i

Possessions and the Message of

the Kingdom in Luke-Acts
A Redactional and Narrative Analysis
of Luke’s Theology of Possessions

by

Timothy W. Kelley

A Master’s Thesis Presented to

the Faculty of Religion at
Seaver College, Pepperdine University

December 1993
 ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this thesis has been a long process. It has been done in the

midst of a busy ministry and family life. I would like to thank the members of the

Camarillo Church of Christ for their support and willingness to let me get away from the

demands of ministry and a telephone that rings with great regularity to complete this

project. The length of time taken for this thesis has also required patience beyond the call

of duty from the faculty of the Religion Division at Pepperdine University and for that I

am deeply grateful.

I wish to give a word of gratitude to Dr. Randall Chesnutt for his steady support. I

cannot imagine a more professional reader. Every suggestion Dr. Chesnutt gave

improved this work. My thanks also go to Dr. Tyler, who as my second reader,

encouraged me in the art of brevity (often to little avail), and Dr. Olbricht who chairs the

Religion Division and served as the third member of my thesis committee. Ms. Connie

Greer also deserves special recognition for her generous assistance in the final editing

process.
The constant support of my wife, Roxanne, has been magnificent. In the midst of

her own career and her deep devotion to our four children, she has taken time to support

and help me. Finally, I must thank my parents, Weldon and Dean Kelley. On three

occasions they made room in their home and in their lives for me to come with my books,

papers and computer. While I was cloistered in their guest room writing, they provided a

warm and encouraging environment. It is then to my parents, whose generous sharing of

their possessions has always been an inspiration, that I dedicate this thesis.
 iii

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Timothy W. Kelley received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Religion at Pepperdine

University, Los Angeles, in April 1969. For the past twenty-four years Mr. Kelley has

served as a minister for the Roseville Church of Christ, the Whittier Church of Christ, the

Torrance Church of Christ, the Morro Bay Church of Christ and the Camarillo Church of

Christ. He has served the Camarillo Church of Christ since 1978.

Mr. Kelley has also remained active as a vocal performer. In addition to a major

vocal recital at Pepperdine University in 1981, Mr. Kelley has performed with the

University Orchestra, Opera Workshops, and various banquets and talent shows. He has

also been a regular song leader at the annual Pepperdine University Bible Lectureships.

Mr. Kelley is married to Roxanne Cowan Kelley and has four children; Kacey,

Kristy, Katie, and Matthew. Mr. Kelley intends to continue to work in church ministry
and hopes to write further in the fields of religion and ethics.
 iv

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Division of Religion of Pepperdine

University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts

POSSESSIONS AND THE MESSAGE OF THE

KINGDOM IN LUKE-ACTS
By

Timothy W. Kelley

December 1993

Chair: Dr. Randall D. Chesnutt

This thesis explores Luke’s theology of possessions by means of a redactional and

narrative analysis of the relevant texts in Luke and Acts. Subtle uses of economic

language, as well as explicit references to riches and/or poverty, are examined. Among

the patterns that emerge are: (1) the Lukan Jesus’ call to renounce possessions does not

imply that all disciples were expected literally to abandon all possessions but that they

had to renounce ownership of possessions and leave them at the disposal of the kingdom

of God; (2) the disciples of Jesus in Luke-Acts are not “the poor” but do care for “the

poor” by bringing them the good news of the kingdom and sharing possessions; (3)

willingness to renounce possessions is for Luke a determining factor in whether one

accepts the message of the kingdom; and (4) contrary to scholarly consensus, Luke

continues the theme of possessions in Acts by expressing acceptance and rejection of the

kingdom in economic language.

__Dr. Randall D. Chesnutt _________________

Chair

Members:__Dr. Ronald L. Tyler________________

__Dr. Thomas Olbricht_____________

 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... ii
BIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
The Problem in Recent Discussion ............................................................................ 1
Unresolved Issues ...................................................................................................... 6
Methodology ............................................................................................................. 8
Limitations and Assumptions .................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER TWO: POSSESSIONS AND THE MESSAGE OF

THE KINGDOM IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE ...................................................... 12
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 12
The Magnificat — Luke 1:46-55 ........................................................................... 12
The Birth of Jesus — Luke 2:1-20 ...................................................................... 17
Offering in the Temple — Luke 2:22-24 ................................................................. 18
Preaching of John the Baptist — Luke 3:1-14 ........................................................ 20
Temptation of Jesus — Luke 4:1-13 ........................................................................ 23
Sermon and Rejection in Nazareth — Luke 4:16-30 ............................................. 24
The Calling of the Disciples—Luke 5:1-11, 27-8 ................................................. 30
Beatitudes and Woes — Luke 6:20-26 ................................................................. 31
Teachings on Giving — Luke 6:27-42 ................................................................... 40
The Centurion and the Widow — Luke 7:1-17 ...................................................... 42
John the Baptist and the Ministry of Jesus — Luke 7:18-35 ................................. 44
Simon and the Sinful Woman — Luke 7:36-50 .................................................... 47
Women who Provided out of their Means — Luke 8:1-3 ..................................... 51
The Seed that Fell Among Thorns — Luke 8:4-15 ................................................ 53
The Gerasene Demoniac — Luke 8:26-39 ......................................................... 54
Jairus and the Woman with the Flow of Blood — Luke 8:40-56 ........................ 56
The Mission of the Twelve — Luke 9:1-6 ............................................................. 58
The Cost of Discipleship — Luke 9: 23-25 ............................................................ 59
The Rejection of the Samaritan Village
and the Would-be Disciples — Luke 9:51-62 ..................................................... 62
The Sending of the Seventy [-Two] — Luke 10:1-12 .......................................... 63
The Good Samaritan — Luke 10:29-37 .................................................................. 67
Teaching on Prayer — Luke 11:1-13 ...................................................................... 68
Conflict with the Pharisees — Luke 11:37-54 ....................................................... 71
The Rich Fool — Luke 12:13-21 ............................................................................ 73
Anxiety and Possessions — Luke 12:22-34 .......................................................... 76
Faithful or Unfaithful Servant — Luke 12:41-48 ................................................. 78
Sabbath Healings — Luke 13:10-17, 14:1-6 ......................................................... 81
Boundaries of the Kingdom — Luke 14:7-24 ........................................................ 85
 vi

The Cost of Discipleship — Luke 14:25-35 .......................................................... 89

Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, Lost Son(s) — Luke 15 ..................................................... 96
The Dishonest Steward — Luke 16:1-13 ............................................................. 100
Jesus and the Pharisees — Luke 16:14-18 ........................................................... 104
Lazarus and the Rich Man — Luke 16:19-31 ..................................................... 107
Eschatological Warnings — Luke 17:26-37 ...................................................... 111
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector — Luke 18:9-14 ........................................ 113
The Rich Ruler — Luke 18:18-30 ....................................................................... 114
The Blind Man of Jericho — Luke 18:35-43 ....................................................... 118
Zacchaeus — Luke 19:1-10 ................................................................................. 119
The Parable of the Pounds — Luke 19:11-27 ..................................................... 124
Scribes, the Rich, and a Poor Widow — Luke 20:45 - 21:4 ................................ 125
Betrayal by Judas — Luke 22:3-6 ...................................................................... 128
Provisions in Crisis — Luke 22:35-38 ................................................................ 129
Joseph of Arimathea and the Women — Luke 23:50-............................................ 130
Summary: Possessions and the Message
of the Kingdom in the Gospel of Luke .............................................................. 132

CHAPTER THREE: POSSESSIONS AND THE MESSAGE OF

THE KINGDOM IN THE BOOK OF ACTS ........................................................ 134
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 134
Judas and the Field of Blood — Acts 1:15-20 ..................................................... 137
The Fellowship of the Church — Acts 2:41-47 ................................................... 139
Healing of the Lame Man — Acts 3:1-10 ............................................................ 141
The Fellowship of the Church and
the Community Goods — Acts 4:32-35 .......................................................... 142
Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira — Acts 4:36-5:11 ....................................... 153
Care of the Hellenist Widows and the
Appointment of the Seven — Acts 6:1-7 ........................................................ 159
Simon the Magician and the Ethiopian Treasurer — Acts 8:4-40 ........................ 162
Tabitha and Cornelius — Acts 9:36-10:48 .......................................................... 168
Famine Relief from Antioch to Judea — Acts 11:27-30 ..................................... 170
The Church in the Home of Mary the
Mother of John Mark — Acts 12:12-17 ......................................................... 172
Herod’s Death — Acts 12:1-24 ........................................................................... 173
The Mission of Paul and Barnabas — Acts 13:1-14:28 ...................................... 174
The Pauline Mission in Philippi, Thessalonica,
and Corinth — Acts 16:11-24 .......................................................................... 177
Paul at Ephesus — Acts 19:18-20, 23-27 ............................................................. 180
Paul’s Sermon to the Ephesian Elders — Acts 20:29-35 ...................................... 184
Paul and Felix — Acts 24:17, 26 .......................................................................... 187
Summary: Possessions and the Message
of the Kingdom in the Book of Acts ............................................................... 189
 vii

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 191

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 197
 1

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

The Problem in Recent Discussion

The theme of possessions in Luke and Acts has been studied extensively over the

past forty years, and especially in the last two decades.1 It seems unlikely that another
study could shed additional light on the subject. Yet, in spite of all that has gone before, a

number of difficult questions remain unanswered and we are far from a consensus on

either how Luke uses the theme of possessions or what purpose drives Luke’s interest.

Before defining the particular focus of this study it will be helpful to mention

some of the most important recent studies which deal with the theme of possessions

and/or the rich and poor in Luke-Acts. Halvor Moxnes views Luke-Acts through the lens

of social science, looking particularly at the patron-client motif.2 Philip Esler’s work,

Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, is of note in that he incorporates the evidence of

the social backgrounds of the first century into the discussion.3 Luise Schottroff and

1
For helpful surveys see F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three years of Research [1950 -
1983] (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1987), pp. 390-400; and John R Donahue, S. J., “Two
Decades of Research on the Rich and the Poor in Luke-Acts,” Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of
Walter Harrelson, ed. Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 129-41.
See especially R. J. Karris, who gives a useful summary of the research of H. J. Cadbury, Hans-Joachim
Degenhardt, Gerd Theissen, and Jacques Dupont, “Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben,” Perspectives
on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert, Perspectives in Religious Studies, Special Study Series No. 5
(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, Ltd., 1978), pp. 112-25.
2
Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in
Luke’s Gospel, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). See also Moxnes,
“Meals and the New Community in Luke,” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 51-52 (1986-1987), pp. 158-67; and
Moxnes, “Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts,” The Social World of Luke-Acts:
Models for Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), pp. 241-68.
3
Philip Frances Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987), pp. 164-200.
 2

Wolfgang Stegemann have also contributed to the research.1

Standing in contrast to what he calls the “prevalent reading of the historical

evidence and certain applications of the sociological method” is Thomas Schmidt.2 For

Schmidt, the Gospel’s hostility to wealth exists “independently of socio-economic

circumstances.”3 Instead this hostility is a “fundamental religious-ethical tenet

consistently expressed in the Synoptic Gospels.”4

Two of the most thorough and helpful studies have been those of Luke T.

Johnson, who seeks to take seriously the narrative nature of Luke-Acts,5 and David P.

Seccombe, whose careful analysis of many texts is thoughtful and incisive.6 This present

work is deeply indebted to these studies.

Mention should also be made of two unpublished dissertations relating to this

theme. The first is by Thomas Hoyt,7 and the second by Gary T. Meadors.8

On a popular level, Richard Batey9 and Walter Pilgrim1 have addressed the theme

1
Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 1986). While helpful in many respects, the strong socio-political agenda in this work often seems to
color the results of the study. See also, W. Stegemann, The Gospel and the Poor, trans. Dietlinde Elliott
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
2
Thomas E. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplement Series 15 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 163.
3
Ibid., p. 164.
4
Ibid.
5
Luke T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (Missoula: Scholars Press,
1977). See also Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1981).
6
D. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner
Umwelt, Serie B, Band 6 (Linz: STNU, 1982).
7
T. Hoyt, “The Poor in Luke-Acts” (Unpublished dissertation, Duke University, 1975).
8
G. T. Meadors, “The Poor in Luke’s Gospel” (Unpublished dissertation, Grace Theological
Seminary, 1983).
9
Richard Batey, Jesus and the Poor: The Poverty Program of the first Christians (New York:
Harper and Row, 1972). This work does not limit the discussion to Luke-Acts but does give some helpful
background information.
 3

theme of the poor and the use of possessions.

Much of the recent interest in Luke-Acts has centered on identifying the Lukan

Sitz im Leben. R. J. Karris has paid particular attention to this in his essay on the Lukan

treatment of the poor and rich.2 For Karris, Luke’s development of possessions and the

way he speaks of the rich and poor is an important window into the Lukan community.3

One way in which Luke’s interest in possessions is demonstrated is in his

redaction of Markan material.4 Markan passages that depict the need for disciples to
leave possessions are incorporated into Luke, and some are intensified. In describing the

call of James and John, Mark 1:18 reads, “and immediately they left their nets and

followed him.” Luke 5:11, in describing the same event, reads, “And when they had

brought the boat to land, they left everything and followed him.” This intensification of

the Markan requirements regarding possessions is seen also in the call of Levi (Mk. 2:14,

Luke 5:28) and the story of “the rich ruler” (Mk. 10:21, Lk. 18:22).

The same interest is visible in Luke 4:16-30, a passage virtually everyone

recognizes as crucial to Luke’s Gospel. Luke’s editorial hand is visible in the placement

of this story at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, rather than following a period of ministry

in Capernaum as it is in Mark (6:1-6). In its position in Luke the story becomes

programmatic for the rest of the Lukan narrative. In Nazareth, the Lukan Jesus quoted

from Isaiah 61:1-2, which opens by saying, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because

1
W. E. Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1981). Although this present work comes to a very different conclusion than Pilgrim regarding
the call for the renunciation of possessions (see Pilgrim, pp. 98-102), Pilgrim’s work is generally an
excellent report of the research into the theme of the rich and poor, and Pilgrim’s own insightful study of
the texts in Luke and (much less so) Acts is valuable.
2
Karris, “Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben,” pp. 113-16.
3
R. J. Karris, “Windows and Mirrors: Literary Criticism and Luke’s Sitz im Leben,” Society of
Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 16 (1979), pp. 47-58.
4
As noted below, the standard two-source theory is presupposed in this study.
 4

he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.”1

Perhaps the Lukan perspective on the poor is seen by what he has chosen not to

include from Mark. Mark 14:3-9 tells of the woman who poured expensive perfume over

the head of Jesus. In answering the criticism of those who thought it would have been

better to sell the perfume and give the proceeds to the poor, Jesus replied, “. . . For you

always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them.” Either

Luke excluded this story or recast it in the story of Simon the Pharisee and the sinful

woman (Lk. 7:36-50).

Luke’s treatment of the Q materials also betrays his interest in material

possessions. The most notable example of this is found in the comparison of Matthew’s

“Sermon on the Mount” and Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain.”2 Matthew 5:3 reads,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Luke 6:20, on the other hand, reads simply, “Blessed are

you poor.” Matthew 5:6 says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for

righteousness.” Luke 6:21, however, affirms, “Blessed are you who hunger now.” In

Luke, unlike Matthew, woes appear alongside the beatitudes and include a woe directed

at the rich: “But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation” (Lk.
6:24). Whichever version is closer to the Q material, Luke clearly stresses the economic
3
realities, while Matthew underscores the spiritual dimensions of “the poor.”

Beyond Luke’s use of Mark and Q, there are numerous passages that are unique to

1
Esler sees this as a crucial text in setting the Lukan Sitz im Leben. Community, pp. 179-83.
2
For a discussion of the differences between the beatitudes in Matthew and Luke, see Thomas
Hoyt Jr., “The Poor/Rich Theme in the Beatitudes,” The Journal of Religious Thought 37 (1980), pp. 31-
41; Jindr±ich Mávnek, “On the Mount - On the Plain,” Novum Testamentum 9 (1967), pp. 124-31; and Gary
T. Meadors, “The ‘Poor’ in the Beatitudes of Matthew and Luke,” Grace Theological Journal 2 (1985), pp.
305-14.
3
This is strongly maintained by Esler, Community, pp. 169-71. Meadors, “The ‘Poor’ in the
Beatitudes,“ pp. 305-314, argues that both Matthew and Luke refer primarily to the pious rather than the
economic poor.
 5

Luke which address the issue of possessions. These passages include Luke 1:47-55, 3:10-

14, 12:13-21,14:12-14, 16:1-9, 16:19-31, and 19:1-10, and are among the most fertile

passages in the New Testament dealing with the Christian perspective on possessions.

When one turns to Acts the number of passages that explicitly deal with the theme

of possessions, and particularly the rich and poor, diminishes considerably. A few

passages are explicit. Two explicit passages are the summaries in Acts 2:41-47 and 4:32-

37, which report the sale of property and donation of funds to the church to assist the
needy.1 However, other texts are less explicit.2

Unresolved Issues
As one explores the theme of possessions both in the text itself and in recent

scholarly discussion of Luke-Acts, several questions emerge as deserving of special

attention in the present investigation.

1. Who are “the poor”? One possibility is that the term is intended in a strictly

socio-economic sense. Another option is that there are religious overtones in the term. In

this latter view, the poor are to be seen as the “righteous and pious poor” and the rich as

the “unrighteous and impious rich.”

Esler argues, with some passion, that this term should be understood in its literal,

socio-economic sense. He contends that many who see “the poor” as a religious term

read Luke through a “layer of ‘embourgeoisement.’”3 On the other side, Meadors argues

1
Karris sees these passages as crucial evidence of the Lukan Sitz im Leben. “Lukan Sitz im
Leben,” pp. 116-17.
2
Karris believes that Acts 1:18, 3:2-10, 5:1-11, 6:1-6, 8:18-25, 9:36, 10:2, 4,31, 11:29, 18:3,
20:28-35, and 24:17 are significant to the theme, but admits that they are not always seen in that light.
Ibid., p. 117.
3
Esler, Community, p. 170.
 6

that the “poor,” at least in the beatitudes, are the pious.1

2. How is this theme continued in Acts? Given the amount of material which

explicitly deals with possessions and the poor and rich in Luke’s Gospel, it is surprising

to discover that the words “poor” and “rich” do not even occur in Acts. Outside of the

communal sharing of goods (including the account of Barnabas [Acts 4:36-37] ), the story

of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), the care for the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-6),

and the famine relief visit (Acts 11:27-30), the theme is not obvious. This lack,

particularly noticeable in the material devoted to the Pauline missions, is all the more

puzzling in light of Paul’s own mention of the Jerusalem church’s request that he

“remember the poor” (Gal. 2:10) and his frequent mention of his collection for the “poor

among the saints at Jerusalem” (I Cor. 16:1-4, II Cor. 8-9, Rom. 15:25-26). On the latter,

Luke is almost completely silent in Acts, even though he dedicates a great deal of space

to Paul’s journey to Jerusalem.

This surprising silence leads one to ask what happened to this apparently

important Lukan theme.2 Karl Holl and others have suggested that “the poor” becomes a

name for the church.3 In this view, the theme of the poor is taken up in the story of the
church. Yet, if this is the case, why is the term not even used? Are we to see this
4
difference between Luke and Acts as a reflection of Luke’s sources, or is there some

1
Meadors, “The ‘Poor’ in the Beatitudes,” p. 305.
2
For a preliminary discussion of this question, see James A. Berquist, “ ‘Good News to the Poor’ -
Why Does This Lucan Motif Appear to Run Dry in the Book of Acts?” Bangalore Theological Forum 28
(1986), pp. 1-16.
3
K. Holl, “Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhaltens zu dem der Urgemeinde,”
Sitzungsbericht der Berliner Academic (1921), cited by L. E. Keck, “The Poor Among the Saints in the
New Testament,” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965), pp. 101. Meadors also
comes close to Holl’s view in “The ‘Poor’ in the Beatitudes,” pp. 305-14.
4
This position is advanced by D. L. Mealand, Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels (London:
SPCK, 1981), pp. 16-20.
 7

theological intention on Luke’s part in his treatment (or lack of treatment) of this theme

in Acts?

3. Does Luke present a coherent single view of possessions or several, even

contradictory views? In a recent study of the theme, John Gillman raises this issue:

Most commentators now agree that Luke presents a variety of approaches

to these themes, rather than one perspective which he imposes upon the
Christian community of his day. For example, a number of passages call
the would-be disciples of Jesus to renounce all their possessions as a
condition of discipleship. Other texts call the believing community to give
alms, and still others to share their resources in common. Clearly a
believer cannot follow all these ways at the same time. Once a person has
given away all that he or she has, then it is no longer possible to give
alms.1

While unity should not be forced upon diverse texts, it is fair to ask whether an author

with the considerable skill evident in Luke-Acts has really presented contradictory views

in regard to possessions.

4. How is the Lukan community reflected through the theme of the rich and
poor? Is Luke’s concern for the poor and the use of possessions, at least in the Gospel, a

reflection of the situation of Luke’s own community? Does it suggest that the Lukan

community was suffering from poverty? Does it suggest that there were wealthy

members of Luke’s community who were not sharing their wealth among the poor?

Methodology
Answers to the above questions do not come easily. In light of all the work done

on the theme of possessions in Luke-Acts, the present paper will maintain a rather narrow

focus. It will not explore all of the helpful material coming from the social sciences,

1
John Gillman, Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of Luke-Acts (Collegeville, MN:
The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 11.
 8

although at times it will note the results of such work. Nor will it seek to respond in

every point to the vast scholarly work on this theme, although references to these works

will be made. Rather it will focus upon the texts themselves.

The methodology employed in this study differs from that employed by most other

studies. Here we will not look for word clusters, nor limit ourselves to a select few

pericopes which deal overtly with possessions. Instead we will look inductively at each

text in which an economic description is present in the order of its occurrence. This
methodology allows the author of Luke-Acts to develop the theme of possessions on his

own terms. By studying the theme as it naturally comes to the reader, we hope to avoid

premature conclusions or the imposition of presuppositions upon the material. The

constraints of the narrative itself must be respected.

The large number of texts in which possessions are discussed or in which we find

descriptions implying economic or social status makes for an extremely uneven work, in

which the study of the texts in the Gospel of Luke predominate. The chapter on Acts is of

necessity much shorter. However, as we shall see in Chapter Three, the number of

pertinent texts in Acts is not nearly as limited as many have supposed.

At this point it is appropriate to spell out some preliminary perspectives which

inform the methodology of this study.

1. To look only at the theme of the “rich and poor” without noting how Luke

speaks of possessions in general fails to get at Luke’s theological purposes and can often

be misleading in regard to those purposes.

2. Luke does have a special interest in the rich and poor, but it is not a separate

interest. That is, Luke’s theology of possessions is very much a part of his central interest

in the kingdom of God, Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises, and the church as the

community which spreads the message of the kingdom to the ends of the earth.
 9

3. Luke’s treatment of these issues is not limited to pericopes which contain

special terms like rich, poor, or possessions, or which otherwise explicitly refer to the use

of possessions. On the contrary, many significant passages in Luke-Acts that bear upon

possessions have economic realities as a subtle but important part of the backdrop of the

narrative.

4. Possessions and how one uses them play an important role in whether one

accepts or rejects the message of the kingdom. Those who accept that message are often

described in terms of their willingness to use their possessions for others, while those

who reject the message are often seen as those who keep their possessions.

Limitations and Assumptions

It is assumed in this thesis that Luke and Acts have a common author and that

they comprise two volumes of a single work.1 Further, the traditional view that Luke-

Acts was written sometime in the last two decades of the first century will be assumed.2

It is not deemed crucial to identify the author as Luke, the physician and companion of

Paul.

One other assumption important to this thesis is that the “two-document

3
hypothesis” is, in broad outline, correct. According to this hypothesis Luke has taken

material from Mark, from a sayings source (“Q”), and from a source or sources unique to

1
This point is now widely accepted. It will be taken seriously in this study in that a common
theological perspective in Luke and Acts will be sought. That is, the themes developed in Luke, including
the theme of possessions, should be continued in Acts, or at least not contradicted there. This means that
Luke and Acts can be expected to be consonant with each other. Further, it means that Luke should help
clarify Acts and Acts should help clarify Luke.
2
For a discussion of the date of Luke-Acts, see Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), pp. 53-57.
3
For a recent discussion of the sources behind Luke, see Joseph B. Tyson, “Source Criticism of the
Gospel of Luke,” Perspectives On Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), pp.
24-39.
 10

Luke (“L”). The sources behind Acts remain largely a mystery1 and do not figure into our

analysis of that material.

Unless otherwise stated, the English translation of the Bible used in this study is

the Revised Standard Version.

1
See J. Dupont, The Sources of Acts, trans. K. Pond (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964).
 12

CHAPTER 2:

POSSESSIONS AND THE MESSAGE OF THE KINGDOM IN THE

GOSPEL OF LUKE

Introduction
Texts in the Gospel of Luke which deal in one way or another with the theme of

possessions are numerous. The purpose of this chapter is to examine these passages in

turn without imposing a set of presuppositions upon them. We will explore not only the

language of possessions and/or social status, but also the narrative framework in which

such language is found.

The Magnificat
Luke 1:46-55
The first clear expression of the themes upon which this paper centers is in the
1
Magnificat in Luke’s infancy narrative. Nothing is said about the economic condition of

1
The question of the infancy narratives, their sources and their relationship to the rest of Luke-
Acts, is under considerable discussion. Hans Conzelmann, who questions the Lukan authorship the first two
chapters of Luke, holds that the infancy narratives are virtually irrelevant to Luke’s theological purposes.
The Theology of Saint Luke trans. G. Buswell (London: Farber and Farber, 1960), p. 118. In an article
strongly critical of Conzelmann’s views, Paul Minear shows the large “degree to which the mood and motifs
initiated in the prologue [including infancy narratives] continue to characterize the later narratives.”
“Luke’s Use of the Birth Stories,” Studies in Luke -Acts, ed. Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 129. For a thorough and balanced discussion, see Fitzmyer, The
Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), pp. 304-21, and his further
comments in Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), pp. 27-56.
Fitzmyer puts the relationship of the infancy narrative to the rest of the gospel well in saying, “the infancy
narrative acts as a kind of overture to the Gospel as a whole to which it is prefixed, often sounding for the
 13

Zechariah and Elizabeth. However, we do find a description that roots them in the line of

the faithful of Israel. Zechariah was a priest married to a “daughter of Aaron.” They

were “both righteous before God” and, in terms of the “commandments and ordinances,”

were “blameless” (Lk. 1:6). To the lowly priest Zechariah came an angel with news of a

son who would be “great before the Lord” (1:15). Zechariah’s objection that he and his

wife were too old to have a son was understood as unbelief, and as a consequence of that

unbelief, Zechariah would have to remain speechless until the child is born.
The second annunciation came to Mary. Though nothing is specifically said of

her economic condition, she is depicted as having had even lower status than Zechariah:

she was a young woman rather than a man; she was from Nazareth rather than Jerusalem;

and she had no official standing in Judaism. Yet, she was greeted as the “favored one”

and told that “the Lord is with you.” Like Zechariah, Mary questioned the angel’s

announcement to her, but her question, unlike that of Zechariah, was not seen as unbelief.

To the exalted role assigned her, Mary responded in faith, “Behold, I am the handmaid
(douvlh) of the Lord.”

She was told by her kinswoman Elizabeth, “blessed are you among women, and

blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk. 1:42). Mary was blessed first because she had

been graciously chosen to carry the “Lord,” and secondly, because she, unlike Zechariah,

believed.

Many have seen in Mary a portrait of the ideal disciple.1 It may be more accurate

to see in Luke’s portrait of Mary one who, without social, economic, or religious

first time chords that will be later orchestrated in the work as a whole.” Luke the Theologian, pp. 30-31.
One of those chords is certainly that of the poor and rich.
1
Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: The Crossroad
Pub. Co., 1982), pp. 22-26.
 14

credentials, received the favor of God and responded in faith. That is a model that is

repeated throughout Luke-Acts, as we shall see.

The hymn, which is almost certainly intended as Mary’s rather than Elizabeth’s,1

begins with parallel lines, praising or magnifying (Latin, magnificat ) God. The reason
for the praise is, “for he has regarded the low estate (tapeivnwsin) of his handmaiden”

(Lk. 1:48). This is a direct allusion to I Samuel 1:11 where, Hannah vowed, “O Lord of
hosts, if thou wilt indeed look upon the affliction (LXX: tapeivnwsi") of thy

maidservant. . .” Tapeivnwsi" denotes the humiliation or humble state of many

individuals in the Old Testament.2 The meaning of the phrase is well captured by Walter

Grundmann:

If as in most MSS the reference is to Mary tapeivnwsi" means

“lowliness,” this being strengthened by the genitive th'" douvlh" aujtou',
cf. v. 38. The fact that God chooses the humble hand-maiden, the virgin,
who is of no account in the eyes of the world, to be the mother of His Son,

1
Although no Greek manuscripts have Elizabeth as the speaker, four Old Latin texts, Irenaeus, and
other Latin church fathers do. A helpful summary of the textual evidence can be found in R. E. Brown, The
Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), p. 334. J. M. Creed and others argue that the
text should read “Elizabeth” because her situation more closely resembles that of “the long childless
Hannah… whose song the Magnificat so closely follows.” He argues that if Elizabeth is the speaker we
have a parallel between the song of Elizabeth and that of Zechariah, her husband. The mention of Mary in
1:56 implies a change of subject and makes more sense if Elizabeth is the speaker of the hymn. The Gospel
According to St. Luke (London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd., 1930), p. 22. Though these arguments have
merit, the weak textual support for Elizabeth is hard to overcome. In fact, Hannah’s song is an appropriate
model for either woman and not the only model upon which the infancy narratives draw. While the
barrenness of Elizabeth might correspond to Hannah, it is not at all clear that Luke is trying to establish a
type and antitype. I Samuel 1-3 is a literary model but not the only one. In this regard, Douglas Jones
remarks, “Again and again he [the psalmist] uses language which appears to echo a particular text; but we
find on further inspection that this relationship cannot be exclusive because there are other echoes. In the
light of his handling of the texts, it is unlikely that the psalmist thought exclusively of Hannah.”
“Background and Character of the Lukan Psalms,” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968), p. 22. See
further Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, pp. 72-73, n. 282. For a defense of Mary as the speaker, see I.
H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek
Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 78-79.
2
Walter Grundmann, “tapeinov" ktl,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.
Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) vol. 8, p. 11.
 15

is the reason for the thankful joy in God which the speaker confesses
(1:46f.) and the cause of honour which she will be paid (1:48).1

After praising God for his grace and acknowledging that “his mercy is on those

who fear him from generation to generation,” (1:50) the hymn addresses the contrast

between the proud, mighty, and rich, and those of low degree, and the hungry.

He has shown strength with his arm,

he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away. (1:51-53)

Here we see a reversal motif that is firmly rooted in the Old Testament, intertestamental

literature and other Jewish writings, and will recur often in Luke. The haughty
(uJperhfavnoi) will be scattered. The mighty rulers (dunavstai) will be pulled down from

their thrones. The rich (ploutou'nte") will be sent away empty. On the other hand, the

humble ones (tapeinoiv) will be exalted and the hungry (peinw'nte") will be filled with

good things.

For Seccombe each of these terms is a collective code word for the oppressive

nations on the one hand and Israel on the other.2 However, the language and theology

from which this psalm is drawn make decisions about whether such terms are individual

or collective difficult. Often they are both. For example, Isaiah 2:11-17, which has clear

parallels with the Magnificat, demonstrates how the individual and collective meanings

merge.

The haughty looks of man shall be brought low,

and the pride of men shall be humbled;
and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.

1
Ibid., p. 21.
2
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, pp. 70-83.
 16

For the LORD of hosts has a day

against all that is proud and lofty,
against all that is lifted up and high;
against all the cedars of Lebanon,
lofty and lifted up;
and against all the oaks of Bashan;
against all the high mountains,
and against all the lofty hills;
against every high tower,
and against every fortified wall;
against all the ships of Tarshish,
and against all the beautiful craft.
And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled,
and the pride of men shall be brought low;
and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.

Here both proud men and proud nations are humbled. To choose one meaning over the

other is to do violence to the imagery. The same seems to be true of the Magnificat.

Grundmann’s comment is appropriate in this regard:

The fact that God has regard to the low estate of his handmaiden gives rise
to the hope that His eschatological action, which casts down the mighty
from their thrones and lifts up the humble, is now beginning - an
expectation which commences in the infancy stories and is confirmed by
the appearance of the Baptist, 3:5. In this way Luke makes the election of
the lowly and the abasement of the rich and mighty a basic feature of
God’s historical action from the eschatological perspective.1
In the Magnificat, eschatological hope of reversal is expressed in what may be

considered a “prophetic aorist.”2 The future hope of reversal has come proleptically in the

coming of the Messiah. Mary, as one of the “humble,” has been blessed to bear the hope

of the seed of Abraham.

The Magnificat also employs a constellation of words that suggest the nature of

the reversal motif found throughout Luke-Acts. On the one hand are the humble, those of

1
Grundmann, “tapeinov",” p. 21.
2
For a discussion of the aorists in this passage, see Gary T. Meadors, The Poor in Luke’s Gospel,
pp. 201-3.
 17

low degree and the hungry (see also Lk. 4:18, 6:20-22, and 7:22-23). On the other hand

are the proud, mighty, and rich. Economic realities (hungry, rich) and qualities of

character (humble, proud) are clearly joined.

The Birth of Jesus

Luke 2:1-20
Luke begins the story of the birth of Jesus by speaking of the decree of Caesar
Augustus1 and in doing so contrasts Jesus and Augustus. Augustus was called “savior”

and “lord.” His birth was marked as the “beginning of the gospel.”2 It is likely that Luke

intentionally paints the ironic picture that it was by the decree of Augustus that the true

Savior and Lord, who brings the true gospel, was born in the place, not of Augustus’

choosing, but of God’s choosing. He was born of humble parents in the most humble of

settings.3 The reversal of values spoken of in the Magnificat is seen again in the

announcement of Jesus’ birth. Donald Miller captures the artistry well:

The birth of the Messiah was not first proclaimed in Caesar’s halls nor
in Herod’s palace, but to humble shepherds in the fields. Here began the
total reversal of the values of this world, of which Mary spoke in the
Magnificat. Heaven’s richest treasure was given to “those of low degree”

1
Much of the discussion surrounding this text centers upon historical questions. In a recent article,
David L. Jones stresses Luke’s chronological interest and defends his historical accuracy. “Luke’s Unique
Interest in Historical Chronology,” Society of Biblical Literature: 1989 Seminar Papers 26 (1989),
pp. 378-87. For a full discussion of the census under Quirinius, see Brown, Birth, pp. 547-56.
2
“. . . a first-century Hellenistic reader would find in the configuration created by the good news (v
10) concerning the birth of one who is to be a savior and bringer of peace (v 14) an echo of the language in
which Augustus had been honored. An altar to pax Augusta stood in Rome. The Asiatic Greek cities had
decided to rearrange the calendar to begin the year on Augustus’ birthday, on the basis that Augustus had
been sent as savior (swthvr) to make an end to all war. The day of his birth had marked the beginning of
the message of good news (eujaggevlia) for the world.” W. Dittenberger, Orientis graeci inscriptiones
selectae (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903-5) vol. 2, p.458. John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, Word Biblical Commentary
(Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 107.
3
Donald Miller, The Gospel According to Luke, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, ed. Balmer H.
Kelly (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1959), pp. 35-36.
 18

(1:51-53). “I bring you good news… for to you is born… a Savior”

(2:10-11). The news was for “all the people” (vs. 10), but they would have
to become as humble as these shepherds to receive it, yes, even as “a
child” (18:17).1

Whether or not Luke was aware of the tradition of the Magi found in Matthew is

unknown, but it is noteworthy that in Luke’s account the first witnesses of the birth of the

Messiah were not the wealthy, but shepherds.2 Thus our theme of possessions is present

in this passage, however implicitly.

Offering in the Temple

Luke 2:22-24
In 2:22-38, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to Jerusalem to “present him to

the Lord” and for the purification of Mary. They offered a sacrifice according to “the

Law of the Lord” (Lk. 2:24). The law to which Luke refers is Leviticus 12, where, the

woman giving birth, after her purification, brought an offering to the priest. That offering

was “a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin

offering.” However, “… if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves

or two young pigeons.” Clearly, Luke’s primary concern is Joseph’s and Mary’s fidelity
to the law, not an economic picture of Jesus’ family. Nevertheless, the economic note

should not be ignored.

There has been considerable speculation about the economic condition of Jesus’

family. As a carpenter, Joseph would not have necessarily been poor, but as a craftsman

he may have fit into the middle class (probably an anachronistic designation). Whatever

1
Ibid., p. 36.
2
Obviously, shepherds around Bethlehem also suggests a Davidic connection. However, the
Davidic theme and the idea of lowliness are not mutually exclusive. The familiar passage in Micah 5:2
(quoted in Matthew 2:6) may very well carry with it the idea of a humble Messiah rather than a proud King
from Jerusalem. See Hans Walter Wolff, Micah the Prophet (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 93.
 19

the actual sociological and economic status of Joseph and Mary, Luke seems concerned to

rank them among the poor: they had to journey to Bethlehem without a place to stay; the

baby had to be born in a stable and have a manger as a cradle; the parents were faithful to

the Law, but in that faithfulness they followed an allowance for the poor. From the very

beginning Luke gives a picture of Jesus taking his place with the humble.1

Preaching of John the Baptist

Luke 3:1-14
The next specific mention of wealth and possessions comes in the preaching of

John the Baptist. Luke introduces John with a lengthy chronological statement (Lk.

3:1-2).2 Luke, like Matthew and Mark, introduces John with a quotation from the LXX

of Isaiah 40:3. However, Luke, unlike the other Evangelists continues the quotation

through Isaiah 40:5. Interpreters consistently recognize that the end of the quotation, “. . .

and all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” is highly significant for Luke’s theological

affirmation of the universality of salvation.3 However, the intervening verses of the

quotation from Isaiah are virtually ignored in the commentary tradition.

1
Meadors, The Poor in Luke’s Gospel, pp. 201-2, and Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth, p. 163, argue
against seeing Jesus’ family as poor. G.W. Buchanan even suggests that Jesus may have been a wealthy
businessman who gave his wealth to the sect he founded, and then accepted a voluntary role of poverty.
“Jesus and the Upper Class,” Novum Testamentum 7 (1964-1965), pp. 206-207. For a contrary view, see
Richard Batey, Jesus and the Poor, pp. 5-9.
2
Many have noted that this is very much like Thucydides 2:2, see Marshall, Luke, p. 132; Creed,
St. Luke, p. 48. However, the main parallel is the verbal coincidence, “in the fifteenth year.” Beyond that,
the parallel is not particularly impressive. The reigns of kings are dated in a similar fashion in I and II
Kings. More importantly, the call of the prophets are so dated (See especially Jer. 1:1-3 and Hos. 1:1).
That Luke intends for John’s ministry to be understood in terms of the Old Testament prophetic call is seen
both in the traditional formula, “the word of God came” (Lk. 3:2), and in Luke’s calling John, not “John the
Baptist” as he does in Lk. 7:20, but “John the son of Zechariah”—the same way the prophets are identified.
Luke’s primary source consistently seems to be Scripture.
3
E.g., Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 461.
 20

. . . every valley shall be filled (plhrwqhvsetai), and every mountain and

hill shall be brought low (tapeinwqhvsetai), and the crooked (skoliav)
shall be made straight (eujqeiva"), and the rough ways (tracei'ai) shall be
made smooth (leiva"). (Lk. 3:5)

Marshall rightly points out that “since Luke could easily have omitted material not

needed on the way to his desired goal in the next verse it is probable that the verse has

some metaphorical significance.”1

In Isaiah, the reference is probably to the Babylonian practice of making a road

smooth and straight for the king.2 Since for Luke, John prepared the path for Jesus, the

language of Isaiah provides a convenient way of expressing such preparation. However

the economic character of the language is also significant. We have already seen in the

Magnificat the humbling of the proud, mighty and wealthy and the exaltation of the

humble and hungry. In Luke 3 the reversal motif again is present. Both the nature of

John’s preparatory work and the work of the Messiah find expression in the extended

quote from Isaiah. Both John and Jesus challenged the high and noble while giving hope

to the poor and lowly.

John’s preaching called for the fruits of repentance. When the multitudes asked,

“What then shall we do?” (Lk. 3:10, cf. Acts 2:37), John spoke of possessions and
wealth. Those who had two tunics should give one to someone who had none; food,

likewise, was to be shared. Tax collectors were to take no more than they had been

commanded and soldiers were to rob no one by either violence or false charges and they

were to be satisfied with their wages. Repentance clearly had economic ramifications.

1
Marshall, Luke, pp. 136-37.
2
Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1969), p. 38.
 21

Those who heard John were “the multitudes” (o[cloi). Within the crowd were tax

collectors (telw'nai) who came to be baptized and soldiers (strateuovmenoi). These

were not the upper crust of Jewish society, yet they gladly heard and responded to John.

Only Luke specifically mentions these despised classes of people in John’s audience, and

he has little negative to say about such classes throughout the gospel.

Fitzmyer is probably correct that Luke intends for these instructions to be

“recommendations for his Christian readers as well.”1 However, when one compares the
ethical teaching of John in 3:10-14 with the teaching of Jesus in 6:29-36, the results are

interesting:

Luke 3:10-14 Luke 6:29-35

He who has two coats (citw'na"), and from him who takes away
let him share with him who has your cloak do not withhold
none; (3:11) your coat (citw'na") as well. (6:29)

Collect no more than is appointed Give to every one who begs

you. (3:13) from you; and of him who takes
away your goods, do not ask
them again. (6:30)

Rob no one by violence or by false But love your enemies, and do

accusations, and be content with good, and lend, expecting
your wages. (3:14) nothing in return… (6:35)

The ethic of Jesus did not contradict that of John, but went a step beyond it. John told the

crowds to share from their surplus while Jesus told his audience (both crowds and

disciples are mentioned) to be willing to give even their last garment. John told tax

collectors to collect only what was due and Jesus told his audience to give to those who

begged and not to ask for repayment. John told soldiers not to rob and to be content with

their wages, whereas Jesus told his audience to love their enemies, to do good, and to

1
Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 465.
 22

lend without expectation of a return. In each case the ethical demands of Jesus surpassed

those of John.1 If, in fact, Luke intends a parallel between the ethical teaching of John

and that of Jesus, John again functions for Luke to prepare the way for Jesus. The

demands of John prepare the reader for the more radical demands of Jesus. The Christian

community must be willing to go beyond John’s teaching, if circumstances demand.

Temptation of Jesus
Luke 4:1-13
The next passage that has possible bearing upon possessions and the kingdom is

the temptation narrative. It is likely that Luke and Matthew both draw from Q, but Luke

apparently changes the order of the temptations in order to end them climactically in

Jerusalem.2 Other than this and the mention that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” (Lk.

4:1), there are few changes that point to special Lukan interests.

However, the first temptation, in both Matthew and Luke, is suggestive for this

study. Here Jesus is pictured as hungry, having been without food for forty days. The

devil tempted him by saying, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become

bread” (Lk. 4:3). The temptation at one level was personal: “Why should the Son of God
3
be hungry?” Jesus was tempted to use his divine power to his own end rather than in

obedience to the Father. Yet surely the temptation was also economic in its scope. The

1
“The teaching of Jesus in the great sermon (c. vi.), his praise of the centurion (c. vii.), and his
welcome of Zacchaeus (c. xix.) are prepared for; but the replies of John to the different classes fall short of
their counterparts in the life and teaching of Jesus.” Creed, St. Luke, p. 48.
2
Jerusalem is central for Luke. Jesus was taken there to fulfill the law as an infant (Lk. 222-24),
was found there as a child in the Temple (Lk. 2:41-51), made it his clear destination in the travel narrative
(Lk. 9:51), and of course came to the cross there. It is in Jerusalem that the Spirit came to the disciples (Lk.
24:49 and Acts 1:4-5, 2:4) and it is from Jerusalem the witness of Jesus spread to “the end of the earth”
(Acts 1:8). For a thorough discussion of the temptations, see Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 506-13.
3
Marshall sees this as the entire thrust of the temptation. Luke, pp. 170-71.
 23

quotation from Deuteronomy 8:3 is reminiscent of the wilderness experience of Israel.

People have always followed those who can produce bread and so Jesus was tempted to

be a bread-producing Messiah.1 Jesus’ quotation of Deuteronomy 8:3, however,

emphasized that “man does not live by bread alone.”

