December 6, 2010
Luke 6:20-38
20Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. 22“Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. 23Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. 24“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. 25“Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. “Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. 26“Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.
27“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34If 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. 35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.”
Introduction
Compared to the rest of the third Gospel, Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Plain (SP), as it has traditionally been called, has received little critical scrutiny and still less appreciation. Until recently, scholars and theologians have assumed that this passage was merely a shortened, less accurate, and ultimately less insightful Lucan summary of the much preferred Sermon on the Mount (SM) from Matthew 5-7. These scholars believed that the two accounts were different versions of the same speech, and thought that Luke omitted important parts of the SM and redacted according to his own ideas and theological bias whereas Matthew merely reported accurately what Jesus had actually said.
Thus, scholarly attention was diverted from the presumably inferior SP in Luke to the superior and more detailed SM in Matthew until the emergence of the two source hypothesis—that both Matthew and Luke used Mark’s account and a second hypothetical source called Q—which suggested that both writers used and edited the same or similar source material independently. If this is true, then the SP must be taken into account in its own right as an independent passage with its own structural integrity and purpose unique to its setting in Luke’s Gospel. The purpose of the following exegesis, then, will be to illuminate the salient features of the beatitudes and ethical exhortations of Luke 6:20-38 and shed some much needed light on the setting of this teaching within the two overarching purposes of Luke-Acts as a whole: to depict Jesus’ mission in the context of God’s Jubilee, and to show that Jesus came both to reclaim the lost sheep of Israel and to be a light to the Gentiles.
Literary Criticism
The pericope is found within the two volume work known as Luke-Acts. The author of Luke-Acts is anonymous and there are no explicit clues about its authorship within the text itself.
Due to the tendency of ancient writers to write pseudonymously in the name of a particular figure’s school or tradition, the anonymity of Luke-Acts must be respected.
Nevertheless, the only clue we have about the author’s identity is that the church tradition ascribes both volumes to an educated gentile named Luke, the ‘beloved physician’ and companion of the apostle Paul (cf. Col. 4:14).
In any case, the writer displays a brilliant command of Koine Greek and is extremely well-regarded for his dramatic compositional technique.
A variety of dates for the composition of Luke-Acts have been offered (as early as 60 c.e. and as late as 110), due mostly to the uncertainty of the age of Luke’s sources, but the most widely accepted round date is 80 c.e.
The precise location of the composition and the community for which it was composed are also subject to a wide range of speculations, but what is fairly certain is that Luke wrote from an urban church community in the Hellenistic world.
That the religious and ethnic background of Luke’s audience is primarily Greek and gentile can be readily deduced from Luke’s consistent efforts to portray Jesus’ identity in Greek cultural notions.
The SP is used by Luke as a summary of Jesus’ message that combines the forms of beatitudes (blessings) and woes with exhortations for his disciples that are adapted by Luke to make sense to a primarily Greek audience.
In this way, the traditional designation of the passage as a sermon is misleading as pertains its specific genre. Hans Dieter Betz argues convincingly that it ought to be identified as an example of a Greek epitome, a presentation of Jesus’ teaching in a particular selection of sayings organized systematically for the specific purpose of educating and training gentile Christian disciples.
The point of the epitome is to confront its audience with the need to be hearers and doers of Jesus’ word by casting it in the concrete terms of identifying with the poor as opposed to the rich (vv. 20-26).
Form Criticism
The narrative structure of Luke-Acts as a whole is aligned geographically with a progression of Jesus’ ministry and revelation that starts in Judea in the Gospel and ends with the apostle Paul in Rome in Acts.
Within this scheme, the SP falls within the section of the Gospel that is centered in the villages of Galilee (4:14-9:50).
Like Matthew’s SM, Luke places the SP right before the story of the healing of the centurion’s servant at Capernaum (Mt. 8:5-13; Lk. 7:1-10). The difference is that in Luke, Jesus has called the twelve apostles before the SP, whereas in Matthew the SM precedes the calling of the twelve (Lk 6:12-16; Mt. 10:1-4).
