Liberation Theology and liberation theology in general, held that Jesus message (and more generally the main thrust of Scripture) was one of class warfare and providing assistance to the poor and oppressed. I disagreed. Mr Trabue asked for my interpretation on the verses of Luke noted above. I’ll quote the ESV as it’s popular with many bloggers (and online and easily accessible):
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land,and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.
I had previously noted that Matthew (and as it turns out Mark as well) both when noting “Jesus first preaching” or “Jesus begins to preach/teach” his call was for repentance, which I was arguing was at the heart of Biblical teaching not social issues. It is interesting as well, via Luke, to note the first teaching of the Apostles noted in Acts after Jesus leaves them, “Repent … ” is their theme as well. Mr Trabue keys on the quoted verses from Isaiah and notes connects this with the idea that Jesus mission. The key question then is who are the “poor”, the blind and the captives (oppressed). I think that neither Jesus nor his hearers took “the poor” not to mean the poor (blind and oppressed) dwelling among those in Israel, but instead the common notion was that all of Israel itself was poor, blind and oppressed. In noting that Jesus mission is one to help the literally poor and oppressed is to get his point exactly backwards.
The major themes of Old Testament are one of exile/slavery and redemption. Israel is enslaved in Egypt and is redeemed by Moses. Then, later, they are enslaved in Babylon. In the first century, they have returned … but are still enslaved (now by Rome, but that only replaced Greek/Alexandrian rule). All of Israel hopes for redemption and a release from bondage. They yearn for a second Moses, the Christ to return and redeem them materially and politically with fire and the sword (or other dramatic acts like the parting of the Red Sea) as God had done for them the first time. This is exactly the same sort of redemption that Mr Trabue hopes for the poor and takes as the message of the Gospels. This is exactly the notion which Jesus rejects however. Jesus countered the peoples expectations (of the liberation theologians) and the 1st century Hebrew people. Jesus didn’t give the expected response (John 18:36) “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'” Specifically, Jesus came and offered a healing of Adam’s fall, emptying the tombs, and healing creation. The “poor” are all of the Israel. The “blind” are those hoping for political redemption. The liberty that is promised is, in Dostoevsky’s/Zizioulas’ terms the “ontological freedom” made available to either the person willing to die (Dostoevsky) or Baptized into Eternal life (Al of Christianity via Zizioulas).
Filed under: Christianity • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Dan Trabue… held that Jesus message (and more generally the main thrust of Scripture) was one of class warfare and providing assistance to the poor and oppressed. I disagreed.
A clarification: I NEVER said that Jesus’ message nor the main thrust of the Bible was one of class warfare. That is a horribly askew twist on what I’ve tried to say.
Here’s what I’ve actually stated:
I advocate viewing the Gospel through Jesus’ teachings – all of Jesus’ teachings. Yes, Jesus taught repentance. He also began his public ministry by saying, “I have come to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free…” (Luke 4)
Which is not to say that God hates the wealthy, for the same Good News that Jesus said he specifically came to preach to the poor CAN be Good News for the wealthy, as well. For their is freedom in releasing that oppressive wealth that can weigh one down.
I reckon we disagree. I think if you spiritualize the Word to the point where we DON’T view the gospel through the real world (”social lens,” as you called it), then we risk missing the point.
And:
Income inequality has always existed, it was not “created” by capitalism.
Absolutely true. But in biblical examples, the inequality and economic oppression is nearly always linked to unjust systems. Unjust scales. High interest. Joining house to house, laying field to field. Failing to observe Jubilee and Sabbath laws. Failing to set aside help for the poor.
On and on the Bible offers examples of how God is looking out for the poor and has turned God’s face against wealthy oppressors, those who “sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals – They who trample the head of the poor into the dust of earth, and push the afflicted out of the way.”
It is quite common biblical language and I’m suggesting that most of those passages either get ignored or reinterpreted to mean something other than what their literal meaning suggests. And I’m suggesting we ought pay attention to these warnings and teachings instead of just writing them off.