Marshall suggests that one reason for the temptation narrative was “for its

exemplary features in order to encourage Christians facing temptation and to indicate to

them how to recognize and overcome it.”2 For Luke’s readers, the temptation may have
been to seek more than one’s daily bread (Lk. 11:3), to lay up treasure for oneself and not

be rich toward God (Lk. 12:21). Seen this way, Luke’s account of the temptation

prepares the reader for much of Jesus’ teaching concerning wealth and possessions.

Sermon and Rejection in Nazareth

Luke 4:16-30
At 4:14 Luke begins the Galilean ministry of Jesus. The scene opens with a brief

description of that ministry and follows with Jesus’ sermon and rejection at Nazareth.

The importance of this episode for the larger Lukan story is acknowledged by all. In his

sermon, Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:1-2a, which in part reads, “to preach good news to the
3
poor (eujaggelivsasqai ptwcoi'").” This reference to evangelism to the poor underlines

the importance of the text for our study.

1
T. W. Manson speaks of a “current belief that the Messianic Age would be marked by a
miraculous abundance of material goods.” H. D. A. Major, T. W. Manson, and C. J. Wright, The Mission
and Message of Jesus (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1961), p. 335. See also Randall D. Chesnutt, “Bread of
Life in Joseph and Aseneth and in John 6,” Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack, ed. James
E. Priest, (Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press, 1989), pp. 11-12, especially n. 31.
2
Marshall, Luke, p. 166.
3
Philip Esler argues that the Greek, ptwcoiv is “a word whose force is eviscerated by the
translation ‘the poor’… ” He believes “beggars” carries the meaning far better. Community, p. 164.
 24

A number of elements in the text point to Lukan redaction.1 The first and most

obvious one is the location of the story. Mark tells of a visit to Nazareth in which Jesus

preached, quoted the proverb about a prophet in his home country, and was finally

rejected. Yet Mark and Matthew position the episode after considerable activity in

Galilee. Luke, on the other hand, places this story at the beginning of the Galilean

ministry.2

It is generally accepted that Luke has moved the event to the beginning of Jesus’

Galilean ministry for literary and theological reasons.3 For Creed, Luke substitutes this

text for Mark’s summary of the preaching of Jesus in Mk. 1:15.4 Creed summarizes

Luke’s purpose:

Its real function is to introduce the main motifs which are to recur
throughout the Gospel and the Acts, and this it does with great effect: the
Gospel to the poor is preached by Jesus in his own home and rejected.
The rejection by Nazareth fore-shadows the rejection by the Jewish people
and the subsequent universal mission of the church.5

1
See Hugh Anderson, “Broadening Horizons: The Rejection of Nazareth Pericope of Luke
4:16-30 in Light of Recent Critical Trends,” Interpretation 18 (1964), pp. 259-75. See also R. C.
Tannehill, “The Mission of Jesus According to Luke 4:16-30,” Jesus in Nazareth, ed. W. Elthester (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1972), pp. 51-75. J. A. Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4,” Christianity, Judaism and other
Greco-Roman Cults. Part One: New Testament, ed. J. Neusner (New York: Columbia University Press,
1975), pp. 75-106.
2
Some seek to protect the historical accuracy of the texts by positing two Nazareth visits. William
Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974), p. 201, n. 2. For earlier scholars who maintained two Nazareth visits, see Heinrich A. W. Meyer,
Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, trans. Robert E. Wallis (New York:
Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), p. 308. While it is, of course, quite possible that Jesus made more than one visit
to his home town and spoke in the synagogue on more than one occasion, to suppose that the sequence of
events depicted in these accounts happened twice seems unlikely. More importantly, a two-visit hypothesis
gives us no real help in dealing with the literary dimensions of the texts. The reference in Luke 4:23 to an
already existing Capernaum ministry, though Luke has described none yet, points us in another direction.
Even Meadors cannot accept Lane’s proposal. The Poor in Luke’s Gospel, p. 85.
3
This is now recognized by the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars. See the
discussion in Meadors, Ibid., pp. 84-86.
4
Creed, St. Luke, p. 65.
5
Ibid., p. 66.
 25

The text, standing as it is, in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, has a programmatic

purpose. Such a purpose must be reflected in any interpretation of the text. Marshall

correctly recognizes that this is more than an historical account:

Nazareth begins to take on the symbolical meaning of the Jewish nation.

So the narrative takes on a more than literal significance; it becomes a
paradigm not merely of the ministry of Jesus but also of the mission of the
church.1

Dupont accurately sees the Nazareth sermon’s position in Luke as serving the same
function as the Pentecost sermon in Acts.2 Indeed, might it be programmatic for Acts as

well? That is, might we expect the church in Acts to carry out the very program which

the Lukan Jesus set for himself in this passage?

The Isaiah passage is not a straightforward quotation. It begins with Isaiah

61:1a,b, and d. Verse 61c, “to heal the broken hearted,” is omitted. Next, the quotation

moves to Isaiah 58:6d and then finally back to 61:2a, omitting the words, “the day of

vengeance of our God.” Some manuscripts include 61:1c, and Marshall, Schürmann,

Grundmann, and Reicke hold out the possibility that it was included in Luke’s

autograph.3 However, the manuscript evidence weighs against the inclusion of this claus;

and it is easier to account for its inclusion in some manuscripts than its exclusion from

the majority.

The inclusion of Isaiah 58:6d is explained by many scholars in terms of

“catchword” association.4 The connecting word is a[fesi" (release). Fitzmyer notes that

1
Marshall, Luke, p. 178.
2
J. Dupont, “The Poor and Poverty in the Gospels and Acts,” pp. 34-35, cited in Meadors, The
Poor, p. 84.
3
Cited in Marshall, Luke, p. 182.
4
Fitzmyer is an example, Luke I-IX, p. 533.
 26

for Luke the word carries with it the idea of forgiveness, which is so crucial for Luke.1

Seccombe probably has overstated his case by calling the inclusion of 58:6 “exegetical

violence.”2 Nevertheless, it is appropriate to explore the possibility that more is at work

here than mere catchword associations.

Seccombe3 and Robert Sloan4 offer an attractive alternative—the Jubilee theme of

Leviticus 25. Seccombe finds the Jubilee theme in both Isaiah 61 and 58. Isaiah 58:5
ends with “a day acceptable to the LORD” (LXX: nhsteivan dekthvn) and in 61:2a we
find, “to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor” (LXX: ejniauto;n kurivou dektovn). In

addition, the quoted section of both texts from Isaiah speak of “release,” which is a key

Jubilee theme.

A. Trocmé5 and J. H. Yoder6 argue that Jesus was announcing a literal Jubilee and

that much of Jesus’ teaching about wealth, poverty, and possessions can be explained by

this. A. Strobel7 has calculated that A.D. 26/27 was the tenth Jubilee year from the one

instituted by Ezra and was linked with the 490 year prophecy of Daniel.8 This made the

year in which Jesus began his ministry filled with high expectations.

1
He states that a[fesi" is “derived from an economic and social background in antiquity, either
from the remission of debts or punishment or from the release from captivity or imprisonment.” Ibid.,
p. 223.
2
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, p. 49.
3
Ibid., pp. 49-53.
4
Robert Sloan, Jr., The Favorable Year of the Lord: A Study of the Jubilary Theology in the
Gospel of Luke (Austin, TX: Schola Press, 1977), pp. 28-44. Sloan gives compelling reasons to see the
Jubilee theme in the quotation of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18-19. Though he may overstate his thesis in seeing
every occurence of a[fesi" and eujaggelivzw as a reference to the Jubilary theme, he has nevertheless
recognized a connection that is theologically important and one to which we will return in the discussion of
Acts 4:32-37 in Chapter 3.
5
A. Trocmé, Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1973) pp. 27-35.
6
J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) p. 34-52.
7
A. Strobel “Die Ausrufung des Jobeljahres in der Nazareth Predigt Jesu,” Jesus In Nazareth, ed.
W. Elthester (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), pp. 38-50. Cited in Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, p. 54.
8
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, p. 54.
 27

As intriguing as it is to speculate that Jesus sought to introduce a literal Jubilee,

Luke makes nothing of it, for Jesus did not demand the return of property or other Jubilee

provisions.1 In fact, even in the Isaiah passages, the Jubilee theme is used symbolically

rather than literally where it becomes a way of speaking of God’s salvation.2 For

Seccombe, the salvation is for captive Israel and the “poor… captives… blind…

oppressed” are metaphors to describe Israel.3

Although the Jubilee theme is apparent in Isaiah 61:1-2, its presence is not so
clear in Isaiah 58. Israel’s self-effacing fast day without the social dimension described in

58:6-7 is not a “day acceptable to the LORD.” A “day acceptable to the LORD” does not

carry the same Jubilee connotation as “the year of the LORD’S favor” (61:2a). While the

importance of the Jubilee theme in Isaiah 61:1-2a and Luke’s use of it must not be

discounted, what is more significant for Luke is the ethical dimension in Isaiah 58:6-7.

“Is not this the fast that I choose:

To loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
When you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?”

Seccombe notes the similarity between the ethical demands in Luke 3:10-14 and Isaiah

58:6.4 Thus we should not be surprised to see the same ethical connection between Luke

1
Ibid., pp. 55-56.
2
Seccombe rightly rejects the literal Jubilee in favor of Jubilee as a symbol for God’s salvation.
Ibid. Sloan shares this view and sees Jesus as using the Jubilee motif to make a dual Messianic claim that
he is the Messiah and the Prophet like Moses. See particularly Possessions and the Poor, pp. 44-73.
3
Ibid., p. 65.
4
Ibid., pp. 51-52.
 28

4:18 and Isaiah 58:6. The inclusion of Isaiah 58:6 likely points to the ethical dimension

of God’s salvation.

This blend of salvific and ethical themes is significant. The Jubilee theme of

Leviticus 25 was picked up by the literary prophets to point to an eschatalogical salvation

which God will bring. The two Isaiah texts are quoted in Luke 4:18-19 to show that this

eschatalogical salvation finds fulfillment in Jesus.1 Yet, the ethical dimension of the

Isaiah texts is not lost. Certainly one cannot remove the economic dimensions from
Isaiah 58:6-7 and do justice to the text. Neither should these dimensions be overlooked

in Luke 4:18. The metaphorical significance of this language does not necessarily

remove its literal meaning. While the usage of the language in the Old Testament and

intertestamental literature suggests that poor, at times, became a metaphor for the

righteous,2 this religious usage does not exhaust the meaning of the term poor. The term

poor must not be removed too readily from the economic reality of poverty.

Luke 4:16-30 sets out the program for the ministry of the Lukan Jesus, which is a

ministry directed, in part, to the economically poor, who will have “good news”

proclaimed to them. The nature of that ministry and the content of the good news unfolds

throughout the rest of Luke’s gospel and in the book of Acts.

The Calling of the Disciples

Luke 5:1-11, 27-8
The story of the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John has particular interest
for this study because it ends, “they left everything (pavnta) and followed him” (5:11).

1
Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord, pp. 12-14.
2
For a thorough discussion, see Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, pp. 24-28, and Meadors,
The Poor in Luke’s Gospel, pp. 66-81.
 29

The story is greatly expanded from Mark’s account (1:16-18),1 which ends with, “and
immediately they left their nets (ta; divktua) and followed him.” In Luke 5:11b,

however, Mark’s “ta; divktua” has been changed to “pavnta.” While on its own, the

difference seems minor, it is another instance of Luke’s intensification of his Markan

source when it comes to the matter of material possessions.2

We see the same intensification with the call of Levi. In Mark 2:14, after Jesus

called Levi, we read, “And he rose and followed him.” Nothing is said about Levi

leaving anything. In Luke, however, the implicit becomes explicit, “and he left
everything (pavnta), and rose and followed him.”3 It should be noted, however, that

although Levi is said to have left everything, Luke immediately tells of a great feast in

Levi’s house (Lk. 5:29-32). The implication of this apparent incongruity at this point in

the study is vague. What is clear is that Levi made his house and his possessions open to

Jesus in hospitality.

Beatitudes and Woes

Luke 6:20-26
Here the Lukan Jesus pronounced a blessing upon the poor and a woe upon the

rich. The passage is crucial, but it is indistinct how it is to be understood. Luke and

Matthew share four of the beatitudes, but Matthew has four additional beatitudes, while

1
For Fitzmyer, Luke is influenced by Mark’s text but apparently uses his own sources (L) as well.
Luke I-IX, p. 560.
2
Esler, Community, p. 167.
3
These two episodes form part of the textual evidence upon which Hans-Joachim Degenhardt
develops his thesis that those who are called to leave everything stand for special office holders within the
church as opposed to others who, though they follow Jesus, are not called to leave everything. Degenhardt,
Lukas Evangelist der Armen (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965) p. 19. For a discussion of
Degenhardt’s view, see John R. Donahue, “Two Decades of Research on the Rich and Poor in Luke-Acts,”
pp. 136-37. See also Francois Bovon, Luke the Theologian, pp. 392-94.
 30

Luke has a contrasting set of woes. Even within the four parallel beatitudes there are

important differences. The major differences are set off below in italics:

Luke 6:20 Matthew. 5:3

“Blessed are you poor, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for yours is the kingdom of God. for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
6:21 5:6
“Blessed are you that hunger now, “Blessed are those who hunger
and thirst for righteousness,
for you shall be satisfied. for they shall be satisfied.
5:4
“Blessed are you that weep now, “Blessed are those who mourn,
for you shall laugh. for they shall be comforted.
5:10
“Blessed are those who are persecuted
for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.
6:22 5:11
“Blessed are you when men hate you, “Blessed are you when men
and when they exclude you and revile you and persecute you
revile you, and cast out your name as and utter all kinds of evil against
evil, on account of the Son of man. you falsely on my account.

Among the obvious differences is the use of the second person (you) in Luke and the third

person in Matthew (except for 5:11). The other and more important difference is that

Luke has “blessed are you poor,” while Matthew has “blessed are the poor in spirit.” A

further significant difference is an eschatalogical perspective which contrasts the present

status with future blessing (“now… shall”). This perspective is clearer in Luke than in

Matthew.

It is generally assumed that both Matthew and Luke are drawing from a common

source (Q). The differences, then, would come from the redactional work of the

evangelists.1 Whether Luke or Matthew is closer to the source is a point of debate.2 The

1
See Jacques Dupont, Beatitudes, vol. 1, pp. 250-98.
2
See Robert A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), pp. 33-36,
112-18. See also Dupont, Beatitudes, vol. 1, pp. 299-342.
 31

majority opinion is that Luke is closest.1 While agreeing that Luke is closer to the Q

source, Manson argues that Matthew has rightly understood the meaning of the

beatitudes:

Hence ‘rich’ tends to mean worldly and ‘irreligious,’ and ‘poor’ the
opposite. In this specialized sense the word is used here. In Mt., the
paraphrase ‘poor in spirit’ is an attempt to make this fact clear. The
Kingdom of God belongs to these simple devoted souls, because they
belong to it, having accepted God’s will as the only rule of their lives.2

Others, however, are convinced that Matthew has spiritualized the more straightforward

terms found in Q.3 Thus Jacques Dupont, in discussing the “privilege of the poor” in this

text, writes, “if we seek to base it on the moral dispositions of the poor, and in this way

force ourselves to spiritualize their poverty, we are on a false path.”4 Robert Guelich

believes that the four parallel beatitudes had their roots in the earliest tradition. Matthew

(or perhaps a pre-Matthean tradition) expanded the beatitudes, basing the additional ones

on certain Psalms, Isaiah 61, and other sayings from Jesus.5 Yet it must be admitted that

this kind of reconstruction is at best speculative.

It may be worthwhile to question the common assumption that the differences are

accounted for solely by the redactional work of Matthew and Luke. The differences

between the two lists of beatitudes are significant. It is not safe to assume that the four

shared beatitudes came from a single common source. The differences are pronounced

1
Although most seem to hold this opinion, there is simply no way to be certain. Fitzmyer is an
example of the majority view. Luke I-IX, p. 628. For a contrary view, see Creed, St. Luke, p. 90. See also
Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 65-73.
2
Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,” The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 339.
3
Robert Gundry argues that Matthew is following a tradition particularly visible in the Dead Sea
Scrolls by combining Isaiah 61:1 with 66:2. Matthew, p. 67.
4
Jacques Dupont, “The Poor and Poverty,” p. 41.
5
Robert A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount, pp. 112-18.
 32

even in those four. Those differences become even more significant when we look at the

beatitudes as a whole. It is not simply that Matthew has spiritualized the words we find

in Luke. The four beatitudes in Matthew are of the same kind as the other Matthean

beatitudes. All of Matthew’s beatitudes center on inner qualities of character rather than

the more external circumstances we find in Luke. Matthew’s “poor in spirit” have more

in common with the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers than with

Luke’s “poor.” C. H. Dodd concludes, “perhaps we can with confidence say little more
than that when the tradition emerges into our ken, the beatitudes had already taken two

diverse forms represented by Matthew and Luke respectively. In that sense both are

‘primitive’.”1 In light of all of this, it is best to allow the larger context of Luke to define

what is meant by “poor,” rather than having it defined by Matthew.2

Another point of discussion and considerable disagreement is the question of

audience. The pericope (6:12-16) that precedes the Sermon on the Plain is the calling of

the twelve. In the initial description of the scene we are told, “And he came down with

them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude

of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon (6:17).” Yet,

just before Jesus speaks we are told, “And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples (6:20).”

Following the sermon (7:1) we are told, “After he had ended all his sayings in the hearing

1
C. H. Dodd, “The Beatitudes: A Form-Critical Study,” More New Testament Studies
(Manchester: Manchester University, 1968), p. 9.
2
In discussing the original meaning of the beatitude, and having explored the meaning of ptwcov",
Ulrich Luz makes this observation: “‘Poor,’ according to Semitic usage, means indeed not only those who
are lacking in money but, more comprehensively, the oppressed, miserable, dependent, humiliated—but by
no means only a certain type of piety and or only a poverty which is separated from external circumstances
and is internal.” [emphasis his] He then argues that the addition of tw'/ pneuvmati in Matthew “emphasizes
an aspect which cannot be expected on the basis of ptwcov" and therefore sounds surprising.… Thus a shift
in meaning has taken place. If our interpretation of the original meaning of the first beatitude is correct,
then one has to assume that Luke remained true to it and Matthew did not.” Matthew 1-7: A Commentary,
trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1989), pp. 231-32.
 33

of all the people…” Is the Lukan Jesus speaking to the crowds, to the larger group of

disciples, or to the twelve?

The identity of the audience is not an unimportant question for our study but is

significant in determining the identity of the poor. Meadors believes that the disciples are

addressed and that the term poor is primarily a religious rather than socio-economic
category.1 For Seccombe the audience is the people (laov") of Israel (Lk. 7:1).2 Jacques

Dupont sees the term laov" as a way of speaking of the later Christian community.3

Tannehill, however, in agreement with Seccombe, notes that Luke’s usage of laov" is

influenced by the LXX, in which laov" refers to the people of Israel. This, Tannehill says,

is even the meaning throughout Acts.4 Tannehill, in arguing for a wider audience than the

disciples, also argues that the primary meaning of “poor” is literal rather than

metaphorical.5

For Frederick Danker the geographic notes in 6:17 (“a great multitude of people

from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon”) are important clues to

the audience, and the “beatitudes are not meant exclusively for the disciples, with the rest

of the sermon intended for the people, as might be erroneously inferred from Luke 7:1.”6

If, as seems the case, the sermon is addressed to a broader audience than the

disciples, the identity of “the poor” cannot be limited to spiritual qualities. A lengthier

quotation from Danker makes this point:

1
Gary T. Meadors, “The ‘Poor’ in the Beatitudes of Matthew and Luke,” Grace Theological
Journal 6.2 (1985), p. 305. See also Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 627.
2
Ibid., p. 89.
3
Dupont, Beatitudes, vol. 3, p. 24.
4
Tannehill, Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Forttress Press, 1986-90), vol 1,
p. 207, n. 8.
5
Ibid., pp. 206-209.
6
Ibid., p. 138.
 34

Especially favored are “the poor” (hoi ptochoi). In the light of OT

usage, this term has both an economic and a religious connotation. It
contrasts, first of all, the economically disadvantaged in Israel (anawim)
with the more privileged members of the higher social strata located
especially in Jerusalem. Most of the poor were tillers of the soil or small
tradespeople. Generally speaking, they observed the spirit of Israel’s
religion more faithfully than did the elite in the cities. Hence they became
models of the faithful worshiper, the second connotation of the term.1

Is Luke then glorifying poverty or making it an ideal for the disciple to follow by

the abandonment of all his/her material possessions? Nolland answers this question
clearly in the negative.

. . . To be poor, hungry, and weeping is not at all the situation that Luke
envisages in the ideal state of Christian existence (Acts 2:43-47; 4:34).
While renunciation is a very important theme in the Gospel of Luke, this is
never thought of as making oneself poor.… The beatitude of the poor
connects naturally in the Gospel not with the renunciation material but
rather with the reversal motif (cf. at 1:52-53; 16:25; note also the “afflicted
state” of 1:48) and more particularly with the announcement of good news
to the poor (4:18; 7:22).2

The poor, hungry, weeping, and hated, are blessed, not because these conditions are the

models of the kingdom, but because the good news of the kingdom comes to them with

the hope that those conditions will be reversed. What they experience now will not be

what they experience then.3 The Lukan beatitudes do not specify when the reversal will

take place, but they do sound a clear eschatalogical note. This becomes more lucid in the

final beatitude, “Rejoice in that day (the day you are hated, excluded, and reviled), and

leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven” (Lk. 6:23).

1
Ibid., pp. 138-39. Fred Craddock, in a similar vein, comments, “Luke does join material and
spiritual conditions… , but he does not allow in the process the evaporation of ‘poor’ into some condition
other than being without food, without shelter, without hope of anything better tomorrow.” Luke
(Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), p. 87.
2
Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, p. 283.
3
The ‘now’ and ‘then’ aspects of the Lukan eschatology are discussed in Craddock, Luke, pp.
87-88.
 35

Here, then, is the paradox of the beatitudes. On the one hand, the poor, hungry,

weeping, and hated, are presently blessed, for “yours is the kingdom of God;” on the

other hand, those very conditions will later be reversed. The same paradox is evident in

the Magnificat, where Mary sees that the future hope of reversal has come proleptically in

the coming of the Messiah. However, other Lukan texts must inform our understanding

of this paradox before we conclude that there is no need to alleviate those conditions in

this life.
I. H. Marshall believes that James 2:5 is a clear allusion to this beatitude.1 Here,

James condemns the showing of preferential treatment to the rich over against the poor

within the assembly of the church. The text reads: “Listen, my beloved brethren. Has

not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the

kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?” Here it is beyond dispute that

the poor are literally poor, but it is also clear that it is not their poverty alone that blesses

them. They are rich in faith. It is also clear that the church(es) to whom James is writing

is (are) not composed only of poor people. The church is not equated with the poor, but

rather envisioned as the place where the poor are not dishonored. It is also, in the

situation to which James is writing, where the rich are oppressors. If James 2:5 is in fact

an early commentary on the beatitude in Luke 6:23, it may provide a helpful insight into

what Luke means by the “poor” and “rich.”2

While the poor, hungry, weeping, and hated are blessed, those who are rich, full,

laughing, and spoken well of have a word of “woe” pronounced upon them. Opinions are

1
Marshall, Luke, p. 249.
2
This is not to suggest that James is definitive in interpreting Luke but that James has followed this
tradition and can be instuctive in seeing how Luke may have followed it. See Peter Davids, Commentary on
James: A Commentary in the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 111-12.
 36

divided as to whether Luke has taken these woes from Q or composed them himself.1

Whether the woes go back to Jesus, come later in a hypothetical QLk, or are the

redactional work of Luke, they are nevertheless part of the final text and form an

important part of Luke’s narrative.

The woes are the other side of the double edge of the reversal theme.2 That

negative side is also to be found in James 5:1-6, where the rich are condemned, not so

much for being rich as for defrauding the poor. Like the woes in Luke, the passage in

James draws from an abundant supply of prophetic material, both in the Old Testament

and in the intertestamental literature.3 One passage in the prophetic literature that

provides an interesting parallel to the Lukan woes is Isaiah 65:13-15:

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:

“Behold, my servants shall eat,
but you shall be hungry;
behold, my servants shall drink,
but you shall be thirsty;
behold, my servants shall rejoice,
but you shall be put to shame;
behold, my servants shall sing for gladness of heart,
but you shall cry out for pain of heart,
and shall wail for anguish of spirit.
You shall leave your name to my chosen for a curse,
and the Lord GOD will slay you;
but his servants he will call by a different name.”

1
“Apart from the characteristic use of ‘now’ (nu'n) in Luke… it is quite difficult to determine
whether the second person form of the Woes reflect the evangelist’s hand or pre-Lukan changes in the
tradition.” Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 115. David Mealand notes the non-Lukan vocabulary in
the woes and considers them pre-Lukan, Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1980),
pp. 44-46. See also Schmidt, Hostility, pp. 141 and 218, n. 56.
2
The reversal for the rich is implied. They have already received their consolation.
3
See, Martin Dibelius, James, revised by Heinrich Greeven for the Hermeneia series (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 235-40. See also James B. Adamson, who has a very helpful chapter on the
socio-economic background of James, much of which is applicable to Luke. James: The Man and His
Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 228-58.
 37

Here we see reversal, but the contrast is not between rich and poor but between the

servants and those who forsake YHWH. The parallel is strong enough that it is hard to

imagine that it did not stand behind Luke or his sources.1

Another parallel to these woes is found in I Enoch 94:8-9 where the third of three

woes reads:

Woe to you, O rich people!

For you have put your trust in your wealth.
2
You shall ooze out of your riches
for you do not remember the Most High.
In the days of your affluence, you committed oppression,
You have become ready for death, and for the day of darkness and the
day of great judgment.3

The end of those woes reads, “And he, your Creator, shall rejoice at your destruction.”4

The vindictiveness expressed in I Enoch is missing from the Lukan woes, but the word of

judgment remains just as strong. In I Enoch, the failure of the rich to remember God and

their oppression of the poor are made explicit. In Luke, both the failure and the oppresion

must be inferred. However, it is a fair inference if these Jewish traditions form the

theological backdrop for the Lukan woes.5

While we should not over-spiritualize the woes in Luke 6:20-26, neither should

we over-materialize them. Those who are blessed are the poor, but they are also the

1
It is interesting that those spoken against are accused of worshipping the gods of fortune, Gad and
Meni (65:11). See Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, p. 405. One wonders if there may be a theological
connection between the worship of Gad and Meni and the worship of Mammon (Lk. 16:9). See Hauck,
“Mamwna'",” TDNT (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans), vol. 4 , pp. 388-90.
2
R. H. Charles’ translation reads, “And from your riches shall ye depart.” The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), vol. 2, p. 266.
3
James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1983), vol. 1, p. 75. The translation of I Enoch is by E. Isaac.
4
I Enoch 94:11a.
5
See Nickelsburg, “Riches, the Rich, and God’s judgment in I Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel
According to Luke,” New Testament Studies 25 (1987), pp. 324-44.
 38

servants of the Lord. Those who receive the woes are rich, but they are also those who

forsake the Lord and/or oppress the poor. These two aspects of the poor and rich in Luke

seem inseparable.

Teachings on Giving
Luke 6:27-42
This material is related closely to the beatitudes and woes. We have already
noticed that the ethical demands laid down here by Jesus take us beyond those laid down

by John the Baptist (3:10-14). The audience is “you that hear.” Tannehill understands

this as “seeking to clarify for the disciples the manner of life expected of them, while also

seeking to move the larger audience toward this manner of life.”1 Particularly for those

who are poor, hungry, weeping, and hated by men, these ethical demands serve as

instructions on how to respond to enemies. That reaction is to be love for your enemies,

doing good for those who hate you, blessing those who curse you, and praying for those

who abuse you (Lk. 6:27). This response in love rather than in kind is summarized by

two statements, one at the end of each paragraph: “And as you wish that men would do

to you, do so to them” (Lk. 6:31), and “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Lk.
2
6:36).

How one views his/her possessions is fundamental to this response of love. The

one whose outer garment is taken by an enemy3 must be willing to give his inner garment

as well. If the needy ask, the disciple gives. If someone takes the disciple’s goods, no

1
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, p. 209.
2
The parallel in Matthew 5:48 reads, “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect.”
3
The thought may be of a creditor. Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age According to St.
Luke (St. Louis: Calyton, 1972), p. 145.
 39

return is expected. This remarkable view of possessions seems to follow the example of

Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Levi, who left all to follow Jesus.

However, it must be noted that the disciple is pictured as one who has these things

to surrender. The disciple is one who has clothing to be confiscated, money to be given

to the needy, and goods to be taken. The issue is not whether one has possessions, but

one’s attachment to these possessions.

The one who is poor to the point of begging may be blessed, but Jesus did not
define the disciple as this poor one. Rather, the poor one receives care from the disciple.

The disciple is one who will willingly part with possessions for the sake of the poor one.

We encounter themes here that will be heard again both in the gospel and in Acts.

The theme that one must not allow possessions to stand in the way of hearing and

answering the call of the kingdom is most obvious in the case of the rich ruler (Lk.

18:18-30), but can be seen recurring in more subtle forms throughout Luke and Acts. The

theme that one must show care for the poor without expecting a return is most obvious in

the case of Jesus’ teaching at the banquet (Lk. 14:12-14), but will also be seen being lived

out in the life of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:43-47, 4:32-5:11, and 6:1-7).

If the sermon in Luke 6:27-42 stands as a declaration of the kingdom as most

assume, then the issues of wealth and poverty and use of possessions are not independent

topics but are intimately interwoven into the central themes of the coming of the kingdom

and the spread of the gospel in Luke’s two volumes.

 40

The Centurion and the Widow

Luke 7:1-17
Luke now connects two stories. One is about a centurion and the second about a

widow.1 This connection reminds the reader of the widow of Zeraphath and Naaman (Lk.

4:24-27) and suggests that Luke 7:1-17 is a working out of the prophetic ministry Jesus

inaugurated at Nazareth. In neither of the episodes in 7:1-17 are economic considerations

primary. However, material possessions do form part of the landscepe of each story.

The story of the centurion and the healing of his slave (Lk. 7:1-10) has a

counterpart in Matthew 8:5-10. Apparently Luke follows Q,2 though details not included

in Matthew3 may very well betray Luke’s special interests.

The centurion is described in a very positive way, not the least because of his use

of possessions. While he is not explicitly called wealthy, he did own at least one slave

and, more importantly, had the resources to build a synagogue. In 3:14, John the Baptist

told soldiers, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your

wages.” This centurion went well beyond John’s word to soldiers and became a

benefactor for the Jewish community in which he lived.4

Although Luke’s description suggests wealth, it is a positive portrayal. The reader

must not simply assume that all wealth is bad, or that all wealthy people are bad. Here

1
Luke frequently pairs a man and a woman. Thus for example, in the infancy narratives,
annunciations of birth are made first to Zechariah and then to Mary. In Luke 4:31-37, Jesus casts out a
demon from a man in the synagogue, and heals Simon’s mother-in-law (Lk. 4:38-39). See Nolland, Luke
1-9:20, pp. 365-66.
2
See Fitzmyer, Luke I-X, pp. 648-49.
3
Luke tells of the Jewish delegation that intercedes on behalf of the centurion and that the
centurion built the local synagogue. Luke also mentions the group of the centurion’s friends who intercept
Jesus and pass on his words, which in Matthew are spoken directly by the centurion. See Johnson, The
Literary Function of Possessions, p. 97.
4
Danker believes that this description of the centurion as a benefactor would have been
appreciated by “Luke’s Mediterranean public.” The centurion would then be seen as a model of wealthier
Gentiles in the Lukan community. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, pp. 158-59.
 41

the portrayal is positive precisely because the centurion, who had possessions, is willing

to be generous with them. The “woe” upon the rich in Luke 6:24 apparently was not

meant to include someone like this centurion. Here was a man who had some wealth but

whose openness to the kingdom was exhibited in a remarkable faith.

In the book of Acts we will encounter another centurion of some wealth who was

also open to the kingdom (Acts 10:1-8).

The story of the widow of Nain (Lk. 7:11-17) is unique to Luke and so we should
expect to find themes important to Luke. Although, as mentioned, she was not a

foreigner, as was the widow of Zerephath, the connection between the two stories is

clear.1 Like that widow, the widow of Nain had lost her only son. Like Elijah, Jesus

brought that son back to life.

In I Kings 17:12, the widow of Zerephath responded to Elijah’s request for a

morsel of bread by saying, “As the LORD your God lives, I have nothing baked, only a

handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a cruse; and now, I am gathering a couple of

sticks, that I may go in and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.”

Here is a description of extreme poverty. No such description is given of the widow of

Nain, but there are suggestions that she, too, was poor. The man who died was “. . . the

only son of his mother, and she was a widow… ” (Lk. 7:12). Most widows were in a

difficult economic condition.2 A widow without a living son would likely be in serious

economic jeopardy. Throughout Luke-Acts, widows and poverty go hand in hand.3

1
See Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, p. 97, n. 4.
2
“Without a husband, widows were particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abandonment within
agrarian societies…” Douglas E. Oakman, “The Countryside in Luke-Acts,” The Social World of Luke-
Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., 1991),
pp. 168-69. See also O. J. Baab, “Widow,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962), vol. 4 , p. 842.
3
Luke 2:37; 4:25-26; 7:12; 18:3, 5; 20:28, 47; 21:2-3 and Acts 6:1; 9:39, 41.
 42

There is no special merit suggested by her poverty, only special need. Obviously

Jesus’ compassion (7:13) was not dependent upon her economic condition, but if she was

poor, we find here an example of the poor as the recipients of God’s mercy. That those in

need are to be the concern of the disciples has already been stated (Lk. 6:27-36), and that

widows become the special concern of the church is seen in Acts 6:1-6.

John the Baptist and

the Ministry of Jesus
Luke 7:18-35
This section begins with the imprisoned John hearing troubling reports of the

ministry of Jesus.1 John had not rejected Jesus but wondered if he was truly the awaited

prophet (Lk. 3:16-17). Jesus answered the question by saying, “Go and tell John what

you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed,

and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them …”

(Lk. 7:23). Here the reader is clearly reminded of Luke 4:18-19, where Jesus spoke of his

ministry as the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1-2. The connection is made generally in that the

activities in both lists are similar, and specifically in the blind receiving their sight and the

claim that “the poor have good news preached to them” (Lk. 7:22, cf. Lk. 4:18).

In chapter seven, then, Jesus did the very things the reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 in

Luke 4:18-19 indicated he would do. There is no suggestion that the giving of sight to

the blind is metaphorical language describing the people’s inability to understand, as

opposed to literal, physical blindness. Likewise, the lame, the lepers, and the deaf, seem

to have been healed of physical ailments. Neither is there anything to suggest that the

1
Johnson notes how Luke highlights this incident in contrast to the parallel in Matthew 11:2-6. The
Literary Function of Possessions, p. 99.
 43

raising of the dead is a metaphor for the granting of new spiritual life. In light of this it

would seem inappropriate to interpret “poor” purely as a metaphor for the humble and

pious. If such is inappropriate in Luke 7:22, it is also inappropriate in Luke 4:18.

In Luke 7:25 John, as a prophet, stands in contrast to those who “are gorgeously

appareled and live in luxury.” In Luke 7:29-30 there is another contrast. This contrast is
between the people (laov") and the tax collectors (telw'nai) on the one hand, and the

Pharisees (Farisai'oi) and the lawyers (nomikoiv) on the other. The people and tax

collectors who had received John’s baptism “justified God” (Lk. 7:29), but the Pharisees

and lawyers “rejected the purpose of God” (Lk 7:30).1 David Moessner describes this

contrast:

The foil, then, of 7:29-30 is quite distinct. There are those “poor,”
handicapped, infirm, women, sinners, and tax collectors who are repenting
or submitting to Jesus’ authority and experiencing release according to the
eschatological mission of the anointed prophet of Isaiah; there are,
however, also those who are opposing this mission who are portrayed as
rejecting the “plan of God” as it was already taking effect in the preaching
of John’s baptism to prepare a people to receive the release of sins. Thus
it is that Jesus’ announcement in Nazareth is being enacted according to
Simeon’s oracles — a “saving act” of God through an opposed sign in the
conflict of the falling and rising of the many.2
It is significant for our purpose that prior to contrasting those who reject the will

of God with those who accept both John and Jesus, Luke first contrasts those who live in

luxury with John the Baptist. John’s harsh life in the wilderness formed a stark contrast

with those who lived in luxury. That economic contrast (Lk. 7:25-26) forms part of the

1
The importance of the purpose of God (boulh; tou' qeou') for Luke will become clearer,
especially in Acts. For a fuller discussion see David Moessner’s article, “‘The Christ Must Suffer,’ The
Church Must Suffer: Rethinking the Theology of the Cross in Luke-Acts,” Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Papers, 27 (1990), pp. 165-95. See also Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1,
p. 176.
2
Ibid., p. 175.
 44

description of those who accept and reject Jesus’ ministry (Lk. 7:29-30). Those who

reject the purposes of God are the Pharisees and lawyers (Lk. 7:30). The next story

describes Simon, a Pharisee, and a sinful woman (Lk. 7:36-50). These two are contrasted

in their use of what they owned. In Luke 16:14 the Pharisees, who scoffed at Jesus’

teachings, are described as “lovers of money.” Here, again, economic language is used

in describing those who accepted the message of the kingdom and those who rejected it.

The final contrast of the pericope is between John and Jesus. Both were rejected
by “this generation” (Pharisees and lawyers) in spite of their very different lifestyles.

John the Baptist “has come eating no bread and drinking no wine” (Lk. 7:33). On the

other hand, Jesus, as the Son of man, “has come eating and drinking” (Lk. 7:34).

Whatever else may be involved in these contrasting lifestyles, it is clear that Jesus’

identity with the poor did not involve adopting an ascetic lifestyle.

Simon and the Sinful Woman

Luke 7:36-50
Because of its strong verbal and thematic similarities with the story of the

anointing of Jesus in Bethany (Mk. 14:3-9, Mt. 26:6-13, Jn. 12:1-8), this pericope

presents a host of difficult questions concerning sources, forms, and redaction. Though it

is not within the scope of this paper to deal with those questions,1 one aspect worth

mention for our purpose is that Luke does not include the story of the anointing of Jesus

at Bethany. Within that story are the dominical words, “. . . For you always have the poor

with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have

1
See Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 684-8, and Marshall, Luke, pp. 304-308.
 45

me” (Mk. 14:7). Luke’s exclusion of a passage that specifically mentions the poor must

be noted even if it cannot be satisfactorily explained.1

The Lukan story about Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman is not overtly

about wealth, possessions, or poverty. However, the parable at the center of the story

uses economic language in describing the acceptance of forgiveness. Beyond that, Simon

and the woman are contrasted in terms of their willingness to give of their possessions in

response to Jesus. Thus we have another example of Luke pairing a man and a woman.
The two are contrasted sharply from the very outset of the story. Simon had all the social

and religious advantage of a male Pharisee. She, on the other hand, is described as a
sinner (aJmartwlov").

Tannehill sees the story as a personalization of the division that Luke sketched in

Luke 7:29-30.2 The woman showed herself to be among those who “justified God” (Lk.

7:29) and to be one of “wisdom’s children” (Lk. 7:35) while Simon proved to be among

those who “rejected the purpose of God” (Lk. 7:30).3 It is how Luke tells us of this

division that is important for our purpose. Initially, at least, Simon had not rejected Jesus.

He invited Jesus to his house to share a meal. By accepting Simon’s invitation, Jesus,

1
Esler views Luke’s exclusion of the Bethany story as an indication of Luke’s concern for the
destitute and his belief that renouncing wealth is a virtue. This made Luke, “. . . loath to include a passage
which contained these features [lack of the value of the ointment and the voluntary help of the poor].”
Community, p. 166. Fitzmyer, on the other hand, suggests that the reason Luke did not include the Bethany
story was his avoidance of doublets. Luke I-IX, pp. 684 and 93. On the whole, it seems that Fitzmyer is
closer to the mark. Whether the story in 7:36-50 is a Lukan reworking of the Bethany story or an
independent tradition that already existed in Luke’s source(s) is difficult to say. However, the inclusion of
both stories would be awkward. See also Marshall, Luke, p. 306.
2
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, p. 177. See also Johnson, The Literary
Function of Possessions, p. 102.
3
Donald Miller, Luke, p. 87.
 46

who had been criticized for sharing table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners” (Lk.

5:30), now demonstrated that he was equally open to those who criticized him.1

The story quickly moves to its conflict when “a woman of the city, who was a

sinner” came, uninvited, and moved near the reclining Jesus. The story seems to imply

that the woman had some prior encounter with Jesus,2 or perhaps John.3 Apparently

overcome by emotion, she wept, and her tears fell on the feet of Jesus. Using her

unbound hair as a towel, she wiped the feet of Jesus, and in an emotional release she
kissed the feet of Jesus and anointed them with the ointment. Simon’s sensibilities were

offended not only by the woman’s behavior, but especially by Jesus’ tolerance of it. In

Luke 7:16 the people declared that Jesus was a “great prophet.” Simon then passed his

own negative judgment: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known what sort of

woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Lk. 7:39). Not only did Jesus

know about the woman, he also knew Simon’s thoughts.

At this point in the narrative, Jesus told Simon a parable about two debtors with

unequal debts of 50 and 500 denarii.4 Importantly, neither debtor could repay (Lk. 7:42).

Yet, the creditor graciously forgave both debtors. To the question, “which of them will

love him more?” Simon gave the obvious answer, “The one, I suppose, to whom he gave

more” (Lk. 7:42-43). This answer opened up a new contrast. The initial contrast had

seen Simon as the superior figure. Now, however, Simon was shown in a radically

different light. Like the one who owed 500 denarii, the woman indeed was a sinner, but

1
David L. Tiede appropriately remarks, “It is a mistake to miss the seriousness with which Jesus
deals with the Pharisees or to make them into a new class of sinners which may now be scorned.” Luke,
Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1988), p. 160.
2
Marshall, Luke, pp. 306-307.
3
Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, pp. 351, 354, and 361.
4
The daily wage for a laborer was generally one denarius. For a description of these debts in the
Geco-Roman world of the first century see, Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, p. 355.
 47

Simon, like the one who owed 50 denarii, was also a sinner. Neither the “righteous”

Simon, nor the sinful woman was able to pay the debt to God.1 The woman, unlike

Simon, responded to the forgiveness offered in the coming of the kingdom with grateful

love, a response that demonstrated her willingness to give of self, including possessions.

The woman outdid Simon. Marshall describes Simon’s actions as a host as

showing basic courtesy, without going “beyond the mere demands of the situation.”2 The

woman, on the other hand, was extravagant in her display of gratitude.

The last contrast Jesus mentioned was that between Simon’s failure to anoint

Jesus’ head with oil and the woman’s anointing Jesus’ feet with her ointment. Luke’s

readers would see in this a contrast that had economic implications. The oil used to

anoint the head was common olive oil, “a cheap substance in comparison with perfume.”3

Unlike the Bethany narrative, this story does not tell the value of the ointment.

Nevertheless, Luke does emphasize its costliness. The ointment was kept in an alabaster

flask (Lk. 7:37). William Lane’s description of the ointment in the Bethany story is

applicable here as well:

To retain the fragrance of nard, enough ointment for one application was
sealed in small alabaster flasks. The long neck of the flask was broken to
release the aroma. Early in the first century Pliny the Elder (Natural
History XIII. iii. 19) remarked that “the best ointment is preserved in
alabaster.”4

Simon, then, whose description suggests some wealth, was unwilling to use inexpensive

oil to anoint Jesus, and stands in contrast to the sinful but forgiven woman who gladly

1
It seems virtually impossible not to give this parable an allegorical interpretation, given its setting
in Luke.
2
Marshall, Luke, pp. 311-12.
3
Ibid., p. 312.
4
William Lane, Mark, p. 492.
 48

parted with expensive perfume in her response to the kingdom. Again, the use of

possessions becomes part of the larger picture of acceptance or rejection of the “purpose

of God” (Lk. 7:30), and in fact serves as the primary evidence of that acceptance or

rejection

Women who Provided for Jesus

From their Means
Luke 8:1-3
Luke 8:1-3 is an account of women who journeyed with Jesus and the twelve as

they went through the Galilean cities and villages. Here, again, men (the twelve) are

paired with women. The women are described as having been “healed of evil spirits and

infirmities.” Their mention in connection with the “preaching and bringing of the good

news of the kingdom of God” (Lk. 8:1) brings to mind Luke 4:18 (particularly “to set at

liberty those who are oppressed”) and Luke 7:21-23. These women had responded to the

ministry of Jesus. Part of the description of that response is economic, “they provided for

them [Jesus and the twelve] out of their1 means” (Lk. 8:3).