Due to the lack of clear section breaks created by Luke’s use of “bridging passages” to splice subsections together and the eclectic thematic content of the SP, commentators are far from unanimous agreement on its overall structure.
Nevertheless, most commentators divide the entire passage into three sections: introductory exordium with blessings and woes (vv. 20-26), a main body of ethical teaching (vv.27-45), and concluding peroration (vv.46-49).
Within this structural scheme, the pericope under consideration includes the exordium and the first subsection of the main body (vv. 27-38), which entails the ethical conduct of disciples to others outside their immediate community. The progression of thought is achieved more by an association of ideas rather than a close-knit argument, and the introductory beatitudes underscore the overall emphasis of both the particular pericope and the Gospel as a whole on Jesus‘ promise of God’s blessings for the poor and oppressed, and the consequential need for disciples to show the same love and mercy (v. 36).
Textual Criticism
The accuracy of the manuscripts for this passage is as certain as any passage in the Gospel. The earliest manuscript that contains the entirety of the SM is the proto-Alexandrian papyrus known as P75 which is dated around 175.
The scribe responsible for this manuscript copied the text letter by letter and primarily restricted changes to grammatical and stylistic improvements, in keeping with the Alexandrian tradition, with no major changes or systematic revision of the text.
The Alexandrian text, of which this manuscript constitutes the earliest phase, is regarded as the best ancient recension and the nearest approximate of the original text known to contemporary biblical scholarship.
The corruptions of the text that surface in later manuscripts, aside from attempted grammatical improvements, mainly arise from the desire of the copyist to harmonize the SP with the SM by adding “in spirit” to verse 20, transposing the beatitudes into the third person rather than Luke’s usage of the second person, and by omitting the temporal designation “now” in verse 21.
Redaction Criticism
Most scholars agree that the SM and the SP are based on one basic piece of tradition, held to be found in Q, upon which both authors subsequently expanded and edited for their own purposes, and contrary to what scholars before the 20th century held, it is now believed that Matthew took more redactional liberties while Luke stayed closer to the original.
It is important to consider the notion that Q underwent a series of pre-Synoptic redactions of its own before being transmitted to Matthew and Luke in separate recensions, however, because solely appealing to the redactional activities of the Gospel writers themselves fails to adequately account for the differences in the Gospels’ respective usage of Q; it cannot account for why some Q material was worded identically by both writers whereas the rest appears quite different.
There are five possibilities regarding the redaction of the sermons in Q and the Gospels: 1) Q is closest to SP and the SM is a revision and expansion of Q-SP (most current scholars hold this position), 2) Q is closest to SM and the SP is Luke’s revision and reduction of Q-SM (no longer held by any scholars), 3) Q is not like SP or SM and both were the redactions and elaborations of Luke and Matthew who received the same Q source in different translations (evidence for this position is negligible), 4) Matthew and Luke received Q in two different recensions, one SP and one SM, and the main differences stem from pre-Synoptic redaction rather than that of Matthew and Luke (many scholars take this argument as a supplement to option 1), or 5) SP and SM were formed separately from Q and the writers later added sayings from Q to their sermons (which can account for why some of the SM material appears elsewhere in Luke).
The ethical content of the sayings also bears strong resemblance to the parenesis of the early church as seen in the writings of Paul, and the earliest section of the Didache (cf. Rom. 12:14, 17-20; 1 Thess. 5:15; Did. 1.2-5 and Lk. 6:27-28).
Luke’s personal touches can be seen in the juxtaposition of rich and poor in the blessing and the added woe statements (vv.20-26), a contrast which is very typical in Luke (see 1:53; 16:19-31).
The changes Luke made to his sources serve his goal of relating the primarily Jewish context of Jesus and his disciples to new gentile converts in Luke’s community. It cannot, however, be conclusively demonstrated that these sayings do not trace back in some form to the actual teachings of Jesus, and this assumption should be held until proven otherwise.