Again, let’s pay attention to the Word of the Lord:
But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
~Luke 6:24
In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
~Luke 14:33
These are the men who eat up the property of widows, while they say long prayers for appearance sake; and they will receive the severest sentence.
~Luke 20:47
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you.
~James 5:1
… and I went on to quote many of the huge number of passages in the bible that deal with economic justice themes.
So, in summation, what I have talked about is NOT class warfare, but rather I’ve just pointed to the reality that the Bible talks about rich and poor themes an awful lot. And usually, the passages read literally as, “Woe to you who are rich!” and “Blessed are you who are poor.” and on and on.
I’ve stated quite clearly that God loves everyone – including the rich. I’ve also stated that I have no problem with the idea that a central theme of the Bible is redemption. But a central theme of redemption stories in the Bible is redemption from oppressive wealth.
And I think that IS Good News for the poor AND for the wealthy. As I’ve stated, if you’re drowning, sometimes letting go of that which weighs you down is Liberation.
Thanks for the further consideration of this and for working to correctly understand my position.
You stated:
I think that neither Jesus nor his hearers took “the poor” not to mean the poor (blind and oppressed) dwelling among those in Israel, but instead the common notion was that all of Israel itself was poor, blind and oppressed.
Why do you think, then, that – at least in Luke – Jesus said, “blessed are the poor.” Period. And, “Woe to you who are rich.” Period. Do you think Jesus meant, “Woe to you who are greedy”? or “Blessed are you who are poor – and by that I mean metaphysically speaking poor, not literally poor”?
This is what I’m wondering: Why the need to spiritualize away the literal meaning? Could it be because these sorts of teachings are threatening to those of us who are rich? Because this capitalistic system is what we were raised in and it’s hard for us to see take this literally because of our traditions and cherished values?
I’m often accused of trying to shape God into a Marxist version to my own liking, that I’m reading into the Bible what I want to find instead of what is actually there.
At least in this case, nothing could be farther from the truth. I grew up quite conservative and held the party line. When I rebelled as a teen, I did so by getting even more conservative (as it is defined today). It was only by prayerful examination of God’s Word did it become more clear to me that my traditional and cherished values are not necessarily supported by an honest biblical reading.
I knew nothing of Marx. I only read the Bible, Dobson, CS Lewis and other pretty traditional Christian writers. This is not a case of my trying to make a god more pleasing to my political views. But I wonder if it could be possible that the opposite is true for many of us (as it was for me)? That I tended to not take literally these sorts of passages because to do so was to question the values I was raised with?
I think it’s a fair question.
If you’d like to adjust your original point to make it more accurate and one that we can probably both agree with you could change it to say:
“Dan held that Jesus’ message (and more generally the main thrust of Scripture) was redemption from all that enslaves us – setting the captives free, good news for the poor, good health for the ill, the day of God’s Good Favor as Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry – and that is true whether that which enslaves us are spiritual things or physical things. For in truth, we can – and many of us are – enslaved by materialism and by our material stuff, enslaved by our sins, enslaved by hatred. Jesus came to free us from all that, Dan says.
Further, Dan pointed out that Jesus’ message included prominently lessons that would have us providing assistance to – and siding with – the poor and oppressed.
This is something with which I can agree…”
Would that be fairer, or would you still not agree with that?
Dan,
Working backwards, that’s not what I read you as saying before. You were claiming, “Is there any topic in the Bible that receives more warnings than “Wealth”? I think perhaps worshiping false gods might be the only category to compare it to in terms of sheer volume. Those warnings are not there for nothing.” And I think the answer to that is definitely … No. The thing most warned about are those “spiritual things.”
Now, some of this debate I think is in two ways a “smoke/fire” debate like the Protestant/Catholic faith/works argument (in which the protestant argues one is saved by faith alone and the catholic agreeing also points out that faith without works is dead … so clearly one needs works … and so it goes).