It is interesting to note that these women had means out of which provisions were

made. They had apparently not sold all their possessions nor had they left all they had to

embrace the life of the poor. In fact, one of the women, Joanna, is described in a way that

suggests some wealth. She was the wife of Chuza, who was Herod’s steward. It is clear

that Luke feels no inconsistency in describing a follower of Jesus as a person of means.

He will do so in Acts often.2 What sets the women in Luke 8:1-3 apart is not their lack

1
aujtai'" implies that it was their own means.
2
Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, p. 366.
 49

of wealth but their willingness to share what they had in response to the “good news of

the kingdom of God.”1

The Seed that Fell Among Thorns

Luke 8:4-15
The parable of the sower, and particularly the explanation of it in the Synoptic

Gospels, raises well-known questions about the relationship between parable and
allegory.2 These questions aside, what concerns us here is Luke’s understanding of the

parable and the theological viewpoint he advances by means of the parable. Of particular

interest is the description of the seeds that fell “among the thorns” (Lk. 8:7) given in Luke

8:14:

And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they
go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of
life, and their fruit does not mature.

The differences between Luke and his Markan source can be seen in the following table:

1
This is the consistent picture in both Luke and Acts, as we shall see.
2
The rejection of allegory was advanced by Adolf Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu,2 vols.
(Tübingen: Mohr, 1910). C. H. Dodd followed Jülicher, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1961), pp. 2-3. See also J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke
(New York: Charles Scribner, 1972), pp. 77-79. Of late the complete rejection of allegory in the parables
has been questioned. See R. E. Brown, “Parable and Allegory Reconsidered,” Novum Testamentum 5
(1962), pp. 36-45. M. Black, “The Parables as Allegories,” Bulletin of the John Ryland’s Library 42
(1960), pp. 273-87. For a recent summary of the scholarly debate about the parables, see Nolland’s
excursus, “Modern Parables Research,” Luke 1-9:20, pp. xliii-xlviii. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel
According to Saint Mark, Cambridge Greek Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1963),
pp. 158-63. Robert Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Book Pub., 1989),
pp. 188-89, 217-25.
 50

Luke 8:14 Mark 4:18-19

to; de; eij" ta;" kai; a[lloi eijsi;n oiJ eij" ta;"
ajkavnqa" pesovn, ou|toiv ajkavnqa" speirovmenoi: ou|toiv
eijsin oiJ ajkouvsante", eijsin oiJ to;n lovgon ajkouvsante", kai; aiJ
kai; uJpo; merimnw'n mevrimnai tou' aijw'no" kai;
kai; plouvtou kai; hJ ajpavth tou' plouvtou kai; aiJ
hJdonw'n tou' bivou peri; ta; loipa; ejpiqumivai
poreuovmenoi sumpnivgontai eijsporeuovmenai sumpnivgousin
kai; ouj telesforou'sin. to;n lovgon, kai; a[karpo"
givnetai.
Luke has clearly abbreviated the Markan text. Many of the changes probably reflect no

more than Luke’s stylistic preferences, but two changes are noteworthy for our purpose.
One is that Luke has dropped Mark’s hJ ajpavth (the deceitfulness) from plouvtou

(riches). Nolland comments, “For Luke not only the desire for riches (as Mark’s text) but

riches themselves constitute a danger.”1 This may be pressing a point in light of Luke’s

other abbreviations of Mark, but such an explanation is consistent with the other changes

Luke makes to intensify the concern for possessions.2 Riches and the pleasures of life are

negatively connected to the preaching of the word of God. Here, again, possessions have

the power to keep one from the kingdom.

The second change is that “the desire for other things” (Mk. 4:19) has become
“pleasures of life” (Lk. 8:14). The term hJdonhv (pleasure) is found only here in the

gospels. However, it is found in Titus 3:3 where it is connected with ejpiqumiva (passion,

lust), the word found in Mark 4:19. The closeness of the two terms can also be seen in
James 4:1-3, where hJdonhv appears twice as “passion.” In II Peter 2:13 the same word

carries the notion of its derived English word hedonism: “they count it pleasure to revel

1
Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, p. 386.
2
See Esler, Community and Gospel, pp. 166-67.
 51

in the daytime.” Although the word can be used in the positive sense of pleasure or

enjoyment, in the New Testament it usually carries a negative connotation.1

The first of the three thorns that choke the growth of the seed is mevrimna

(anxiety). This is a common word, especially on the lips of Jesus in Matthew and Luke

(Q). While Paul uses it three times to denote caring about the church (I Cor. 12:25, II

Cor. 11:28, Phil. 2:20), all other times in the New Testament it has to do with anxiety

concerning life (usually material possessions) and has a negative connotation.

These three — anxiety, riches, and pleasures — form a deadly triad of distractions

that will keep one from producing the fruits of the kingdom. Each is related to material

possessions.

The Gerasene Demoniac

Luke 8:26-39
Clearly, the story of the Gerasene demoniac does not deal primarily with wealth

and possessions. Following, as it does, the story of the stilling of the storm, this story

appears to focus primarily on the power and authority of Jesus.2 Some have suggested

that this focus is important to Luke because Jesus’ ministry has moved, for the moment,
3
into Gentile territory. While that is true, the passage also depicts both the reception and

rejection of Jesus and his ministry, and it does so by employing images of possessions.

Luke draws the story from Mark, but only Luke mentions that the demoniac was

without clothes and house. Both of these conditions identify the man as one for whom

Jesus’ ministry was intended (Lk. 4:18-19). While most of the quotation Jesus gave in

1
Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 344-45.
2
See Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, p. 406.
3
Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 97.
 52

Luke 4:18-19 was taken from Isaiah 61:1-2a, the phrase “to set at liberty those who are

oppressed” was taken from Isaiah 58:6. Interestingly, Isaiah 58:7 reads, “Is it not to share

your bread with the hungry, to bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the

naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh.” Nakedness then is

connected with extreme poverty. Danker, noting that the demoniac’s nakedness connects

the story with Acts 19:16, remarks, “nakedness is one of the conditions into which people

are forced by demons.”1

The loss of the herd of swine has elicited much discussion. Some insist that this

action is so morally suspect that it must be a legendary detail attached to the story.2 What

is less often noted is that the rejection of Jesus and/or his message following the loss of

material possessions is a common feature in Luke-Acts.3 The most obvious parallel is in

Acts 16:16-24. There Paul encountered a demon-possessed woman. Her “spirit of

divination… brought her owners much gain by soothsaying.” (Acts 16:16) When Paul

cast the demon out, those who made money by exploiting her, after seeing “that their

hope of gain was gone” dragged Paul and Silas before the rulers (Acts 16:19). Although

no demon possession is mentioned, the Ephesian silversmiths opposed the Christians

after their income was threatened (Acts 19:23-41).

In Luke 8:37 the rejection of Jesus by the townspeople is not explicitly attributed

to their loss of property. Rather, they asked Jesus to leave because they were “seized with

great fear” (Lk. 8:37).4 Nevertheless, there is some connection between the loss of

1
Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 181.
2
See Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 734-35.
3
This will be more fully explored in Chapter 3 on Acts.
4
Fear in the face of the power of the Divine is a common theme in Luke-Acts. E.g.,
Luke 1:12-13;1:30; 1:50; 1:65; 2:9-10; 5:9-10; 5:26; 7:16; 8:25; 8:37; 8:50; 12:4-5;12:7; 12:32; 18:2,4;
21:11; 21:26; 23:40; Acts 2:43; 5:5,11; 9:31; 10:2; 10:22; 10:35; 13:16; 13:26; 18:9; 19:17; 27:24; 27:29.
 53

possessions (the swine herd) and the rejection by the townspeople. The herdsmen ran to

tell the story both in the city and in the country. The reader will assume that the loss of

the herd is a major part of their story. Luke once again places the concern for possessions

in a description of the rejection of the message of the kingdom.

Jairus and the Woman

with the Flow of Blood
Luke 8:40-56
Again, the text does not explicitly concern itself with wealth or possessions.

However, it speaks of two responses to Jesus, both of which are positive, and

incorporates language that speaks of wealth and status. The two inter-connected stories

have presumably come from Mark, although there is some debate about whether they

were connected in the pre-Markan sources.1

Jairus is described in Luke 8:41 as an “a{rcwn th'" sunagwgh'"” (ruler of the

synagogue). Marshall comments, “. . . a person of considerable standing is indicated,

but… he was prepared to surrender his dignity in his situation of need…”2

As often the case in Luke, the woman stands in contrast to the man in terms of
3 4
wealth and status. She had experienced a flow of blood for twelve years, and the

suggestion seems to be that this was a uterine hemorrhage. If so, this would have made

1
See Nolland, Luke.1-9:20, p. 417.
2
Marshall, Luke, p. 343.
3
This is not to ignore the connection between the woman and Jairus’ daughter. The daughter is
twelve years old, ready for puberty and marriage, but at the point of death. The woman has had
pathological menstruation for 12 years and is religiously/socially isolated. Jesus makes both whole.
However, the reader is also presented the contrast between the two who come to Jesus, Jairus and the
unnamed woman. One is a man and the other a woman. One comes openly while the other comes secretly.
One is a ruler with status and means, the other an outcast who has exhausted her means.
4
This is interestingly the very age of Jairus’ daughter. The daughter had reached the age when
menstruation was considered to have begun.
 54

her religiously unclean.1 What is striking, given what we have already seen in this

gospel, is that Luke has considerably softened Mark’s description of her economic plight.

Mark describes her as one who “had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent

all that she had and was no better but rather grew worse” (Mk. 5:26). An old suggestion

for this omission is that because Luke (the beloved physician) is the author, he was

unwilling to include something that disparaged his profession.2

Unfortunately, a textual variation clouds the question of whether Luke has

retained any reference to her economic condition. Some manuscripts include “. . . had

spent all her livelihood on physicians,” while others exclude those words.3 Fitzmyer

comments on the questionable phrase, “It looks like a succinct condensation of Mark 5:26

such as Luke would write, but its omission in good mss. causes hesitation about it…”4

Even if the words are excluded from the text, the contrast remains. Neither Jairus

nor the woman allowed their socio-economic conditions to keep them from Jesus. Rather

the faith and need of both moved them to Jesus. The higher socio-economic status of

Jairus did not prevent his receiving help. The extreme difficulty of the woman did not

make her more worthy of help. This is consistent with the pattern Luke follows in both
the gospel and Acts.

1
Leviticus 15:19-33. See Craddock, Luke, p. 119.
2
See Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1972), p. 102.
3
For a discussion of the textual problem see Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 746.
4
Ibid.
 55

The Mission of the Twelve

Luke 9:1-6
This pericope presents a number of important and much discussed questions.

Does the prohibition of taking standard provisions suggest a renunciation of wealth by the

disciples of Jesus?1 Is it intended only for the missionaries?2 Because these complex

questions will surface again in the account of the sending of the seventy [-two], we will

defer most of them until the discussion of Luke 10.

Here at least one point should be made. The requirements were travel

requirements, not essential prerequisites for discipleship. The requirements themselves

assumed that the disciples had a staff, a bag, bread, money, and a second tunic. Had they

already abandoned those things, the requirement to leave them behind would have been

pointless.

The Cost of Discipleship

Luke 9: 23-25
In 9:24-25 we find, “For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever

loses his life for my sake, he will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the

whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” Here discipleship is spoken of in the

economic terms of gain and loss. In the judgment of this writer, we have an absolutely

critical text in understanding Luke’s material on wealth and possessions. Surprisingly,

however, this text is virtually ignored by the recent major studies on this theme.3 One

1
Schottroff and Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, pp. 38-57.
2
Degenhardt, Evangelist der Armen, pp. 80-88.
3
For example, Richard J. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1978); Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions; Meadors, The Poor
in Luke’s Gospel; Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in
Luke’s Gospel; Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor; and Schottroff and Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the
 56

can only guess why this is so. Perhaps in focusing on a particular vocabulary of wealth

and poverty, the text is overlooked. Perhaps some are looking for Luke’s special interest

in material unique to Luke, or in material in which Luke’s redactional hand is more

obvious. The text before us is largely taken over from Mark 8:27-9:1, but this does not

mean that it is unimportant to Luke.

Luke has not simply taken the Markan passage wholesale. The setting in Luke is

quite different from that in Mark. In Luke, the confession of Jesus by Peter takes place
immediately following the feeding of the five thousand. In Mark (6:45-8:26) we find a

number of pericopes Luke has excised.1 In Luke, the confession does not take place in or

near Caesarea Philippi, nor is there any hint of a ministry in Gentile territory. In Luke,

Peter’s confession is simple and straightforward. While in both Mark and Luke the

confession is followed by Jesus’ passion prediction, in Luke the confession is not

followed by a rebuke either from Peter or Jesus.2

In both Mark and Luke the confession by Peter is a critical moment. In Luke, the

confession stands just before the transfiguration and the turning toward Jerusalem. Luke

stresses the importance of the event by “setting this episode in the context of Jesus’

praying, [and]… emphasizes divine guidance at a critical juncture of the narrative.”3 The

Poor; completely ignore this text. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, p. 166; Mealand, Poverty
and Expectation in the Gospels, p. 17, n. 12; and Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels,
p. 144; make only passing references to the text. Batey, Jesus and the Poor, p. 15; and Seccombe,
Possessions and the Poor in Luke Acts, pp. 109-13, both discuss the text, but Batey only lists it among other
texts to make the point that Jesus taught that one could not serve God and mammon, while Seccombe
discusses the disciple bearing the cross without specific reference to these verses.
1
See L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 3 (Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press), 1991, p. 154.
2
This would be in keeping with Luke’s more positive portrayal of the disciples. See Joseph B.
Tyson, “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark,” Journal of Biblical Literature 80 (1961), pp. 261-68. See
also, Robert F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1984),
pp. 178-81.
3
Tiede, Luke, p. 184.
 57

call to discipleship is a key element in this “critical juncture.” Here we would expect to

find the major themes of discipleship laid out by Jesus. The fact that we find economic

language in precisely this context should not go unnoticed.

While much of the discussion about Luke 9:23-27 has centered on historical

questions, it is Luke’s theology that is our interest. The redactional changes in Luke

9:24-25 from Mark 8:35-37 are minimal. Luke has excised Mark 8:37, which reads, “For

what can a man give in return for his life.” In Luke 9:24 the Lukan Jesus makes it clear
that the preservation of one’s true yuchv (soul or life) does not come through self-

preservation but paradoxically through the willingness to lose it for the sake of Jesus.

The call of Jesus, then, presents a person with a radical choice. That the choice carries

with it economic dimensions is made clear in 9:25.

The obvious hyperbole of gaining the whole world is reminiscent of the

temptation from Satan in 4:5-7, in which Jesus was promised all the kingdoms of the

world in exchange for his worship. The point of this hyperbole is one that we have seen

several times and will see again both in encounters with Jesus (or the apostolic witnesses

in Acts) and in the teaching of Jesus. People are faced with a choice and how they

respond includes decisions about their possessions.

Although Johnson does not explicitly refer to Luke 9:23-25, he has understood the

dynamic about which this text speaks.1 According to Johnson, Luke portrays Jesus as

the Prophet and uses the Deuteronomic view of the prophet and the people as the

interpretive lens through which to project the story. He sees possessions as an important

part of this theological perspective:

Luke speaks about possessions most frequently in contexts that are

intrinsically dramatic, those of crisis and response. The forms of the crisis

1
Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 144-58.
 58

vary (calls to discipleship, invitations, eschatological dangers, the death of

an individual), and we are admittedly coloring the situation by calling all
of them “visitations” of God. Yet this expression, which is so
characteristic for the pattern of the Prophet and the People, does not distort
the picture, for although all these crises are not directly attached to the
response to Jesus, many of them are, and those that are not are found to
exhibit the same pattern. From the frequency with which Luke uses the
language of possessions to describe what is happening in such situations,
we can only conclude that he found it a particularly congenial imagery.1

Luke 9:23-25, then, is a crucial part of a larger context in which the central

confession of Jesus as the “Christ of God” is made, the central Christian proclamation of

the death and resurrection of Jesus is stated (by Jesus himself), and the return of Jesus is

promised. Within that context, Luke 9:23-25 states what it means to follow Jesus—
namely, a self-denial which includes a willingness to lose one’s own yuchv for the sake of

Jesus and a recognition that to try to hold on to one’s life, even if one should possess the

entire world, is ultimately to lose it. Throughout the rest of the narrative the meaning of

this text will be explicated.

The Rejection of the Samaritan Village

and the Would-be Disciples
Luke 9:51-62
In 9:51 the narrative of Luke takes an important turn. It begins what has been

called the central section or the travel narrative.2 The initial two stories in this section

1
Ibid., p. 144.
2
Recent important studies of this section include John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s
Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977); C. F. Evans, “The Central Section of Luke’s Gospel,” Studies in
the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955)
pp. 37-53; and David P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the
Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis,: Fortress Press, 1989). See also K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A
Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 79-82; C. H.
Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1974); and Talbert, Reading Luke, pp. 111-13.
 59

illustrate the message of discipleship given in Luke 9:23-27. The first has to do with the

rejection of Jesus and his disciples by a Samaritan village. No economic language is

explicitly used, but the implication is that the two disciples had gone to arrange for

lodging and food. The rejection then takes the shape of withholding hospitality to Jesus.

This may remind the reader of the birth narrative when Mary and Joseph had to go to a

stable, “because there was no room for them in the inn” (Lk. 2:6) or, more clearly, the

rejection of Jesus by his home town of Nazareth (Lk. 4:28-30). It certainly reminds the
reader of the instructions given the twelve (Lk. 9:4-5) and anticipates the lengthier

instructions given to the seventy [-two] (Lk. 10:5-12). In Acts, the rejection of Jesus’

messengers will take the form of a withholding of possessions, such as the proceeds from

the sale of property, and the the exclusion from synagogues, villages, towns, and cities.

This incident is followed by the coming of three who express a willingness to

follow Jesus (Lk 9:57-62). Again, no specific economic language is used except in Jesus’

response to the first “would-be” disciple who has no home. However, again we have the

working out of the demands of discipleship. Jesus challenged each inquirer to place the

kingdom above all other concerns, even those of family duty. Jesus’ answer to the first

certainly implies the necessity of a willingness to leave behind possessions.

The Sending of the Seventy [-Two]

Luke 10:1-12
As in 9:1-6 and 9:51, in 10:1-12 Jesus sends out disciples. They are sent out

“ahead of him, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.” The

instructions Jesus gave to the twelve in Luke 9:3 and to the seventy [-two] in Luke 10:4

have captured much scholarly attention. In Luke 9:3 the instructions to the twelve

include, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do
 60

not have two tunics.” In Luke 10:4 Jesus tells the seventy [-two], “Carry no purse, no

bag, no sandals…”

How are these instructions to be understood? Schottroff and Stegemann give a

sociological interpretation to the instructions:

. . . The majority of the population were involved in a struggle for the

necessary minimum, and knew how easily the struggle could be lost. The
poverty of the wandering messengers of Jesus differed only in very small
ways from that of their (still) sedentary friends and from the lives of other
no longer sedentary people: the unemployed and the beggars. The
messengers of Jesus voluntarily placed themselves on the bottom rung of
the social ladder. Seen from a sociological standpoint, that is, externally
and without regard for the intention the messengers themselves had, these
wanderers were part of a great movement of flight for social reasons, a
movement that can be documented for almost all the societies of
antiquity.1

The messengers, then, were in solidarity with the homeless poor. They were by their

voluntary presence showing the poor “an alternative to enslavement by poverty.”2 That

alternative is trust in God and freedom from anxiety. “The rule about equipment signifies

that these people no longer yield to anxiety about the minimum needed for survival, but

commit themselves with (literally) empty hands and bare feet to the providential care of

God…”3

Schottroff and Stegemann seem to assume that these “wandering messengers”

were aimlessly sent out to see where the providence of God might lead them. Danker

more reasonably suggests that Luke’s readers would understand Jesus as acting as a head

of state who is dispatching envoys to announce his coming.4

1
Schottroff and Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, p. 46.
2
Ibid., p. 47.
3
Ibid., p. 46.
4
Danker, Jesus and the New Age, pp. 211-12. But see also Marshall, Luke, p. 416, who views
their task as mission, rather than arranging of hospitality.
 61

Whether the number of those sent is seventy or seventy two,1 it is likely to have

symbolic significance. One common view is that the number suggests that Jesus, like

Moses ( Num. 11:10-17), selected seventy others to share in his ministry.2 However, the

very confusion of the numbers in the manuscripts suggests the number of nations listed in

Genesis 10, with the MT listing seventy while the LXX lists seventy-two.3 If this is in

Luke’s mind, then the sending of the envoys foreshadows the mission of the church to the

world in Acts 1:8.4

The instruction to salute no one on the way strongly suggests the urgency of the

mission. There would be no time for lengthy salutations. Degenhardt views these

instructions as being given to the “professional” disciples of Jesus, and therefore

applicable only to the church’s missionaries.5 While the passage was likely intended for

the Christian missionaries in Luke’s time,6 there is no reason to suppose that the

requirements for those missionaries were different from the requirements for other

disciples or that the missionaries were to abandon all possessions.7 Paul, Luke’s great

missionary, does not follow the letter of these instructions. He makes a point of working

1
See Marshall, Luke, pp. 414-15, or Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), pp. 845-46, for a thorough discussion of the numbers.
2
See A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on he Gospel According to St. Luke
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), p. 269.
3
Obviously that confusion could have been due to a copyist, not Luke, making this connection.
However, it does suggest that very early on the connection was made.
4
Craddock suggests that the “Gentiles may already be in mind in the instruction, ‘Eat what is set
before you’ (v. 8) Food was a critical issue in the spread of the gospel (Acts 11:1-8; Gal. 2:11-21).” Luke,
p. 145.
5
Degenhardt, Lukas, pp. 80-88.
6
It is clear that there were concerns regarding the behavior of missionaries in the early church (I
Cor. 9, II Cor 10:7-11, II John 7-11, III John 5-8, Didache 11-13).
7
See Seccombe’s response to Degenhardt, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, pp. 148-49.
See also Pilgrim Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke Acts, pp. 99-100.
 62

so as not to be a burden to those to whom he ministers (Acts 18:3, 20:33-35, I Thess. 2:9,

II Thess. 3:7-9).1

The missionaries in Acts continue the work of the seventy [-two], not in the denial

of possessions but in their proclamation and healing work. The view that the Lukan Jesus

gave instructions to abandon all possessions by either the church’s missionaries or the

entire church is discredited by the fact that positively portrayed characters in the book of

Acts do not do so. What they do is share possessions, not abandon them. A second
major problem is that the requirements were for an urgent and temporary mission.

Indeed, no sooner had they left, than they returned. It is difficult to formulate permanent

requirements from a text that speaks of a very brief mission. A third major problem is

that Jesus himself reversed these instructions in Luke 22:36: “He said to them, ‘But now,

let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And him who has no sword sell his

mantle and buy one’.”2

Johnson gives a helpful answer to these problems:

The significance of the use of possessions in these passages must be

seen in their context within the story. When we look at the commands to
the missionaries, we see that the focus is not on their lack of possessions,
but rather on the problem of their acceptance or rejection by those to
whom they preached, the households they entered (9:4-5, 10:5-8). It is in
relation to their acceptance or rejection by the people that their lack of
possessions is significant.3

1
It is, however, clear that Paul follows the spirit of this text. His travel is simple, he trusts in God’s
providing, and it is clear that he does not do this for gain. He does stay in the homes of believers and
operates out of those homes. Nevertheless, he does not abandon all possessions and he does not seem to go
out of his way to identify with the mass of unemployed and beggars.
2
Pilgrim limits the the call to poverty to the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry. “Ever since the
resurrection/ascension, Jesus himself is no longer present, so that a new form of discipleship is called for
(cf. Luke 22:35-38).” Good News to the Poor, p. 101.
3
Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 163-64.
 63

Jesus clearly called on those he sent to trust that God will provide;1 yet he also called on

them to expect that they would be cared for by those who accepted his message of the

kingdom. In 22:35-38 the situation changed; no such expectation could be made.

Once again, we find that the language of possessions is used to describe

acceptance and rejection of the gospel. Acceptance of the disciples’ message by the

people implies their willingness to place their possessions at the disposal of the Lord and

his kingdom. To refuse to do this is to reject the message of the kingdom (Lk. 10:10) and

invite God’s judgment (Lk. 10:11-12).

The Good Samaritan

Luke 10:29-37
The parable of the “Good Samaritan” is prefaced by a question from a lawyer:

“Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (10:25). This question will be asked

again by a rich ruler (Lk. 18:18). While it is unlikely that the query itself is put in
economic language (the word, “inherit” [klhronomevw], can mean simply “to obtain.”),2

the answers in both cases contain economic language.

The lawyer’s question introduces the parable, and the story presents a sharp

contrast between a priest and a Levite on the one hand, and a Samaritan on the other (as

we have seen, such contrasts are common in the Lukan material). The initial contrast is

not an economic one. No mention is made of the economic status of the priest and

Levite, though the Samaritan undoubtedly has economic resources, indicated by his beast,

1
While it is tempting to make a connection between these instructions and the teaching of Jesus
regarding anxiety, as do Schottroff and Stegemann, the warning against anxiety in Luke is still two chapters
away.
2
Marshall, Luke, p. 442. See also J. Herrmann and W. Foerster, “oJloklariva,” TDNT, vol. 3,
pp. 767-85.
 64

goods and money. The contrast is actually made in terms of social status. The priest and

Levite were of a privileged status due to their levitical heritage and their official position

within the Jerusalem cultus. On the other hand, the Samaritan came from a people with

whom Jews had little or no dealings (Jn. 4:9).

While the three are not contrasted in terms of wealth or possessions, they are

differentiated in their willingness to use their possessions for another. The priest and

Levite were unwilling to assist the beaten victim, while the despised Samaritan was
willing. Danker emphasizes the economic dimensions of the Samaritan’s response:

. . . the Samaritan makes a generous down payment of what amounts to

two days’ normal wages, with the assurance that he will pay the balance on
his return. The pronoun “I” is emphatic: “I, not the man, will pay.” He
takes all precautions to ensure good service for the wounded man and at
1
the same time preserves him from indebtedness.

The economic dimensions of this should not be overlooked. The Samaritan proved

himself to be a neighbor because he was willing to become involved in another human’s

needs (“showed mercy” - Lk. 10:37). That involvement was not giving up all his

resources, but rather freely sharing his resources. In so doing, he showed love of

neighbor and was open to eternal life.

Teaching on Prayer
Luke 11:1-13
The text begins with what we commonly know as the Lord’s Prayer.2 The

troublesome petition of 11:3, “Give us each day our daily bread,” and the second clause

1
Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 223. See also Pilgrim’s description of the economic factors in
the Samaritan’s response, Good News to the Poor, pp. 141-43.
2
The questions of Luke’s original source, and whether Luke or Matthew more nearly reflects that
original shall not detain us. See Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, pp. 896-98, or Marshall, Luke, pp. 454-55.
 65

of the following petition (11:4b), “for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to

us,” are essential to our aims. The petition of 11:3 is notoriously difficult to translate.
The crux of the problem is the word “ejpiouvsion.” Unfortunately the word cannot be

located in ancient sources outside of the prayer (cf. Matt. 6:11 and Didache 8:2) or texts

dependent upon it. The ancient church fathers were divided in translating it.

Etymological analysis yields three possible meanings, each of which is possible,

but none of which is certain: (1) ejpi; + oujsiva, giving the meaning “necessary for

existence” or “give us day by day bread enough to live”; (2) ejpi + ou\sa with hJmevra

implied, giving the meaning “for today” or the RSV translation, “give us each day our
daily bread”; (3. ejpi + ijou'sa with hJmevra implied, giving the meaning, “for the coming

day,” or “give us day by day tomorrow’s bread.1

Of more consequence is whether “bread” is intended to be literal or carries a

metaphorical or even eucharistic significance. While Luke does speak of “breaking of

bread” with eucharistic overtones (Lk. 24:35, Acts 2:46, 20:7, 20:11) literal bread is still

implied. Two considerations make clear that the literal meaning of “bread” in the prayer

must be retained, even if a spiritual sense is also present. One is the obvious association

with Exodus 16:4: “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Behold, I will rain bread from

heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I

may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not.’”2 The second is the context

of the Lukan passage. In Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-12 disciples were sent without provisions,

trusting God to provide for each day. The prayer, then, represents a continuation of that

trust.

1
Marshall, Luke, pp. 459-60 and Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, pp. 905-906. Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV,
p. 904, also gives the rendering of several ancient versions and writers.
2
See Tiede, Luke, p. 213.
 66

Talbert suggests how this petition relates to economic interests:

The evangelist sees the petition as the disciples’ request for God to go
on supplying their physical needs day by day.… Jesus is telling the
disciples, some of whom had been sent out without extra provisions (9:3;
10:4) and had found their needs supplied (22:35), to pray for the
provisions they need for the day. Given the Lukan hostility to the
accumulation of unneeded possessions (e.g., 12:16-21), one should
perhaps understand the evangelist to mean “pray for what you need for the
day and no more.”1

In the next petition, Luke differs from Matthew’s “forgive us our debts” (Mt.

6:11a), and has “forgive us our sins.” However, in the second half of the Lukan petition

the idea of debt is present: “for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us…”

(Lk. 11:4b). The use of economic language of debt to describe a wrong is common.

Craddock suggests the meaning of this language:

That the petitioner asks God to forgive sins as we forgive everyone their
debts to us may possibly reflect Luke’s concern that possessions not hinder
community fellowship (6:30; Acts 4:32; 5:1-11).2

Talbert is more specific:

He [Luke] leaves, however, the debtor language in the second part of the
petition. He specifies that we ourselves are continually forgiving all who
are indebted to us. If one’s understanding of this sentence is determined
not by the evidence outside the gospel but only by the context, this too
may be part of the Lukan concern with possessions (cf. 6:27-38, especially
vss. 34-35, 30). The evangelist may aim for his readers to hear that they
should expect God to forgive their sins against him as they continually
forgive all of their debtors (understood in terms of “things”). If so, then
passing God’s forgiveness along to others within the community means
something broader than Matthew’s context would indicate.3

1
Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 129.
2
Craddock, Luke, p. 154.
3
Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 130.
 67

The passage continues with two pericopes designed to encourage prayer. Both are

governed by verse 13, in which Jesus said, “how much more will the heavenly Father

give…”1 What is of particular interest is that while Matthew 7:11 says, “how much more

will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him,” Luke reads, “how

much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.” (Lk.

11:13).

It is generally assumed that Luke has changed the wording found in Q and
followed by Matthew to accommodate Luke’s special interest in the Holy Spirit and to

anticipate Pentecost.2 However, the change may also reflect Luke’s concern about

possessions. As Talbert remarks, “For the third evangelist the good gift of the heavenly

Father is not primarily things, even good things, but the Holy Spirit.”3 The disciple, then,

is one who learns to trust that God will supply his/her material needs, and prays for such

provision, but also knows that the greatest gift of the kingdom is God’s presence.

Conflict with the Pharisees

Luke 11:37-54
This section has evoked considerable discussion in terms of its source(s) and its
4
relationship to Matthew 23. What is of interest here is how this pericope functions and

what it may say about Luke’s view of possessions and the acceptance or rejection of the

message of Jesus.

1
The first pericope, which is called the “Parable of the Friend at Midnight,” should not be read as a
parable suggesting one must be willing to badger God into giving what one needs or wants. See the
compelling argument of K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, pp. 119-33.
2
Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, p. 916; Craddock, Luke, p. 154; T. W. Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,”
p. 374; but see Marshall, Luke, p. 470.
3
Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 133.
4
Particularly helpful in this are Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, pp. 942-46; Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,”
pp. 560-62, And Marshall, Luke, pp. 490-93.
 68

The context is one of table fellowship, as is Luke 7:36, where Jesus’ table

fellowship with Simon suggests acceptance.1 However, here, as with Simon, acceptance

turns into rejection. Jesus failed (refused?) to follow the ritual practice of washing his

hands before the meal. The unnamed Pharisee who invited Jesus was astonished (11:38).

Jesus then launched a lengthy attack on certain outward and ceremonial aspects of

Pharisaic religion. Not surprisingly, the chapter ends with the Pharisees trying to accuse

Jesus of anything that might bring him down.

It is within the context of this attack that Jesus spoke of giving alms. Alms-giving

is unexpected enough at this point that Wellhausen conjectured that the Aramaic word for

“cleanse” (dakki ) was confused for the Aramaic word for “give alms” (zakki ).2 It seems

likely that the reference to alms was indeed intended by Luke. But what is the meaning

of Jesus’ command as Luke gives it? Three options are available: (1) “give alms from

your inner self,” (2) “give alms from what is within [the cup and the dish],” (3) “with

respect to what is inside, give alms.”3 It may well be that the ambiguity is intentional,

allowing the image to be fluid, moving from the utensils to the inner person.

Tannehill views the accusation in 11:39 (“but inside you are full of extortion and

wickedness”) as an accusation of “predatory greed,” and adds:

The accusation of predatory greed introduces a concern which will be

developed later. Greed for money and property is meant, for its opposite
and corrective is to “give alms” (11:41). … This characterization of the
Pharisees and scribes as the greedy rich who prey upon the poor makes
them negative examples not only for teaching about such standard synoptic
themes as inclusion of the sinners and avoidance of hypocrisy but also for

1
Tiede, Luke, p. 222.
2
See discussion in Marshall, Luke, p. 496. See also Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth, pp. 144-45.
3
Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth, p. 145.
 69

the major Lukan theme of the responsibility of those with possessions for
the poor.1

Thus this text is another example to show that one’s attitude toward and use of

possessions play a fundamental role in whether one accepts or rejects the message of

Jesus.

The Rich Fool

Luke 12:13-21
The parable of the rich fool has obvious connections with the interests of this

paper. Our interest will be to see how Luke uses both the setting and the parable to

further his concerns about possessions.

Here, as in 10:25, a question of inheritance forms the setting for a parable. In this

case, however, the inheritance is not eternal life, but the literal inheritance left by a father

and now disputed by his sons. Jesus’ refusal to settle the dispute opens the way for an

interpretive verse and the parable.

In a text we have called crucial in understanding Luke’s view of possessions,

Jesus said, “For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for

my sake, he will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and

loses or forfeits himself?” (Lk. 9:24-25). Luke 12:15 expands on those verses: “. . . Take

heed, and beware of all covetousness (greed); for a man’s life does not consist in the

abundance2 of his possessions.”

The parable that follows is clearly at home in the wisdom literature of Judaism.

Two examples stand out. One is Sirach 11:18-19:

1
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, p. 181.
2
J. D. M. Derrett argues that this should be understood as “superfluity of possessions.” “The Rich
Fool: A Parable of Jesus Concerning Inheritance,” Heythrop Journal 18 (1977), pp. 135-37.
 70

One becomes rich through diligence and self-denial, and the reward
allotted to him is this: when he says, “I have found rest, and now I shall
feast on my goods!” he does not know how long it will be until he leaves
them to others and dies. (NRSV)

Another is I Enoch 97:8-10:

Woe to you who gain gold and silver by unjust means,

you will then say, ‘We have grown rich, and accumulated goods,
we have acquired everything we have desired.
So now let us do whatever we like;
for we have gathered silver,
we have filled our treasuries (with money) like water.
and many are the laborers in our houses.’
Your lies flow like water.
For your wealth shall not endure,
but it shall take off from you quickly
for you have acquired it all unjustly,
and you shall be given over to a great curse. 1

Both of the above texts are concerned with how wealth was acquired. In the

parable of the rich fool, no interest is shown in how the wealth was acquired. Wealth was

neither a reward nor the result of wickedness. As Craddock says, “There is nothing here

of graft or theft; there is no mistreatment of workers or any criminal act. Sun, soil, and

rain join to make him wealthy.”2

The rich man was declared a fool, but not because he was wealthy; he was already

wealthy as the story opened. According to verses 15 and 21 he was a fool for two

important reasons. The first is obvious: greed. No one who considered the poor would

1
Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, p. 78. See also George W. E.
Nickelsburg, “Riches and God’s Judgment in Enoch and Luke,” pp. 327-28.
2
Craddock, Luke, p. 163.
 71

wonder what to do with an over-abundant supply. Derrett puts it well, “Called suddenly

to account he is bankrupt ‘up there’ precisely to the extent that he is rich ‘down here’.”1

Secondly, he was a fool in the same way the person in Psalm 14:1 was a fool: not

because he was an intellectual atheist, but because he lived without regard for God. His

soliloquy never reached beyond himself.2 His self-centeredness was also

shortsightedness. Ray Summers makes the point, “To this man, soul was the total of man

and it could be provided for in physical ways. To God, soul was the total of man but it
could not be provided for in physical ways.”3 This rich fool was one who tried to secure

his life and lost it. He had gained the world but forfeited his own soul, and that is bad

economics according to Luke. The man who wished Jesus to make his brother divide the

inheritance accepted the same bad economics. He needed to be concerned with the true

inheritance. Verse 21, “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward

God,” states the bad economics plainly and prepares the reader for the teaching about

anxiety and possessions which follows.

Anxiety and Possessions

Luke 12:22-34
In this uniquely Lukan text, Jesus called his disciples (Lk. 12:22) to sell their

possessions and give alms (Lk. 12:33). The broader passage has its parallel in Matthew

1
Derrett, “The Rich Fool,” p. 147. Schottroff and Stegemann suggest further: “In storing up grain
in his great new barns, he has taken part in an economic crime that is of major importance in the economy
of antiquity. He has not simply secured his own future in a relatively harmless way; he has harmed society
by holding back his harvests. That is what drives up the price of grain.” Schottroff and Stegemann, Jesus
and the Hope of the Poor, p. 97.
2
“The first person pronouns ‘I’ and ‘my’ are used eleven times in the man’s brief words, reflecting
his entire self-centeredness which left God out of his planning and his hungry fellowmen out of his
concern.” Summers, Commentary on Luke, p. 156.
3
Ibid.
 72

6:25-33, 19-21. There are various explanations about the sources and relationship of the

two texts.1

What is striking is that only Luke says, “Sell your possessions and give alms.” As

one expects, Degenhardt views these as instructions given to “professional” disciples.2

On the other hand, Tannehill sees this text as part of Luke’s radical view of possessions,

that not only included all disciples during Jesus’ ministry, but found expression in the

Jerusalem church as well (Acts 2:45, 4:34-37).3 Just how radical that view is for
Tannehill is clear:

To be sure, Jesus specifies “all” when he speaks to the rich man, but this
should not obscure the fact that in 12:33 and 18:22 we have a sequence of
three shared elements: a command to sell possessions, distribute the
proceeds in charity, resulting in “treasure in the heavens.” Furthermore,
14:33 makes clear that saying farewell to “all” one’s possessions is
required of everyone who wants to follow Jesus as a disciple.4

In contrast, Danker observes, “Clearly, then, possession of things is not in itself evil.…

prosperous people are not to feel guilty because of any economic advantage they may

enjoy.”5

As mentioned earlier, 12:21, a negative statement about laying up treasures for

oneself, introduces the text. The pericope closes with a positive statement about treasure:

“provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that

does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is,

there will your heart be also” (12:33b-34).

1
Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, pp. 975-77, Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,” The Mission and Message of
Jesus, pp. 402-403; Marshall, Luke, pp. 525-32.
2
Degenhardt, Lukas, pp. 80-88.
3
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, pp. 247-48.
4
Ibid., p. 247, n. 74.
5
Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 251.
 73

The text itself is primarily concerned with anxiety, not possessions. In 12:22
Jesus said, “. . . do not be anxious (merimna'te) about your life (yuch'/).” In 12:25-26 he

said, “And which of you by being anxious (merimnw'n) can add a cubit to his span of life?

If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious (merimna'te)

about the rest?” The verb merimnavw has a usual meaning of “to take anxious thought,”1

or “distressing thought.”2 Seccombe says that it “does not denote normal forethought and

care, but unnecessary anxiety and worry which only produces psychological
disintegration.”3

Sirach 30:24-31:4 provides a helpful background in Jewish wisdom literature:

Jealousy and anger shorten life,

and anxiety brings on premature old age.
Those who are cheerful and merry at table
will benefit from their food.
Wakefulness over wealth wastes away one’s flesh,
and anxiety about it drives away sleep.
Wakeful anxiety prevents slumber,
and a severe illness carries off sleep.
The rich person toils to amass a fortune,
and when he rests he fills himself with his dainties.
The poor person toils to make a meager living,
and if ever he rests he becomes needy. (NRSV)

At one level Jesus, as portrayed in Luke, agrees with Sirach. However, the theology that

underlies the Lukan text is more profound, for God’s care frees the disciple from anxiety.

Unlike the “rich fool,” who sought to eliminate anxiety by storing his excess, disciples

are free from anxiety by trusting in God. They recognize what the rich fool could not
see—that one’s “yuchv is more than food and the sw'ma more than clothing” (Lk. 12:23).

1
Marshall, Luke, p. 526; see also, Bultmann “merimnavw,” TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 589-93.
2
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 326.
3
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, p. 150.
 74

Two illustrations of this principle are given. The raven (Mt. 6:26 has “birds of the

air”) serves as an illustration that life is more than food. The raven was an unclean bird

(perhaps why Matthew does not have it), but even it is cared for by God. Unlike the rich

fool, the raven has no storehouses or barns, yet God supplies its food. The lilies illustrate

that the body is more than clothing. Here may be a clue that both male and female

disciples are in mind. Planting, harvesting, and building storehouses would largely be

considered male labor, while spinning and sewing would have been seen as women’s
work.1 At any rate, the spring flowers, in bloom only a short time, are “clothed” in a

radiance greater than Solomon’s. The point of both illustrations is made in 12:24 and

12:28, when Jesus said, “how much more …” If God cares for birds and wild flowers,

how much more will he care for those of far greater value. The disciple is to live in faith

that God cares and will provide what is needed.

Seccombe suggests that more than general anxiety is discussed. It is rather the

“specific anxiety that arises out of discipleship.”2 He points to the parallels between

12:4-12 and 12:22-34, where the disciple is encouraged to be faithful and trust God in the

midst of the world’s hostility. He observes, “It is a fair inference then that vv. 22-34

envisage the same situation of danger as vv. 4-12.”3 His concluding comments deserve a

lengthier quotation:

Thus what is combatted is not general neurotic anxiety, but the

particular anxiety which arises when a person decides to seek the
Kingdom. For when confession of Jesus is likely to generate hostility the
disciple is faced with a threat to his food and clothing. He may be tempted
to play down his allegiance to Jesus (fail to confess) in the interests of
security (life, food drink, clothing) for himself and his family.

1
Marshall, Luke, pp. 528-29.
2
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, p. 151.
3
Ibid.
 75

The solution to the disciple’s anxiety is not to be found in putting first

things first and caring more about the Kingdom than about personal needs.
This is what generates the anxiety. The answer lies in considering God’s
providential care for the lesser parts of his creation and the infinitely
greater worth of the disciple, to whom it is the Father’s good pleasure to
give the Kingdom (v. 32). The promise to all who make the Kingdom
their first priority is that God will supply their needs.1

Johnson views the context in the same way.2 He considers the relationship between

persecution and possessions to be close:

The reason why Jesus’ disciples need not fear (need not therefore cling to
possessions in the tribulations coming as a result of their association with
Jesus) is that they already possess the Kingdom. Their lives are already
secure. Indeed, because of this most fundamental security, they are able to
give away their possessions.3

Another apocryphal text, Tobit 4:5-11, may be instructive:

“Revere the Lord all your days, my son, and refuse to sin or to
transgress his commandments. Live uprightly all the days of your life, and
do not walk in the ways of wrongdoing; for those who act in accordance
with truth will prosper in all their activities. To all those who practice
righteousness give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye
begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from
anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you.
If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if
few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will
be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. For
almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the
Darkness. 11 Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent
offering in the presence of the Most High.” (NRSV)

Here, almsgiving is counseled as a good work and a good investment (for the day of

necessity). Such giving is to be proportional, based on the abundance of the giver. It

sounds like the counsel of John the Baptist in Luke 3:10-15. However, as noted earlier,

1
Ibid., p. 154.
2
Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 151-53.
3
Ibid.
 76

the ethic of Jesus runs deeper. It is not based on abundance (6:27-36). Luke 12:33 does

not simply say “give alms,” but it says to “sell your possessions and give alms.”