Source Criticism
Luke borrows the scene for his SP from Mark 3:7-12, where Jesus is so overwhelmed by the crowds pursuing him to be healed that he retreats to his boat and addresses the crowd from the sea. Luke preserves the details about the sort of crowd that was following Jesus—the poor, the crippled and the sick—which fit nicely within Luke’s overarching emphasis on the solidarity of Jesus and the socially marginalized (5:27-32; 6:17-19; 7:22, 37-39; 16:19-31), but he takes liberties with Mark’s actual scenery. Where Mark’s focus is on telling about Jesus’ healing activity in detail and referring only anecdotally to his address, Luke reverses the priority by anecdotally referencing Jesus’ healings in the prologue to the sermon (vv. 17-19) to emphasize that the crowd came not only to be healed, but also to hear Jesus’ teaching.
Also important in verse 17 is the statement that Jesus came down from the mountain to a ‘level place’ or ‘plain’ in an action reminiscent of Moses descending from Mount Sinai (Ex. 34:29) which would seem to indicate the importance of Jesus’ forthcoming exhortation by analogy to Moses and the decalogue.
The symbolic action of Jesus’ movement from a high place to a level plain also serves as a performative enactment of the theme of reversal of fate for the rich and poor (1:53; 4:16-30; 6:20-26; 9:1-6; 10:1-12; 14:11).
The concrete identity of the “poor” who are blessed by Jesus in verse 20 should not be seen as contrary to the “poor in spirit” of Matthew 5:3 and both should be considered along with the others blessed in the beatitudes: those who mourn are the protestors of social evil (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1), and the meek are those who protest the loss or theft of their ancestral land (cf. Ps. 37).
Instead, the difference results from Matthew’s context of Jewish moralism wherein the world consists of the righteous (poor in spirit) and the unrighteous as opposed to Luke’s account which reflects the tendency of Hellenistic moralists to view the world in terms of the poor (good) and the rich (bad).
Yet Luke’s understanding is not unfamiliar to Jewish scriptures; in fact, his version of the beatitudes harmonizes more closely with the LXX wording of Isaiah 61:1-2, which fits with his consistent usage of this prophetic theme of Jubilee and aligns the SP with Jesus’ first ‘sermon’ in Luke’s Gospel where he directly quotes this passage (4:18-19).
Just as the Jubilee reversal of fate for the poor is invoked at the onset of Jesus’ mission, it resurfaces here as the introduction to Jesus’ ethical requirements for his disciples. Furthermore, Luke’s reference to those who “weep” because of the fallen condition of the world and the suffering that results reflects Jesus’ weeping over Jerusalem (Lk. 19:41, 23:28), and to “hunger now” is the immediate consequence of poverty in both the literal and figurative sense (cf. Is. 32:6-7; Job 22:7).
Luke’s Greek sourcing is further evidenced by the phrase “leap for joy” in verse 23, which comes from the Greek word σκριταω. This specific word refers to the grotesque dances of the Satyrs which were a popular decorative motif for walls and vases in Greek antiquity; such a reference would have elicited a few grins from an audience of gentile Christians, where a more Jewish audience would have been repulsed (hence the lack of a parallel in Matthew’s account).
Another example concerns the phrasing of the four maxims in verses 27-28 to resemble Greek paradoxes, and their explanation in verses 29-38, which constitutes Luke’s attempt to illustrate why Jesus’ seemingly absurd exhortation to love even one’s enemies makes Greek ethical sense.
This unique exhortation was recognized early on as the main teaching that differentiated Christian ethics from traditional Judaism, as even Jewish commentators recognized that this saying is the only part in the entire SM that is completely without parallel in rabbinic literature.
It is best understood as Jesus’ interpretation and intensification of the biblical injunction to love the neighbor (cf. Prov. 25:21; Lk. 10:25-37). Though Jesus’ commandments have their sources in both scriptural and cultural traditions, they are unique in that they are extended in every case beyond the usual limits.