In that vein, if we are holy, repentant, doing the things that Scripture mostly commands then none of us will be oppressive, many will help the poor, and so on. If we are not, it matters not one whit if our government programs are more conducive to their welfare. What profit it them if all our souls are lost, eh?
As for Luke, “blessed are the poor” I’d wonder between Luke’s recollection of the beatitude and that from Matthew “blessed are the poor in spirit”. For what it’s worth, in “ordinary time” the Orthodox liturgy sings the beatitudes every Sunday … and we sing, “blessed are the poor in spirit”, i.e., the humble. Now, I won’t be pushed too hard on this, I don’t have a theory of systematic theology nor a hermeneutic of working out discrepancy (I’ve only been Christian since “falling away for four years).
But the point I’m trying to make, is I’m not “trying to spiritualize” away taking up the cross. I think the spiritual in Christian living is very pragmatic. I think it is more important for you to be seeking Christ and doing all that “spirtual stuff” than helping the poor … but that in seeking Christ, very often you will find yourself helping the poor.
There is a second straw man here, which I think needs to be rejected. We don’t disagree that the poor should be helped. What we disagree on is method. You prefer socialism in all cases. Some mainly on the right, prefer libertarian/laissez faire methods. I think socialism is dangerous, and largely ineffective and that following Collier, sometimes intervention works and sometimes force works and sometimes one has to let a situation develop. There is no “one size fits all” solution. However in general if the goal is developing personal virtues like charity, agape/love, humility and patience then the government is a hindrance in all ways. You and I learn nothing if some government agency “takes care of it” in their ham-handed fashion.
I was serious when I said the Liberation (and you in this) are getting it exactly backwards. Liberation is from Christ, via Baptism. You are ontologically free as a Christian. There is no slave or free, but all are one in Christ. This is true and does not come from any worldly political redemption. It is true outside of current temporary worldly circumstances.
You prefer socialism in all cases.
??? Seriously, Mark, What the hell? (And I mean that quite literally.)
Where have I said I prefer “socialism in all cases?” Where have I suggested anything about socialism? Where have I suggested that our liberation is not from Christ?
Brother, if you are trying to interpolate meanings out of my words that aren’t there, you’re flat out failing. You have so thoroughly misrepresented my position that it makes me wonder if you’ve read what I wrote.
I’ve already pointed out how backwards you have my position on “class warfare” – your term, not mine. Seriously, why don’t you stick to what I’ve actually written, your interpretative powers are lacking.
Where we disagree is NOT on whether or not our liberation is in Christ. It’s NOT even on capitalism – I don’t think communism works effectively in the real world at the state level usually. Just because I’m not blind to the many flaws and serious problems in capitalism – especially laissez faire capitalistm – does not mean I embrace communism. I just don’t demonize it. These are both flawed human approaches to economic questions.
ALL I have tried to do is
1. point to the many many passages in the Bible – from Genesis to Revelation – which consistently warn of the traps of wealth. It is a common theme.
2. I have further suggested is that we ought not ignore that theme. We ought not spiritualize away their meaning (“when Jesus said, ‘poor,’ he didn’t REALLY mean ‘poor’ literally, he meant blah blah blah”)
3. And I have further questioned whether or not many of us (not speaking directly to you, I don’t know you) tend to embrace a more capitalistic-friendly version of the scriptures because that is our upbringing.
All of that is not to say I embrace class warfare, that I embrace communism or that I think our salvation and liberation is found in anything other than Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.
Mark, how about my question (in Comment 3) where I restate your original words to more accurately reflect what I’m actually saying – once I’ve done that, are we closer to agreement?
Another quick comment to better clarify my position. Mark said:
I think it is more important for you to be seeking Christ and doing all that “spirtual stuff” than helping the poor
And I think that to suggest that “helping the poor” is NOT “spiritual stuff” is missing a vital point of the Gospel.
Dan,
I want to make a more substantive reply and redirect this discussion, but I don’t have much time tonight. Please be a patient.