Is Jesus here calling for a total renunciation of possessions? Seccombe thinks not,

and gives three reasons:1 (1) renunciation is not presented as a requirement for entering

the kingdom, since it has already been given to the disciples (Lk. 12:32b); (2) Luke does
not say “sell all your possessions,” and Luke often does use pavnta in similar settings;

and (3) the rationale is, “treasure captivates the mind,” and the disciple’s mind “must be
free for the Kingdom.” However, “treasure” (qhsaurov") in the New Testament “does

not necessarily, or even naturally, express the idea of all that a person owns.”2 Rather, it

is that which one might consider savings. Seccombe seeks to capture the meaning by

paraphrasing 12:23a, “You are now free to sell your possessions (understood in a general,

not in a total sense) and give to the poor.”3

While, in general, Seccombe is correct, his conclusion runs the risk of taming

what we have already seen as an ethic that goes beyond traditional Jewish wisdom or

even that of John the Baptist. At this point we may simply say that Jesus calls for an

active trust in God and a detached view of possessions. Once again the acceptance of the

kingdom message has concrete implications regarding the disciple’s possessions.

Faithful or Unfaithful Servant

Luke 12:41-48
The next mention of possessions is in Luke 12:44, “Truly I tell you, he [the

master] will set him [the faithful and wise servant] over all his possessions.” However,

1
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, pp. 153-54.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid., p. 154.
 77

the possessions here belong not to the disciple but to the master. The words come in the

middle of a parable which stresses eschatological preparedness.

The text begins with Peter’s question whether Jesus was speaking to the disciples

(the Twelve) or to all. The answer of Jesus does not explicitly address Peter’s question.

The parable, probably intended by Luke for church leaders,1 contrasts the faithful and

wise steward with one who foolishly misinterpreted the delay of the master’s return. The

wise steward demonstrated his wisdom by caring for the master’s servants (Lk. 12:42).
That care is put in terms of giving food. It is not clear whether this has any connection

with Luke 12:24, in which God’s providing food for the ravens illustrates God’s greater

care for his disciples. The foolish steward took the absence of the master as an

opportunity to beat the servants and used the master’s possessions for himself, even to the

point of drunkenness.

Johnson believes that Luke 12:35-38 continues the thought of 12:22-34. and gives

an “eschatological coloration” to what was said about possessions: “Being free from the

preoccupations and false security associated with possessions and expressing his response

to the kingdom by giving alms, a man is ready for the coming of his Lord.”2 Tannehill

understands Luke 12:41-48 similarly. He sees a parallel between this story and the

farewell address of Jesus (Lk. 22:24-38) and the words of Paul (Acts 20:18-35) to the

Ephesian elders: “These major themes of faithful fulfillment of leadership

responsibilities, willingness to suffer, and a right attitude toward wealth are also the

major themes of Jesus’ discourse to the disciples in Luke 12:1-53.”3 Tannehill admits

that while Paul did not give away his possessions, he did speak about “not desiring the

1
Ibid.
2
Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, p. 155.
3
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, p. 250.
 78

possessions of others and of working to support himself and his fellow missionaries.”1

The Ephesian elders, like the disciples here, were urged to keep alert.

This suggests that Luke has intentionally connected the theme of possessions with

eschatological warnings. That connection fits with both the blessings and woes of Luke

6:21-26. Perhaps the reward for the faithful and wise steward is simply another way of

saying that he was “rich toward God” (12:21) and has a “treasure in the heavens” (12:33).

Sabbath Healings
Luke 13:10-17, 14:1-6
The two texts before us now are among those which say nothing explicit about

riches or poverty but nevertheless suggest a connection between economic status and the

acceptance of the kingdom. The two stories, though separated by several verses of

teaching material, are connected by striking similarities.2 Both are healing stories,

involve people described as rulers, and generate Sabbath controversies. As is so often the

case in Luke, the stories feature in one a woman and in the other a man. The woman had

a “spirit of infirmity” and had been unable to stand straight for eighteen years. In Luke
7:22 the lame are among those to whom the ministry of Jesus is addressed. Jesus, in
3
freeing this woman from her infirmity carried out the work of the kingdom.

The “ruler of the synagogue” (Lk. 13:14)—clearly a social and religious insider—

objected to the healing on religious grounds and quoted from the decalogue (Ex. 20:9,

Deut. 5:13). Jesus responded by calling the objectors hypocrites. He then spoke about

1
Ibid.
2
K. E. Bailey sees the two stories as opposites on their respective sides of the chiastic structure
which shapes the central section of Luke. Poet and Peasant, p. 81.
3
“Healing is giving to somebody in need. Thus, it is an event that is parallel to almsgiving and
hospitality towards the poor.” Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, p. 128.
 79

possessions. The thrust of Jesus’ attack was that the Sabbath did not keep these

religiously orthodox objectors from caring for their possessions; yet, they would prohibit

this woman from being made whole on the Sabbath. Jesus described her as a “daughter

of Abraham” (Lk. 13:16). The text ends with the leaders in shame while the people

rejoiced (Lk. 13:17). The story illustrates one of the parables which follow (Lk.

13:22-30), where the motif of reversal suggests that many of those who were certain they

were in the kingdom will be excluded, while those who come from distances will “sit at
table in the kingdom of God.” This challenges those “insiders” who have confidently

erected boundaries for the kingdom.

In Luke 14:1-6, the setting is Jesus at table in the “house of a ruler who belonged

to the Pharisees” (Lk. 14:1). This setting suggests both a place of important discussion

and the likelihood of conflict.1 The drama unfolds as it did in Luke 13:10-17, except that

Jesus, not the ruler, initiated the controversy, and that, instead of using an ox and an ass

to illustrate his point (Lk. 13:15), Jesus here apparently said, “Which of you having a son

or an ox…” While some manuscripts have “an ass,” the better evidence is for “son.”2

Because in the ancient world wives and children were considered property,3 the point of

the question seems to be, “Which of you wouldn’t pull out a son, your most prized

possession? Why, you would even pull out an ox.” As in Luke 13:15, we have those

1
For conflict at table note Luke 5:29-32, 7:36-50, 11:37-53. Johnson points to the banquet setting
as so common a setting in Hellenistic literature that it is called the Symposium and is viewed as a literary
form. The Gospel of Luke, p. 225. See also Craddock, who points out the importance of table fellowship,
not only as a place of important dialog, but as an important issue in Acts as well. Luke, p. 175.
2
Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, pp. 1041-42. See also Marshall, Luke, pp. 579-80.
3
Notice how possessions and children are linked in the opening of Job (1:6-19). See also L.
William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications
For Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 147-56.
 80

who guard their possessions but care little for those they deem outside their socio-

religious circle.1

Boundaries of the Kingdom

Luke 14:7-24
The discussion following the Sabbath healing of the man with dropsy leads into

teaching about honor and shame. Moxnes describes the patron-client relationship that
provides the setting for the narrative:

. . . A Pharisee acts as a host at a meal to which Jesus and a number of

people from the village are invited.
From the title archon, as well as from the list of guests (v.12) it is
obvious that this Pharisee is a prominent and rich man in the village. The
setting of the story in 14:1-14 is similar to that of 11:37-54: Jesus is
invited to a meal at the house of a Pharisee, and the Pharisees watch Jesus
to see if he will keep the rules of purity or Sabbath observance (11:38;
14:1).2

In his response to the competition for seats of honor, Jesus employed the motif of

reversal, especially in what Tannehill calls antithetical aphorism,3 “For everyone who

exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” The issue

obviously went beyond where one sat at dinner; it was a profound challenge of the

Pharisees’ accepted social and religious assumptions.

In a closed circle of the religiously, socially, and economically advantaged, the

rules of reciprocity apply, as Jesus pointed out in Luke 14:12.4 Insiders interact with

1
See Moxnes for a social description of this banquet. The Economy of the Kingdom, pp. 127-34.
2
Ibid., p. 128. Moxnes quotes M. Sahlins on the important social aspect of meals, “Food dealings
are a delicate barometer, a ritual statement, as it were, of social relations, and food is thus employed
instrumentally as a starting, sustaining, or a destroying mechanism of sociability.” (p. 128)
3
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol 1, p. 183.
4
Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, pp. 129-32.
 81

insiders. Outsiders remain outsiders. Jesus, however, called on his host not just to invite

“your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors,” for they could return

the favor. Instead, he said, “invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind,” precisely

because they could not repay. Moxnes calls this redistribution instead of reciprocity.1

Redistribution of wealth carries too many modern political overtones, but what Jesus

described here is what we find in the early Jerusalem church (Acts 2:43-47, 4:32-37,

6:1-6).
While Jesus appeared primarily to challenge the rules of reciprocity, the list he

gave of those who should be invited suggests that more is at stake. The Pharisees’

grounds for excluding those people would no doubt have been purity laws, such as

Leviticus 21:17-23. The Qumran sectarians likewise had careful exclusionary

prescriptions, especially for the eschatological battle (1QM 7.4-6) and the messianic

banquet (1QSa 2.5-22).2 In addition to the texts of exclusion, there are Qumran texts

listing those who were included by invitation (1QSa 1.27-2.3; 2.11-21).3 If the sectarians

at Qumran had such lists, it is likely that the Pharisees had their own ideas about who

would have places of honor at the messianic banquet.4 One of the unnamed guests in the

story certainly expressed such ideas: “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom

of God!” The reply of Jesus questioned such exclusivity and gave a surprising guest list

for the banquet.

1
Ibid.
2
J. A. Sanders, “The Ethics of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable,” ed. James L. Crenshaw
and John T. Willis, Essays in the Old Testament: J. Philip Hyatt, In Memorium (New York: KTAV Pub.
House Inc., 1974), p. 262.
3
This and all subsequent quotations of the Qumran scrolls are from the translation by G. Vermes,
The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1962).
4
“And the Pharisees, or at least a significant portion of them, evidently saw it as their objective to
extend the holiness of the temple throughout the land, at least they observed in daily life the level of purity/
holiness required in the law only in relation to the temple.” James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word
Biblical Commentary, vol. 38b (Dallas: Word Books, Pub., 1988), p. 659.
 82

The parable itself has a parallel in Matthew 22:1-10 and a partial parallel in the

Gospel of Thomas.1 Here, however, our concern is not with the sources and

interrelationships of the various versions but with the meaning of the parable in its Lukan

setting.

Bailey approaches the text within the social customs of the ancient (and

contemporary, but primitive) customs of the Mid-East.2 All of the excuses would have

been inexcusable insults to the host. The paper-thin excuses, however, are telling for
Luke’s parable and are important for our purposes. In each of these excuses, possessions

stood in the way of responding to the banquet call. That fact is obvious in the first two

(field, 14:18 and oxen, 14:19), but it is also true in the case of the wife (14:20), since wife

and children were considered property of the husband/father.3 The man may have

considered that his wife was his most valuable possession and therefore that he did not

need to excuse himself.4 The Lukan Jesus, however, repeatedly affirmed that the call to

the kingdom must come before any other loyalties. He will repeat that affirmation in

14:25-33. Possessions, no matter how dear, must not keep one from answering the

kingdom’s call.

1
The Gospel of Thomas has similarities with both Matthew and Luke, and some scholars believe
the Gospel of Thomas is closer to the words of Jesus. See Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, p. 1049-52; and
Marshall, Luke, pp. 584-86, Manson compares the accounts in Matthew and Luke, “Sayings of Jesus,”
pp. 420-22, 516-19.
2
Kenneth E. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes [published in combination with his earlier work, Poet
and Peasant] (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 88-113.
3
Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex, pp. 147-56.
4
This is not to suggest that one’s wife was considered only a possession, or that she would be
viewed in the same way as other possessions. Clearly, with family, we are also dealing with relationships.
However, intimate family relationships and possessions are connected by Jesus, as we shall see in Luke
14:25-33.
 83

The failure of the invited to respond to the banquet call1 moves the parable

forward: “Go quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and

maimed and blind and lame” (Lk. 14:21). We have already noted the similarity of this list

and the one in Luke 14:13 to the enumeration in Leviticus 21:17-23, as well as the

Qumran applications of that list. Yet, the intention in Luke is exactly the opposite, for

these are the very ones to be included! Not only is there a prophet like Moses here (Deut.

18:15), but one greater than Moses, who is the Lord of the Sabbath, and he can invite

those formerly excluded.

Here, again, we find a constellation of terms that we have seen before, “the poor

and maimed and blind and lame.” These are the ones to whom the kingdom message

comes, and the ones who gladly hear it. The terms are not purely metaphors for “the

righteous,” the ones who respond to God. They have metaphorical implications, but the

poor must be seen in the same way as the maimed, blind, and lame, as the ones who are

excluded by the leaders of Israel but included by God.

It is generally agreed that Luke 14:23, “Go out to the highways and hedges…”

points forward to the Gentile mission. Yet, it may also point, as Marshall suggests, to the
inclusion of the poor. Not only are the invitations to be taken to the highways (ta;"

oJdouv"), but also to the hedges (fragmouv"), “along which beggars might rest for

protection.”2 Even in the Gentile mission, the poor are not to be forgotten.

The parable ends with a warning and a statement of reversal: “For I tell you, none

of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.” This is not anti-Jewish polemic

1
This is not to be understood as the first invitation but the call that the banquet is now ready. See
Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes, pp. 94-95.
2
Marshall, Luke, p. 590.
 84

on the part of Luke.1 It is, however, a warning for Israel’s leaders that their privileges and

possessions may keep them from the very banquet they longed to attend.

Luke 14:7-26 is especially expressive of Luke’s theology of possessions in

relation to the kingdom. Jesus is presented as a prophet who does not conform to the

standards of the Pharisees (or the Qumran community). The community of his disciples

is to be inclusive, with the ones excluded by society to be sought by the disciples. The

fellowship of believers will consist of all the poor as well as the wealthy; the maimed,

lame and blind as well as the physically whole: The needs of all met in this fellowship.

It is a community which recognizes that devotion to possessions can keep one from the

kingdom.

The Cost of Discipleship

Luke 14:25-35
This section is one of the most important for our study and, at the same time, one

of the most difficult to decipher. Within the text are the radical demands of hatred of kin

and renouncing of possessions. Crucial questions emerge. What does it mean to hate
(misevw) one’s parents, wife, children, siblings, and self? Does it mean to despise, or

merely love less, as in Matthew 10:37 (“He who loves father or mother more than me is
not worthy of me”)? What does it mean to renounce (ajpotavssetai) one’s possessions?

Is the radical demand intended for everyone or only the inner circle of disciples? Does it

simply ask the disciple to be prepared to renounce all of this, if necessary?

The text begins with a change of setting. The motif of the journey is restated.1

The audience is no longer the Pharisees, but “great multitudes” (Lk. 14:25). Degenhardt

1
Contra Sanders, “The Ethics of Election,” p. 266.
 85

interprets these crowds as those who followed Jesus, but might wish to enter the inner

circle of “professional” disciples.2 However, such an idea does not fit Luke’s use of

crowds or disciples.3 Instead, these seem to be the large groups of uncommitted people

who were attracted to Jesus but had not become disciples.4 It was to these potential

disciples that these difficult words came.

Two texts from the Old Testament which may provide important background are

Exodus 32:25-29 and Deut. 33:8-9.

And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had
let them break loose, to their shame among their enemies), then Moses
stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the lord’s side? Come
to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And
he said to them, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘Put every man his
sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the
camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and
every man his neighbor.’” And the sons of Levi did according to the word
of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
And Moses said, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of
the LORD, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may
bestow a blessing upon you this day.” (Ex. 32:25-29)

1
The NRSV (“Now large crowds were traveling with him…”) improves upon the RSV at this
point.
2
Degenhardt, Lukas, pp. 27-33.
3
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, pp. 103-105.
4
The meaning of “crowd” in Acts can vary from those within the upper room (1:7), and the large
number of priests who believe (6:7), all the way to those who stone Paul (14:18-19), and cause trouble in
Philippi (16:22), Beroea (17:8, 13), and in the Temple in Jerusalem (21:27). Paul S. Minear, “Jesus’
Audiences According to Luke,” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974), pp. 84-87.
 86

And of Levi he said,

“Give to Levi thy Thummim,
and thy Urim to thy godly one,
whom thou didst test at Massah,
with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
who said of his father and mother,
‘I regard them not’;
he disowned his brothers,
and ignored his children.
For they observed thy word,
and kept thy covenant. (Deut. 33:8-9)
If, as Moessner argues, the central section of Luke has a special interest in showing Jesus

to be the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15),1 these Old Testament texts, calling for a

supreme act of loyalty from the Levites, provide important clues into the meaning of the

Lukan passage. Jesus demanded no less than Moses; indeed, he demanded more, the

sacrifice of self, for he is greater than Moses.

Much has been written about the disturbing call to hate in this verse. In several

texts in the New Testament, hate is used to speak of the radical separation of the world

and the kingdom.2 Most often it is the world hating those in the kingdom, but disciples

too must make radical choices in which “hate” is used. In Luke 16:13, Jesus said, “No

servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will

be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (cf.

Mt. 6:24). It seems best to understand “hate” in the same way here. Like the Levites who

are forced to make a radical choice for Moses, the disciples are called to make such a

choice for Jesus. “Hate” describes the nature of that choice. It has nothing, then, to do

with one’s feelings toward family, but is the choice of the kingdom over against all other

loyalties.

1
See Moessner, Lord of the Banquet, pp. 45-69.
2
Matthew 6:24; 10:22; 24:9-10; Mark 13:13; Luke 1: 71; 6:22; 16:13; 21:17; John 3:20; 12:25;
15:18, 19, 23; I John 3:13; Jude 23; Rev. 2:6.
 87

What then of hating “one’s own life (yuchv)” in Luke 14:26? In Luke 9:24 Jesus

said, “For whoever would save his life (yuchv) will lose it; and whoever loses his life

(yuchv) for my sake, he will save it.” A Johannine parallel even puts this in terms of love

and hate: “He who loves his life (yuchv) loses it, and he who hates his life (yuchv) in this

world will keep it for eternal life (zwhv)” (John 12:25). In this case, the Lukan and

Johannine messages are the same.

The cross-bearing message of Luke 9:23 is repeated here. In Luke 9: 23 it

follows, “let him deny himself… .” Here it follows, “hate… even one’s own life.” The

call to bear one’s cross and the call to “say farewell” to all one’s possessions (Lk. 14:33)

are closely related. After rejecting Degenhardt’s view of a special class of disciple

(church leaders) who alone are to renounce possessions, Pilgrim follows Schottroff and

Stegemann in suggesting that the call to abandon possessions is limited to Jesus’

lifetime.1 According to Schottroff and Stegemann, this call functioned in Luke’s

community to generate a “socialist” redistribution of wealth.2 The troubling part of this

view, the socio-political agenda aside, is how Jesus’ call would function in the Lukan

community if it no longer applied. Pilgrim says:

Luke’s description of the early church’s life in which they shared ‘all
things in common’ is not far from Jesus’ call to sell all and give to the
poor. Nothing should be allowed to blunt the radicality of the word about
possessions. The early church at least followed the spirit of Jesus on
possessions, if not the letter.”3

1
Schottroff and Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, pp. 108-13. Pilgrim, Good News to
the Poor, p. 101. Seccombe also adopts a situational understanding of “cross bearing.” He relates it
specifically to Jesus death and generally follows Pilgrim in his conclusions. Possessions and the Poor in
Luke-Acts, pp. 109-13.
2
Schottroff and Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, pp. 116-20.
3
Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, pp. 101-102.
 88

In spite of Pilgrim’s concern not “to blunt the radicality of the word about possessions,”

nothing could blunt it more than Schottroff’s and Stegemann’s, and Pilgrim’s own view.1

Yet the question of what model Luke intended for his church remains.

It seems best to understand that the journey to Jerusalem emphasizes the demands

of discipleship, but that one journey does not exhaust those demands. As in 9:23, the

cross bearing is daily. It describes the ongoing life of the disciple, both in the lifetime of

Jesus and in the Lukan community.

Tannehill accepts the radicality of the call. In discussing the rich ruler, he

comments, “Furthermore, 14:33 makes clear that saying farewell to ‘all’ one’s

possessions is required of everyone who wants to follow Jesus as a disciple.”2 Tannehill

properly understands that the radical call of Jesus is to all disciples and that it is not

“obsolete after Jesus’ ascension.”3 He is still, however, faced with the picture in Acts

where, by his own admission, not even the Jerusalem church fully embodies this model

and where other models are not described as inferior ones.4

It may be that the disparity between Jesus’ demands regarding possessions and

what one actually finds in Acts will always be a puzzle. We may simply have to

acknowledge that Jesus demanded one thing and the church gave another, and that while

the church of Acts was sometimes close to what Jesus required (Acts 2 and 4), at other

1
Less objectionable is Seccombe’s conclusion, “Luke gives a picture of discipleship at a time of
great crisis. In this extreme situation the limits of discipleship are revealed. Better still, it is revealed that
discipleship has no limits.” (emphasis his) Possessions and the Poor, p. 115.
2
Tannehill, The Narrative unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, p. 247, n. 74.
3
Ibid., p. 247.
4
Ibid., pp. 247-48. Thomas Schmidt also states that the text must be interpreted literally, and that
ajpotavssomai must mean physical separation, but he never confronts the evidence from Acts. “Burden,
Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt 6:33, Luke 14:33, and Luke 16:15,” Trinity Journal 9 (1988),
pp. 182, 184.
 89

times it found creative ways to maintain the “spirit” of his words and still hold onto

possessions.

Before accepting that conclusion, however, it may be worth examining Luke

14:33 within its context, and particularly the meaning of ajpotavssomai. Tiede suggests

a structure to the text that may be helpful in establishing context:

25— Luke’s transition and introduction

26— Case #1: If anyone does not hate… it is not possible to be my
disciple.
27— Case #2: Whoever does not bear his own cross… it is not
possible to be my disciple
28-30— Illustration: Cost of building a tower
31-32— Illustration: Cost of going to war
33— Case #3: Whoever does not renounce all… it is not possible
to be my disciple
34-35a— Similitude: Valuable and worthless salt
35b— Conclusion: Let the one with ears hear!1

If Tiede’s structure is correct, then verse 33 comprises the third case and should be

understood along the same lines as the first two cases.

If the call to hate one’s dearest kin, as suggested above, is a call to make a radical

decision for the kingdom, that decision forms a commitment which stands above all

others, even the most profound family obligations (Lk. 9:59-62). Clearly, however, not

all who followed Jesus, even in his lifetime, separated themselves from family. Mary, for
example, was clearly a disciple (Lk. 10:38-42) but she “hated” her sister only in the sense

that she chose the kingdom. She did not despise Martha, or leave her. Similarly, Aquila

was a faithful Christian, but left neither his wife nor his possessions (Acts 18:2).

The call (in case #2) to bear the cross would find literal expression for many, like

Stephen and James, who gave their lives for the kingdom. But others, such as Paul, who

1
Tiede, Luke, p. 269.
 90

managed to stay alive, had not necessarily chosen a lesser path. Luke’s account of Paul’s

journey to Jerusalem in Acts suggests that he was following Jesus’ radical call. Yet, he

did not die in Jerusalem, and there is no account or even implication that he died in

Rome.

The two brief parables (Lk. 14:28-32) illustrate not only the first two cases (Lk.

14:26-27), but also the third (Lk. 14:33). The parables challenged the potential disciples

to be sure they were willing to go all the way. Like a person planning to build a tower or
a king contemplating war, discipleship demands sober evaluation. Seccombe is right; the

point is, “discipleship has no limits.”1

In Luke 14:33, Jesus said, “So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all
that he has (ajpotavssetai pa'sin toi'" eJautou' uJpavrcousin) cannot be my disciple.”

The verb ajpotavssomai is found five other times in the New Testament.2 In each case it

means “bid farewell.” Seccombe believes that it means the same here and implies getting

rid of all possessions.3 However, in each of the other uses the term refers to people

bidding farewell to people, not things.

The word ajpotavssomai is capable of a wide range of meanings, including

“delegate,” “appoint for,” “assign to,” “set aside,” “renounce,” and “dismiss” someone.4

Here in Luke 14:33 it may mean, as the RSV translates, “renounce.” This renunciation

may include literal dispossession, but may only suggest relinquishing ownership, which is

acknowledging that God owns everything and the disciple is only a steward. In this case,

Acts 2 and 4 are not “adaptations” or “flexible applications” of Jesus’ demands, as

1
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, p. 115.
2
Luke 9:61; Acts 18:18, 21; Mark 6:46; and II Cor. 2:13.
3
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, pp. 114.
4
See G. Delling, “ajpotavssw,” TDNT vol. 8, pp. 33-34 .
 91

Tannehill suggests,1 but perfect illustrations of those demands: “… no one said that any

of the things which he possessed was his own…” (Acts 4:32).

For some, like the rich ruler, Jesus’ demand entailed getting rid of everything.

Yet for Zacchaeus, the Jerusalem church, the Antioch church, and others it meant giving

the possessions, of which ownership had already been surrendered, to those in need.

Repeatedly we have seen that the willingness to do this is at the core of one’s willingness

to hear the message of the kingdom.

Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, Lost Son(s)

Luke 15
One of the best loved and most important chapters in the gospel, Luke 15, is also

filled with economic language. Words about possessions abound. There is a shepherd

and his sheep; a woman and her coins; a wealthy man; a son who takes his inheritance

and wastes it; a robe, a ring, shoes and an expensive party; and a man who resents the

expensive party for his wasteful, irresponsible brother.

One might think that it is the very kind of material that would be crucial for this
study. However, there is very little in Luke 15 which speaks directly to the issue of this

paper. The stories of the shepherd, woman and father function to speak, not about the use

of possessions, but about Jesus’ ministry to tax collectors and sinners. Even the wasteful

prodigal does not serve as a foil for moral instruction on the use of possessions, but as an

illustration of repentance, forgiveness, and the love of God.

1
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, pp. 247-48. I would argue that this is not the
same as being willing to renounce all possessions if the situation demands it. The renunciation is in the
present, not the future. It is to acknowledge that God owns all over which the disciple is but a steward.
This may help explain the meaning of Luke 16:1-9. See Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth, p. 152.
 92

Yet, the very fact that possessions are the vehicle by which these themes are

developed is worth noticing. As a shepherd loves his sheep and searches for the lost one,

God loves and searches out the sinner. As a poor woman treasures her coins (part of her

wedding head band or a day’s wages?) and searches for the lost one, God treasures the

lost child and searches for it. As the wealthy father loves his renegade son and will spare

no expense to celebrate his return, so God loves his lost children.

In some ways this is the reverse of what we have seen. As they relate to the
kingdom and its acceptance, possessions are dangerous. They are treasured and stored

and they blind one to the true riches, preventing the hearing of the message of the

kingdom. Jesus affirmed that they must be renounced, sold, and given to the poor, if one

is to follow him. Yet Luke 15 speaks of a shepherd unwilling to let go of even one lamb,

a woman frantic to get her coin back, and a father who, though he grants his son the

inheritance and freedom he wishes, is unwilling to let his son go completely.

Perhaps these characters work as such powerful metaphors for love because

humankind is, in some way, like the shepherd, woman, and father in its attachment to

possessions. Danker forcefully brings this point home:

Affluent Westerners smile at all this fuss, and the idea of a lost and found
party over one mangy sheep or even a small coin seems utterly ridiculous.
But that is just the point. Religious people expect God to be less
concerned about lost sinners than they themselves are about some trivial
possession. Values are completely perverted. God’s most precious
possession is humanity! God rejoices at the return of the lost (cf. 2:10)
and cannot wait to put on a party.1

One area of interest in this study is the groupings that preface the parables. On the

one hand are the tax collectors and sinners. On the other are the Pharisees and scribes

(Lk. 15:1-2). The contrast between these groups has been drawn repeatedly by Luke, as

1
Danker, Jesus and the New Age, pp. 274-75.
 93

we have seen (Lk. 4:29-32, 7:29-30, 7:36-50, 14:7-24). In Luke 14 the contrast is not

between Pharisees and sinners but between Pharisees and the poor, maimed, blind and

lame (Lk. 14:13, 21).

As we saw in the discussion of Luke 14, it is best to see the poor and the sinners,

not as metaphorical names for the community of disciples, but rather as those to whom

the message of the kingdom went. The Pharisees were those whose love of possessions

and whose self satisfaction kept them from accepting the message. The poor, like the
sinners, were those who heared the message gladly and responded. Thus the contrast

between the two groups in the preface to Luke 15 leads us to expect that the parables

following have some bearing on possessions.

In the story of the prodigal son, the younger son’s demand for his share of the

inheritance and subsequent squandering of it may illustrate Jesus’ warning in Luke 9:25,

“For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?”

Having nearly lost himself, he realized where true riches were to be found (Lk. 15:17).

He was not only welcomed but given all the possessions that signify true sonship (Lk.

15:22).1

Another vital point for this study comes at the end of the parable. The older

brother complained that he never had the fatted calf killed for him and never had a party

given in his honor (Lk. 15:19). His resentment that this was given to his profligate

1
Johnson sees Luke’s use of the motif of possessions as a metaphor for relationships: “The
dissoluteness of the son, the beginning of his being ‘lost,’ is expressed by the way he used his possessions:
dieskovrpisen th;n oujsivan aujtou' zw'n ajswvtw" (Lk. 15:13). And the beginning of his conversation
comes with his feeling need, poverty: kai; aujto;" h[rxato ujsterei'sqai… kai; oujdei;" ejdivdou aujtw'/ (Lk.
15:14-16), and he recognizes his condition as that of being ‘lost,’ w\de ajpovllumai (Lk. 15:17). The taking
of possessions for oneself therefore expresses alienation, and the dissipation of possessions expresses
personal diminishment. We note further that the son’s return to the father is expressed by the father’s
bestowing on him the family’s most precious possessions (Lk. 15:22-23). Alienation, conversion and return
are all expressed by possessions.” The Literary Function of Possessions, p. 361.
 94

brother speaks of his distorted values, as he appears to have cared more about a fatted calf

than about his brother (Lk. 15:20).

One last point is found in the father’s reply to the older brother, “Son, you are

always with me, and all that is mine is yours” (Lk. 15:31). True wealth is not in

ownership but in relationship with God. The call to renounce ownership of possessions is

not necessarily a call to embrace poverty but rather, a call to be in relationship with the

One who gives the disciple all that is his (Lk. 18:29).1

The Dishonest Steward

Luke 16:1-13
This text has stirred a virtually endless stream of scholarly studies. Two major

questions dominate. The first question asks where the parable ends. One view is that it
ends with verse 7 and that the oJ kuvrio" of verse 8 is Jesus.2 Others hold that it ends with

8a. Among those who hold this view there is disagreement over whether the Lord in 8a is

the master of the story or Jesus.3 Still others carry the parable through 8b,1 while a few

1
Johnson further draws on the metaphorical use of possessions to speak about human relationships:
“Luke has expressed an understanding of possessions which reveals how they can be a symbol of human
relationships. When people are together in unity (‘You are with me always’) they share all possessions
(‘All that is mine is yours’), and the sharing of possessions signifies that unity. When persons are alienated,
the property is divided, and the separation of persons is expressed by each holding ‘what is his own.’ It
cannot go unnoticed how strikingly 15:31 anticipates the language and thoughts of Acts 4:32ff, particularly
in the note that those who are together in unity share all with each other.” Ibid. The primary weakness of
this analysis is that the relationship between the father and his two sons is not presented as a paradigm of
human relationships but of the relationship between God and his people. This may, in fact, anticipate Acts
4:32-37, but it should be seen, not as sharing because of human relationships alone, but rather of sharing
because God has placed in our hands all that is his and calls upon us to invest it in others.
2
Among those who hold this view is J. Jeremias. He argues that the absolute use of oJ kuvrio"
throughout the Gospel strongly favor its referring to Jesus in 8a. Parables, pp. 45-48. However, see Bailey,
who shows that if one limits the use of oJ kuvrio" to the parabolic material the weight of evidence moves in
the other direction. Poet and Peasant, p.103.
3
Fitzmyer argues persuasively for this latter view. “The Story of the Dishonest Manager (Lk
16:1-13),” Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: G. Chapman, 1971),
pp. 161-84.
 95

include verse 9.2 Much of this debate is carried on with the intent of isolating the original

parable from the Lukan redaction. Virtually everyone agrees that Luke has appended

sayings to the parable; the debate is over where these sayings begin.

The second question involves the meaning of the parable. Does it present a

dishonest scoundrel as a model for the disciples? For most, the answer to that question is

a qualified “yes,” although the steward’s cleverness, not his dishonesty, is seen as the

reason for his being praised.3 Others have sought a way to redeem the steward. Thus

Gibson, based upon her experience in the Orient, suggested in 1903 that the steward was

not defrauding his employer but surrendering his own “cut.”4 The steward made his

profit through excessive interest charges and merely surrendered those profits without

effecting the master’s legitimate payments. This view has been revived, with slight

modifications, by Gächter,5 Derrett,6 and Fitzmyer.7 Yet another approach has been to

see this parable as an example of a popular form of story in which a clever rascal gets the

best of the powerful rich. Here the cunning steward, in Robin Hood fashion, outsmarted

the oppressive absentee landlord and won such favor with the common people that even

1
Creed, St. Luke, pp. 201-203; and T. W. Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,” pp. 583-85.
2
These include D. R. Fletcher, “The Riddle of the Unjust Steward: Is Irony the Key?” Journal of
Biblical Literature 82 (1963), pp. 15-30. See further, Fitzmyer, “Story of Dishonest Manager,”
pp. 165-70.
3
Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,” p. 584.
4
Margaret Gibson, “On the Parable of the Unjust Steward,” Expository Times 14 (1902-03),
p. 334.
5
Paul Gächter, “The Parable of the Dishonest Steward,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950),
pp. 121-31.
6
J. D. M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on St Luke XVI ( I. The Parable of the Unjust Steward),” New
Testament Studies 7 (1960-61), pp. 198-219. See also Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970), pp. 48-77; Derrett, “‘Take Thy Bond… and Write Fifty’ (Luke
XVI.6): The Nature of the Bond,” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972), pp. 438-40; and C. B. Firth,
“The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward (Luke 16:1-9),” The Expository Times 63 (1951), pp. 93-95.
7
Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, pp. 1094-1102; Fitzmyer, “Story of Dishonest Manager,” pp. 170-78.
 96

the landlord congratulated him.1 An important challenge to most of these theories was

made by Bailey, who argues that anything that makes the master an accomplice must be

rejected as foreign to the parable and out of keeping with the role of masters in the

parables of Jesus.2 He contends that the steward gambled on the mercy of the master, and

that therein lies the point of the parable. He goes on to say that verses 9-13 were added to

make sure that a Hellenistic audience would not misunderstand that meaning.3

If we allow the Lukan redaction full weight in the interpretation of the parable, the

conclusion in verse 9 may save us from attempts to redeem the steward morally. The

verse reads, “And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous

mammon so that when it fails, they may receive you into the eternal habitations.” Of
particular interest is the phrase “unrighteous mammon” (mamwna' th'" ajdikiva").

Kosmala has shown that the Hebrew equivalent was used in the Dead Sea Scrolls to mean

simply “worldly wealth.”4

Seccombe correctly sees the point of the parable not as a call to have nothing to

do with worldly wealth (as Kosmala maintains), but rather a call to use worldly wealth for

the sake of the kingdom.5 The steward, in a moment of crisis, acted with prudence. He
used possessions in a way which secured his future. That, not his dishonesty, is the point.

The steward’s actions initiated a reciprocity that gave him a home after the crisis of his

master’s judgment, by making “friends” for himself. The disciples, faced with the crisis

1
See D. O. Via, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967), p. 161.
2
K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, pp. 86-118.
3
Ibid. Although Bailey assumes much, his reconstruction of the story is compelling. It has largely
and unfortunately benn ignored. See a critique of Bailey’s approach in Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor
in Luke-Acts, pp. 161-62.
4
H. Kosmala, “The Parable of the Unjust Steward in the Light of Qumran,” Annual of the Swedish
Theological Institute 3 (1964), pp. 114-21.
5
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, p. 166, n. 136.
 97

of the kingdom, must likewise act wisely. They, too, must make “friends” by the use of

the wealth of this age, in order that they may be welcomed into the “eternal habitations.”1

The Lukan context supports such an understanding. As we have suggested above,

Luke 14:33 does not mean that every disciple must get rid of all possessions, but rather

that the disciples must renounce ownership of all possessions. Thus a parable about a

steward is appropriate. How, in a moment of crisis, he chose to employ the possessions

under his stewardship is highly relevant for Luke’s purposes.2

The steward, then, stands in contrast to both the rich fool (12:16-21) and the rich

man who found himself in torment while poor Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham

(Lk. 16:23). Mammon may be “unrighteous,” but how it is used is crucial. The operators

in the present age are more prudent in this regard than the “children of light” (Lk. 16:8b,

10-12).

Although verse 13 (“no servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the

one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot

serve God and mammon.”) may be a traditional saying (it is found also in Mt. 6:24), it

expresses Luke’s theology of possessions. One must make a fundamental choice about

possessions. One will either use possessions for the sake of the kingdom or one will hold
3
onto them. The latter choice is essentially idolatry and ultimate separation from God.

1
The phrase, “eternal habitations” is literally “eternal tents” which may seem like an oxymoron.
However, Seccombe suggests that this phrase is taken from Isaiah 33:20, in which the future Jerusalem is
described as a glorious city: “Look upon Zion, the city of our appointed feasts! Your eyes will see
Jerusalem, a quiet habitation, an immovable tent, whose stakes will never be plucked up, nor will any of its
cords be broken.” Ibid., p. 168.
2
This point is made by Fred. E. Williams, “The parable of the Unjust Steward… would counsel the
believer to give away as much money as possible here, in order to obtain eternal shelter in the world to
come. Underlying its symbolism is the idea, familiar to Jewish piety, that a man in practicing almsgiving
distributes, not his own property, but property which is already God’s.” F. E. Williams, “Is Almsgiving the
Point of the ‘Unjust Steward’?” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964 ), p. 294. See also Johnson, The
Gospel of Luke, p. 248.
3
Ibid.
 98

Jesus and the Pharisees

Luke 16:14-18
It is clear that the parable of the dishonest manager is followed by sayings that

explicate the parable (Lk. 16:9-13). It is also clear that the parable of Lazarus and the rich

man (Lk. 16:19-31) continues the theme of wealth and possessions. What is less clear is

the function of the intervening verses (Lk. 16:14-18). These verses can be divided into
three sections: the first (Lk. 16:14-15) deals with the Pharisees; the second (Lk.

16:16-17) deals with the law and the kingdom; and the third (Lk. 16:18) deals with

divorce and adultery. Verses 14-15 have a reasonably clear connection with the

preceding section in that they deal with money. The second and third sections, however,

do not overtly speak of possessions.1 It will be the argument of this paper, however, that

each section has a connection with the theme of possessions and the call of the kingdom.

This material is tied to both the preceding and the following parable and helps interpret

both.

The scoffing of the Pharisees (Lk. 16:14) is linked to Jesus’ saying about

mammon in Luke 16:13. It seems likely that more is intended by Luke’s description of
2
the Pharisees as “lovers of money” than an assertion that they were greedy. Craddock

1
Fitzmyer comments on the three sayings, “In themselves they are not related topically, are derived
from different sources, and are addressed to the Pharisees explicitly.” Luke X-XXIV, pp. 1111-12.
Marshall is even less clear about the connection, “The connection of thought at this point in the section is
far from obvious. Although the theme of wealth returns in vs. 19-31, the theme in vs. 16-18 is the law. It
may be best to assume that Luke was governed by the order of the material in his sources, and that he has
put it together as best he could, but not with complete success.” Luke, p. 624.
2
Throughout this discussion, the writer is aware of the unfortunate tendency of Christian writers to
use these texts to make sweeping generalizations about Jews in general and Pharisees in particular. Such
generalizations have been severely criticized of late and rightly so. However, Luke speaks of Pharisees here
without qualification. This paper will do so as well, with the understanding that not all Pharisees were
“money-loving legalists.” As to whether such texts demonstrate that Luke was essentially anti-Semitic, the
reader must decide on other criteria.
 99

argues that underneath this is a theological argument about the relationship between

possessions and God.1 For the Pharisees, possessions were the indication that God’s

blessing was upon them. The saying of Luke 16:13 challenges that assumption. In Luke

13:1-5, Jesus had already challenged the simplistic understanding of the Deuteronomic

theology that God blesses the faithful and punishes the unfaithful. There, Jesus

challenged the idea that those who perished were more wicked than the rest. In 16:15 he

challenged the positive half of the assumption, namely that those who have possessions
are approved by God.

For the Lukan Jesus, the Pharisees have turned the Deuteronomic promises on

their head. Instead of seeking faithfulness to God, they loved wealth, and for Jesus this

was idolatry.2 The reversal of the Pharisees’ values in verse 15 prepares the reader for

the reversal of fortunes in the following parable.

The saying in Luke 16:16 is notoriously difficult and cannot be fully discussed in

this paper.3 However, enough can be said to show that it is connected to both the

preceding and following parable. The thrust of the text is that the kingdom is breaking in

with compelling power.4 As in the case of the dishonest manager, those who are present

as the kingdom breaks in are presented with a crisis. They, like he, must make

fundamental choices. To cling to one’s possessions is idolatry and is fraught with danger.

The kingdom is not in opposition to the law, but rather in harmony with it, so to reject the

kingdom is to reject the very law the Pharisees claimed to love. They, like the brothers of

1
Craddock, Luke, pp. 192-93. See also Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 156.
2
Johnson notes the association of the word “abomination” with idolatry. The Gospel of Luke,
p. 250.
3
See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986),
pp. 91-96.
4
See Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, pp. 250-54.
 100

the tormented rich man, had the law and the prophets, if they would but listen to its

witness.

Perhaps the most puzzling of the three sections is the one on divorce. For

Marshall, as for many, the saying is out of place: “… if Luke was following Q, this may

well have been the next most suitable saying in that source.”1 However, Luke’s literary

skill is too consistently high for such an assumption. Further, he has shown a clear

willingness to rearrange his sources.2

Johnson suggests that the connection may rest with the term Bdevlugma

(abomination), which is found in both Luke 16:15 and Deuteronomy 24:4 (LXX), the

passage concerning divorce. The term is used in the Old Testament in relation to idolatry,

money (Deut. 25:16), and divorce.3 This verbal connection may point to an even more

basic connection. As stated earlier, a woman in the ancient world was considered the

possession of her father, and then her husband.4 The context of Deuteronomy 24 is that

of regulations regarding possessions. In Deuteronomy 23:19-20 there is the prohibition

of interest on a loan,5 and in Deuteronomy 23:21-23 there are regulations regarding vows

(which often include the payment of money or some possessions). Deuteronomy

23:24-25 has rules regarding gleaning a neighbor’s field. In Deuteronomy 24:6 there is a

prohibition against taking a millstone (a person’s livelihood) in pledge. In Deuteronomy

24:7 there is the regulation concerning the unlawful enslavement of an Israelite. In

Deuteronomy 24:10-13 there are restrictions on what may be taken as a pledge on a loan.

1
Marshall, Luke, p. 631.
2
Luke 4:16-30 is the most obvious example.
3
Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, pp. 250, 255.
4
Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex, pp. 147-56.
5
If this section of Deuteronomy influenced the shape of Luke 16, Deut. 23:19-20 may lend support
to the theory that the dishonest manager eliminated the interest on the loan.
 101

Finally, in Deuteronomy 24:14-15 there is the command to pay the wages of the laborer

each day, “because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them” (24:15 NRSV).

In the midst of these regulations regarding possessions are two texts dealing with

marriage (Deut. 24:1-4, 5-6). That Luke likewise juxtaposes marriage and possessions,

then, should not surprise us. If the Pharisees, who professed loyalty to the law, used the

law to justify divorcing their wives to marry another,1 and in doing so treated their wives

like disposable property, the inclusion of Luke 16:18 here makes perfect sense. It is yet
more evidence of the Pharisees’ distorted values and their desire to justify themselves

before men, and that they had not truly heard Moses and the prophets.

Lazarus and the Rich Man

Luke 16:19-31
As we have seen, the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees leads to this

familiar parable of stark contrasts. In this life, one man is very rich while Lazarus is

extremely poor—a lame beggar. In the life to come, the contrast is just as stark. Lazarus

is in the bosom of Abraham (paradise), while the former rich man is in torment.