Social-Historical Criticism
It is impossible to properly understand the meaning of the SP’s ethical implications for how disciples are to interact with the societies in which they live without first grasping the social and historical context in which Luke wrote. Roman Palestine was an honor-shame society in which concerns about the acquisition or loss of honor permeated every aspect of public life and took on the seriousness of life and death.
Honor was seen as a limited good, meaning that honor gained was honor taken from someone else, and it was inextricably bound up with economic concerns such as the control of resources, land, crops, livestock, social status, marriage opportunities and political clout.
On the other hand, the shaming of one individual had the potential to destroy the well-being of his or her entire family. To be shameless, then, was to lack proper concern for one’s honor. In that light, the beatitudes could be better translated as “how honorable are you who are poor” (v. 20), and the woes could likewise be rendered, “how shameless are you who are rich” (v. 24).
The understanding of rich and poor needs to be understood in light of their relation to the system of honor and shame whereby economic deprivation and social ostracism are inextricably linked. In an oral culture, honor-shame language functions as a social sanction on moral behavior and is perpetuated by gossip—the public record of one’s honor or shame.
Thus, in verse 26, the situation in which all speak well of someone refers to flattery; to be rich was to be surrounded by flatterers, and the problem with flattery is that it conflates the proper acquisition of an honorable reputation: the merit of one’s character.
The reference to clothing in verse 29 is also related to the notions of poverty and shame. In the Galilean village context of this passage, most people only had one cloak (outer garment) and one tunic (undershirt) to wear under it; the poorest might have to forego the tunic, whereas owning two tunics was a sign of being relatively well-off.
Clothes were scarce among the poor and thus became a frequent object of robbery (6:29; 10:30). Furthermore, to go without one’s clothes was considered shameful and ritually impure—a point of particular emphasis in Luke’s retelling of the Gerasene demoniac who “wore no clothes” (8:27), but once he was healed was found by the townspeople to be fully clothed (v. 35). Thus, the ethical exhortation Jesus gives his disciples concerning generosity is one that comes at a very high cost, socially speaking. It calls, as Luke frequently points out, for a stance of seemingly shameful solidarity with the outcasts of mainstream society.
In addition to honor and shame, the social life of Roman Palestine was also structured as a patronage system in which the low class (clients) had to have their needs met by the high class (patrons).
While patrons competed with each other for social position by accumulating as many clients as possible, the clients were required to provide all of the manual labor on the patron’s land and subject themselves to frequent humiliation and were given only one meal a day as payment—anything beyond that was considered generous.
While notions of hospitality and generalized reciprocity in which favors or food were given without any expected return, this was conventionally only true within one specific sector (age, sex, occupation, status).
Thus, the idea of giving without return in verse 35 entails the expectation that Jesus’ disciples should act as if they are the benefactors, or patrons, but they should do so without any of the usual social entitlements that come with this status.
Jesus justifies this charge by appealing to the very nature of God, the benefactor par excellence in Luke’s Gospel (v. 36). In the top-heavy power structure of the patronage system, the vast majority of people were at the bottom and many were crushed by insurmountable debt, but Jesus announces that God, the Great Benefactor, will enact a dramatic reversal to uplift the over-burdened poor, and he charges his disciples to act likewise by forgiving debts themselves—a truly otherworldly way of acting.
Praxis
The two sections of Jesus’ teachings to his disciples in Luke 6:20-26 and 27-38 raise two important principles: the repudiation of privilege based on wealth and the refusal of retaliation that leads to violence. The ethical stance inherent in these teachings is “diametrically opposed to the assumptions of the marketplace and the media that shape American culture: the wealthy are privileged and conflict requires that one show strength through retaliation.”
Jesus confronts his disciples with a simple choice about who they identify themselves with in solidarity: those who are comfortable with their excesses garnered from the degradation of others, or those who are themselves degraded, vulnerable, and marginalized by their society (vv. 20-26). Jesus gives a clear alternative to the social practices that foster hostility and oppression (vv. 27-38).