One question, on this:
I think that different people are often called to do different things. Mother Theresa, St. Anthony, and St. Thomas Aquinas had different gifts and all devoted themselves to the faith in very devoted themselves to living out the Gospel in different ways. In part, I see you concentration on “poor” as the only way to salvation as an error. Are you really claiming that “helping the poor” is the fundamental cornerstone on which the church is built? I don’t think you are, but that is really how your statement seems to read, if read plainly (not “spiritually”?).
St. Paul wrote that if we do good works, but have no faith it will avail us not at all. It seems to me you’re putting the good works before the faith.
I think you and I have a different meaning we assign to the word “spiritualize”. It almost seems as if you take it to mean, “not read Scripture literally.” In part, in the above, when not reading “the poor” from Isaiah as quoted by Jesus to mean Israel, it might be called something akin to the historical-critical hermeneutic, in which we examine the meaning of the sentence in the context of how Jesus and his audience would have interpreted it. That is not “spiritualizing” it, I don’t think. I am not claiming ever reference to the poor are to be taken similarly to mean “Israel”, it is just that is how I read the Lukan verses noted above.
Again, I will return to this … soon.
In part, I see you concentration on “poor” as the only way to salvation as an error. Are you really claiming that “helping the poor” is the fundamental cornerstone on which the church is built?
ummm, no. You can tell by that I don’t think that by the way that I never said that. As I never said that concentration on poor as the only way to salvation.
Seriously, where are you getting this? It’s almost funny, man.
Take your time.
Maybe it would help if I put down some of my beliefs in clear, concise language:
I believe:
1. We are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus. Not by works.
2. We are not saved merely by believing in Jesus (“yeah, he was a good guy, son of God, that’s all cool”) – even the demons believe, we’re told – but by believing in Jesus and his teachings, the Way he told us to live. By embracing that as the Right and Good Way, by asking for forgiveness when we get it wrong and trusting in God to help us follow in those steps.
3. The Bible is God’s Word to us. A revelation of what God is about, what God wants to teach us. God also reveals God’s Self through God’s word written on our hearts, by our being created in God’s image, with God-given reasoning and thinking abilities.
4. Because we’re flawed humans, we don’t always get it right. Sometimes we misunderstand the Bible. Sometimes, our reasoning is off. Thankfully, we are saved by God’s Grace.
5. The Bible has clear teachings – consistently throughout the whole of the Bible – about wealth and poverty. To ignore them is foolishness.
6. One of the consistent gists of biblical teachings on wealth and poverty is that God is especially concerned for the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized. God clearly loves us all, but consistently throughout the Bible, God says, “woe to those who’d mistreat the poor.” God never in all of the Bible says such about the rich, the powerful and the mainstream. There are lessons to be learned there.
7. The lesson, though, isn’t that God is a class warrior or a mere marxist – playing the rich against the poor. Again, God loves us all. Rich and poor. God wants what’s best for us all.
8. This world is a world of abundance and plenty, with plenty for all – providing that some don’t overconsume resources and especially that they don’t do so by “false scales,” “buying land upon land,” etc. Ie, providing that people don’t oppress others by systems or methods that are designed to take advantage of people to one’s own benefit.
9. Both marxism and capitalism are flawed human constructs – ways of dealing with matters of economy. Neither is perfect and, in fact, both have quite potentially large flaws. My personal inclination is towards a regulated capitalism. I think Marxism is difficult to pull off well on the large scale.
10. Because I recognize the reality of the large number of verses dealing with wealth and poverty, because I point out that James said, “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?” or that Jesus said, “it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom,” doesn’t mean much beyond that I’m pointing them out and that I believe that what Jesus and James and the prophets and all the other writers of the Bible had to say is important.
If you want to accuse James and Jesus of class warfare, go ahead. But don’t kill the bearer of the news, I’m just pointing out what they’ve said and saying we ignore it at our peril.
Does that help make things clearer?