An unusual feature of the parable is that one of the two primary characters is

named, while the other is not. One theory to account for this is the possible connection to

Abraham. Derrett concludes, “For Lazarus, as his name shows, is no other than Eliezar,

Abraham’s steward…”2 Lazarus is seen imaginatively as Abraham’s envoy to check on

Abraham’s descendants. He came as a poor and blameless beggar and found that those

1
Rabbi Aqiba allows divorce if a husband finds another woman more beautiful than his wife,
Mishna Gittin 9.10. Plummer remarks that Deut. 24:1 “was interpreted with such frivolity, that Hillel is
said to have taught that a man might divorce his wife for spoiling the dinner.” The Gospel According to St.
Luke, pp. 389-90.
2
J. D. M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on St Luke XVI (II. Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding
Sayings,” New Testament Studies 7 (1960-61), p. 371.
 102

descendants had not shown hospitality. The dogs, who are seen as the rich man’s dogs,

showed more mercy than the rich man. Lazarus should have been welcomed, not

scorned. The law and prophets say as much.1

Cave moves beyond Derrett and suggests that Genesis 15 and Isaiah 1 stand

behind the parable.2 Because Eliezer was a Gentile, Lazarus represents the Gentiles.3

The parable teaches “the severity of the judgment that threatens Israel if she persists in

her unrepentant state.”4

Marshall’s evaluation of both of these theories seems appropriate: “It is

questionable whether either of these views reaches the heart of the parable.”5

Not only is the name Lazarus the Greek form of Eliezar, it is also a name which

means “God is my help.” This has been viewed as important to the story.6 Scott suggests

that this name implies a certain virtue in the poor beggar. He trusted in the help of God,

in spite of the failure of his fellow man to provide such help.7

1
Ibid., pp. 370-75.
2
C. H. Cave rejects the idea that Deuteronomy 18:15 stands behind the parable. Instead he see the
Genesis and Isaiah texts as passages that would have been read together in a three-yearly cycle of Synagoge
readings with the theme of the gathering in of the Gentiles. “Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy,” New
Testament Studies 15 (1987), pp. 319-25.
3
Ibid., pp. 323-24.
4
Ibid., p. 325.
5
Marshall, Luke, p. 633.
6
Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, New International Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 428.
7
“.. . . likewise, the first’s man’s introduction begins withe the anonymous ‘man,’ and the second
ends with a proper name Lazarus. Perhaps this may also indicate the purpose of naming the poor man, for
the name means ‘he whom God helps.’ The name Lazarus contrasts the two characters: one is full of
possessions, and the other is empty except for a name, but the meaning of the name may well hold out a
promise.” Bernard Scott, Hear Then The Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 149.
 103

The corollary problem is the absence of a name for the rich man. If Jesus gave a

name to one of the characters, why did he not do so to the other?1 It may simply be that it

was necessary to the dialogue of the story to give the poor man a name. That the rich

man recognized the poor man by name in the bosom of Abraham, implies that he also

knew him while he was a beggar. This increases the rich man’s guilt.2 The point of the

story then, is not that the rich man was suffering torment only because he had been rich,

but rather because he had failed to share his wealth with the poor who sat at his very gate.
As helpful as these solutions may be, might more be intended? Giving a name to

the poor man does help the flow of the plot, but why leave the rich man un-named? One

solution may be in the motif of reversal. The idea of the reversal of the fortunes of the

wicked rich and the righteous poor can be seen in the Wisdom of Solomon 1-3 and in I

Enoch 102-104,3 and in the rich publican Bar Ma‘yan in the Palestinian Talmud Hagigah

2.2.4 Whether or not the parable in Luke 16:19-31 draws on such traditions is debatable,

but it clearly continues the reversal motif of the exaltation of the humble-poor and the

bringing low of the wealthy, which is a prominent feature of Luke’s gospel.

1
Early names given the rich man include “Neues,” “Nineue” (possibly refering to the rich city of
Nineveh), “Finaeus,” and “Amonofis.” Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 42; Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,” p. 590; Marshall, Luke, pp. 634-35.
One of the interesting explanations for the name “Neues” is advanced by K. Grobel. Developing his thesis
on a parallel with a popular Egyptian folk-tale of the journey of Si-Osiris, he suggests that this name
represents a Coptic word meaning “nobody”, used to describe the rich man’s status in the underworld. “.
..Whose Name Was Neves,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963-1964), pp. 381-82. Eventually the popular
name for this un-named rich man has become “Dives”, from the Latin, meaning rich.
2
See S. MacLean Gilmour, Interpreter’s Bible, [Luke and John (New York and Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1952), vol. 8, pp. 290-91; Marshall, Luke, p. 635.
3
For a discussion of the relationship of I Enoch with this parable see, G. W. E. Nickelsburg,
“Riches, the Rich and God’s Judgment in I Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel According to Luke,” p. 338. See
also the discussion under “The Rich Fool—Luke 12:13-21” above.
4
For a discussion of the story and the parable, see Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, p. 183. See
also Bernard Scott, Hear Then The Parable, p. 157; and Manson, “Sayings of Jesus,” p. 589.
 104

These prior developments of the reversal motif prepare the reader to expect that

God’s evaluation of Lazarus and the rich man will be radically different from man’s.

That is exactly what we find in this story. The rich man had everything the world would

desire. Yet before God it was all of negative value. Lazarus had nothing that the world

values, yet, when he died, he received an angelic escort to the comfort and bosom of

Abraham.

Here lies the key to understanding the naming of the poor beggar and the absence
of a name given to the rich man. To have one’s name known is significant.1 Throughout

the Old Testament and intertestamental literature, having one’s name remembered is

crucial.2 The gospel tradition continues this theme.3 Thus the naming of Lazarus reflects

the values of the Lukan Jesus. He, not the nameless rich man, is in paradise. The rich

man consumed his possessions on himself (Lk. 16:19) and failed to care for the one at his

very gate (Lk. 16:20). Such selfish consumption inhibits one from hearing Moses and the

prophets (Lk. 16:29). Possessions will keep one from responding even to one “who

should rise from the dead” (Lk. 16:31).

1
R. Abba, “Name,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (New York and Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1962), vol. 3, pp. 500-508.
2
The tower builders of Genesis 11 wish to “make a name for themselves.” To have one’s name
blotted out is the worst of fates (Psalm 41:5, Deut. 25:6, Isa. 48:17-19, Wis. of Sol. 2:4). That is, however,
the fate of the wicked (Deut. 9:14, 29:20; Psalm 109:13; Prov. 10:7). The name of the righteous, on the
other hand, will be remembered (Psalm 72:17, I Enoch 104:1). There is a sense in which this parable serves
as a commentary on Proverbs 22:1, “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is
better than silver or gold.”
3
Jesus is the Good Shepherd who calls his own sheep by name (John 10:3). The wicked are those
who are not known (Matt. 25:12). In Luke there are two important parallels. In 13:22-30, Jesus says that
the workers of iniquity are the unknown who will be thrust out from the presence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and all the prophets. In Luke 10:20 the returning and joyful disciples are told, “Nevertheless do not rejoice
in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
 105

Eschatological Warnings
Luke 17:26-33
Of special interest in the eschatological discourse of Luke 17:22-37 are verses

26-33, which include warnings about possessions. These verses show clear marks of

Luke’s editing, and the discussion of possessions in this context is unique to Luke.

The comparison of the coming of the Son of man with the days of Noah and Lot is

unique to Luke. In both examples the people carried on the business of living without

regard to the coming crisis of judgment. In 17:28-29 the list of activities of the people of

Sodom includes their dealing with possessions: they “bought, they sold, they planted,

they built.” In continuing the business of possessions, they were unprepared for the

destruction that came.

The illustrations of the flood and the destruction of Sodom introduce a warning to

the disciples: “so it will be on the day when the Son of man is revealed.” Luke 17:31

directly addresses possessions and the crisis of judgment: “On that day, let him who is on
the housetop, with his goods (ta; skeuvh) in the house, not come down to take them away;

and likewise let him who is in the field not turn back.” Unfortunately, the force of the
second example is lessened by the inexplicable omission of the last clause, eij" ta; ojpivsw

(“to the things behind”) in the RSV and NRSV. The force of both examples is clear:

“Don’t try to get your possessions, it will be too late!”

Plummer rightly sees this eschatological note as a present warning to the disciples.

“The point is absolute indifference to all worldly interests as the attitude of readiness for

the Son of Man.” (emphasis his)1 Creed also sees the present dimension of the warning

and connects it with verse 33: “The next verse probably indicates that the sayings here are

1
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 409.
 106

not to be understood literally, but of the renunciation of earthly possessions.”1 Those

who turn to their possessions in the moment of crisis will be like Lot’s wife.

The warning leads to Luke 17:33, “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but
whoever loses his life will preserve it.” Johnson suggests that the literal meaning of thvn

yuch;n aujtou' peripoihvsasqai, “to gain his life,” is “to hold life as a possession.”2

Such a reading is consistent with what we have seen throughout Luke. Those who view

life in terms of possessions or as a possession will be like the rich fool (Lk. 12:20), or the

rich man (Lk. 16:19, 22-23), or the rich upon whom Jesus pronounced an eschatological

woe (Lk. 6:24). The disciple is to be prepared by renouncing possessions, and even his

life, as his own (Lk. 14:26-33) and investing life and possessions wisely for eternal

habitations (Lk. 16:9). These eschatological warnings, then, are another call to be

detached from all that would keep one from the kingdom. That certainly includes

possessions.

The Pharisee and the Tax Collector

Luke 18:9-14
This parable’s contact with the theme of this paper is evident in the self-
congratulatory prayer of the Pharisee: “I give tithes (ajpodekateuvw) of all (pavnta) that I

get.”

In the Lukan setting of this parable the Pharisee, for all the good things he may

have done, is negatively evaluated. The parable is introduced by, “He also told this

parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others”

(Lk. 18:9). The parable closes with the words of Jesus, “I tell you, this man [the tax

1
Creed, St. Luke, p. 221.
2
Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 265.
 107

collector] went down to his house justified rather than the other [the Pharisee]” (Lk.

18:14a). The pericope closes with the familiar saying, “for everyone who exalts himself

will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk. 18:14b).

Tithing was an important and meticulously regulated practice of the Pharisee, as

Johnson notes.1 What Jesus condemns, however, was not the fact of the tithing, any more

than the fact of fasting. As the introduction makes clear,2 the problem is that these acts of

piety had become props for a self-reliant and exclusive religion. The kingdom will bring
about a reversal of such values.3 It will also demand much more than the Pharisee’s

tithes. In that respect the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector prepares the reader for

the stories of the rich ruler and Zacchaeus the tax collector.

The Rich Ruler

Luke 18:18-30
The story of the rich ruler is a crucial text for this study. Did the Lukan Jesus give

a requirement only to the rich ruler to sell all and give to the poor, or did it constitute a

demand for all disciples?4 Was it a demand only for “professional missionaries?”5 Was

it a demand made in its strictest form only for the lifetime of Jesus and modified by the
6
church as we know it from Acts?

1
Ibid., p. 272.
2
Bernard Scott rejects the Lukan setting as an intrepretive guide to the original parable: “Despite
Luke’s use of the parable as an example story, it is not.” Hear Then the Parable, p. 97. Whatever the
original intent of the parable may have been, it is Luke’s use of the parable that is crucial here.
3
See Talbert for a discussion of the reversal motif in this text. Reading Luke, pp. 170-171.
4
Tannehill, though leaving open the possibility that the demand was only for the followers “in the
time of Jesus,” goes on to say, “Thus when Jesus tells the rich ruler to sell and give all, he is simply
repeating a requirement which applies to all his followers who have possessions.” The Narrative Unity of
Luke-Acts, vol. 1, p. 121.
5
Degenhardt, Lukas, p. 142.
6
Pilgrim is an example of this, as we have seen. Good News to the Poor, p. 102.
 108

Luke’s redaction of Mark is important in seeking answers to such questions. In

both Mark and Luke this text follows the story of the children coming to Jesus. Luke

follows Mark in saying, “… for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you,

whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Mk. 10:14c-

15, Lk. 18:16c-17). However, Luke departs from Mark by connecting the saying about

children directly to the question asked by the rich ruler. This change makes the contrast

between the children and the rich ruler sharp and immediate.1
Many of Luke’s changes appear to be little more than stylistic. Others, however,

are significant. Thus Luke changes Mark’s “sell what you have” (Mk. 10:21) to “Sell all

that you have” (Lk. 18:22). He also changes Mark’s description of the man as one who

“had great possessions” (Mk. 10:22) to “he was very rich” (Lk. 18:23). These changes

serve to focus attention on the theme of possessions even more sharply than in Mark.

In Mark’s account, the man left with great sorrow (Mk. 10:22). In Luke, however,

he remained. The Lukan Jesus addressed the saying on how hard it is for those who have

riches to enter the kingdom of God directly to the ruler. Luke leaves out Mark’s

description of the disciples’ amazement and moves directly to the proverb of the camel

through the needle’s eye (Lk. 18:25). This, too, would presumably be directed to the

ruler. Only then is a larger audience mentioned (“those who heard it” - Lk. 18:26).

The man as a rich ruler stands in contrast to the poor to whom he is to distribute

his wealth. This contrast reminds one of the Lukan beatitudes and woes (Lk. 6:20,24).

This rich man will fare no better than the rich fool (Lk. 12:16-21) or the rich man who

had Lazarus at his gate (Lk. 16: 19-31). Luke’s redaction of the story also invites the

reader to see the rich ruler as a personification of texts like Luke 12:32-34, 14:25-33, and

1
Luke alone calls the man a ruler, further sharpening the contrast with children. The reader of
Luke should avoid reading Matthew’s “young man” into the story.
 109

16:10-17. Luke gives flesh and blood to the warning: “What does it profit a man if he

gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” (Lk. 9:25). The rich man’s apparent

unwillingness to surrender his wealth illustrates Luke’s theology of possessions.

The question remains whether all disciples are expected literally to sell
everything. Luke does emphasize that the rich man was to sell all (pavnta) his

possessions (Lk. 18:22), but is that the paradigm for discipleship? France answers,

“… there is another side to the picture. Some of Jesus’ followers were, and remained,
rich and influential men.” France goes on to mention Joseph of Arimathaea; Zacchaeus;

Lazarus, Mary, and Martha; and all those who continued to support the ministry of Jesus

out of their means.1 One also thinks of Levi, who is said to have left everything and

followed Jesus (Lk. 5:28). Yet after leaving everything, he held a “great feast” in his

house.2 Further examples appear in Acts. Wealthy women like Mary, the mother of

Mark (Acts 12:12) and Lydia (Acts 16:15) opened their houses for the church. Others

gave out of the means they still possessed to serve the church.3

Johnson pursues the implication of that evidence:

Side by side with the call to total renunciation of possessions,

therefore, we find the ideal of almsgiving and hospitality. A simple but
important point must be made about this. If the two practices are not
mutually exclusive, they are at least impossible to practice at one and the
same time. What are the possibilities? If I am already among the “poor”
and destitute, I simply do not have the means to give alms, unless, like the
poor widow, I give “all my living.” If I have possessions, and sell them all
in order to be a disciple, this can indeed be seen as a form of almsgiving,
but if I really sell “all,” then I too enter the ranks of the destitute, no longer
to give alms, but to rely on the alms and generosity of others who have
held on to their possessions. My almsgiving, if so it can be called, is of a
once-for-all nature. To give alms on a continuing basis, one must have

1
R. T. France, “God and Mammon,” The Evangelical Quarterly 51 (1979), p. 13.
2
See Meadors, The Poor in Luke’s Gospel, p.174.
3
These texts will be discussed in the following chapter.
 110

something to give; one must maintain some possessions. To provide

hospitality to the needy and wandering, one needs to have a house, or at
least a room.1

If all disciples are called to do what this man was called to do, all would be among “the

needy and wandering.” While Luke does not say that what was demanded of the rich

ruler is unique, neither does he say that it is normative. That it is in fact not normative is

suggested by Luke’s changing the words of Peter in Mark from leaving “everything” (Mk.

10:28) to leaving “houses” (Lk. 18:28). Even among the twelve the call was not identical
to the one given this rich ruler. The fishermen (Lk. 5:11) left all and followed Jesus, but

they apparently did not sell all and give the proceeds to the poor before following Jesus.2

The parallels between the story of the rich ruler and the warnings in Luke

16:10-17 are interesting and significant. Like the Pharisees of 16:14, this rich man was a

“lover of money.” Like them, he could not serve two masters (Lk. 16:13). He also was

devoted to the law (Lk. 16:16-17). Cranfield observes that the list of commandments the

rich man claimed to have followed is from the second table of the law. However, for

Cranfield the man’s fundamental problem is not from the second table, but the first;

indeed, it is the first commandment, the one prohibiting idolatry.3 Wealth became this

man’s idol. He tried to serve God and mammon. Like the Pharisees of Luke 16, he may

have thought that his possessions were a mark of God’s favor. Like them, he finally,

although sorrowfully, rejected the call of Jesus to the kingdom.

1
L. T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1981), p. 20.
2
Seccombe, noting that Luke’s alterations of Mark intensify the degree of renunciation required by
the rich man and soften that of the disciples, comments, “This, and the fact that the ruler is told to dispose of
his possessions irrevocably, whereas the others merely left (ajfevnte") home (perhaps to return), makes the
ruler’s case very different from theirs.” Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, p. 126.
3
C. E. B. Cranfield, “Riches and the Kingdom of God: St. Mark 10:17-31,” Scottish Journal of
Theology 4 (1951), p. 309.
 111

The man was told that he must completely give up his idolatrous relationship with

wealth if he was to inherit eternal life. There is no wonder, then, that it is so hard for the

rich to enter the kingdom (Lk. 18:24). It is indeed so hard that it is impossible with men

(Lk. 18:25-26) and must come from God (Lk. 18:27). It must be the gracious gift of the

one who calls, and yet it must be met by the surrendering of all.

Although the specifics of the call differ from those in other cases, the rich ruler

was not called to discipleship on a different basis than others. The basis is the same as
that expressed in Luke 14:33, “So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he

has cannot be my disciple.” As we have argued, this saying does not require the universal

and physical dispossession by all disciples but it does require the renouncing the

ownership of possessions by all disciples. The story of the rich ruler demonstrates just

how serious that renunciation is. Not all were called to sell everything, but each disciple

needed to know that none “of the things which he possessed was his own” (Acts 4:32).

The Blind Man of Jericho

Luke 18:35-43
The story of the blind man of Jericho likely would not have a place in this study

had not Luke placed it as a narrative bridge between two crucial texts, the story of the rich

ruler and the story of Zacchaeus. Located where it is, the story both bridges and stands in

contrast to those texts. The ruler was exceedingly rich but unwilling to renounce his

wealth. Zacchaeus was also rich but he was willing to part with his wealth. The blind

man was a poor beggar who has nothing from which to part, but found healing and more.
 112

The blind man cried only for mercy. His faith in the “Son of David,”1 unlike the

ultimate unbelief of the rich ruler who was sorrowful, made him well. Unlike that ruler,

this poor, blind beggar “received his sight and followed him, glorifying God” (18:43).

That is the language of the disciple, and it illustrates perfectly what was promised in the

program statement of Luke 4:16-30: “… good news to the poor … sight to the blind.”

The story stands in contrast to the prior one. The story of the rich ruler illustrates

how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. This story illustrates how the

poor are blessed because the kingdom of God is theirs (Lk. 6:20), and it also prepares the

reader for the remarkable story of Zacchaeus, which illustrates that all things are possible

for God.

Zacchaeus
Luke 19:1-10
Again we come to a crucial text for our study. Walter Pilgrim goes so far as to

say, “We regard the story of Zacchaeus as the most important Lukan text on the subject of

the right use of possessions.2 However, as in the story of the rich ruler, questions arise
regarding possessions and the call of the kingdom. Was a different demand given to

Zacchaeus than to the ruler? Did Zacchaeus give up only a portion of his wealth or all

that he had? Is he indeed the “paradigm par excellence for Luke of how the rich can enter

the kingdom of God,” as Pilgrim suggests?3 If so, how is that paradigm to be copied?

1
Cf. the rich ruler’s “good teacher.” Jesus accepts the clearly Messianic title while questioning the
title the rich ruler used.
2
Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, p. 129.
3
Ibid., p. 134.
 113

Two different strains of Luke’s narrative converge in this pericope. Luke

describes Zacchaeus in 19:2 as a “ajrcitelwvnh" kai; aujto;" plouvsio"” (“chief tax

collector, and rich”). jArcitelwvnh" is found only here in the New Testament. The word

“implies that Zacchaeus was probably head of a group of tax-collectors.”1 Tax collectors

have appeared regularly in the Lukan audience. Although outside accepted societal

circles, they had been attracted to John the Baptist (Lk. 3:12) and Jesus (Lk. 7:29, 34,

15:1). Jesus’ contact with tax collectors elicited strong criticism from religious leaders
(Lk. 5:30, 7:34, 15:1-2). In Luke 18:9-14 Jesus told a parable that specifically contrasted

a Pharisee with a tax collector. Because of his humility, the tax collector, not the proud

Pharisee, left justified (Lk. 18:9-10).

Luke’s thoroughly sympathetic portrayal of tax collectors contrasts sharply with

his portrayal of the rich, who are consistently portrayed as those who have received their

reward and stand in danger of a reversal of fortune by the judgment of God (Lk. 1:51,

6:24, 12:16-21, 16:19-31). Up to this point in Luke the only rich person described in a

way not overtly negative is the master of the dishonest steward (Lk. 16:1). In 18:18-30

Luke tells of the unwillingness of a rich man to become a disciple, which led to a

declaration of the difficulty of the rich to enter the kingdom (18:24-27).

In the story of Zacchaeus, therefore, Luke has brought two conflicting portrayals

into one character. That he is a tax collector suggests that he will respond positively to

Jesus. That he is rich suggests that he will not. As the narrative progresses it is clear that

the expectations of the crowd are the reverse of the expectations the reader will have

brought to the story. The reader might expect Luke to denounce him for his wealth while

the crowd condemns him for being a tax collector. Neither expectation is met.

1
Marshall, Luke, p. 696.
 114

Our interest in the story is in Zacchaeus’ response to the crowd’s accusation:

“Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of

anything, I restore it fourfold” (Lk. 19:8). Is this response a defense,1 or is it repentance?2

The question is complicated by the present tense of the verbs divdwmi and ajpodivdwmi.

Do they suggest, “I already give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have defrauded any

one of anything, I already restore it fourfold”? The majority of the interpreters see the

verbs as “futuristic” present tense verbs that carry the meaning of “I will give… I will
restore.”3

The choice here is not an easy one. White has noted that the story does not

contain many elements one finds in a typical salvation story. Zacchaeus did not

acknowledge sin; his speech and behavior was not self-effacing; his appeal to Jesus was

self-assertive, not a petition for forgiveness; the announcement of Jesus was not of

forgiveness but of vindication; and no observer reaction is given.4

On the other hand, Jesus’ words, “Today salvation has come to this house,” imply

that the man’s reaction is responsible for his “salvation.” It is difficult to understand the

story, particularly in the Lukan context, unless Zacchaeus’ words represented a

commitment he had not previously made.

Zacchaeus’ willingness to give half of his possessions to the poor clearly goes far

beyond common generosity. To repay four-fold follows the restitution demanded of one

1
Richard C. White, “Vindication for Zacchaeus,” Expository Times 91 (1979), p. 21; Fitzmyer,
Luke X-XXIV, pp. 1220-22.
2
This is clearly the view of the majority of scholars. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke,
pp. 434-35; Creed, St. Luke, p. 231; Marshall, Luke, pp. 697-98.
3
Marshall, Luke, p. 698.
4
White, “Vindication for Zacchaeus,” p. 21. Fitzmyer adds an argument made by F. Godet, “. . .
who admitted that one could understand didomi as futuristic, ‘As of now I give away… ,’ but queried what
sense it would make to understand apodidomi similarly, ‘As of now I pay back…’ whenever I extort.” Luke
X-XXIV, p. 1221.
 115

who has stolen sheep (Ex. 22:1). Yet is it the same as giving all? Tannehill answers

affirmatively:

… it is doubtful that Zacchaeus is getting by more cheaply than the rich

ruler.… There is no reference to anything left over. Hence it is a mistake
to assume that the story is trying to present a realistic compromise that
permits the rich to retain part of their goods for their own use. Zacchaeus
is an example of radical repentance, not of practical wisdom, and it is
assumed that his response will leave him pretty much in the same financial
state required of the rich ruler.1

Whether one makes that assumption largely depends upon how dishonest one

believes Zacchaeus to have been. Marshall states, “From the fact that Zacchaeus was rich

we are already entitled to assume that, like others of his trade, he was none too scrupulous

in making sure that he got a good profit on his transactions.”2 On the other hand,

Meadors raises an obvious question, “But, if Zacchaeus’ pledge of restitution is to be

taken seriously, then he must not have been too dishonest or how could he ever fulfill his

promise?”3 In some sense the story certainly stands in contrast to that of the rich ruler,

for as Johnson observes, Zacchaeus “clearly has not impoverished himself (half a bundle

can still be a bundle).”4

In Luke 18:28, in response to his statements on the impossibility of a rich man

being saved, Jesus is asked, “Then who can be saved?” The story of Zacchaeus answers

that question. Even a rich chief tax collector can be saved. Whether he actually disposes

1
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, pp. 123-24.
2
Marshall, Luke, p. 696. Schmidt does his own calculations, “… if we estimate that only one
denarius in ten of his income was fraudulent, and allow but another one denarius for his own maintenance,
five denarii in donations plus fourfold restitution of the fraudulent denarius would leave him with nothing.”
Hostility to Wealth, p. 159.
3
Meadors, The Poor in Luke’s Gospel, p. 187.
4
Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 286. In Sharing Possessions, p. 20, Johnson says, “This is an
extraordinarily generous response, it is true, but not absolute renunciation. … We are not told that he sold
his house, left all his possessions, and followed Jesus, or even stopped being a tax collector.”
 116

of all his possessions is secondary; that Jesus promises salvation to his house proves that

he has renounced his possessions in the sense in which Jesus required (Lk. 14:33).

Tannehill is therefore right in saying that the story does not allow a “compromise

that permits the rich to retain part of their goods for their own use.”1 Again, the

contention of this paper is that the basic response expected of all disciples is the same.

All are to renounce all of their possessions. Having come to the kingdom of God, both

they and all they have are subject to the Lord. What differs from case to case is how
those possessions will be used. In this respect the particulars of Zacchaeus’s response

may differ from that required of the rich ruler. Nevertheless, Zacchaeus disposed of

much—perhaps all—of his wealth for the benefit of the poor and for restitution to any

whom he had defrauded. He was accepted by Jesus, and in response met the demands of

the kingdom. In light of this, Jesus declared: “Today salvation has come to this house”

(Lk. 19:9).

The Parable of the Pounds

Luke 19:11-27
The parable of the pounds presents a host of complex issues which are beyond the
2
scope of this paper. In its present context in Luke the parable is closely tied to the

Zacchaeus story, as is evident in the introductory words, “As they heard these things, he

proceeded to tell a parable” (Lk. 19:11). On the other end, the parable is connected to the

journey to Jerusalem by the words, “And when he had said this, he went on ahead, going

1
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, pp. 123-24.
2
These include issues of source(s) and redaction, relationship to historical events in the time of
Archelaus, and the debate over whether the parable’s function is to deal with the delay of the parousia. See
L. T. Johnson, “The Lukan Kingship Parable (Lk. 19:11-27),” Novum Testamentum 24 (1982),
pp. 139-59; and Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, pp. 292-94.
 117

up to Jerusalem” (Lk. 19:28). The parable thus stands as the climax to the travel narrative

and as the introduction to the entry into Jerusalem and the passion narrative.

The relationship of the parable to the theme of discipleship and possessions is

clear. It is a story of a nobleman who entrusted his servants with ten pounds or minas.1

While the allegorical aspects of the story raise questions about equating the minas with

possessions,2 there are reasons to view the parable as, at the very least, including

concerns about possessions. In Luke 19:17 we find, “Well done, good servant! Because
you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.” Here is an

echo of Luke 16:10-12, which, as we have seen, has to do with the use of possessions. As

Seccombe observes:

The echo of Luke 16:10ff in 19:17 suggests that stewardship of

possessions was not altogether absent from Luke’s mind in this parable.
Neither the use of ejlacivstw/ (19:17), nor the modest sums in trust suggest
that he was thinking primarily of spiritual graces, or the Holy Spirit, or the
word of God.3

If it is granted that the pounds include possessions even though they do not equal

possessions, this parable summarizes much of what has been said about possessions in

Luke. The disciple is a steward, the possessions are a trust, and the Lord of the kingdom

is the owner. Like the dishonest manager, the stewards are to invest, not merely keep,

what has been entrusted to them. The rich fool (Lk. 12:16-21), the rich man (Lk.

1
The mina was roughly one sixtieth of the talent found in Matthew 25:14-30. Fitzmyer, Luke X-
XXIV, p. 1235.
2
For Fitzmyer the pounds represent the message of the kingdom, Ibid., pp. 1232-33. See also
Craddock, who says, “Doubtless this refers to the spread of the word…,”Luke, p. 223. G. R. Beasley-
Murray says, “The entrusted wealth, accordingly, is likely to be a symbol of the saving sovereignty of God:
offered as a gift, it becomes a powerful agency in the lives of those who receive it.… to receive the gift is to
accept a trust that demands a discharge in the service of God.” Jesus and the Kingdom of God, p. 217. For
Barclay the pounds represent the duties assigned to the disciples. William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), p. 247.
3
Seecombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, p. 191.
 118

16:19-31), and the rich ruler (Lk. 18:18-27) failed in this crucial regard. The disciples

(Lk. 18:28-30) and Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:8), however, placed their possessions at the

disposal of the kingdom.

Scribes, the Rich, and a Poor Widow

Luke 20:45 - 21:4
These two texts (Lk. 20:45-47 and 21:1-4) are linked by the reference to
devouring widows’ houses in Luke 20:47, and to “a poor widow,” in 21:2. Luke makes

the connection stronger by eliminating part of Mark’s transition, “And he sat down

opposite the treasury” (Mk. 12:41). Without a change of scene, the reader is encouraged

to see the two pericopes together.

With only one exception (Lk. 20:39), Luke’s portrayal of the scribes is negative.

At times they are linked with the Pharisees (Lk. 5:21, 30; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2), at other times

with the chief priests (Lk. 9:22; 19:47; 20:1; 20:19; 22:2, 66; 23:10). However, here in

Luke 20:46, as also in 20:39, they stand alone. Therefore we should not associate them

with a particular sect.1

Jesus’ warning that the scribes love “to have the best seats in the synagogues and

places of honor at banquets” (Lk. 20:46) reminds the reader of Luke 14:7, where Jesus

noticed that the guests at the Pharisee’s home “chose the places of honor.” The point here

in Luke 20:46 is similar. “The scribes” love money and justify themselves before men

(Lk. 16:14-15).

Of particular interest is the description of the scribes as those who “devour

widows’ houses” (Lk. 20:47). If scribes are seen negatively in Luke-Acts, widows are

1
Luke 20:39 suggests that Luke is well aware that not all scribes opposed Jesus or were to be
condemned.
 119

seen sympathetically.1 The text does not specify the ways that scribes could “devour

widow’s houses.”2 However, in some way they took advantage of widows to line their

own pockets and leave the widows destitute. Worse, they covered such acts in the name

of religion.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the offering of the widow in Luke 21:1-4.

Wright rejects the explanations of this story according to which the point is that “the true

measure of gifts is not how much is given but how much remains behind,” or that “it is

not the amount which one gives that matters but the spirit in which it is given.”3

For Wright, neither we nor Jesus could commend a widow becoming destitute in

the name of religion. He cites the immediate context, in which the scribes were

condemned for devouring widow’s houses, and the following text, in which Jesus

announced that the Temple, covered with “noble stones and offerings” (Lk. 21:5), would

not stand. This implies that the widow’s offering was for the Temple and was “. . . totally

misguided, thanks to the encouragement of official religion, but the final irony of it all

was that it was also a waste.”4 Wright paraphrases Jesus’ words as follows: “One could

easily fail to notice it, but there is the tragedy of the day—she put in her whole living.”5
Wright’s critique serves as a warning not to interpret this story too glibly.

Widows in Luke-Acts generally are those in need, and the community of disciples is

called to provide for those needs (Acts 6:1-2). The story of the widow’s offering may

very well serve to illustrate just how the scribes “devour widows’ houses” (Lk. 20:47);

1
Lk. 2:37; 4:25-26; 7:12; 18:3, 5; 20:28, 47; 21:2-3 and Acts 6:1; 9:39, 41.
2
Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, p. 1318.
3
A. G. Wright, “The Widow’s Mite: Praise or Lament? — A Matter of Context, ” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982), p. 257.
4
Ibid., p. 263. Wright is followed by Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, p. 1321; and Tiede, Luke,
pp. 354-55.
5
Wright, “The Widow’s Mite,” p. 263.
 120

nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid seeing in the widow’s act a positive example in the

use of possessions.

The widow is explicitly contrasted with the rich. They and she placed their gifts

into the treasury. They gave “out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty” (Lk.
21:4). They gave some, but she gave all (pavnta). One can make the comparison without

making Jesus endorse the poverty of widows. As we have seen repeatedly throughout

Luke, the disciple is to renounce possessions and trust God to provide (Lk. 5:11, 28;
18:22; 12:22-31; 12:33; 14:33). Thus the widow did no more than all disciples are called

to do.

As in previous passages in which Luke presents contrasting examples of religious

life (eg., Lk. 18:9-14), here also the disciple is presented with contrasting models: one

can be like the rich who retained their fortunes while making small donations, and even

like the scribes who exploited the helpless, or one can be like the widow who renounced

all her possessions. The latter, for Luke, embodies the essence of discipleship.

Betrayal by Judas
Luke 22:3-6
It is within the passion narrative that we have the most obvious form of the

rejection of the kingdom. Here Luke follows Mark closely in passing on the tradition of a

rejection and betrayal of Jesus from among the twelve. Especially important for our

purposes is that the conspiracy was inspired by Satan (Lk. 22:3, an addition to Mk.

14:10-11), and that the alliance was made with money.1 Although Luke does not

elaborate Mark’s simple account of the transaction, within the Lukan context the betrayal

1
Matthew adds, “And they paid him thirty pieces of silver” ( 26:15) — an allusion to Zechariah
11:12. Luke specifies no amount, but in Acts 1:18 he says that Judas bought a field with the money.
 121

for money gains significance. The theme of the danger of wealth and possessions, which

has been stressed throughout the gospel, now comes to a climax. One of the twelve was

enticed to betray Jesus, and money provided the enticement.

Provisions in Crisis
Luke 22:35-38
The discussion of Luke 22:35-38 above in connection with Luke 10:1-12 need not
be repeated here. The relationship between the two texts is evident in Jesus’ question,

“When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” (Lk.

22:35).

One question which remains for consideration, however, is whether this passage

represents a radical change in the understanding of discipleship. Although earlier the

disciples are told to take no provisions, here they are told, “But now, let him who has a

purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy

one” (Lk. 22:36). Is Pilgrim correct that from this time forward “a new form of

discipleship is called for”?1

That Jesus contrasted the earlier mission with the present one is made clear by his

words, “But now” (Lk. 23:36). The difference is one of situation. The missions of Luke

9:1-6 and 10:1-12 were carried out in a far less threatening atmosphere. At that time the

disciples could rely on the hospitality of those to whom they went. The possibility of

rejection was present then (Lk. 9:5, 10:11-12), but in Luke 22:35-38 it was certain. Jesus

sought to prepare the disciples for the intense rejection that would come not only to

himself but to them as well.

1
Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, p. 101.
 122

Is then Luke 22:35-38 an exception to the rule of Luke 10:1-12? Any credible

answer has to take into account an obvious implication of Jesus’ words in Luke 22:36 —

namely, that the disciples do have possessions. Unless Jesus’ words are intended as

complete irony,1 they assume that each disciple had a mantle and that some had purses,

bags, and swords. However, if the rule of Luke 10:1-12 had been the universal norm for

discipleship, Jesus’ followers would have had none of these items.

The solution seems to be that Luke 22:35-38 constitutes no exception to the rule
of 10:1-12 because the specifics of 10:1-12 were never the rule. The fundamental

requirement that remains constant throughout Luke is that disciples renounce possessions

as their own (Lk. 14:33). That renunciation may take the form of an abandonment of all

possessions, as in the case of the rich ruler (Lk. 18:22). But it may also take the form of

the proper use of possessions in the work of the kingdom, as in the case of Zacchaeus

(Lk. 19:8), and also the disciples here in Luke 22:35-38. This latter passage is therefore

no exception to an earlier rule for the disciples. Circumstances change and the use of

possessions changes, but for Luke the renunciation of possessions remains an

indespensable aspect of true discipleship.

Joseph of Arimathea and the Women

Luke 23:50-56
One last text remains in our survey of the Gospel of Luke. As at the birth of

Jesus, so at his death there were the righteous of Israel. Moreover, as in Luke 1-2, so now

in 23:50-56, Luke gives a pairing of male and female. Joseph of Arimathea provided a

1
Ibid., p. 161. Fitzmyer sees the statement of Jesus after the disciples produce two swords as
ironical. He translates the words, “Enough of that!” However, he does not view the earlier words as irony,
Luke X-XXIV, p. 1430. Tiede, on the other hand, rejects the idea that any of the words were intended as
irony. Even the two swords were part of the fulfillment of Scripture. Luke, pp. 388-90.
 123

tomb and a linen shroud for the burial of Jesus, and the women who followed Jesus from

Galilee prepared spices and ointments for the body. For the most part Luke’s description

of Joseph follows that of Mark (15:42-46). Joseph was a member of the council, though

he did not consent to the council’s “purpose and deed” (Lk. 23:51). He was “a good and

righteous man,” and, as in Mark (15:43) “he was looking for the kingdom of God” (Lk.

23:51). The description clearly echoes the descriptions of Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon,

and Anna.
While nothing is said explicitly about Joseph’s economic status, his social and

political standing (he was a member of the council with sufficient clout to make a

personal request of Pilate) and his ownership of a rock-hewn tomb suggest some wealth.

Thus Joseph, even though he was wealthy, receives a positive portrayal. Like the

centurion who built a synagogue (Lk. 7:1-10) and Zacchaeus who gave much that he

owned to the poor (Lk. 19:1-10), he was a wealthy person open to the message of the

kingdom. In each case, however, that openness was demonstrated by generosity.

The women who follow Jesus from Galilee (Lk. 23:55, 24:10) were some of the

very women described in Luke 8:2-3. They supported Jesus out of their means and in

Luke 23:56 were preparing spices for the burial of Jesus. Again, generous use of

possessions demonstrates openness to the kingdom.

Joseph of Arimathea and the women form a fitting concluding portrait of Lukan

characters with means who are open to the call of the kingdom. They also prepare the

reader for other such characters in the book of Acts who follow the same path.
 124

Summary: Possessions and

the Message of the Kingdom
in the Gospel of Luke
From the beginning of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus took his place with the humble. His

coming inaugurated the reversal of values by which the humble would be exalted (Lk.

1:51-53). He fulfilled scripture by preaching the good news to the poor (Lk. 4:18-21),

going beyond even John the Baptist in his teaching on material wealth (Lk. 3:10-14,

6:27-30). Jesus blessed the poor and pronounced woes upon the rich (Lk. 6:21-26).

Indeed, Jesus demanded much from his disciples (Lk. 9:23-26, 12:33-34,

14:25-33, 18:22), who are described as leaving all and following him (Lk. 5:11, 28).

Possessions play an important role in the response given to the message of the kingdom.

Often the message was rejected by those who loved their possessions (Lk. 16:14) or

refused to let them go (Lk. 18:23). Generally, the wealthy and powerful did not accept

the message of the kingdom.

The parable of the sower (Lk. 8:4-15, particularly 8:14) describes the dangers of

possessions for disciples. The parables of the rich fool (Lk. 12:16-21) and Lazarus and

the rich man (Lk. 16:19-31) tell of the grave danger of wealth kept for oneself. The

betrayal of Jesus by Judas for money reminds the disciples that even one of the twelve

can be excluded from the kingdom because of money (Lk. 22:3-6).

The parables of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30-37) and the dishonest manager

(Lk. 16:1-9) tell of the wise investment of possessions. Joseph of Arimathea and the

women from Galilee demonstrate that not all those with means reject the message of the

kingdom. Yet all those with wealth who accepted that message demonstrated generosity

by giving their possessions in the service of the kingdom. That service is most clearly

seen in alms to the poor (Lk. 12:33, 18:22).

 125

Jesus attacked the leadership of Israel for seeking honor and prestige (Lk.

14:7-11) and thereby excluding the poor, maimed, lame, and blind (Lk. 14:13). The

community of the kingdom will include precisely those people (Lk. 14:21-24). The term

“poor” may carry the metaphorical meaning of “the righteous,” but such an understanding

does not exclude the literal socio-economic dimensions of the word. The poor may be the

righteous but they are the righteous poor. They are blessed, for the kingdom is theirs (Lk.

6:20).
At the same time, poverty as poverty is not blessed. It is not an ideal. Although

the disciples are called to renounce their possessions, they do have possessions. Not all

who responded favorably to the call of the kingdom actually abandoned all their wealth.

The explanation of this dilemma is that the call to renounce all that one owns is a call to

renounce any claim of ownership. Possessions are seen as a trust to be invested, not

divested. Parables of masters and stewards (Lk. 12:41-48, 16:1-9, 19:11-27) reinforce

this view, as does the evidence from Acts. The examination of that evidence is our next

task.
126
 134

CHAPTER 3:

POSSESSIONS AND THE MESSAGE OF THE KINGDOM IN THE

BOOK OF ACTS

Introduction
One of the working assumptions of this paper is that the Gospel of Luke and the
Book of Acts share the same author and therefore the same theological interests.1 While

most agree with those assumptions,2 Acts, with the exception of a few texts, has played

only a minor role in the study of the Lukan theology of the rich and poor and the use of

possessions.3

Is this inattention to Acts in connection with possessions because the theme plays

a minor role in the Book of Acts? James A. Berquist, in an important but little known

article,4 affirms the motif of “good news for the poor” in the Gospel of Luke and then

poses the dilemma:

1
See the discussion in the introductory chapter of this work.
2
Some who accept common authorship do not accept that the two works share the same theological
interests. For a now dated, but most helpful survey of the history of scholarship on this issue, see J. Dupont,
The Sources of the Acts Translation by Kathleen Pond (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), pp. 17-72.
3
Johnson devotes a substantial portion of his dissertation to Acts but deals primarily with the first
8 chapters. He briefly discusses 11 passages in chapters 9-28 but does so only to suggest that they are not
connected with the texts concerning possessions in the first eight chapters, in which the apostles are central.
The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 29-78, 191-217. For David P. Seccombe the contribution of
Acts is limited to the first five chapters. Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, pp. 197-219. Walter
Pilgrim discusses only two texts outside the first twelve chapters of Acts (20:30-35, 24:17) and the entire
discussion of Acts comprises only 12 pages in his 176 page work, Good News to the Poor: Wealth and
Poverty in Luke-Acts. David L. Mealand has excluded Acts altogether and has focused on the Gospels,
Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels. The same can be said for Gary T. Meadors, The Poor in Luke’s
Gospel; Robert B. Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord; Thomas Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the
Synoptic Gospels; and Schottroff and Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor.
4
James A. Berquist, “‘Good News to the Poor’ —Why Does This Lucan Motif Appear to Run Dry
in the Book of Acts?” Bangalore Theological Forum 28 (1986), pp. 1-16.
 135

Here is the puzzle. Where in the Book of Acts, the second of Luke’s two
books, does one find a comparable emphasis upon the mission of Christ
and his church among and for the poor and outsiders?1

Berquist recognizes the few passages in Acts which most scholars see as

pertaining to possessions. However, he notes that the speeches in Acts seem silent on the

subject and the expected vocabulary of rich and poor is missing altogether.2 He also

notes that the reversal theme, so prominent in Luke, almost disappears in Acts. He closes

that section of his article by saying, “Nowhere in Acts does one find the same passionate

concern for the poor or marginalized as expressed so directly and vividly in the Gospel of

Luke.”3

Berquist suggests, in question form, four possible reasons:

(a) Is it because the Gospel and Acts have no real unity? No, there is
too much evidence in support of their unity.
(b) Is it because one has misread the motif in the Gospel? No, the Lucan
material is there for all to see.
(c) Is it because what was central in the ministry of Jesus was
submerged in the early church due to a changed missionary
situation? There may be some substance in this suggestion … but
it cannot be a complete answer. Why would Luke have gone to
such lengths to collect, redact and bring out the motif in the first
book, presumably written about the same time as the second, if he
had altered his attitude because of the mission context of the
twenty years following the resurrection of Jesus? And besides,
nearly half of the action in the book of Acts takes place in
Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee, the geography of Jesus’ own
ministry.
(d) Or is it because the motif of the Gospel as good news for the poor is a
central but incomplete part of a wider controlling theological
purpose in Luke-Acts?4

1
Ibid., p. 7.
2
He does note that creiva (need) and several words for possessions do occur. Ibid., p. 9.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 10.
 136

The last suggestion holds the most promise for Berquist. He sees that “wider controlling

theological purpose” to be “the announcement of God’s final salvation in Jesus.”1

Salvation is the dominant theme and “in Acts the term ‘Gentile’ (ethnos) replaces the

characteristic Gospel terms for outsiders.”2 He sees the theme of the rich and poor

finding its expression in Acts through the theme of the exodus.3 For Berquist “. . . the

New Israel is established at Pentecost. … Salvation as liberation, therefore, while not as

directly presented in Acts as in the Gospel, does contain the theme in the continuation of
salvation as exodus.”4

Finally, Berquist believes that “in Acts the believing Christians were the poor.”5

This last point is the most dubious. Leander Keck has demonstrated that the Christian

community was not called “the poor.”6 Rather, in the community of disciples the poor

are cared for (Acts 2:45, 4:34-36). Nevertheless, Berquist has raised crucial questions

and made very helpful suggestions.

Having surveyed the texts that deal with possessions in the Gospel, we now

propose in this chapter to do the same with Acts. While clearly there are not as many

texts in Acts that deal with possessions, there are considerably more than are usually

discussed.

1
Ibid., p. 11.
2
Ibid.
3
He points to the “two men” at the transfiguration (where “exodus” is mentioned in Lk. 9:31), at
the empty tomb, and at the ascension. He also points to the time the disciples were with Jesus before his
ascension as “reminiscent of the covenant-making of Exodus. ” Ibid., p. 14.
4
Ibid., pp. 14-15.
5
Here he feels obliged to import I Cor. 1:26 to sustain his point. Ibid., p. 15.
6
Keck, “The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament,” pp. 100-29, and “The Poor Among
the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran,” pp. 54-78.
 137

Judas and the Field of Blood

Acts 1:15-20
Luke saves the account of the death of Judas until Acts. His account differs from

the one in Matthew at several key points.1 Matthew implies that the death of Judas took

place at approximately the same time as the trial and crucifixion of Jesus (Mt. 27:3),

while Acts 1:18 seems to imply a delay in the death of Judas at least long enough to

purchase a field. Luke’s description of the death of Judas also differs from Matthew’s

(Mt. 27:5, Acts 1:18). While both Matthew and Luke speak of the Field of Blood, they

differ as to its purchase and this difference is most important for our purpose.

Matthew presents Judas as having deep regrets for his action and returning the

money (30 pieces of silver) to the chief priests and elders (Mt. 27:3). Although the chief

priests refused the money, Matthew says that Judas threw down “the pieces of silver in

the temple” and departed (Mt. 27:5). In Matthew’s account it is the chief priests who, not

wishing to keep blood money, bought the potter’s field (Mt. 27:6-7).2

Rackham sees the story of Ahithophel (II Samuel 17:23) behind the Lukan

account.3 Ahithophel was a counselor to King David who betrayed David and joined the

1
See Matthew 27:3-10. For a discussion of the two accounts along with another tradition that
comes from Papias, see Kirsopp Lake, “The Death of Judas,” The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of
the Apostles, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Paperback reprint, 1979), vol. 5, pp. 22-30.
2
Acts presents the account of Judas’ death as a parenthetical explanation. Luke explains the
purchase of the field as an act of Judas and indicates that his death occurred on that property. I. H. Marshall
presents three possibilities to harmonize the accounts: (1) Judas hanged himself (Mt.), but the rope broke
and his body was ruptured by the fall; (2) What the priests bought with Judas’ money (Mt.) could be
regarded as his purchase by their agency (Acts); (3) The field bought by the priests (Mt.) was the one
where Judas died (Acts). Marshall admits that, “it is quite possible… that we are not meant to harmonize
the two accounts.” I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 65. Such
a harmonization may be possible but here the attempt to harmonize the two accounts obscures Luke’s
perspective.
3
R. B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition (London: Methuen and Co. 1901),
p. 11. Kirsopp Lake sees the story of Ahithophel behind the Matthean account and the Wisdom of Solomon
4:17-19, behind the Lukan account. Beginnings of Christianity vol. 5, pp. 29-30.
 138

conspiracy of David’s son, Absalom (II Sam. 15:12,31). When Ahithophel saw that his

advice was not taken and the cause lost, “he saddled his donkey and went off home to his

own city. He set his house in order, and hanged himself; he died and was buried in the

tomb of his father” (II Sam. 17:23). Judas betrayed the Son of David and met a similar

fate.

That Judas betrayed Jesus for money and bought a field with the money will also

remind the reader of the invited guest in the banquet parable who said, “I have bought a
field, and I must go out and see it” (Lk. 14:18). Here Luke ties Acts with the Gospel

precisely at the point of possessions.1 Judas stands in stark contrast to Barnabas, who

“sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’

feet” (Acts 4:37). Tannehill notes, “Thus the corrupting appeal of money and property

plays a certain role in the story. Later, Paul will warn church leaders about desire for

possessions by presenting himself as a contrary example.”2 The unique aspects of the

Lukan account renew Luke’s theme of the danger of possessions acquired and held.

The Fellowship of the Church

Acts 2:41-47
3
This text is the first of several important summary statements in Acts. Within

1
“Rather than join together with the others (ejpi; to; aujtov), Judas went to a place of his own (to;n
tovpon to;n i[dion 1:25). Whereas the believers say they have nothing that is their own, and some show this
by selling fields and homes to benefit others, Judas buys a field of his own (1:18). It was purchased with a
reward, a misqo;" th'" ajdikiva", which contrasts to ta;" tima;" pippascomevnon of the believers in 4:32.”
Alan C. Mitchell, “The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-37,” Journal Of Biblical
Literature 111 (1992), p. 268.
2
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 2, p. 22.
3
Acts 1:14 is often viewed as the first summary statement in Acts. See John B. Polhill, Acts, The
New American Commentary, vol. 26 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), p. 90. For a discussion of the
Lukan summaries in Acts and the history of interpretation, see Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles:
A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), pp. 193-96. For a helpful summary, on a
 139

this is a key text:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and
they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any
had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

The passage introduces issues that surface again in Acts 4:32-37, and those issues will be

discussed in greater detail at that point.

It should be noted here, however, that in Luke’s description of the disciples selling
their possessions, his characteristic use of pavnta is absent.1 Indeed, all (pavnte") the
believers were involved and they had all things (a[panta) in common (Acts 2:44). Yet

had Luke intended to imply that these Christians sold all their possessions, it seems

unlikely that he would have left out the word that he consistently used in the Gospel to

convey that point.

Rather than seeing this as a text describing the earliest fellowship of disciples

selling all they possessed as a prerequisite of discipleship, it is better to see it as

describing those disciples with resources selling the necessary possessions to meet the

needs of the occasion. Having all things in common is not quite the same as selling all

possessions. If the community of disciples understood that all their possessions belonged
ultimately to God and were to be used for the common good of the community, they

might very well have retained some of their possessions to use as needs arose. This point

will become clearer in the second major summary in Acts 4:32-37. Here, the words of

Kirsopp Lake are helpful:

The central feature of the system implied is the creation of a fund by

the periodic sale of property, which was disposed of, not all at once, but as

popular level, of the issues involved in the two summaries of Acts 2:43-47 and Acts 4:32-37, see James
Downey, “The Early Jerusalem Church,” The Bible Today 91 (1977), pp. 1295-1303.
1
In the Gospel of Luke, pavnta is found in texts that speak of all one’s possessions. These texts
include Luke 5:11, 5:28, 12:18, 15:13, 15:14, 15:31, 18:12, 18:22, 21:4.
 140

occasion arose. The reason for describing this system as communism is

because the Christians deemed all things ‘common,’ and did not recognize
any exclusive right in private property.… Luke is not thinking of
‘communism’ of production, or of possession, for though no one claimed
an exclusive right over his own property, it was still regarded as in some
sense his own.”1

The radical nature of such action, however, should not be diminished. The

earliest community of disciples is pictured as willing to part with their possessions in

response to the message of the kingdom.

Healing of the Lame Man

Acts 3:1-10
The healing of the lame man echoes numerous texts from Luke’s Gospel. The

primary parallel appears to be the healing of the paralyzed man in Luke 5:17-26. In both

narratives the healing of one unable to walk introduced conflict with religious leaders. In

terms of healing a beggar, the story in Acts 3 recalls the healing of the blind man near

Jericho (Lk. 18:35-43).

1
Kirsopp Lake, “The Communism of Acts II. and IV.-VI. and the Appointment of the Seven,”
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1979), vol. 5, pp. 140-41. See also Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, pp. 147-50. David J. Williams, Acts,
New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., 1990), p. 61, says that “The
whole thing appears to be an ad hoc arrangement, but a necessary one for all that. The poverty prevailing in
Palestine in the first century is almost unimaginable, but the already desperate case of most Palestinians
must have been exacerbated for the church by the fact that many of its early members had abandoned their
source of livelihood in Galilee and many of its subsequent converts from elsewhere had stayed in the city,
held there by the intimacy and intensity of the fellowship and the hope of the Lord’s return.” On the other
hand, Johnson, in noting that “all the believers” were involved and that the verbs are in the imperfect tense,
comments that these “… denote a universal, continuing practice, and not the occasional spontaneous
generosity of individuals.” The point is well taken but does not necessarily prove that all believers
continued to sell all their possessions. Indeed it could not mean that. In order for it to be an ongoing
practice, the believers must have retained some of their possessions in order to sell additional possessions
the next time funds were needed. The Literary Function of Possessions, p. 186. In commenting on 2:45,
Lake and Cadbury say, “The usual translation ‘sold’ rather implies one great sale, but the meaning of the
Greek rather is that they sold things as they had need of more money. They followed a policy of selling
possessions.” Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, “English Translation and Commentary,” The
Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 4, p. 29.
 141

However, in terms of possessions, the strongest parallels appear in Luke 16. The

contrast between the “silver and gold” that Peter and John did not have, and the

something better which they could give, reminds one of the contrast between God and

mammon and Jesus’ saying, “for what is exalted by men is an abomination in the sight of

God” (Lk. 16:13,15).1 The very fact of a beggar being carried to the gate echoes the

parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31).

The lame were among those excluded from priestly service (Lev. 21:16-18) but
included among those who were healed by Jesus (Lk. 7:22). The lame were also those

Jesus said should be invited to feasts and would be brought into the Messianic Banquet

(Lk. 14:13,21).

It is not altogether clear how much should be made of Peter’s statement that he

had neither silver or gold. Some see the expression in contrast to the “beautiful gate”

which, it is claimed, was made of Corinthian brass without gold or silver overlays.2 Is

Luke’s point that Peter, because he was a disciple of Jesus, had no possessions?

Haenchen makes much of the community’s collection that would have been at Peter’s

disposal,3 but Johnson rightly notes that, in the flow of the narrative, the collection was

not brought to the apostles until Acts 4:35.4

In fact, Luke makes very little out of the fact that Peter had no silver or gold.

Peter’s lack of silver and gold serves primarily as a contrast with the ultimately valuable

gift Peter could give. In that regard, of course, the contrast reaffirms Luke’s consistent

1
See Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press,
1992), p. 65.
2
Polhill goes much too far in this, given that we are not at all certain which gate this was. Acts,
p. 127.
3
Haenchen, Acts, p. 199, n. 7.
4
Johnson Acts, p. 65. See also Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 190-91.
 142

view of the relative value of possessions. However, Luke’s main emphasis here seems to

be that the church, through Peter, is carrying on the ministry of Jesus to the very ones to

whom Jesus directed that ministry.

In certain respects the lame man was an outsider. He was left outside the temple

at the gate. Once healed in the name of Jesus, he was able to leap up, stand, and walk.

After the healing he was no longer left at the gate. Instead, he joined the apostles and

entered the temple (Acts 3:8). Luke uses the language of possessions to describe the
power of those who carry the message of the kingdom and the inclusive nature of that

kingdom.

The Fellowship of the Church

and the Community Goods
Acts 4:32-35
We now come to the second major summary in Acts. Luke’s description of the

primitive church in Jerusalem has sparked discussions among contemporary scholars

about three possible parallels: the common holding of possessions at Qumran; the

utopian language in Hellenistic literature; and the friendship ideal in Greek and Roman

culture.

It is generally accepted today that the community that left the scrolls near Qumran

were Essenes.1 One point at which Josephus’ account of the Essenes most closely

parallels the Dead Sea Scrolls regards communal possessions.2 In the scrolls themselves

1
For a discussion of the relationship between the Essenes as described in classical sources and the
Qumran community see J. J. Collins, “Essenes,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 vols, (New York:
Doubleday, 1991), vol. 2, pp. 622-25.
2
Collins, Ibid., p. 622. For a helpful summary of the description of the Essenes by Pliny the Elder,
Hippolytus, Philo, and Josephus, see F. F. Bruce, New Testament History, pp. 82-92.
 143

a picture emerges in which, in the words of Fitzmyer, “entrance into the Qumran

community was voluntary, the surrender of one’s property was not.”1 The initiate into the

community was called to a completely communal life.

All those who freely devote themselves to His truth shall bring all their
knowledge, powers, and possessions into the Community of God, that they
may purify their knowledge in the truth of God’s precepts and order their
powers according to his ways of perfection and all their possessions
according to His righteous counsel. (1QS 3:11-13)

The process of initiation was a lengthy one in which the initiate was gradually admitted

into the community and his possessions ultimately became the community’s.

After he has entered the Council of the Community he shall not touch the
pure Meal of the Congregation until one full year is completed, and he has
been examined concerning his spirit and deeds, nor shall his property be
mingled with that of the congregation.… And if it be his destiny,
according to the judgment of the Priests and the multitude of the men of
their covenant, to enter the company of the Community, his property and
earnings shall be handed over to the Bursar of the Congregation who shall
register to his account and shall not spend it for the congregation. But
when the second year has passed, he shall be examined, and if it be his
destiny, according to the judgment of the congregation, to enter the
Community, then he shall be inscribed among his brethren in the order of
his rank for the Law, and for justice, and for the pure Meal; his property
shall be mingled and he shall offer his counsel and judgment to the
Community. (1QS 6:19-20, 22)

One who caused a loss of community property had to do penance and restore the

property:

If he has been careless with regard to his companion, he shall do penance

for three months. But if he has been careless with regard to the property of
the Community, thereby causing its loss, he shall restore it in full. And if
he is unable to restore it, he shall do penance for sixty days. (1QS 7:10-12)

That one could repay the loss has caused some to doubt that the community property at

1
J. A. Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” Studies in Luke-
Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1966), p. 243.
 144

Qumran eliminated private ownership altogether.1

The basis of the separate community property appears to have been a concern for

purity. The sectarians were not allowed to mingle the community’s property with that of

outsiders:

Likewise no man shall mix with him with regard to his work or property
lest he be burdened with the guilt of his sin (1QS 5:20) … As for the
property of the men of holiness who walk on perfection, it shall not be
mingled with that of the men of falsehood who have not purified
themselves from iniquity and walking in the way of perfection. (1QS
9:8-9)

Yet, even here the rule was not absolute.

No member of the Community shall follow them in matters of doctrine

and justice, or eat or drink anything of theirs, or take anything from them
except for a price … (1QS 5:16-17)

The Qumran community was more rigid in this regard than the “Damascus

community.” While the same concern about defilement is shown, there appears to have

been more latitude given for private ownership among the non-Qumran Essenes:

No man shall sell clean beasts or birds to the Gentiles lest they offer
them in sacrifice. He shall refuse, with all his power, to sell them anything
from his granary or wine press, and he shall not sell them his manservant
or maidservant inasmuch as they have been brought by him into the
Covenant of Abraham. (CD 12:9-11)

That a member of the Damascus community might have kept the servants he had when he

joined the community certainly suggests some private ownership. Private property was

also assumed in the discussion of stolen or lost property:

When anything is lost, and it is not known who has stolen it from the
property of the camp in which it was stolen, its owner shall pronounce a

1
See John G. Greehy, “Community of Goods - Qumran and Acts,” Irish Theological Quarterly 32
(1965), p. 234.
 145

curse, and any man who, on hearing (it), knows but does not tell, shall
himself be guilty.
When anything is returned which is without an owner, whoever returns
it shall confess to the Priest, and apart from the ram of the sin-offering, it
shall be his.
And likewise, everything which is found but has no owner shall go to
the Priests, for the finder is ignorant of the rule concerning it. If no owners
are discovered they shall keep it. (CD 9:11-16)

In discussing the differences between Qumran and the Damascus communities, LaSor

draws a modern analogy:

It is risky to suggest a parallel from a different period, I know. But I am

tempted to refer to the difference between Moshav and Qibbutz in modern
Israel. Life in the Qibbutz is communal, even to the extent that there is no
private wealth. Each contributes all he has (if anything) when entering,
and thereafter gives according to his ability and receives according to his
need. If he leaves the Qibbutz, he takes nothing with him, for the wealth
belongs to the Qibbutz, In the Moshav, on the other hand, the communal
life is modified. Each contributes his goods to the Moshav but retains title.
He receives earnings (usually in kind) according to the production. If at
any time he wishes to withdraw from the community he may take what is
his.1

For LaSor, Qumran was like the modern Qibbutz, while the Damascus community was

like the Moshav.

The question for us is whether the Jerusalem church (as described in the summary

statements in Acts 2 and 4) was like either of the Essene communities. Certainly there

were superficial similarities, but the differences between Qumran and the Damascus

communities, on the one hand, and the Jerusalem church, on the other, were profound.2

1
William Sanford LaSor, Amazing Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Faith (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1956), pp. 85-86.
2
Here it is worth noting a caution given by Johnson, “Because they deal with considerably
different social settings, the evidence of the Community Rule and the Damascus Rule must be
distinguished.… Comparisons are not made easier by the divergent literary types of the documents, or by
the fact that the two Qumran documents appear to be dealing with different settings, not only from Acts but
also from each other.” The Literary Function of Possessions, p. 4, notes 1 and 3.
 146

Fitzmyer quotes Josephus (Jewish Wars 2, 8, 2, #122), who calls the Essenes

“despisers of wealth.” Fitzmyer then adds, “In this respect we detect little difference

between the Essenes and the early Jewish Christians.”1 Here Fitzmyer has obscured an

important difference. The motivation for communal property, whether Qumran or

Damascus, appears to have been purity. The sectarians at both communities sought to

keep their property from being mingled with the unclean world around them. No such

motivation can be found in Acts, where the motivation had to do with caring for the
needy, not keeping possessions undefiled.

Another profound difference concerns the nature of the fellowships. The Qumran

fellowship was based upon rank. In discussing Luke 14:1-24 it was noted how the issue

of rank came into play and how contrary Jesus’ ideal was to the community rule at

Qumran. In Acts there is no mention of rank, except that the funds were laid at the

apostles’ feet (Acts 4:35). Beyond the apostles there seems to have been no rigid

organization in the Jerusalem community.

Whether Luke knew of the Essene communities remains unknown. We must

agree with Johnson that “whatever the historical connections may have been between

Qumran and the first Christian community in Jerusalem, it remains unlikely that the
2
author of Acts depended on the language or ideas of Qumran.”

A second parallel with the two summary statements in Acts 2 and 4 is sought in

the Utopian language of the Hellenistic world. Mealand suggests that Luke consciously
employs the phrases oujde;n (or mhde;n) i[dion and pavnta koinav (Acts 4:32) to echo the

utopian language of the classical Greek philosophers, particularly Plato.3

1
Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts,” p. 244.
2
Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, p. 4. See also, Sharing Possessions, pp. 126-27.
3
D. L. Mealand, “Community of Goods and Utopian Allusions in Acts 2-4,” Journal of
Theological Studies 28 (1977) pp. 96-99. See also Martin Hengel, who, after quoting Acts 4:32, says “Here
 147

One of the closest parallels is found in Plato’s Critias 110: “None of them had

any private possession of his own; they looked on all things as the common store of all,

seeking to receive from their fellow citizens nothing beyond sufficient sustenance. . .”1

This text describes a mythological and idyllic culture that was supposed to have existed

some nine thousand years earlier than Plato. In the dialogue, Critias describes this culture

along with that of the fabled island culture of Atlantis. Mealand concludes, “The writer

of Acts seems to have seen the nascent Christian community as fulfilling the hopes, the
promises, and the ideals … of … Greek Utopianism.”2 Such a conclusion needs to be

qualified. The language in Acts 4:32-35 may be similar to Greek Utopianism, but the

meaning is significantly different in key respects. While Plato is describing an ancient

and mythological past, Luke is describing a community that existed only a few decades

before his writing. Unlike the mythological Greek culture, the Christians in Jerusalem

did have private possessions. There was a common store, but it did not consist of all

possessions. What distinguished the Jerusalem community was not that each had given

all to a common pool, but that none considered the possessions they had to be their own.

The examples of Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira make it clear that there was no

requirement to give all that one had to the apostles.3

This is not to say that the Utopian ideal is not part of the background of this text.

Both Luke and his readers would have been familiar with the Platonic ideal and the

we have the familiar picture of the restoration of the perfect ‘primal state’ which has analogies, even to the
way in which it is formulated, with the sharing of goods among the Scythians, Plato’s doctrine of the state
or the ‘primal community’ of the Pythagoreans in Southern Italy.” Acts and the History of Earliest
Christianity trans. John Bowden, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 9.
1
Quoted from Plato: The Collected Dialogues ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 1216.
2
Mealand, “Community of Goods,” p. 99.
2
Mealand, “Community of Goods,” p. 99.
3
For a detailed critique of Mealand’s position see Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor,
pp. 201-202. See also Johnson’s critique of the utopian ideal in Sharing Possessions, pp. 119-26.
 148

language used to express it. Nor is it to say that Luke’s description does not, in any way,

fulfill the longing this ideal may represent. Yet it is to say that the church Luke describes

in these summaries was not, in important respects, the ideal society Plato describes.

The third and most promising parallel is with the friendship language of

contemporary Greek literature. Even by the time of Aristotle this language was

proverbial.1 Seccombe argues persuasively that the ideals of friendship stand behind

Luke’s summaries, noting that such language had “broken free of its Platonic connection
to express in a general and imaginative way the openness and sharing of friends.”2

It is one thing, however, to demonstrate verbal parallels and quite another to

demonstrate common meaning. In a masterful article, Alan C. Mitchell explores not only

the verbal parallels between the friendship motif and the summaries in Acts 2 and 4 but

also the practical use for which these parallels were employed.3 He argues that Luke

questions the assumption behind most of the friendship topoi that sharing as friends

existed only between equals and that giving to a person of lower status was done in order

to receive some benefit.4 Mitchell’s conclusion is worth reproduction here:

Friendship was doubtless a vehicle for wealth, status, and power for
the ruling elite of Luke’s day. Normally, it was formed within social
orders, and its benefits were shared by people of the same status. Luke,
however, uses friendship to equalize relationships in his own community.
He portrays the early Jerusalem community in Acts as a community of
friends to show how friendship can continue across status lines and the

1
“… All the proverbs, too, agree with this, e.g. ‘a single soul’, and ‘what friends have is common
property’, and friendship is equality’, and ‘charity begins at home’…” “Nicomachean Ethics” 1168b, taken
from Richard McKeon, Introduction to Aristotle (New York: Modern Library, 1947), p. 508.
2
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, p. 202. See also Johnson, The Literary Function of
Possessions, pp. 2-3; idem, Sharing Possessions, p. 128; and idem, Acts, pp. 58-59, 86.
3
Alan C. Mitchell, “The Social Function of Friendship,” pp. 255-72.
4
Ibid., particularly pp. 264-66. See also the very helpful chapters, “Giving for a Return,” and “The
Nature of the Return,” in A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Ithica, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1968), pp. 26-61.
 149

poor can be benefited by the rich. Redefining friendship this way helps
Luke to achieve his social objective: encouraging the rich to provide relief
for the poor of his own community. Barnabas exemplifies the correct
attitude here. His example challenges the reciprocity ethic that some of
Luke’s community may have followed: giving for a return. Luke may
question, too, a theological justification for not sharing possessions, and
the Greco-Roman cultural attitude that rationalizes the retention of wealth
under the guise of being able to bestow future benefits, primarily among
one’s friends. The story of Ananias and Sapphira accomplishes that. Thus
Luke appeals to the Greco-Roman friendship tradition to help his
constituents reimagine the relationship between rich and poor within their
own koinwniva.1

It is difficult to disagree with Mitchell’s thesis that Luke has used the friendship topos

with a theological perspective that questioned the accepted norms that most often

accompanied that topos.2

To find the closest theological parallel to the summaries in Acts 2 and 4, one need

look no further than the Gospel of Luke. In the Sermon on the Plain Jesus told his

listeners:

And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is
that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But
love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return; and
your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is
kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. (Lk. 6:34-36)

Perhaps the closest parallel is found in Luke 14. There, as noted earlier, Jesus challenged

the social norms that excluded the poor and disabled. He called on the wealthy to invite

the outcasts without the hope of reciprocity. Finally, in Luke 14:33 he told would-be

disciples, “whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.” As

we have emphasized earlier, if Luke 14:33 means that the disciple must renounce

1
Mitchell, “The Social Function of Friendship,” p. 272.
2
Mitchell’s assumptions about the nature of the Lukan community may essentially be correct, but
for a discussion of the difficulty of discovering the Lukan community see Johnson, “On Finding the Lukan
Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 16 (1979),
pp. 87-100.
 150

ownership of his/her possessions, then this is exactly what we find in Acts 4:32: “no one

said that any of the things which he possessed was his own.”1

Another source behind Luke’s theology of possessions in general, and the

summary statements in Acts 2 and 4 in particular, is the Old Testament. Parallels and

echoes with these summary statements center in the Deuteronomic history and prophetic

literature of the Old Testament.2 Robert Sloan3 and David Seccombe4 have also pointed

to a connection between the theology of Luke and the year of Jubilee. If a connection
with the Jubilee tradition of Leviticus 25 is indeed present, then the background for the

idea that God is the true owner of possessions is readily seen. Leviticus 25 deals with

possessions, and in the context of Jubilee says, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity,

for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Lev. 25:23).

Leviticus 25:40b-42 says with regard to slaves, “He shall serve with you until the year of

Jubilee; then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his

own family, and return to the possessions of his fathers. For they are my servants, whom

I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.”

The idea that the disciple of Jesus is a steward or servant is found throughout

1
“A man might say, ‘What I possess is not my own.’ But no one said to him, ‘What you possess is
ours’.” Albert C. Winn, The Acts of the Apostles, The Layman’s Bible Commentary (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1962), p. 50.
2
See the particularly insightful summary of the Old Testament view of the poor and possessions as
it relates to the teaching of Jesus by Peter Davids, “God and Mammon, Part 1: The Old Testament and the
Teaching of Jesus,” Sojourners 7 (1978), pp. 11-17. See also David H. Engehard, “The Lord’s Motivated
Concern for the Underprivileged,” Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980), pp. 5-26; Martin Hengel,
Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of Early Christianity (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press), 1974, pp. 12-15; Richard D. Patterson, “The Widow, the Orphan, and the Poor in the Old
Testament and Extra-Biblical Literature,” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973), pp. 223-34; H. Eberhard von
Waldow, “Social Responsibility and the Social Structure in Early Israel,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
32 (1970), 182-204; and John T. Willis, “The Foundation of Old Testament Justice,” Restoration Quarterly
18 (1975), pp. 65-87.
3
Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord, particularly pp. 154-65.
4
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, pp. 49-51.
 151

Luke-Acts.1 The idea that Israel, including its land and possessions, belongs to God is

the theological underpinning of the Jubilee texts.2 The same emphasis is found in

Deuteronomy 15:1-11, which like Leviticus 25, concerns itself with the plight of the poor.

Here, the ideal for obedient Israel that “there will be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4) is

set alongside the unfortunate reality that “the poor will never cease out of the land” (Deut.

15:11a). In light of that, the command is “… to open wide your hand to your brother, to

the needy and to the poor, in the land” (Deut. 15:11b). This text clearly informs not only

the summary passages of Acts 2 and 4 but much else in Luke’s writing. For Luke, the

ethical demands for care of the poor and sharing of possessions move naturally from the

Deuteronomic code and the prophets to Jesus and the early church.

The fact that throughout Acts people still had homes and possessions strongly

suggests that the Christian disciples did not simply get rid of their possessions. Nor

should one assume that because possessions were laid at the feet of the apostles,

everything became community property as at Qumran. Rather, it is better to understand

that these possessions were seen as belonging to the Lord. God was the owner and the

disciples were stewards. God called on the disciples to use their possessions and the
apostles were those who distributed those possessions to help the poor. Luke, then, uses

language familiar to his Hellenistic readers, but his theology is rooted in the Jesus

tradition and the Old Testament.

1
We have already noted how the master-slave motif is one that Jesus often employed in his
parables. Note particularly Luke 12:43-44: “Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will
find so doing. Truly I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.”
2
Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord, p. 17.
 152

Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira

Acts 4:36-5:11
In Acts 4:34-35 Luke speaks of the disciples selling property and laying the

proceeds at the apostles’ feet. For Johnson, this is the most significant detail for

understanding possessions in Luke/Acts.1 Laying possessions at the feet of the apostles

was a recognition by the church that the apostles carried the authority of Jesus. The

apostles were those who followed the Prophet like Moses and established the new Israel.2

Johnson’s case is persuasive, but might be qualified by an observation by Derrett:

The church did not have a rule that property should be legally pooled,
should cease to be the legal asset of the proselyte. The virtue of their new
life was that they voluntarily merged their assets as they became needed,
and when they obtained cash for their immovables they placed it at the feet
of the apostles (not into their hands), in order that the apostles should
acquire it not as a personal gift but as trustees by way of a dedication. The
analogy was of gifts to God by way of placing upon the altar (cf. Matt.
5:23-24), or casting into the Treasury. (Mk. 12:41-44, emphasis his)3

As Johnson suggests, the picture of the Hellenistic Jew, Joseph, selling property,

laying the proceeds at the apostles’ feet, and receiving a name (Barnabas), does stress the

importance of the apostles for Luke.4 However, the picture may also have been a

significant statement concerning the nature of the social relationships within the

Jerusalem church. Mitchell draws out this latter implication:

Barnabas is a landowner, which implies some means and certainly status.

He sells a field and then in a gesture of humility lays the proceeds of it at

1
See particularly Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 191-211.
2
Ibid.
3
J. D. M. Derrett, “Ananias, Sapphira, and the Right of Property,” Downside Review 89 (1971),
p. 227.
4
See Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 203-204.
 153

the apostles’ feet. We see here a landowner bowed before Galilean

fishermen … The reversal is striking, for according to normal conventions
of society Barnabas, as the benefactor, should have been the superior in
this relationship. Thus he would hardly have been at the apostles feet.…
But is the subordination just one of authority? If it were normal in Luke’s
day for benefactors to wield social power by accumulating honor and
prestige through their donations, wouldn’t the gesture also function here to
give the opposite impression?1

Whatever the subtle meanings of the act may have been, Barnabas stands as a

positive model of the disciple who gives of his possessions. Yet, the natural implication
of the story is that what Barnabas did was not unique even if it was special. Although

Luke says, “as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them,” it is clear that not

every house was sold. Mary, the mother of Mark, owned a house where a segment of the

Jerusalem church met (Acts 12:12). Ananias and Sapphira apparently wished to emulate

Barnabas’ noble gesture but were not compelled to do so (Acts 5:4). Nor does the

language concerning Barnabas necessarily imply that he sold all his holdings. Rather, he

“sold a field which belonged to him” (Acts 4:37). Seccombe observes that “the example

of Barnabas selling a field is a poor one if others were liquidating their whole estates to

live from a common purse.”2 Luke must expect his readers to understand that his

language is not meant to describe a community which impoverished itself or pooled all of

the individual resources into a common treasury. Instead (and he states this twice in Acts

4:34-35) the giving was based upon the needs of the community.

Luke often contrasts a positive picture of the use of possessions with a negative

one, as we have seen (Lk. 7:36-50, 18:18-30, 19:1-10). Ananias and Sapphira constitute

1
Mitchell, “The Social Function of Friendship,” pp. 269-70.
2
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, p. 207.
 154

yet another example of this contrast.1

Parallels and echoes abound in this story. Old Testament parallels are seen in the

entrance of sin in the Garden,2 Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-3),3 and most commonly in

the story of Achan (Joshua 7).4 This episode also echoes the story of Judas (Acts

1:15-20) and will be echoed by the stories of Simon the magician (Acts 8:14-24) and

Elymas the magician (Acts 13:8-12).

As disturbing as the story is,5 our purpose is to ask what it says about Luke’s

unfolding picture of possessions and the message of the kingdom. One reading of the

story would suggest that it has very little to add. In such a reading, the point of the story

is that the couple lied to the Holy Spirit. That they lied about the sale of property is

incidental. The point is that they lied and were punished, bringing fear within and

without the church.6 Peter’s rebuke of Ananias (Acts 5:3-4) is used to support this

reading. Ananias was under no compulsion to sell the land or to give any of the proceeds

to the church. His only sin was lying and miscalculating the nature of the church.

Certainly, Peter’s response to Ananias is crucial in understanding the story, but the

1
Lumby’s remark, “It is not by way of contrast that the story of Ananias is put side by side with
that of Barnabas, therefore much stress is not to be laid on the word But,” ignores the obvious. J. R.
Lumby, The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: University Press, 1907), p. 53.
2
Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 64.
3
The parallel is seen particularly in the sin, the punishment and the command not to mourn. David
J. Williams, Acts, pp. 99-100.
4
Nearly all commentators see this connection, particularly in the phrase kai; ejnosfivsato ajpo; th'"
timh'" (Acts 5:2) which has a parallel in the LXX of Joshua 7:1.
5
A great deal of space in the commentaries deals with the historical and ethical issues the story
raises. Gerhard Krodel appropriately warns against trying to find the meaning in raising questions
concerning the ethics of Peter’s action toward the pair and tersely remarks, “Certainly this story is not an
example of pastoral care and counseling either then or now.” Acts, Augsburg Commentary on the New
Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), p. 119.
6
This is very close to the position of Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, pp. 210-14. “It makes
little sense to see the point of the story as a negative aspect of the sharing of goods.” (p. 211) “Thus we
must conclude that the primary function of Acts 5:1-11 is to demonstrate the holiness of the primitive
community.” (p. 213)
 155

above reading is inadequate. If the story of Achan lies in the background and is allowed

any interpretive weight, the meaning of the story expands.1 Such a connection is
suggested by the term nosfivzomai. Polhill comments:

The verb means to pilfer, to purloin, to embezzle. One does not embezzle
one’s own funds but those of another, in this instance those that rightfully
belonged to the common Christian fund. Significantly, the same rare verb
occurs in the Greek version of Joshua 7:1-26, … [as Achan, Ananias and
Sapphira] had embezzled what was sacred, what belonged to the
community in whom the Holy Spirit resided. One must assume either that
the practice of the community was to always pledge the full proceeds of a
sale or that Ananias and Sapphira had made such a pledge with regard to
the sale of the field.2

It is not incidental for Luke that it is in regards to possessions that Ananias and

Sapphira sinned. Luke tells the story at length and essentially tells it twice (first Ananias

[5:1-6] then Sapphira [5:7-11] ). This strongly suggests that the incident is important to

the author. It is more than Luke’s willingness to air “dirty laundry” in his history of the

church.3

In 4:32 Luke describes the Jerusalem church as being of “one heart and soul.”

The demonstration of that oneness was that, “no one said that any of the things which he

possessed was his own.” The church was united especially in its use of possessions. The

1
“The Acts story is similar in these respects: there is a deceitful holding back of goods, a
confrontation with God’s spokesman, and the cutting off the miscreants from the people by death. But there
are also these important differences: a) the property of the community itself is not said to be sacred, as was
that under the ban; b) in confrontation with the man of God, the truth is not told but a lie; c) there is no
suggestion that the community was in danger of suffering divine retaliation because of the sin of the couple;
d) the couple’s death is not accomplished by the people stoning them but simply by the powerful word of
the Apostle.
In the light of these differences, we cannot regard the story of Ananias and Sapphira as a retelling
of the story of Achan. Nevertheless, the certain verbal allusion of 5:2, and the major structural similarities
enable us to suggest that Luke was using the Achan story as a rough model for his own, and that he intended
the story to communicate much the same message: that the misuse of possessions was an offense against the
community and thereby against God and must be punished by exclusion from the community in the most
radical fashion.” Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 205-206.
2
Polhill, Acts, p. 156.
3
See Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), p. 42.
 156

needy were cared for from the resources of the wealthier members (4:34-35).

Through deception and greed, Ananias and Sapphira broke faith with the church.

The issue was not whether they had a right to keep the land or, once it was sold, to

disperse the funds as they saw fit. Peter granted them that right (Acts 5:4). Rather it was
the duplicity of claiming koinwniva and holding onto possessions as though they were

their own. As Polhill says of Ananias, “He had one foot in the community and the other

still groping for a toehold on the worldly security of earthly possessions.”1 While the
selling of property and the giving of the proceeds were completely voluntary, the attempt

to use possessions to buy status in the church while secretly holding onto wealth was a

threat to the very fellowship of the church.

Given this understanding of the story, the connection with the theme of

possessions in Luke’s Gospel is evident. As Satan entered the heart of Judas, one of the

twelve (Lk. 22:3-6), so he entered the first Christian community. Both offenders were

connected to possessions and both received the harshest judgment (Acts 1:18). The

judgments on those in the parables of Jesus (the Rich Fool [Lk. 12:20] and the rich man

who ignores poor Lazarus [Lk. 16:22-23] ) take on flesh and blood in the story of Ananias

and Sapphira. The story serves as a powerful reminder that “no servant can serve two

masters” (Lk. 16:13).

Finally, the story helps clarify the nature of the communal life of the Jerusalem

church. The story is impossible to comprehend if everyone sold everything and pooled

the proceeds.2 Clearly Ananias and Sapphira were within the fellowship of the church;

1
Polhill, Acts, p. 157. See also Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 206-209.
2
If the words of Jesus in Luke 12:33, 14:33, and 18:22, 28 are understood to mean that every
disciple was required to abandon (by selling and giving the proceeds to the poor) all possessions, it is hard
to resist the conclusion of Krodel: “We can see here a difference from the time of Jesus when, according to
Luke, the total renunciation of all possessions was an absolute requirement for becoming a disciple who
followed Jesus. Now, however, at the beginning of the time of the church the surrender of one’s property is
 157

they were not outsiders. Yet, they possessed land and were quite free to leave it unsold.
Once the land was sold, Peter tells Ananias that it was under his own ejxousiva. Both

Johnson and Polhill believe that the authority for the whole amount passed to the church

once it was laid at the feet of the apostles.1 Might it rather suggest that while Ananias

had the authority over his possessions, as a follower of Jesus he had renounced ownership

(Lk. 14:33)? He was a steward and, in this case, an unfaithful one because he tried to act

as master, rather than steward. Polhill says that one “does not embezzle one’s own funds
but those of another.” That “other,” for Polhill, was the church.2 Yet, for Luke, that

other was the Lord. Such is implied in Peter’s reply, “You have not lied to men but to

God.” Understood in this way, the story of Ananias and Sapphira gives a sharp edge to

the words of Jesus, “So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has

cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:33).

Care of the Hellenist Widows

and the Appointment of the Seven
Acts 6:1-7
For Luke, the unity of the church is expressed by the church’s willingness to share

possessions and care for those in need (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35). Ananias and Sapphira

posed an internal threat to that unity. Now, in Acts 6, Luke speaks of another threat to the

unity of the church, which also — not coincidentally — has to do with possessions. In

understood to be a voluntary action. Why this difference in Luke’s narrative? Because he was aware that
the situation had changed. The community is no longer an itinerant group wandering through Galilee, but is
now settled in a city. It must take care of its members. A new situation has arisen which demands a new
response.” Acts, p. 121. If, however, the demand of Jesus was always to renounce ownership of all
possessions and see oneself as a steward ready to dispose of the Master’s possessions if needed, no such
alteration takes place in Acts. Rather it is the exact implementation of the demand of Jesus.
1
Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions; p. 208, Polhill, Acts, p. 156.
2
Polhill, Acts, p. 156.
 158

this case the threat is in the distribution rather than the collection of funds.

The problem is described as a complaint that the needy — of which there were

none according to Acts 4:34 — were not being cared for adequately. The complaint

came from the “Hellenists” and was directed toward the “Hebrews.” The exact identity

of the “Hellenists” and “Hebrews” is uncertain and has been the subject of much

discussion.1 Whatever the exact identity of the groups, the complaint that the Hellenists’

widows were being neglected threatened to divide the young church.2

As in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, the response was decisive. Krodel sees

Acts 6:1-7 as patterned after Exodus 18:13-27. There Moses, on the advice of his father-

in-law Jethro, appointed additional subordinate leaders to help him judge and free him to

concentrate on his primary duties.3 Marshall sees the appointment of Joshua to succeed

Moses in Numbers 27:15-23 as the pattern for Acts 6:1-7.4 It may be that no single Old

Testament text stands as the pattern. However, it does appear that Luke has Moses and

Israel in the wilderness in mind. Such a background seems especially likely when one

considers Numbers 11:10-17 as well as Exodus 18. In Numbers 11 Moses complained to

the Lord because the people were complaining about lack of meat. God told Moses to

bring seventy elders to the tent of meeting where God would take some of the spirit that

1
See Haenchen, Acts, pp. 260-61, n. 3, (The difference is primarily linguistic, the Hellenists are
Greek speaking Jews from the Diaspora living in Palestine); H. J. Cadbury, “The Hellenists” Beginnings of
Christianity vol. 5, pp. 59-74, (Hellenists are Gentiles); Everett Ferguson, “The Hellenists in the Book of
Acts,” Restoration Quarterly 12 (1969), pp. 159-80 (Hellenists are primarily distinguished as those who
follow the Greek manner of life).
2
Conzelmann believes that Luke is hiding a much deeper rift in which there were actually two
distinct organizations. This, he believes, is the only way the selected persecution following the death of
Stephen can be explained. Acts of the Apostles, p. 44. Marshall sees some separation of the two groups but
not two distinct groups. He argues that “the two groups were in close contact, even if they worshipped
separately in their own languages, and that the Twelve had a general authority over the whole church, while
the Seven were leaders of the Greek-speaking section.” Acts, p. 125.
3
Krodel, Acts, p. 132.
4
Marshall, Acts, p. 127.
 159

was on Moses and place it upon the seventy.

The answer in Acts 6 was the appointment of seven men to oversee the
distribution. The church selected those to “serve tables” (diakonei'n trapevzai", Acts

6:2), while the apostles devoted themselves to “prayer and the ministry of the word” (th'/

proseuch'/ kai; th'/ diakoniva/ tou' lovgou, Acts 6:4).

One of the puzzling aspects of this text is that when Luke describes the

subsequent work of two of the seven they were not “serving tables.” Rather, in the case
of Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:60) and Philip (Acts 8:4-40), they were engaged in “the ministry

of the word,” the very kind of ministry to which the apostles dedicated themselves. For

Conzelmann, this is evidence that Luke has “radically reworked” his material.1 For

Johnson, the apparent discrepancy is highly suggestive for understanding the purpose of

Luke:

The discrepancy disappears when we are aware that Luke uses

authority over possessions as a symbol of spiritual authority.… He wants
to express the bestowal of authority on Hellenistic missionaries. He wants
to show two things: that the Hellenistic missionaries are fully prophetic
figures, like the Twelve, and yet that their authority is less than, and
dependent on, the Twelve.… What Luke is really talking about is the
transferal of power. The symbol he uses is power over possessions.2

Johnson is right that the text forms an important bridge between the ministry of

the Twelve in and around Jerusalem and the subsequent expansion of that ministry

beyond (“Samaria and to the end of the earth” — Acts 1:8). He is also right in noting that

Luke understands the work of the Seven to be connected to and dependent upon the

Twelve. However, whatever other functions the text may serve, its expression of Luke’s

1
“The ‘seven’ originally had nothing to do with ‘deacons.’ The continuation of the narrative
indicates that there was nothing like this [men who served tables] in Jerusalem. Luke has revised his
sources in line with his conception of the church.” Acts of the Apostles, p. 44.
2
Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, p. 213. See also his Acts of the Apostles, p. 111.
 160

concern for the poor must not be overlooked.

At several points in the Gospel, Luke has highlighted widows. Along with

orphans they represent the poor in that they were far more dependent upon financial aid

than other members of society (James 1:27). Luke has shown himself to be capable of

making a text serve multiple purposes. This text is more than a symbol for the

transference of ecclesiastical authority. The picture is one in which the church, consisting

of both Hebrews and Hellenists, carried out the mandate of Jesus. They cared for the
poor and in doing so overcame whatever linguistic and/or cultural barriers stood in the

way.

Luke gives a picture of the church making daily distribution to the needy.

Whether or not this process copied a formal Jewish relief program,1 the church as Luke

conceived it must not neglect the poor. Rather than seeing this care merely as a symbol

of authority, it seems better to see how closely Luke connects care for the poor with the

preaching of the word. The apostles could not abandon the poor to preach the word.

Only when the poor were cared for would they concentrate on their ministry in the word.

Those who were given this ministry were later seen preaching. The same connection is

evident in Luke’s portrayal of Jesus, who came announcing, “The Spirit of the Lord is

upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Lk. 4:18).

1
Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), pp. 131-34,
claims that there was an organized system of public relief in Jerusalem during the second Temple period. If
so, this may suggest either that Christians were excluded from such help or that the church felt constrained
to care for its own despite public assistance. However, see Seccombe, “Was There Organized Charity in
Jerusalem Before the Christians,” Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1978), pp. 140-43, who sees
Jeremias’ evidence as either too late or irrelevant for second Temple Jerusalem and finds contrary evidence
which suggests that no such public assistance existed during this period.
 161

Simon the Magician and

the Ethiopian Treasurer
Acts 8:4-40
The Samaritan mission and the conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer are

narratively linked by the presence of Philip, one of the Seven. This linkage is important

for our purpose. We have seen contrasting stories in close proximity in both the Gospel

of Luke and Acts. The most relevant such pairs for the two stories in Acts 8 are: (1) the

stories of the rich ruler (Lk. 18:18-30) and Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:1-10), and (2) the stories of

Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4:38-5:11). In each of these stories the

characters’ understanding of possessions is contrasted. The rich ruler, who was unwilling

to part with his wealth, is contrasted with Zacchaeus, who was willing to give his wealth

to the poor and repay any fraudulent actions fourfold. Barnabas sold property and laid it

all at the apostles’ feet, while Ananias and Sapphira sought, by deception, to withhold

part of the proceeds. This same contrast is present in Acts 8. Through a contrast between

Simon and the Ethiopian treasurer, Luke demonstrates the importance of possessions in

the message of the kingdom and its expansion from “Jerusalem and in all Judea and to the

end of the earth.”

Philip’s mission in Samaria brings us in contact with the intriguing and shadowy

character of Simon the Magician. Early church history has made Simon into the arch-

heretic from whom the evils of gnosticism sprang.1 Luke is far more subdued than many

of the later church fathers. Nevertheless, Luke describes Simon as a man of some

importance in the Samaritan community. He had “amazed the nation of Samaria, saying

that he himself was someone great” (Acts 8:9). Indeed, the Samaritans referred to him as

1
See Robert P. Casey, “Simon Magus,” Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 5, pp. 151-63, and W. A.
Meeks, “Simon Magus in Recent Research,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 3 (1977), pp. 137-42.
 162

“that power of God which is called Great” (Acts 8:10). This title may, in fact, have been

nothing short of a claim of divinity.1

For Luke, however, this claim was mere “smoke and mirrors.” Even Simon was

impressed by the miracles at the hands of Philip. Not only was Simon impressed, but he,

along with the other Samaritans “believed Philip as he preached good news about the

kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). Simon was baptized and

continued with Philip. The language used thus far in the narrative is the language of
becoming a disciple.

The story comes to its climax when Peter and John come to confirm the Samaritan

mission by the laying on of hands and the imparting of the Holy Spirit.2

Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of
the apostles’ hands he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this
power, that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
(Acts 8:18-19)

Unlike the disciples who freely laid their possessions at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:35),

Simon wished to make a calculated investment. Presumably Simon saw a profit to be

made by having the power to impart the Holy Spirit. This attempt at what would later be

called simony 3 was at direct odds with the very nature of discipleship.

Blaiklock sees II Kings 5:19b-27 as the Old Testament parallel to this text. Here

Gehazi, Elisha’s servant got money from Naaman after Elisha refused Naaman’s offer of

1
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 303.
2
It is well beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the question of baptism and the impartation of
the Holy Spirit. The reader is referred to G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 104-22; Frederick Dale Brunner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The
Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 153-209;
and J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Studies in Biblical Theology (London: Student Christian
Movement, 1970), pp. 55-68, for a thorough discussion of that difficult question.
3
“‘Simony’ became a term for traffic in sacred things.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 80.
 163

money.1 In II Kings 5:19b-27, one finds a simple matter of greed and dishonesty.

Simon, on the other hand, wanted not just money, but the power of God. Blaiklock finds

an even closer parallel with the story about Balaam (Num. 22-24, II Pet. 2:15),2 but

neither Old Testament parallel is compelling.

Closer, and more to the point, are the words of Jesus to the Pharisees in Luke

16:10-15. There Jesus contrasted unrighteous mammon with the true riches and warned

that no one can serve two masters. The Pharisees, who were described as “lovers of

money,” scoffed at this (Lk. 16:14). Jesus then replied, “You are those who justify

yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an

abomination in the sight of God” (Lk. 16:15).

Simon viewed the gift of God as a commodity and failed to understand that

mammon and God are incompatible masters. In fact, he badly miscalculated the nature of

the kingdom. Thinking he was dealing only with another man (Peter), Simon, like

Ananias and Sapphira, discovered otherwise. Peter’s words (Acts 8:20) were so harsh

and direct that most English translations soften them.3 Yet, as harsh as Peter’s words

were, Simon, unlike Ananias and Sapphira, remained among the living. As Johnson
comments, “By his attempt to buy his way into the apostleship he had shown himself to

be ‘poisoned with gall and caught in the trap of sin’ (8:23), but his heart is not possessed

by Satan, and there is still hope of repentance; the Lord may yet forgive the evil

inclination of his heart (8:22-23).”4

In this story Luke shows how the failure to understand the radical reorientation

1
Ibid.
2
Ibid.
3
The Greek plainly means “May your silver go to hell with you.”
4
Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions, p. 216.
 164

toward possessions which Jesus demands can constitute a threat to the church. It is not

unlikely that Luke is aware of others who, like Simon, had tried to use possessions to

acquire power and privilege within the church.

In terms of how one uses and values possessions, the Ethiopian treasurer stands in

contrast to Simon. Again, it is important to understand that Luke can and does make a

story serve multiple purposes. The theme of possessions is used to serve Luke’s larger

purpose of the spread of the kingdom. Through the prompting of the Spirit, the “good
news about the kingdom of God” (Acts 8:12) had spread to Samaria. Now the Spirit

would bring Philip in contact with one from “the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).1

Philip, in language that reminds the reader of Elijah (I Kings 18:7-16, 41-46, and

II Kings 2:15-18), was brought into contact with the Ethiopian. Although the Ethiopian

has gone up to Jerusalem to worship, Luke leaves the religious status of the Ethiopian

ambiguous.2 There is much about him that is descriptive of an outsider. He was a black

African, and he was a eunuch. Since the readers would likely understand this to mean

that he was castrated, they would also likely understand him to be excluded from full

participation in the faith of Israel (Deut. 23:1). Luke, however, sees in Jesus the inclusion

promised in Isaiah 56:3, “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,

‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’; and let not the eunuch say, ‘Behold I

am a dry tree.’ ”

Even if the Ethiopian is described as an outsider, he is not described as poor. He

1
In fact, Homer (Odyssey 1.23) refers to Ethiopia as “the ends of the earth,” Polhill, Acts, p. 223,
n. 132. See also, Tannehill, who quotes W. C. van Unnik as saying, “very definitely to the end, the extreme
limit, of the world. … For ancient people these limits lay at the Atlantic, by the Germans, Scythians,
Indians, and Ethiopians.” The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 2, pp. 108-109.
2
Because Cornelius is considered the first Gentile convert, commentators are divided over whether
the Ethiopian should be considered a proselyte or not. However, since a private encounter does not carry
the weight of Cornelius’ more public conversion, the Ethiopian’s religious status should remain ambiguous.
 165

was the treasurer for the Candace of Ethiopia (Acts 8:27). As a high-ranking foreign

official, he represented wealth and status. His chariot was at least large enough for two

passengers.1 Moreover, he had access to a scroll. All of this is an impressive picture of

wealth.

Significantly, the text he was reading was the Servant Song of Isaiah 53:7-8. Not

only was this an important text from which Philip might preach Christ; it also spoke of

the humiliation of the Servant (Acts 8:33). Here then, was an important dignitary
responding positively to the message of Jesus, who was presented in humiliation. The

very aspect of the gospel which those who prize wealth and status might find most

offensive was embraced by this wealthy, socially powerful man.

Like Zacchaeus and Joseph of Arimathea, the Ethiopian treasurer did not allow his

wealth to prevent his responding to the message of the kingdom. Nothing is said here of

the Eunuch leaving his profession and status. Neither is it said that he sold all his

possessions. If that was a requirement for being a disciple, Luke is strangely silent on the

matter. Rather, what we have is a picture of hospitality and sharing. He invited Philip

into his chariot. Obviously the nature of the episode does not allow for a greater display

of hospitality, but the hospitality shown by the Ethiopian treasurer is consistent with the
2
picture Luke gives of those of wealth who respond in faith to the gospel.

1
David J. Williams comments, “His chariot was probably not the light war chariot but a covered
wagon drawn by oxen and made even slower by the retinue that a man of his dignity must have had.” Acts,
p. 161.
2
Particularly notice Levi (Luke 5:29), Zacchaeus (Luke 19:6-7), Cornelius (Acts 10:48), and Lydia
(Acts 16:15). Though not exactly showing hospitality, Joseph of Arimathea gave his tomb for the body of
Jesus (Luke 23:50-53), and the very nature of hospitality is the willingness to share possessions. For the
importance of hospitality as a sign of favorably receiving the message of the kingdom see Luke 10:5-12 and
the discussion of that above in Chapter 2.
 166

Tabitha and Cornelius

Acts 9:36-10:48
In Luke 4:24-30 (Jesus’ sermon at the synagogue in Nazareth) Jesus spoke of

Elijah being sent only to the widow at Zarephath (4:26) and Elisha cleansing only the

leprous Naaman, a commander of the Syrian army (4:28). In Luke 7:1-17 Luke again

combines the stories (in reverse order) of a foreign soldier (an unnamed centurion) and a

poor widow. In Acts 9 and 10, Luke again combines a story that speaks of widows and a

story of a foreign soldier, Cornelius the centurion.1

As the presence of Philip helped link the story of Simon the magician with that of

the Ethiopian treasurer, so now the presence of Peter links these two stories. Further, the

story of Tabitha is linked to Luke 4:25-26 by clear allusions to the story of Elijah raising

the widow’s son in I Kings 17:17-24. In both I Kings 17 and Acts 9: 36-42 a dead person

is raised and the setting is in an upper room. Peter’s exclusion of certain persons from the

room (Acts 9:40) also links Tabitha’s story to the story of Elisha raising the son of the

Shunamite widow in II Kings 4:32 -37 and the story of Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter (Lk.

8:49-56)2

Luke does not indicate whether Tabitha was a widow,3 but simply calls her a

1
Of course, the story of Tabitha (Acts 8:36-43) is also linked to the healing of Aeneas (Acts
8:32-34) inasmuch as both are miracles performed by Peter. It is also clear that the story of Cornelius is
given a much greater significance by Luke and stands as a crucial text to explain the beginning of the
Gentile mission. Nevertheless, the sequence of widows and a foreign soldier, and the allusions and parallels
with Elijah and Elisha narratives are not accidental on Luke’s part and connect these two stories to one
another and to Luke 4:16-30 as well as Luke 7:1-17.
2
Johnson comments: “It is fairly obvious that the healing of the paralytic [Acts 9:32-25] and the
resuscitation of the widow [Acts 9:36-43] are meant to echo the similar accounts told about Jesus [Luke
5:17-26; 7:11-16], and the still earlier prototypes provided by the prophets Elijah and Elisha [1 Kgs
17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:32-37]. Peter is validated once more as an authentic representative of the line of
prophets who work wonders among the people.” The Acts of the Apostles, p. 180.
3
Johnson simply assumes that she is a widow herself. Ibid.
 167

“disciple” (maqhvtria,1 Acts 9:36). However, her “good works and acts of charity” (Acts

9:36) were directed specifically toward widows (Acts 9:39). Tabitha (or Dorcas —

“Gazelle”) is described in a way that emphasizes her willingness to share her possessions.

Although she is not portrayed as having wealth, she did give to those in greatest need—

widows.2 The weeping widows at her bedside were a testimony that she was truly a

disciple who knew what it meant to follow Jesus.

The story of Cornelius and his household is one of the most crucial stories for

Luke.3 We will notice only how the theme of possessions is interwoven into Luke’s

larger theme of the spread of the gospel to Gentiles. Cornelius was a “God fearer” who is

described in terms of Jewish piety. Part of his devotion was that he “gave alms liberally

to the people and prayed constantly” (Acts 10:2). Further, the angel in Cornelius’ vision

specifically spoke of this: “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial

before God” (Acts 10:4). The reference to almsgiving was repeated as Cornelius

recounted the vision to Peter (Acts 10:31). If repetition is any measure of importance,

Cornelius’ almsgiving is important to Luke.

Here one is clearly reminded of the centurion in Luke 7:1-10, who was

characterized by a grateful community as worthy of Jesus’ help because he “loves our

nation, and he has built us our synagogue” (Lk. 7:4-5). Cornelius was described by his

1
This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament.
2
Johnson asks concerning the widows, “Are they Tabitha’s cohort, or the recipients of her alms?”
The Acts of the Apostles, p. 178. Perhaps Willimon is a bit excessive in describing Tabitha’s work: “. . . a
woman called Gazelle heads a welfare program among the poor in Joppa. In her work Tabitha is busy
making a new configuration of power in which God uses what is lowly and despised in the world to bring to
naught the things that are (I Cor. 1:26-31). Widows, by definition, are poor, on the bottom rung of society,
without anyone to represent them or to protect them. These are the ones to whom Tabitha, the Gazelle has
given life.” W. H. Willimon, Acts, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), p. 84. Nevertheless
her giving is a significant aspect of the story.
3
If by nothing else, this is made clear by the sheer length of the story (Acts 10:1-48) and the fact
that Peter recounts the whole episode for a skeptical Jewish audience (Acts 11:1-18) and refers to it once
more at the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:7).
 168

servants as “an upright man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation” (Acts

10:22). Cornelius, like that earlier centurion, was open to the message of the kingdom

and part of that openness was his willingness to share his possessions.

Luke’s description of Cornelius implies wealth (he had a house and servants).

The picture of Cornelius is positive, in part, because he generously gave out of his wealth

and opened his home to the church in hospitality (Acts 10:48). Importantly, nowhere was

Cornelius told to resign his army commission, sell his house, or become poor. Neither is
it suggested that he did so voluntarily. What is suggested is that he already understood

that his possessions were at the disposal of God to be shared with the people (Acts 10:2).

Famine Relief from Antioch to Judea

Acts 11:27-30
One of the mysteries in Acts is why Luke is virtually silent about the collection for

the poor saints in Jerusalem, which took so much of Paul’s attention before his final trip

to Jerusalem (I Cor. 16:1-4, II Cor. 8-9, Rom. 15:22-33).1 Has Luke placed that

collection in Acts 11:27-30, and, if so, why?2 The answer is not altogether clear. It

1
Acts 24:17 is the only mention, and in that text the collection is presented as alms for the nation,
not relief for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.
2
Haenchen comments, “This is most readily comprehensible if in the course of oral tradition Paul’s
journey with the fund was fused with his other journey to Jerusalem, on which he was accompanied by
Barnabas, until the story went that both men had made a common journey bearing a fund.” The Acts of the
Apostles, pp. 378-79. Johnson, however, suggests, “Luke’s version is historically suspect because it shows
signs of hiding the true dimensions of the Pauline collection: he knew more about it than he was willing to
tell the reader, perhaps out of embarrassment at the fact that the collection did not succeed in its aim of
reconciling Paul with the Jerusalem church.
That may be, in fact, why Luke has shifted Paul’s connection to a relief effort to this point in the
narrative. … Paul regarded his collection not as a sign of submission but as an act of koinônia (fellowship)
between equals. But Luke is concerned to show all missionaries maintained continuity with the authority of
the Twelve in Jerusalem.” The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 208-209.
Throughout Johnson’s commentary he addresses this question. His lengthiest discussion is found in his
comments on Acts 21:15-26 (pp. 377-79). Johnson sees two primary reasons for the silence. First, Luke is
shaping Paul’s journey to Jerusalem to resemble Jesus’ journey. Second, Luke knows that the collection
was not received by the Jerusalem church and avoids telling about this embarrassing outcome. The first
 169

would be speculative to comment on what Luke chooses not to say. Instead we will focus

on what Luke does say.

Just as the solidarity of the Jerusalem church with the new Samaritan disciples

was demonstrated in the sending of Peter and John (Acts 8:14-17), Luke now emphasizes

the connection between the Jerusalem church and the new church, with its Gentile

members, at Antioch of Syria. This solidarity was enhanced by the sending of Barnabas

to Antioch (Acts 11:22) and by the coming of prophets from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27).
One of the prophets was Agabus, who predicted a world-wide famine.1 The church in

Antioch responded with a physical demonstration of their solidarity with the Jerusalem

church.

The fact that the giving was on the basis of ability clearly implies that some in

Antioch had greater wealth than others. No total social leveling had taken place. Neither

was there a complete abandonment of possessions. What the text implies is not

substantially different than what one finds in the two summary texts of Acts 2:43-47 and

4:32-37.2 While no mention is made of selling property or laying the proceeds at the

apostles’ feet, those with more clearly gave more.3 Those with possessions responded, as

reason seems clear enough from the narrative. The second is, by its nature, more speculative. It is hard to
imagine the Jerusalem church turning down the collection altogether. Nevertheless, Luke gives no
indication that James or any one else from the Jerusalem church came to Paul’s defense after Paul was
arrested for doing exactly what James and the Jerusalem elders suggested. Whether this silence carries
meaning is not clear. See also Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions, pp. 32-36.
1
The historical questions about such a famine will not detain us, though much of the skepticism is
relieved if one accepts Johnson’s suggestion that oijkoumevnh can just as easily be translated by the political
term “empire.” The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 205-206.
2
Gillman, beginning with the assumption that Luke presents several, often contradictory, models of
dealing with wealth, concludes that, “The model for giving is somewhat different from that of the early
community in Jerusalem, where all things are shared in common and the needs are met from this common
fund. In Antioch the assumption is that the believers retain their private property; they are asked
individually to contribute according to their means.” Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of Luke-
Acts, pp. 102-103.
3
Pilgrim calls this “giving according to ability” a parallel principle to the “sharing according to
need” one finds in Acts 2 and 4. Good News to the Poor, p. 156.
 170

did Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:8) and Barnabas (Acts 4:36-37). At the hearing of God’s prophetic

word, they gave to meet the needs of others.

The Church in the Home of

Mary the Mother of John Mark
Acts 12:12-17
Brief mention has already been made of Mary, the mother of John Mark. The
natural assumption for the reader of Acts is that as a member of the Jerusalem Christian

community, Mary would have participated in the fellowship of goods described in Acts

4:32-37. There we are told, “. . . for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold

them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostle’s feet…” (Acts

4:34b-35a). In Acts 12:12, however, Peter went to Mary’s house, which was large

enough to accommodate a segment of the Jerusalem church. Moreover, Mary was

wealthy enough to have at least one maidservant, Rhoda (Acts 12:13).

This text clarifies the nature of the sharing of goods described earlier in Acts

(2:43-46, 4:32-37, 11:29-30). Whatever Luke meant in his description of the community

of goods in those passages, he apparently did not mean that every Christian sold all
1
his/her property and possessions. Yet Acts 12:12-17 does suggest something about the

nature of the property retained. The church met in Mary’s house. Though the house is

spoken of as hers, it was shared. In a very practical sense, the house was also the

church’s house. Mary’s owning her house does not contradict Acts 4:32, which says, “no

one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything

in common.” Luke apparently considers Mary’s house to have been at the disposal of the

1
The alternative is to see Luke as unaware that his description of Mary as a homeowner
contradicted his own description of the Jerusalem community. “Some argue for a mix of traditions
awkwardly joined (unlikely in a writer as careful as Luke).” Johnson, Sharing Possessions, p. 23.
 171

community of believers because she and all she possessed belonged to the Lord.1

Herod’s Death
Acts 12:1-24
Luke connects the death of Herod and the relief fund from Antioch by telling of

the return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch immediately after reporting the death of Herod

(Acts 12:25). One thematic point of contact is wealth. Luke has already described Herod

as a persecutor of the church. In describing his death, Luke speaks of Herod’s kingly

clothing and throne (Acts 12:21). He also speaks of the crowd’s response: “The voice of

a god, and not a man” (Acts 12:22).

Clearly, Herod is not said to die because he had wealth and power. However,

wealth and power form part of the picture of Herod’s arrogance. The angel of the Lord

killed Herod just as the angel of the Lord had destroyed much of the Assyrian army in II

Kings 19:35. Herod died just as Sennacherib had died (II Kings 19:37).2 Here then was

one who was wealthy and sought to stand independently of God. He died in the moment

of “triumph” as did the rich fool (Lk. 12:20). This is consistent with Luke’s negative
portrayal of wealth elsewhere, as in Luke 9:25: “What does it profit a man if he gains the

whole world and loses or forfeits himself?”

1
It demands too much of a writer (and of language itself) to make every nuance explicit. Is it not
possible for Luke to mean that Mary and others who owned property had given ultimate ownership of their
possessions to the Lord without explicitly saying this every time he speaks of a Christian’s possessions?
2
The parallels in these texts are most interesting. Sennacherib failed to take Jerusalem as Herod
failed to kill Peter and destroy the Christian movement. Sennacherib was killed as he was worshipping his
pagan god, Nisroch (II Kings 19:37), as Herod was killed while he accepted the blasphemous praise of the
crowd rather than giving God glory (Acts 12:23).
 172

The Mission of Paul and Barnabas

Acts 13:1-14:28
When we come to Luke’s description of Paul’s missions, the theme of possessions

does recede. Part of the reason for the receding of the theme is surely in the nature of the

narrative. Very little is said about the interior life of the church. The concentration is

upon the evangelistic encounters Paul and his co-workers had with Jewish and pagan

audiences and Paul’s legal encounters with Jewish and Roman authorities. When Luke

concentrates on the Jerusalem church in Acts 15, the twin issues of the basis of salvation

and of Jewish and Gentile fellowship so dominate that one should hardly expect any

extended treatment of possessions.

The theme recedes but it does not disappear. The theme appears, as it often did in

the ministry of Jesus, in the background. It becomes part of the story of how the gospel

was received and who received or rejected it. How a character responded is sometimes

tied to possessions. The cases in which there appears to be a correlation between one’s

socio-economic status and his response to the gospel will now be noted as we round out

Luke’s account.

Luke begins the mission narrative with the account of Barnabas and Saul being

commissioned by the Spirit at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3). He also lists three “prophets and

teachers” besides Barnabas (who heads the list) and Saul (who closes the list). Each of

the names has given birth to much speculation.1 The only name that concerns us here is
Manaen, who is described as a suvntrofo" (“member of the court” [RSV], “brought up

with” [KJV] ) of Herod the Tetrarch. This was “a title of honour given at court to certain

1
See Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 394-95, n. 5; Bruce, The Book of Acts, New
International Commentary, [Hereafter referred to as “English text”], pp. 259-61.
 173

youths of the same age as a prince and retained as adults.”1 Bruce argues that the

technical meaning of “foster brother” should be understood here.2 While nothing is said

about Manaen’s present economic status, the implication is that one of the prophet-

teachers in the church at Antioch was of very high standing with the Herodian royal

family. This would be a striking anomaly if Luke wished to create the impression that

only the poor accepted the message of the kingdom or that every Christian abandoned all

wealth and status.

Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:6-12) is worth noting because as a proconsul in Paphos

he would have some wealth and obvious social status. In spite of a magician named Bar-

Jesus (also known as Elymas), and in light of Paul’s curse upon Bar-Jesus,3 “the

proconsul believed … for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.”4 Clearly wealth

does not, by itself, constitute a negative trait for Luke.

Manaen and Sergius Paulus are seen in a positive light. However, in Acts 14:50

we have a negative picture of wealth as it impacted the reception of the Christian

message: “But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men

of the city, and stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of
their district.”5 Here the picture is not that the women rejected the message because of

1
Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings of Christianity vol. 4, p. 142.
2
Bruce, The Book of Acts (English text), pp. 260-61.
3
See Johnson’s insightful remarks about Paul’s conflict with Bar-Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles,
pp. 223-27.
4
There is much debate about whether the text means that Sergius Paulus actually became a
Christian. Bruce quotes Ramsay with approval that there is no evidence that Sergius Paulus was baptized
but there is evidence that descendants of Sergius Paulus did become Christians. Bruce, The Book of Acts
(English text), p. 265. The point being made here does not rest upon the conversion of Sergius Paulus but
rather upon his positive description by Luke. In spite of his wealth and social status, Sergius Paulus is open
to the message of the kingdom.
5
The exact religious status of these women is not clear, but Josephus speaks of women converts
(War 2.561). Whether God-fearers or proselytes, they are wealthy. See Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings of
Christianity, vol. 4, p. 160. and Bruce The Book of the Acts, Greek Text with Introduction and
 174

their wealth. Rather, the women were used by the unbelieving Jews because of their

wealth and status.1 Wealth is not the culprit in this text; jealousy is (Acts 13:45).

However, wealth and social standing were used as weapons to oppose the Christian

message.

The last text of this section that has possible bearing upon our subject is Acts

14:22. Here Paul and Barnabas exhorted the disciples in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, to

“continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the
kingdom of God.” There is no clear connection here with possessions, but the words are

reminiscent of the words of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel: “How hard it is for those who have

riches to enter the kingdom of God” (Lk. 18:24-25).2 While the context has more to do

with persecution than with possessions, it reinforces the costliness of the kingdom that

Jesus brings. One must be willing to give all (including possessions) for the sake of the

kingdom (Lk. 9:23-25, 14:25-33).

The Pauline Mission in

Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth
Acts 16:11-24
We have noted repeatedly Luke’s literary style of using contrasting stories to

further his theological purposes. In Acts 16:11-24, Lydia and the slave owners stand in

direct contrast in their response to the message of the kingdom. Possessions play a

significant role in that contrast.

Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), [Hereafter referred to as “Greek Text”], p. 275.
Apparently these wealthy women persuade their husbands to drive Paul and Barnabas out of the district.
1
It is not within the scope of this paper to deal with Luke’s picture of Jewish rejection of the
gospel. However, it should be noted that the message receives a mixed response both among Jews and
Gentiles.
2
Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 254.
 175

Paul and his company,1 in looking for a place of prayer, encountered a group of

women (Acts 16:13) and took the opportunity to preach to them. Among these women

was one named Lydia. Luke’s description of her clearly implies wealth. She was a

business woman from Thyatira (a city in the region of Lydia and known for its purple

dye). Haenchen observes, “purple materials were a markedly luxury item for rich people;

Lydia will have been wealthy herself.”2 In addition to her business, Luke tells us that she

had a household (Acts 16:15). All of this leaves the reader in no doubt that Lydia is a

person of means. We are also left in no doubt that she became a Christian: “The Lord

opened her heart… she was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:14-15). Like the

women who provided for Jesus “out of their means” (Lk. 8:2-3) and Mary the mother of

John Mark, whose house became a meeting place for the church, Lydia made her

possessions available. In fact, she insisted that Paul and his companions stay at her

house.3

Here again we see Luke’s theology of possessions. Lydia was not told to sell her

house and become poor. Instead Paul accepted the invitation to stay at her house. She

had responded to the message of the kingdom appropriately. Unlike Ananias and
Sapphira and Simon the magician, she did not try to use her possessions to gain power or

prestige. She had generously made her possessions available by showing hospitality.

This is consistent with what we have seen in both the Gospel of Luke and Acts.

The slave owners stand in stark contrast to Lydia. They had income property, but

1
This company included Silas, Timothy (Acts 16:3), and (since this is the first clear “we” section)
perhaps the author himself.
2
Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, p. 494.
3
“The term (parabiazomai) is used in the Gospel (Luke 24:29) for the urging of the disciples that
Jesus stay the evening with them, and has the same sense here.” Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 293.
 176

it was human property. A slave girl had a “python spirit,”1 and in the words of Polhill,

“A slave girl with a clairvoyant gift was thus a veritable gold mine for her owners.”2

Paul, like Jesus (Lk. 4:33-37), would not allow the testimony of a demonic

witness. Yet, exorcising the demon had serious consequences. Paul and Silas were

turned over to the authorities, beaten, and thrown into the “inner prison” (Acts 16:20-24).

Luke makes the motivation of the slave owners quite clear: “But when her owners saw

that their hope of gain was gone … ” (Acts 16:19). Here, in graphic form, possessions

are valued over the message of the kingdom (let alone over human life!). It is the loss of

possessions that stands behind the rejection of the message and messengers of the

kingdom. In light of this, it is difficult to understand how Seccombe can say, “The

warning against allowing wealth to stand in the way of one’s coming to Jesus (from Lk.

18:18-30) is not developed or illustrated in Acts …”3 Clearly, it is illustrated in Acts 16

and will be again in Acts 19:23-41.

Others besides Lydia opened their homes to help the Pauline mission in this

section of Acts. The Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33-34), Jason in Thessalonica (Acts

17:4-9), Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3) and Titius Justus (Acts 18:7) in Corinth all
shared their possessions in hospitality and often at great personal risk.4

In Acts 13:50 we saw that women “of high standing and the leading men” of

Antioch of Pisidia were used to oppose Paul and Barnabas. Such opposition, however,

was not always the case with men and women of social status and economic means. In

1
See Bruce, The Book of the Acts (English text), p. 332.
2
Polhill, Acts, p. 351.
3
Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, p. 220.
4
In addition to the risk of both property and life experienced by Jason (Acts 17:5-9) and likely by
Titius Justus (Acts 18:12-13), one is reminded of Paul’s own words in Romans 16:3-5a, “Greet Prisca and
Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I but also
all the churches give thanks; greet also the church in their house.”
 177

Acts 17:4 Luke says that among those who were “persuaded and joined Paul and Silas”

were “a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.” The same

thing is said about the Beroean mission: “Many of them therefore believed, and not a few

Greek women of high standing as well as men” (Acts 17:12).1 Luke seems to make it a

point to emphasize that the Christian message was sometimes received by those of wealth

and high social standing.

Paul at Ephesus
Acts 19:18-20, 23-27
Twice (Simon the magician in Acts 8:4-25 and Bar-Jesus or Elymas in Acts

13:4-12) we have seen possessions linked with the conflict between the Christian

message and magic. Now for a third time this link is made in Ephesus (Acts 19:18-28).

The scene follows Luke’s description of “extraordinary miracles” God did “by the hands

of Paul” (Acts 19:11) and the futile attempt of Jewish exorcists to duplicate such wonders

(Acts 19:11-16). Luke summarizes the effects of these events in Acts 19:17, “And this

became known to all residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks; and fear fell upon them

all; and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled.”

One of the results of this testimony to the power of Christ was that “Many also of

those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices” (Acts

19:18).2 In addition to this a number of those who had practiced the magical arts burned

their papyri and parchments. These parchments were known as “Ephesian Letters” and

1
As in Acts 13:50 the mention of the wealthy and socially prominent is set beside accounts of
Jewish opposition.
2
Bruce sees this as technical language meaning that they were revealing their spells, thus rendering
them, in the popular mind, ineffective. The Book of the Acts, (English text), p. 391.
 178

had considerable value in the ancient world.1

That Luke wanted to connect this destruction of magical paraphernalia to the

theme of possessions is made clear in his calculation of the value of the books. Haenchen

finds the estimated value of fifty thousand pieces of silver unbelievably high, and

dismisses its historical value by saying that Luke “clothes this statement in the garb of an

impressive scene.”2 Indeed, the scene is impressive and says something important about

Luke’s theology of possessions. In Luke 18:22, Jesus told the rich ruler to “Sell all that

you have and distribute to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow

me.” The text before us now helps illuminate Luke’s understanding of Jesus’ words and

his development of them throughout his narrative. The story of Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:1-10)

and the narratives we have seen in Acts make it clear that this exact demand was not laid

upon everyone. Here, the principle behind Jesus’ words, rather than their particular

demands, are honored.

At some point, the Ephesian disciples understood that these books were inimical

to their new faith. Not all possessions were contrary to faith in Christ, but these were,

inasmuch as they represented a competing claim for the disciple’s allegiance and
challenged the lordship of Jesus. Selling these books and giving the proceeds to the poor

would have been propagating what the Christian converts now understood to be a

1
For a sample of these “Ephesian Letters” see Bruce Metzger, “St. Paul and the Magicians,”
Princeton Seminary Bulletin 38 (1944), pp. 27-30. Johnson gives a list of ancient references to book
burning as an act of repudiation, The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 341-42. See also Conzelmann, Acts, p. 164,
n. 10.
2
“… it is calculated that in the process a value equivalent to 50,000 days’ wages goes up in flames.
These Christians … must have had astonishing resources at their disposal—if we could trust the report
historically. Only this is precisely what we may not do.” Haenchen, Acts, p. 567. It may be that Luke is
giving the estimated street value had the Ephesians tried to sell their books. Polhill, on the other hand,
comments, “All ancient books were expensive, but magical collections brought a considerable premium.”
Polhill, Acts, p. 406.
 179

dangerous lie.1 The rich ruler’s possessions were not inherently inimical to following

Jesus, but for him they stood as a competing allegiance (as Lk. 18:23 makes clear) and

had to go if he was to follow Jesus. Unlike the “Ephesian Letters,” the ruler’s

possessions could be sold. In both cases, however, the possessions had to go, for they

stood in the way of complete allegiance to Jesus as Lord. Luke’s shorthand for this

principle is “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Lk. 16:13).

The episode in Ephesus in Acts 19 is a clear demonstration of Luke’s fundamental

conviction that all of one’s possessions must be at the disposal of the kingdom. It is

important to observe, however, that the disposal of the magic books was not a prior
condition to becoming a Christian. The perfect tense pepisteukovtwn in Acts 19:18

implies that those who came confessing and later burning their books were already

Christians.2 The act was a voluntary response of Christians who came to understand the

nature of the conflict between their new faith and their old practices and possessions.3 It

should also be noted that they are not said to have divested themselves of any other

property. They did not, as far as the narrative indicates, sell their homes. Nevertheless,

they did show themselves willing to respond to the message of the kingdom by their
willingness to surrender these valuable possessions.

As the greed of the Philippian slave owners (Acts 16:19-21) stands in contrast to

the generous hospitality of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), so the Ephesian silversmiths (Acts

19:23-27) stand in contrast to the Ephesian disciples who burned their magic books. The

1
“Yet, given their nature, these books could not be sold and the money used for charitable
purposes. Since the books would only lead their possible readers away from Jesus, they had to be destroyed
in one way or another.” O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology, Good News Studies 9 (Wilmington, DL:
Michael Glazier, 1984), p. 134.
2
Polhill, Acts, p. 405, n. 24.
3
The many problems addressed in I Corinthians, such as sexual immorality (I Cor. 6:9-19) and
eating meat offered to idols (I Cor. 8-10), demonstrate that converts from paganism did not always see the
conflict between their new faith and their former life at once.
 180

motivation for the opposition to the Christian movement by Demetrius and his fellow

craftsmen is made clear by the Lukan narrative: “shrines of Artemis brought in no little

business to the craftsmen” (Acts 19:24).

The Artemis cult was a lucrative business for many in Ephesus.1 Luke

demonstrates the success of the Pauline mission by emphasizing the economic impact it

had on the most popular form of paganism in Ephesus. Demetrius combined pagan

loyalty and concern over wealth in his appeal to his guild:

Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. And you see
and hear that not only at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia this Paul
has persuaded and turned away a considerable company of people, saying
that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that
this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the
great goddess Artemis may count for nothing, and that she may even be
disposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world
worship. (Acts 19:25-27)

The guild of silversmiths stand in the Lukan narrative as those who allowed love

of wealth to turn their hearts away from the message of the kingdom. Again, a positive

and negative example of attitudes toward possessions are used by Luke to illustrate his

theological stance toward possessions and the message of the kingdom.

Paul’s Sermon
to the Ephesian Elders
Acts 20:29-35
Paul’s poignant farewell speech to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:18-35) ended

with a warning to the elders, as shepherds, to protect the flock from the fierce wolves who

would soon come upon them from without and within (Acts 20:28-30). Paul then

1
See the note by Lily Ross Taylor, “Artemis of Ephesus,” Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 5,
pp. 251-56.
 181

presented himself as a model upon whom the elders might pattern their own behavior.1

For purposes of this study it is especially important to observe that Paul’s stance

toward possessions is one of the major aspects of that model. The Lukan Paul told the

elders:

I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourself know that these
hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me. In all
things I have shown you that by toiling one must help the weak,
remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, “It is more blessed
to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:33-35)

Here Luke gives the model of Paul with approval and connects it with the very words of

Jesus. Johnson summarizes the difficulty this presents for those who see this as a

different model from that of the life and teaching of the Lukan Jesus. Johnson notes how

Paul and Barnabas best fit the image of the missionaries in Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-12, even

shaking the dust from their feet (Acts 13:51). He then discusses the text before us, noting

the contrast:

Finally, when Paul addresses the elders of the Ephesian church at Miletus,
he holds up to them his own example regarding the use of possessions. Far
from a wandering mendicant, dependent upon his communities, he made no
demands on anyone. Indeed, he worked with his own hands. He not only
met his own needs by his own labor, but he earned enough to help others
more needy. He tells the elders that they should act in this way as well, in
accordance with the saying of the Lord, “It is more blessed to give than to
receive.” (Acts 20:18-35)2

For Johnson, this contrast between Paul’s stance toward possessions and Jesus’

instructions to the twelve (Lk. 9:1-6) and the seventy (Lk. 10:1-12), illustrates the

confusing complexity of the Lukan message concerning possessions.3

1
See Johnson The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 366-67, for the function of the model in farewell
discourses.
2
Johnson, Sharing Possessions, pp. 24-25.
3
Ibid.
 182

Tannehill sees this contrast as “a twist in the application” of Jesus’ teaching. He

continues:

Paul does not follow Jesus’ teaching by selling his possessions and
distributing the proceeds. Instead, he gives by working with his hands.
This is a new application of Jesus’ teaching to fit the situation of church
leaders such as the elders being addressed.1

We know from Paul’s own writings that not everyone followed his own approach

to possessions (I Cor. 9:3-7) and that his unwillingness to be supported by others was
occasionally used against him (II Cor. 11:7-21). Our question in this study, however, is

with Luke, not Paul. Has Luke given one model in the teaching of Jesus (sell your

possessions and depend upon the hospitality of others) and another, conflicting model, in

Paul (work with your own hands and do not burden others)?

If our analysis of this theme has been on target, such a conclusion is unnecessary.

The mission requirements in Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-12 were not meant as universal

requirements but were intended to stress the urgency of the mission and the need to

depend upon God. This is made clear by Luke 22:35-38, in which Jesus reversed his

earlier directions and told the disciples to take a purse, bag, and sword.

The heart of the teaching of Jesus is that the disciple, his life and possessions, are

to be at the disposal of the kingdom (Lk. 9:23-27, 14:25-33). Interestingly, in Luke

14:26, Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother

and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my

disciple.” Paul echoed that in the speech to the Ephesian elders: “But I do not account

my life of value nor as precious to myself, if only I may accomplish my course and the

ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of

1
Tannehill, Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 2, p. 260.
 183

God” (Acts 20:24).

Acts 20:33-35 does not say that Paul never sold possessions and gave them to the

poor. Luke does not exclude the possibility that Paul, like Barnabas, sold a field. What it

says is that he refrained from covetousness (Acts 20:33; Lk. 12:15) and worked hard in

order to support not only himself, but also the weak (Acts 20:34-35). Is this so different

from the words of Jesus in Luke 6:38, “give and it will be given to you …”?

That Luke sees no conflict between the words of Jesus and the words of Paul is
clear from the Pauline quotation of Jesus in Acts 20:35. Whatever Luke’s source for this

dominical logion in Acts 20:35 may be,1 the words of Jesus recorded here form an

appropriate summary for Luke — “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Paul and Felix

Acts 24:17, 26
The survey of texts in Acts that reflect Luke’s theology of possessions closes with

two brief and contrasting notes. First is the mention by Paul before Felix that he “came to

bring my nation alms and offerings” (Acts 24:17). Is this Luke’s only and rather obscure

reference to the collection of which Paul speaks so often in his letters (I Cor. 16:1-4, II
2
Cor. 7-8, Rom. 15:25-32)? The answer is not easy. The question of Luke’s silence

about the collection is troubling and somewhat surprising considering his obvious

1
See Bruce, The Book of Acts (English text), p. 418, n. 68; and Johnson, The Acts of the
Apostles, p. 365.
2
Bruce believes that it is such a reference and acknowledges that the collection was only partially
successful, but does not suggest that this poor showing accounts for Luke’s nearly complete silence on the
subject. He does suggest that Paul has said all that was necessary about the collection in the context of the
hearing before Felix. The Book of Acts (English text), p. 470. Luke’s silence about the collection
elsewhere, however, remains puzzling. Tannehill argues that Acts 24:17 is not a reference to the collection
for the Jerusalem church at all. He sees the alms for the nation, not the church, and the offering as a temple
offering. Narrative Unity of Luke Acts, vol. 2, p. 300.
 184

concern for sharing possessions. We would do well, however, to deal with the text in

relation to the narrative in Luke rather than relating the text to the Pauline letters.1

In the Lukan narrative, it is in the context of Paul’s defense before Felix that he

referred to the alms and offerings. In Acts 24:5, Tertullus charged that Paul was an

agitator, and in 24:8, that Paul tried to profane the temple. What is interesting for our

purpose is that Paul’s generosity was used as part of his defense. Throughout the Gospel

and Acts Luke has stressed the need for generosity. Here it becomes part of Paul’s, and
perhaps the church’s, apologetic.2

At any rate, Paul showed himself to be generous. This leads to the description of

Felix in Acts 24:26. Felix had a reputation for cruelty and dishonesty. Tacitus said of

him, “He exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.”3 In Acts 24:26 we are

told that one of the reasons Felix kept Paul in prison was that he hoped for a bribe. It may

be that Paul’s mention of offerings and alms led to Felix’s hope,4 but whatever the reason

for the hope, Luke mentions it and in doing so adds greed to his portrait of Felix.

This last contrasting pair of pictures is thoroughly consistent with Luke’s overall

picture. Those who accepted the message of Jesus were willing to give their possessions,

while often those who rejected the message, however intrigued they might have been by it

(Acts 24:24-26), coveted possessions.

1
See the discussion of this issue in the section of this study which deals with Acts 11:27-30.
2
For Luke’s apologetic purposes see Marshall, Acts, pp. 21-22; and Johnson, The Acts of the
Apostles, pp. 7-9.
3
Tacitus, Histories v. 9. For a thorough discussion of Felix see E. Schürer, The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 3 vols., revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Miller
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 459-66. See also Polhill, Acts, pp. 476, 486-87.
4
Marshall, Acts, p. 379.
 185

Summary: Possessions and

the Message of the Kingdom
in the Book of Acts
Our study of Acts has shown that far from being dissonant with the Gospel in its

view of possessions, Acts is in harmony with the Gospel. In his second volume Luke

demonstrates that the church was following the ministry of Jesus in its concern for the

poor and outcast. In fact, the early Jerusalem church could boast that there was no one

needy. The ideal that “there will be no poor among you” (Deuteronomy 15:4) was met.

The picture, however, is not of the entire church selling all possessions and living

out of a common fund. Rather, it is a picture of those who had possessions selling them

as needs arose. Disciples such as Mary the mother of John Mark still had homes, but

these homes were open to the church.

Through a series of contrasting pairs (Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira [Acts

4:32-5:11], Simon the Magician and the Ethiopian Treasurer [Acts 8:9-40], Lydia and the

slave owners [Acts 16:11-24], the Ephesian disciples and the silversmiths [Acts

19:18-41], and Paul and Felix [Acts 24:17, 26] ) Luke has illustrated both the positive

and the negative attitudes people had toward possessions and the message of the

kingdom. While less is directly said about possessions in Acts than in the Gospel, what is

said emphasizes Luke’s central theme: possessions are to be at the disposal of the

kingdom. That is, Jesus comes as sovereign Lord and his claims over life and property

are absolute. Disciples renounce all ownership of possessions and view themselves as

stewards. They are to invest their possessions to help the poor and needy.

The picture is not always ideal. Hellenist widows were, for a time, neglected

(Acts 6:1). Neither was the church safe from the misuse of possessions, as the incidents

involving Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) and Simon the magician (Acts 8:9-24)
 186

make clear.

Acceptance of the Christian message can come from the wealthy (the Ethiopian

treasurer, Cornelius, Sergius Paulus, and Lydia). These characters are not seen as

divesting themselves of their property but they are, more often than not, pictured as

generous and hospitable. On the other hand, those who reject the message of the

kingdom are often motivated by greed (the Philippian slave owners, the Ephesian

silversmiths, and Felix).

187
 191

CHAPTER FOUR:

CONCLUSION

Having now explored the theme of possessions and the message of the kingdom in

the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, we can draw some conclusions.

1. The poor in Luke and Acts are those who are economically poor and socially
excluded from those who have possessions. The ministry of Jesus is especially directed

to these poor. The early church also reaches out to these poor in continuity with the

ministry of Jesus. The church, however, is not the poor. Rather, the church shares its

possessions to help the poor in order that there be no needy among its members (Acts

4:34). Poverty is not an ideal to be sought but an unfortunate condition which the

disciple of Jesus seeks to address through the message of the kingdom and the koinonia

of the church.

The poor are blessed because God has favored them with the kingdom and the

promise that their condition will be reversed. In this sense there are metaphorical

overtones to the terms “poor” and “rich.” The Lukan beatitudes and woes expressly

identify the poor as those who respond to the kingdom while the rich are those who do

not. Nevertheless, even here, rich and poor primarily describe socio-economic realities.

2. Possessions are of transitory value and present a grave danger to those who

seek to hold them. The message of the kingdom comes with an absolute claim on any

who would respond. The Lukan Jesus reveals himself as the Lord who tells all who come

that they must bear their crosses and surrender their lives, including their possessions, to

him. This is ultimately good news, for it is only in the kingdom which Jesus announces

that one may save one’s life.

 192

In the present life possessions are to be invested in light of the life to come. To

seek to hold possessions in this life is foolish. Those who accept the message of the

kingdom have surrendered ownership of possessions to the Lord. As stewards of their

Master’s goods, they seek to invest those goods to help others.

3. Luke conveys this theme in numerous ways. One way is through narrative

description. Time and again, those who accept the message of the kingdom are depicted

as those who are willing to share their possessions. Often in direct narrative contrast,
those who reject the message are those who seek to hold onto their possessions or use

their possessions for personal advantage.

The same literary techniques are employed to continue the theme of possessions in

Acts. Having established a pattern of contrasting images of possessions in the Gospel, he

provides several contrasting pairs also in Acts. Although there are fewer passages of this

type in Acts than in the Gospels, there are many more than have been generally

recognized.

4. Luke’s interest in possessions cannot be divorced from his larger theme of the

kingdom. Luke seeks primarily to tell of Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises of God.

He comes as Lord and Savior and his resurrection is the crowning proof. The church, as

faithful Israel, continues his mission and takes the message of the kingdom to the ends of

the earth. Luke’s theology of possessions is integrally related to the nature and the

requirements of the kingdom.

5. In his numerous references to possessions and to wealth and poverty, Luke is

not merely giving social, political, or economic theory. Certainly he sees the church as

the community where the poor are cared for and their needs met through the sharing of

possessions. However, this sharing and distribution of goods is not communism. The

members of the Jerusalem church do not sell all their possessions and live from a
 193

common fund. The common fund is formed as those with wealth sell their possessions

and give the proceeds to the church. Those with possessions are not required to sell them,

but willingly do so as needs require such sale.

Although possessions may be one of Luke’s narrative vehicles to tell the story of

the Prophet and the people,1 possessions are more than a literary metaphor for the

authority of Jesus or the apostles.2 They are the concrete realities of life that leave the

disciple or potential disciple with a very real and profound choice. Those who would
accept the message of the kingdom must surrender ownership of their possessions.

6. Luke has not given conflicting approaches to possessions. The disciples, the

women who support the ministry of Jesus, Zacchaeus, Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas,

the church at Antioch, Lydia, and Paul all give expression to the one demand to surrender

one’s entire life to the Lord. The expressions may vary—indeed they must— but the

demand is the same. For those like the rich ruler, for whom riches constitute a competing

allegiance, possessions must go. For those like the Ephesian brethren who practiced

magic, possessions inimical to the kingdom must go. For Jesus, there can be no rival;

either one serves God or mammon.

Neither is there conflict between the instructions to the twelve (Luke 9:1- 6) and

the seventy (Luke 10:1-12) on the one hand, and the Pauline missions in Acts on the

other. All show dependence upon the Spirit, all receive hospitality, all face rejection.

While the twelve and the seventy do not take certain possessions on their urgent mission,

there is clear indication later that they had not sold those possessions to live the rest of

1
This is most strongly stated by Johnson in his dissertation, The Literary Function of Possessions
in Luke-Acts.
2
Johnson does recognize this, but the narrative function of possessions is stressed to the degree
that the practical demands made upon disciples to actually surrender their possessions to God is often
eclipsed. Ibid.
 194

their lives without them (Luke 22:36-38). While Paul works and supports himself, he

also supports his coworkers and the weak (Acts 20:34-35). For the twelve, the seventy,

and Paul, one’s possessions are at the disposal of the kingdom.

Luke-Acts gives no indication that there are two levels of discipleship. Christian

missionaries, as Paul clearly demonstrates, are not set apart from the church by divesting

all their possessions. The demands of discipleship come upon all who would be

disciples.
7. Luke’s development of the theme of possessions does not allow one to identify

a particular “Lukan community” as either the poor or the wealthy. Clearly he writes to a

community of Christians, but in all probability they, like the church he describes in Acts,

consist of both the poor and the wealthy.

One clear message Luke gives to his own church, in addition to the need to share

possessions, is that all — rich and poor — are welcome and are to be of “one heart and

soul.” As was seen in the discussion of Luke 14:7-24 and Acts 4:32-35, Luke uses

language familiar to a Greco-Roman audience in order to challenge accepted definitions

of friendship.

It also seems clear that Luke has a wider audience than his church in mind.

Apologetic and evangelistic concerns are evident throughout his work, particularly in

Acts. Not only are wealthy Christians called to share their possessions; poor Christians

are encouraged to trust that God will bring justice and reward their faithfulness; and

would-be disciples are told of the costliness of accepting the message of Jesus and the

greater cost of rejecting it.1

1
Again, the theme of possessions is part of a larger picture and ties into other messages for other
audiences. Skeptical Jews are told again and again that Jesus fulfills the promise made to Israel in scripture.
Those in the Greco-Roman world are assured that Christianity is not a new superstition but a faith that has
roots that go to creation itself (Luke 3:23-38). Christianity is not a source of trouble in the world but has
suffered unfairly. Jesus and those who follow him have suffered but they are innocent. Christians are not a
 195

8. Finally, the roots of Luke’s theology of possessions lie primarily in his

understanding of the teaching of Jesus and the Old Testament. Many have drawn

parallels between Luke-Acts and the Greco-Roman literature of Luke’s day. This literary

background is most helpful in understanding the language and form Luke often uses, but

it is not an adequate source for the theological content of Luke-Acts.

This paper has consistently pointed to the teaching of Jesus and the Old Testament

as the primary sources for the content of Luke’s theology of possessions. First, Acts

shows marked parallels to the Gospel. Naturally those are due to the careful editorial

hand and narrative style of Luke. Yet Luke did not create his sources. It is only fair to

suggest that a major source of Luke’s theology of possessions was his understanding of

the teaching of Jesus.

The second source is Luke’s understanding of Scripture. Our study has noted the

many parallels to and echoes from the Old Testament. As seen in the discussion of Luke

4:16-30 and Acts 4:32-35, those parallels and echoes center in the Deuteronomic history,

Jubilee traditions, and the prophetic literature of the Old Testament.

In Acts 20:35 Paul closes his speech in Ephesus with a quotation from Jesus. If

viewed within the context of all that Luke has said about the nature of possessions, these

last words of Jesus given by Luke may provide the best summary of Luke’s theology of

possessions: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

threat to society but a positive addition. All of these emphases in Luke-Acts speak of a more complex
audience for Luke-Acts and a greater complex of purposes than the single theme of possessions can address.
 197

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aalen, S. “St. Luke’s Gospel and the Last Chapters of I Enoch.” New Testament Studies
13 (1966): 1-3.

Abba, R. “Name.” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Edited by George A.

Buttrick. New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Vol. 3, pp. 500-508.

Adamson, James B. James: The Man and His Message. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Alon, G. Jew, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the times
of the Second Temple. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1977.

Anderson, Hugh. “Broadening Horizons: The Rejection of Nazareth Pericope of Luke

4:16-30 in Light of Recent Critical Trends.” Interpretation 18 (1964): 259-75.

___________. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age. Jerusalem: The Magnes
Press, Hebrew University, 1980.

Baab, O. J. “Widow.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Edited by

George A. Buttrick. New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Vol. 4, p. 842.

Bailey, K. E. Poet and Peasant. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

___________. Through Peasants Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in

Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Bailey, Warner M. “ ‘I Was Hungry . . .’: The Bible and Poverty.” Journal of
Presbyterian History 59 (1981): 181-96.

Ballard, P. H. “Reasons for Refusing the Great Supper.” Journal of Theological Studies
23 (1972): 341-50.

Bammel, Ernst and Hauk, Friedrich. “ptwcov".” Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. 10 vols. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-74. Vol. 6, pp. 885-915.

___________. “The Poor and the Zealots.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited
by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: n.p., 1984, pp. 109-29.

Barclay, William. The Acts of the Apostles. The Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1959.
 198

___________. The Gospel of Luke. The Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1959.

Barrett, C. K. Luke the Historian in Recent Study. London: Epworth, 1961.

___________. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents. London: 1956.

Bartlett, John R. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline
Oracles, Eupolemus. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and
Christian World 200 BC to AD 200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1985. Vol. 1, pt. 1.

Bassler, Jouette M. “Luke and Paul on Impartiality.” Biblica 66 (1985): 546-52.

Batey, Richard. Jesus and the Poor: The Poverty Program of the First Christians. New
York: Harper and Row, 1972.

Bauer, Walter; Arndt, William F.; and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1967.

Beare, F. The Earliest Records of Jesus. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

___________. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Bergquist, J. A. “ ‘Good News to the Poor’ - Why Does This Lucan Motif Appear to Run
Dry in the Book of Acts?” Bangalore Theological Forum 18 (1986): 1-16.

Best. T. F. “The Sociological Study of the New Testament: Promise and Peril of a New
Discipline.” Scottish Journal of Theology 36 (1983): 181-94.

Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 2nd. ed. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1965.

. “The Parables as Allegories.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

42 (1960): 273-87.

Blaiklock, E. M. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Bovon, F. Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three Years of Research [1950-1983]. Allison

Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1987.
 199

Bowman, John Wick. Jesus’ Teaching in its Environment. Richmond, VA: John Knox
Press, 1963.

Bratcher, Robert G. “The Mission of the Servant of the Lord.” Faith and Mission 2
(1984): 65-71.

Bretscher, Paul G. “The Parable of the Unjust Steward: A New Approach to Luke 16:1-
9.” Concordia 22 (1951): 756-62.

Brown, R. E. “The Beatitudes According to Luke.” New Testament Essays. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday, 1968.

. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.

. “Parable and Allegory Reconsidered.” Novum Testamentum 5

(1962): 36-45.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

__________. The Book of the Acts. Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.

Brunner, F. D. A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Penticostal Experience and the New
Testament Witness. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Buchanan, G. W. “Jesus and the Upper Class.” Novum Testamentum 7 (1964-65):

195-209.

Buck, Charles H. “The Collection for the Saints.” Harvard Theological Review 43
(1950): 1-30.

Bultmann, R. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 2nd edition. Trans. J. Marsh.
New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

___________. Theology of the New Testament. Trans. K. Grobel. London: Student

Christian Movement, 1959.

___________. “merimnavw,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols.

Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-
74. Vol. 4, pp. 589-93.
 200

Byatt, A. “Josephus and Population Numbers in First Century Palestine.” Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 105 (1973): 51-60.

Cadbury, H. J. “Commentary on the Preface of Luke.” The Beginnings of Christianity:

The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp
Lake. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, paperback reprint, 1979. Vol. 2, pp.
489-510.

____________. “Name For Dives [Bodmer Papyrus (p.75)].” Journal of Biblical

Literature 84 (1965): p. 73.

____________. “Proper Name for Dives.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):

399-402.

____________. The Book of Acts in History. New York: Harper, 1955.

____________. “The Hellenists,” The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the

Apostles. 5 vols. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, paperback reprint, 1979. Vol. 5, pp. 59-74.

____________. The Making of Luke-Acts. New York: Macmillan Co., 1927.

____________. “The Purpose Expressed in Luke’s Preface.” The Expositor 8 (1921):

431-41.

____________. The Style and Literary Methods of Luke. Harvard Theological Studies
6, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Caird, G. B. The Gospel of St. Luke. London: Penguin Books, 1963.

___________. The Apostolic Age. Essex and London: E. T. Heron and Co. Ltd., 1955.

Campbell, W. D. and Holloway, J. Y.. “Good News From God in Jesus is Freedom to the
Prisoners.” Katal 3-4 (1972): 2-5.

Case, Shirley J. The Social Origins of Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1923.

Casey, Robert P. “Simon Magus,” The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the
Apostles. 5 vols. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, paperback reprint, 1979. Vol. 5, pp. 151-63.

Cassidy, Richard J. Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel. Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis Books, 1978.
 201

___________. Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1987.

Catchpole, D. R. “The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven.” Bulletin of John
Rylands University Library 61 (1978): 355-97.

Cave, C. H. “Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy.” New Testament Studies 15 (1969):
319-25.

Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2

vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.

Charlesworth, James H.. Edited by The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden
City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1983-85.

Chesnutt, Randall D. “Bread of Life in Joseph and Aseneth and in John 6.” Johannine
Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack. Edited by James E. Priest. Malibu, CA:
Pepperdine University Press, 1989. Pp. 1-16.

Chilton, B. “Announcement in Nazara: An Analysis of Luke 4:16-21.” Gospel

Perspectives II. Edited by R. T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: 1981. Pp.
147-72.

Cochrane, Charles Norris. Christianity and Classical Culture. London: Oxford

University Press, 1974.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishna. Library of Early Christianity.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

Collins, J. J. “Essenes,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Edited by David N.

Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Vol. 2, pp. 622-625.

Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia. Trans. James Limbirg, A.

Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

___________. History of Primitive Christianity. Trans. J. E. Steely. New York:

Abingdon, 1973.

___________. Jesus. Trans. J. Raymond Lord. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.

___________. “Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity,” Studies in Luke-

Acts. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.
Pp. 298-316
 202

___________. The Theology of St. Luke. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.

Countryman, L. William. Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and
Their Implications for Today. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Craddock, Fred. Luke. Interpretation Commentary Series. Louisville: John Knox Press,
1990.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

. “Riches and the Kingdom of God: St. Mark 10:17-31.” Scottish

Journal of Theology 4 (1951): 302-13.

Creed, J. M. The Gospel According to St. Luke. London: Macmillan, 1930.

Crossan, John D. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. New York: Harper
and Row, 1973.

Dahl, N. A. “A ‘People for His Name’(Acts 15:14).” New Testament Studies 4 (1957-
1958): 319-27.

Danker, Fred W. Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke. St. Louis: Clayton,
1972.

___________. “Theological Presuppositions of St. Luke.” Currents of Theology and

Mission 4 (1977): 98-103.

Daube, David. “Jewish Inheritance in Two Luke Pericopes.” Zeitschrift der Savigny
Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (1955): 326-34.

Davids, Peter H. Commentary on James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New

International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

___________.“God and Mammon, Part 1: The Old Testament and the Teaching of
Jesus.” Sojourners 7 (1978): 11-17.

___________. “God and Mammon, Part 2: The Apostolic Age and Eight Overall
Conclusions.” Sojourners 7 (1978): 25-29.

___________. “People of God and the Wealth of People.” Post American 4 (1975): 12-
16.
 203

___________. “The Poor Man’s Gospel.” Themelios (1976): 39-41.

Davies, W. D. Invitation to the New Testament. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.

Degenhardt, Hans-Joachim. Lukas Evangelist der Armen. Stuttgart: Katholisches

Bibelwerk, 1965.

Delling, Gerhard. “ajpotavssw,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols.

Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-
74. Vol. 8, pp. 33-34.

Derrett, J. D. M. “Ananias, Sapphira, and the Right of Property.” Down Review 89

(1971): 225-32.

___________. “Fresh Light on St. Luke 16 (I. The Parable of the Unjust Steward).” New
Testament Studies 7 (1961): 198-219.

___________. “Fresh Light on St. Luke 16 (II. Dives and Lazarus and the Preceeding
Sayings).” New Testament Studies 7 (1961): 364-80.

___________. Jesus’ Audience. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1973.

___________. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970.

___________. “The Rich Fool: A Parable of Jesus Concerning Inheritance.” Heythrope

Journal 18 (1977): 131-51.

___________. “ ‘Take Thy Bond . . . and Write Fifty’ (Luke XVI.6): The Nature of the
Bond.” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 438-40.

Dibelius, Martin. James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven for the Hermeneia series.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1976.

___________. “The Motive For Social Action in the New Testament.” Jesus. London:
Expository Times, 1963. Pp. 137-66.

___________. “The First Christian Historian (Luke),” Religion in Life 25 (1955): 223-
36.

Dittenberger, W. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903-1905.

Vol. 2, p. 458.

Douglas, E. H. “Blessed Are the Poor, Luke 6:20 [editorial].” Muslim World 55 (1965):
191-94.
 204

Dodd, C. H. “The Beatitudes: A Form Critical Study.” More New Testament Studies.
Manchester: Manchester University, 1968. Pp. 1-10.

. The Parables of the Kingdom. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

1961.

Donahue, John R. “Two Decades of Research on the Rich and the Poor in Luke-Acts.”
Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson. Edited by Douglas
A. Knight and Peter J. Paris. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Pp. 129-41.

Downey, G. “Who Is My Neighbor? The Greek and Roman Answer.” Anglican

Theological Review 47 (1965): 3-15.

Downey, J. “The Early Jerusalem Christians.” The Bible Today (1977): 1295-1303.

Downing, F. G. “Philo on Wealth and the Rights of the Poor.” Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 24 (1985): 116-18.

Drury, John. Luke. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

___________. Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1976.

Dudden, F. Holmes. “Asceticism,” A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. 2 vols., ed.
James Hastings. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1906. Vol. 1, pp. 128-31.

Dunkerly, R. “Lazarus.” New Testament Studies 5 (1958-59): 321-27.

Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Studies in Biblical Theology. London:

Student Christian Movement, 1970.

___________. Romans. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books,

1988.

Dupont, Jacques. Les Beatitudes: Le Probleme litteraire-Les deux Versions du Sermon

sur la Montagne et des Montagne et des Beatitudes, 2nd ed. Louvain: Abbaye de
Saint-Andre, 1958.

____________. “The Poor and Poverty in the Gospels and Acts.” Gospel Poverty:
Essays in Biblical Theology. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1977. Pp. 25-
52.
 205

____________. The Salvation of the Gentiles. Trans. J. Keating. New York: Paulist
Press, 1979.

____________. The Sources of Acts. Trans. K. Pond. New York: Herder and Herder,
1964.

Easton, Burton S. Early Christianity: The Purpose of Acts. Greenwich, CN: Seabury
Press, 1954.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1962.

Edwards, R. A. “The Redaction of Luke.” Journal of Religion 49 (1969): 392-405.

Ehrhardt, A. “The Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles.” Studia
Theologica 12 (1958): 45-79.

Ellis, Edward Earle. The Gospel of Luke. London: Nelson, 1966.

Engelhard, David H. “The Lord’s Motivated Concern for the Underprivileged.” Calvin
Theological Journal 15 (1980): 5-26.

Escobar, S. “Good News For the Poor.” Post American 3 (1974): 9-11.

Esler, Philip Francis. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1987.

Evans, C. F. Saint Luke. TPI New Testament Commentaries. Philadelphia: Trinity

Press International, 1990.

____________. “The Central Section of Luke’s Gospel.” Studies in the Gospels: Essays
in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1955. Pp. 37-53.

Farris, S. C. The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 9. 1985.

Fensham, F. C. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and
Wisdom Literature.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21 (1962): 129-39.

Ferguson, Everett. “The Hellenists in the Book of Acts.” Restoration Quarterly 12

(1969): 159-80.

Firth, C. B. “The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward (Luke 16:1-9).” The Expository
Times 63 (1951): 93-95.
 206

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London:
G. Chapman, 1971.

___________. “Jewish Christianity in Acts in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls.” Studies
in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert. Edited by L. E. Keck
and J. L. Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

___________. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentaries.

Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.

___________. The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. Anchor Bible Commentaries.

Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

___________. Luke the Theologian: Aspects of his Teaching. New York: Paulist Press,
1989.

___________. “The Story of the Dishonest Manager Lk. 16:1-13,” Essays on the
Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: G. Chapman, 1971. Pp.
161-84.

Flender, Helmut. Luke: The Theologian of Redemptive History. Trans. R. Fuller and I.
Fuller. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Fletcher, D.R. “The Riddle of the Unjust Steward: Is Irony the Key?” Journal of
Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 15-30.

Flusser, David. “Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit.” Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960):
1-13.

Ford, J. M. “Three Ancient Views on Poverty.” The New Way of Jesus, ed. W. Klassen.
Newton, Kansas: 1980. Pp. 46-53.

France, R. T. “God and Mammon.” Evangelical Quarterly 51 (1979): 3-21.

Fuller, Reginald H. and Rice, Brian K. Christianity and the Affluent Society. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.

Gächter, R. “The Parable of the Dishonest Steward after Oriental Conceptions.”

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950): 121-31.

Gager, J. G. Kingdom and Community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975.
 207

___________. “Robert M. Grant, Early Christianity and Society: Seven Studies;

Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity; and Gerd Theissen,
Sociology of Early Palestinan Christianity.” Religious Studies Review 5 (1979):
174-80.

Galligan, J. S. “The Tension Between Poverty and Possessions in the Gospel of Luke.”
Spirituality Today 37 (1985): 4-12.

Gasque, W. Ward. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975.

Geldenhuys, N. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

Giblin, C. H. “ ‘The Things of God’ in the Question Concerning Tribute to Caesar (Lk
20:25, Mk 12:17, Mt 22:21).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 510-27.

Gibson, G. S. “The Social Stratification of Jewish Palestine in the First Century.”

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1975.

Gibson, Margaret. “On the Parable of the Unjust Steward.” Expository Times 14 (1902-
03): 334.

Gillman, John. Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of Luke-Acts.

Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991.

Gilmour, S. MacLean. “The Gospel According to Saint Luke.” (Introduction and

Exegesis) Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York and Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1952-57. Vol. 8, pp. 4-434.

Goodman, M. “The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt.”
Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 417-28.

Gowan, Donald E. “Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament: The Case of the Widow,
the Orphan, and the Sojourner.” Interpretation 41 (1987): 341-53.

Grant, Frederick C. Ancient Judaism and the New Testament. New York: Macmillan,
1959.

___________. The Economic Background of the Gospels. London: Oxford University

Press, 1926.

___________. “The Economic Significance of Messianism.” Anglican Theological

Review 6 (1924): 196-213; and 7 (1925): 281-89.
 208

___________. The Life and Times of Jesus. New York: Abingdon Press, 1924.

Greehy, J. G. “Community of Goods—Qumran and Acts.” Irish Theological Quarterly

32 (1965): 230-40.

Grobel, K. “...Whose Name Was Neves.” New Testament Studies 10 (1963-1964):

381-82.

Grundmann, Walter. “tapeinov" ktl,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10

vols. Edited by Gerhart Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1972. Vol. 8, pp. 1-26.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Book
Pub., 1989.

. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco,

TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1982.

Gundrey, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Haenchen, E. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Trans. B. Noble and others.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.

___________. “The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early
Christianity.” Studies in Luke-Acts. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1966. Pp. 258-78.

Hamilton, Edith and Cairns, Huntington, eds. Plato: The Collected Dialogues.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.

Hands, A. R. Charities and the Social Aid in Greece and Rome. Ithica, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1968.

Hardy, E. G. Christianity and the Roman Empire. New York: Macmillan, 1923.

___________. Christianity and the Roman Government. New York: Macmillan, 1923.

Hauck, Friedrich. “Mamwna'".” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10

vols. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1967. Vol. 4, pp. 388-90.
 209

Hauck, Friedrich and Kasch, Gerhard. “plou'to", ktl.” Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament. 10 vols. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Vol 6, pp. 318-32.

Hauerwas, S. “The Politics of Charity,” Interpretation 31 (1977) 251-62.

Heichelheim, Fritz Moritz. An Ancient Economic History, III. Leyden, Sijthoff, 1970.

____________. “Roman Syria.” An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Edited by

Tenney Frank. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1938.

Henderson, C. R. “The Influence of Jesus on Social Institutions” Biblical World 2

(1898): 167-76.

Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Trans. John Bowden.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

____________. Judaism and Hellenism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

____________. Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of
Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Herrmann, J. and Foerster, W. “oJloklariva,” Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament. 10 vols. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Vol 3, pp. 767-85.

Hiers, R. H. “Friends by Unrighteous Mammon: The Eschatological Proletariat (Luke

16:9).” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 38 (1970): 30-36.

Higgins, A. J. B. “The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts.” Apostolic History and
the Gospel. Edited by W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970. Pp. 78-79.

___________. “Sidelights on Christian Beginnings in the Greco-Roman World.”

Evangelical Quarterly 41 (1969): 197-206.

Holl, Karl. “Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhaltnes zu dem der
Urgemeinde.” Sitzungsbericht der Berliner Academic (1921). [as cited by L. E.
Keck, “The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament.” Zeitschrift fur die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965): 101.

Hollyday, Joyce. “You Shall Not Afflict: A Biblical Perspective on Women and
Poverty.” Sojourners 15 (1986): 26-29.
 210

Horsley, Richard A. and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular
Movements at the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1986.

Hoyt, Thomas Jr. “The Poor in Luke-Acts.” Unpublished dissertation, Duke University.
1975.

___________. “The Poor/Rich Theme in the Beatitudes.” The Journal of Religious

Thought 37 (1980): 31-34.

Isenberg, S. R. “Some Uses and Limitations of Social Science Methodology in the Study
of Early Christianity.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 19 (1980):
29-50.

Jagersma, Henk. A History of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

___________. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York:

Charles Scribner, 1971.

___________. The Sermon on the Mount. London: Athlone, 1961.

___________. The Parables of Jesus. Trans. S. H. Hooke. New York: Charles Scribner,
1972.

Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Press, 1972.

Johnson, Luke T. “On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay.”
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 16 (1979): 87-100.

___________. Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1981.

___________. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina Series. Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1992.

___________. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina Series. Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1991.

___________. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical

Literature Dissertation Series 39. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977.
 211

___________. “The Lukan Kingship Parable.” Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 139-

59.

Jones, David L. “Luke’s Unique Interest in Historical Chronology.” Society of Biblical

Literature Seminar Papers. 26 (1989): 378-87

Jones, Douglas. “The Background and Character of the Lukan Psalms.” Journal of
Theological Studies 19 (1968): 19-50.

Judge, E. A. Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St. Paul. Christchurch,
New Zealand: n.p., 1982.

___________. The Social Patterns of Christian Groups in the First Century. London:
Tyndale Pub., 1960.

Jülicher, Adolf. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1910.

Karris, Robert J. “Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben.” Perspectives on Luke-
Acts. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Perspectives in Religious Studies, Special
Study Series No. 5. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, Ltd., 1978. Pp. 112-25.

___________. “Windows and Mirrors: Literary Criticism and Luke’s Sitz im Leben.”
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 16 (1979): 47-58.

Keck, Leander E. “Jesus’ Entrance Upon His Mission: Luke 3:1-4:30.” Review and
Expositor 64 (1967): 465-83.

___________. “On the Ethos of Early Christianity.” Journal of the American Academy
of Religion 42 (1974): 432-52.

___________. “The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament,” Zeitschrift für die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965): 100-29.

___________. “The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran.”
Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1966): 54-78.

Kee, Howard Clark. Christian Origins in Sociological Perspectives. London: 1980.

___________. Gospels: A Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Edited by

Charles M. Layman. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983.

___________. Jesus in History: An Approach to the Study of the Gospels. New York:
Harcourt Brace World, 1970.
 212

___________. Medicine, Miracle, and Magic in the New Testament Times. Studiorum
Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series 55. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986.

___________. Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in the Sociohistorical

Method. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

___________. Origins of Christianity: Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, 1973.

___________. Understanding the New Testament. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

1973.

Kennard, J. S. Jr. Render to God: A Study of the Tribute Passage. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1950.

Kendall, Guy. “The Parable of the Unjust Steward and Its Bearing on the Problems of the
Early Church.” The Modern Churchman 39 (1949): 133-35.

Kilpatrick, G. D. “‘Laos’ (People) in Luke 2:31 and Acts 4:25-27.” Journal of

Theological Studies 16 (1965): 127.

Kodell, J. “Luke’s Use Of ‘LAOI’, People, Especially in the Jerusalem Narrative, Luke
19:28 - 24:53.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 327-43.

___________. “The Theology of Luke in Recent Study.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 1

(1971): 115-44.

Koester, Helmut. History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983.

___________. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1983.

Kosmala, H. “The Parable of the Unjust Steward in the Light of Qumran.” Annual of
the Swedish Theological Institute 3 (1964): 114-21.

Kraybill, Donald B. and Sweetland, Dennis M. “Possessions in Luke-Acts: A

Sociological Perspective.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 10 (1983): 215-39.

Krodel, Gerhard. Acts. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis,

MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

___________. Acts. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

 213

Kümmel, Werner G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press,

1975.

___________. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.

Lake, Kirsopp. “The Communism of Acts II and IV.-VI. and the Appointment of the
Seven.” The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols.
Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, paperback reprint, 1979. Vol. 5, pp. 140-50.

___________. “The Death of Judas.” The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the
Apostles. 5 vols. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, paperback reprint, 1979. Vol. 5, pp. 22-30.

, and Cadbury, Henry J. “English Translation and Commentary.” The

Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols. Edited by F. J.
Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, paperback
reprint, 1979.

Lane, William. Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. The New International

Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Lanternari, V. The Religions of the Oppressed. New York: Knopf, 1965.

LaSor, William Sanford. The Amazing Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Faith.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1956.

Levenson, Jon D. “Poverty and the State in Biblical Thought.” Judaism 25 (1976): 230-
41.

Loewe, W. P. “Towards an Interpretation of Lk 19:1-10” Catholic Bilbical Quarterly 36

(1974): 321-31.

Lohse, Eduard. The New Testament Environment. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976.

Lorentzen, T. “A Biblical Meditation on Lk 16:19-31.” Expository Times 87 (1975):

39-42.

Lumby, J. R. The Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge: University Press, 1907.

Lunt, R. G. “Expounding the Parables: The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-
15).” Expository Times 77 (1966) : 132-36.
 214

____________. “Reply to F. J. Williams on the Parable of the Unjust Steward.”

Expository Times 66 (1955): 371-72.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7: A Commentary. Trans. Wilhelm C. Linss. Minneapolis:

Augsburg Press, 1989.

Malherbe, Abraham. Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1977.

___________. The World of the New Testament. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co.,
1967.

Malina, Bruce. “Limited Good and the Social World of Early Christianity.” Biblical
Theology Bulletin 8 (1978): 162-76.

___________. The New Testament World: Insights From Cultural Anthropology.

Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981.

___________. “Wealth and Poverty in the New Testament and Its World.” Interpretation
41 (1987): 354-67.

Manson, T. W. “The Sayings of Jesus.” The Mission and Message of Jesus: An

Exposition of the Gospels in the Light of Modern Research. New York: E. P.
Dutton, 1961. Pp. 299-639.

Marshall, I. H. “Luke 16:8; Who Commended the Unjust Steward?” Journal of

Theological Studies 19 (1968): 617-19.

___________. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

___________. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Mavnek, Jindr±ich. “On the Mount - On the Plain (Mt. 5:1 - Lk. 6:17).” Novum
Testamentum 9 (1967): 124-31.

McKeon, Richard. Introduction to Aristotle. New York: Modern Library, 1947.

McNamara, Martin. Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament. Good News Studies,
4. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983.

Meadors, Gary T. “The Poor in Luke’s Gospel.” Unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Grace
Theological Seminary, 1983.
 215

___________. “The ‘Poor’ in the Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3 and Luke 6:20-26.” Grace
Theological Journal 2 (1985): 305-14.

Mealand, D. L. “Community of Goods and Utopian Allusions in Acts 2-4.” Journal of

Theological Studies 28 (1977): 96-99.

___________. “Community of Goods at Qumran.” Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1975):

129-39.

___________. Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels. London: Society for the
Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1981.

___________. “The Disparagement of Wealth in New Testament Times.” Unpublished

M.Litt. dissertation, Bristol University, 1971.

___________. “The Paradox of Philo’s View of Wealth.” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 24 (1985): 111-15.

___________. “Philo of Alexandia’s Attitude to Riches.” Zeitschrift für die

Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1978): 258-64.

Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

___________. “Simon Magus in Recent Research.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 3

(1977): 137-42.

Metzger, Bruce M. “St. Paul and the Magicians.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 38
(1944): 27-30.

___________. The Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press,
1968.

Meyer, Ben F. The Early Christians: Their World Mission and Self Discovery. Good
News Studies 16. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1986.

Meyer, Heinrich A. W. Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and
Luke. Trans. Robert E. Wallis. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884.

Miller, Donald G. The Gospel According to Luke. The Layman’s Bible Commentary.
Atlanta: John Knox Press. 1962.
 216

Minear, Paul S. “Jesus’ Audience According to Luke.” Novum Testamentum 16

(1974): 81-109.

____________. “Luke’s Use of the Birth Stories.” Studies in Luke -Acts. Edited by
Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Miscall, P. D. “Concept of the Poor in the Old Testament [Dissertation Abstract].”

Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972): 600.

Mitchell, Alan C. “The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-37.”
Journal Of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 255-72.

Moessner, David. “‘The Christ Must Suffer,’ The Church Must Suffer: Rethinking the
Theology of the Cross in Luke-Acts,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar
Papers 27 (1990): 165-95.

____________. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the
Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Moore, Clifford H. “Life in the Roman Empire at the Beginning of the Christian Era.”
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols. Edited by F. J.
Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, paperback
reprint, 1979. Vol. 1, pp. 218-64.

Moore, F. J. “Parable of the Unjust Steward [Luke 16:1-9]” Anglican Theological

Review 47 (1965): 103-105.

Moore, George F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944.

___________. “The ‘Am Hares’ (the People of the Land) and the ‘Haberim’
(Associates)” The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols.
Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, paperback reprint, 1979. Vol. 5, pp. 439-45.

Morton, A. Q., and MacGregor, G. H. C. The Structure of Luke and Acts. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1964.

Moule, C. F. D. “H. W. Moule on Acts iv.26.” Expository Times 65 (1954): 220-21.

Mouw, Richard J. “Jesus and the Poor: Unity in Christ in An Unjust World.” Mid-
Stream 20 (1981): 409-19.

Mueller, H. “St. Luke on Poverty.” Cross and Crown 18 (1966): 429-35.

 217

Moxnes, Halvor. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic
Relations in Luke’s Gospel. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1988.

___________. “Meals and the New Community in Luke” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 51-
52 (1986-1987): 158-67.

Murchie, D. “The New Testament View of Wealth Accumulation” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 335-44.

Murray, Dom Gregory. “The Rich Young Man” Downside Review 103 (1985): 144-
46.

Neusner, Jacob. Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1984.

___________. Judaism in the Matrix of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1989.

___________. The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1989.

Nickelsburg, George. W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishna.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

___________. “Riches, the Rich, and God’s Judgment in I Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel
According to Luke.” New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 324-44.

Nickle, Keith Fullerton. The Collection: A Study In Paul’s Strategy. London: Student
Christian Movement Press, 1966.

___________. The Synoptic Gospels: Conflict and Consensus. Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1980.

Nolland, John. Luke 1-9:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Oakman, Douglas E. “The Countryside in Luke-Acts.” The Social World of Luke-Acts:

Models for Interpretation. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Pub., 1991. Pp. 151-79.

O’Hanlon, J. “The Story of Zacchaeus and the Lukan Ethic.” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 12 (1981): 2-26.
 218

Osiek, Carolyn. What Are They Saying About the Social Setting of the New Testament?
New York: Paulist Press, 1984.

O’Toole, Robert F. The Unity of Luke’s Theology. Good News Studies 9.

Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1984.

___________. “Highlights of Luke’s Theology.” Currents in Theology and Mission 12

(1985): 353-60.

Olmstead, A.T. Jesus In the Light of History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1942.

Osborne, Grant. “Luke: Theologian of Social Concern” Trinity Journal 7 (1978): 136.

Patterson, R. D. “The Widow, the Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and Extra-
Biblical Literature.” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973): 223-34.

Phillips, Brian. “The Poor of Yahweh and the Church Today.” St. Mark’s Review 98
(1979): 2-11.

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

Piper, O. A. “The Purpose of Luke.” Union Seminary Review 57 (1944-1946): 15-25.

Plummer, A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St.

Luke. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1896.

Polhill, John B. Acts. The New American Commentary 26. Nashville: Broadman Press,
1992.

Rackham, R. B. The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition. London: Methuen and Co.,
1901.

Richardson, A. The Political Christ. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973.

Rostovtzeff, M. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. 3 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941.

___________. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1926.

Sabath, R. “The Bible and the Poor.” Post American 3 (1974): 4-5.
 219

Sanders, J. A. “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable.” Essays in Old
Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt, in Memorium. Edited by James L. Crenshaw
and John T. Willis. New York: KTAV Pub. House, 1974. Pp. 245-271.

___________. “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4.” Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-
Roman Cults. Edited by J. Neusner. Part One: New Testament. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1975. Pp. 75-106.

Sandmel, Samuel. The First Century in Judaism and Christianity: Certainties and
Uncertainties. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.

Santa Ana, Julio de. Good News to the Poor: The Challenge of the Poor in the History
of the Church. Trans. Helen Whittle. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1979.

Schmidt, Thomas E. “Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt 6:33, Luke 14:33,
and Luke 16:15,” Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 180-186.

__________. Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels. Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Suppliment Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

Schmithals, W. “Lukas-Evangelist der Armen.” Theologia Viatorum XII (1973-74):

153-67.

Schottroff, Luise and Wolfgang Stegemann. Jesus and the Hope of the Poor. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1986 (German original, 1978).

Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. 3 vols., revised
and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark Ltd., 1973-
86.

Scott, Bernard. Hear Then The Parables. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989.

Scott, Ernest F. Man and Society in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1946.

Scroggs, R. “The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement,” Christianity,

Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults. Edited by J. Neusner. Part Two: Early
Christianity. Leiden: 1975. Pp. 1-23.

Seccombe, D. Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts. Studien zum Neuen Testament
und seiner Umwelt, Serie B, Band 6. Linz: SNTU, 1982.

___________. “Was There Organized Charity in Jerusalem Before the Christians?”

Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1978): 140-143.
 220

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1963.

Sloan, Robert B., Jr. The Favorable Year of the Lord: A Study of Jubilary Theology in
the Gospel of Luke. Austin: Schola, 1977.

Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1976.

Stackhouse, Max L. “What Then Shall We Do? On Using Scripture in Economic

Ethics.” Interpretation 41 (1987): 382-97.

Stambaugh, John E. and David L. Balch. The New Testament in Its Social Environment.
Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986.

Stark, R. “The Class Basis of Early Christianity: Inferences From a Sociological

Model.” Sociological Analysis 47 (1986): 216-25.

Stegemann, Wolfgang. The Gospel and the Poor. Trans. Dietlinde Elliott. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984.

Stein, Robert H. The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teaching. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1978.

Summers, Ray. Commentary on Luke. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1972.

Talbert, C. H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts.

Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974.

___________. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York: The
Crossroad Pub. Co., 1982.

Tannehill, Robert C. “The Mission of Jesus According to Luke 4:16-30.” Jesus in

Nazareth. Edited by W. Eltester. Berlin: Beihefte zur Zeigschrift für die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1972.

___________. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986-90.

Taylor, Vincent. Behind the Third Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926.

Taylor, Lily Ross “Artemis of Ephesus,” Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the
Apostles, 5 vols. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, paperback reprint, 1979. Vol. 5, pp. 251-256.
 221

Theissen, Gerd. “Itinerant Radicalism: The Tradition of Jesus Sayings from the
Perspective of the Sociology of Literature.” Radical Religion 2 (1975): 84-93.

___________. The First Followers of Jesus. Student Christian Movement Press, 1978.

___________. The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Trans. J. Bowden.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Thurman, H. Jesus and the Disinherited. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970.

Tiede, David. L. Luke. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis,

MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988.

___________. “Luke 16:17-26.” Interpretation 40 (1986): 63-68.

___________. Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

____________. “Proclaiming the Righteous Reign of Jesus: Luke 4 and the Justice of
God.” Word and World 7 (1987): 83-90.

Topel, L. John. “The Injustice of the Unjust Steward: Luke 16:1-8.” The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975): 216-27.

Trocmé, A. Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution. Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1973.

Tyson, Joseph B. “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 80 (1961): 261-68.

___________.“The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984):

574-83.

___________. “The Problem of Food in Acts: A Study of Literary Patterns with

Particular Reference to Acts 6:1-7.” Society of Biblical Literature, Seminar
Papers 16 (1979): 69-85.

___________. “Source Criticism of the Gospel of Luke.” Perspectives on Luke-Acts.

Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1978. Pp. 24-39.

Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew. London: Collins, 1973.

___________. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1962.
 222

Via, D. O. The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1967

Waldow, H. Eberhard von. “Social Responsibility and the Social Structure in Early
Israel.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 182-204.

Wansbrough, H. “St. Luke and Christian Ideals in an Affluent Society.” New Blackfriars
49 (1967-1968): 582-87.

Weaver, Rebecca H. “Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church.” Interpretation 41

(1987): 368-81.

Wehrli, Eugene S. “Luke 16:19-31.” Interpretation 31 (1977): 276-80.

Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. Old Testament Library.

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

White, R. C. “Vindication for Zacchaeus?” Expository Times 91 (1979): 21.

Whittaker, Molly. Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views. Cambridge

Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200,
vol. 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Williams, David J. Acts. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Pub., 1990.

Williams, F. E. “Is Almsgiving the Point of the ‘Unjust Steward’? [Luke 16:1-8]”
Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 293-97.

Williams, Fred J. “The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-9): Notes on the
Interpretation Suggested by Rev. R. G. Lunt.” Expository Times 66 (1955): 335-
37.

Williams, Nathan. “A Second Look at the First Beatitude (Matt. 5:3 - Luke 6:20).”
Witness 68 (1985): 18.

Willimon, W. H. Acts. Interpretation, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988.

Willis, J. T. “The Foundation of Old Testament Justice.” Restoration Quarterly 18

(1975): 65-87.

Wilson, Steven G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series, 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1973.
 223

Winn, Albert C. The Acts of the Apostles. The Layman’s Bible Commentary, vol. 20.
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1962.

Witherington, B. “On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other
Disciples. Luke 8:1-3.” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 70
(1979): 243-48.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Micah the Prophet. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1981.

Wright, Addison G. “The Widow’s Mite: Praise or Lament - A Matter of Context.” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 256-65.

Yoder, J. H. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.