While it may not mean the same thing for us to give away our shirt as it did when Luke wrote his account, we can carry on the spirit of the passage by thinking about the underpaid and often underage workers who toil to make our clothing so that we can afford to buy so much of it. We should not, however, be fooled by the differences between our world and the world in which Jesus lived; the extreme gulf between haves and have-nots remains just as pronounced in most of the world today as it did then. Luke’s account of Jesus’ teaching cuts across all barriers in his audience; whether we are closer to the blessed poor or the woeful rich, the sermon speaks to us directly and in concrete terms about who we are to have solidarity with. That is why Damian Marley’s song “Stand a Chance” harmonizes so well with the motifs sounded by Luke’s Gospel.
Though he was born into privilege to the wildly successful reggae artists Bob Marley and Cindy Breakspeare, Damian Marley still seeks to uplift, identify with and be reconciled to the urban poor. In the song, he refers to being born in “uptown” Kingston, Jamaica—the high-rise financial district of the city (where Halfway Tree, the title of the album, is located)—as opposed to “Trenchtown” which is the city slum and home of many Rastafarians, including his father. Thus, he is saying that even though he was born into Halfway Tree, his heart has always been and will always be in the slums. In the song’s refrain, the lyrics echo the contrast between rich and poor in verses 20-26 by juxtaposing the phrases “where there’s more hungry mouths than food to eat” and “where there’s more food to eat than mouths to feed.”
He then appeals for all of us to look up to the Creator, our source of light, so that we may shine again and show the world God’s love which beautifully echoes Jesus’ “light of the world” imagery that appears in the SM (Mt. 5:14-16).
Appendix
Stand A Chance
Where there’s, more hungry mouths
Than food to eat
It’s where the homeless
Roam the street
Where broken glass
And broken dreams
Are shattered and scattered
Amongst debris
Sufferation wrath
And still they laugh
And dream of a mansion
Above the half
No one to speak
Upon there behalf
Now tell me do they stand a chance?
Where there’s, more food
Than mouths to feed
Where you find those who
Claim to lead
Because of all their personal greed
They always want more than they need
They don’t help those
Below the half
Instead they stand aside and laugh
As if it’s all we’ll ever ask
When will they make a change?
Children lift your heads
To the one
Who create the sun
My children
And your light will come shinning again
Show the world
Jah love is okay
When we rise and greet the son
Lets give him thanks and praise
Illegal guns
They roam the night
In hungry hands
Waiting to bite
The first sign of
Any food in sight
Youths in the dark
Searching for light
Hard time they face
Is not a choice
Police curfew
Is no surprise
And with no one
To be there voice
Do they stand a chance?
Where there’s, more hungry mouths
Then food to eat
Where you find those who
Claim to lead
Because of all there personal greed
They always want more than they need
They don’t help those
Below the half
Instead they stand aside and laugh
As if it’s all we’ll ever ask
When will they make a change?
Its like a punk never check
Or dem did forget
Say a death
We nature naughty
Ah true mi go born uptown
Tell dem fools don’t cross me
That’s only where Cindy brought me*
And that’s why they can’t impress me
With no boasty car
Me know dat ah kill dem softly
And then they’re not
Really even who they think they are
They’re not really moving crafty
Mi get fi understand
Say them plan dem faulty
Well nuff a dem a twenty
And favor forty
Filthy rich big belly
And hearty
Di real Gideon will
Be arriving shortly
Rasta nuh beat Binghi
Drum we claatt it
We live longer
Cause we food nuh salty
We grow stronger
And dem can’t assault we
So haile Rastafari love
And exhalt it
Bibliography
Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49). Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.
Bovon, François. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. Edited by Helmut Koester, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Cassidy, Richard J. Jesus, Politics and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1978.
Comfort, Philip W., and David P. Barrett. eds. The Complete Test of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Culpepper, R. Alan. 1995. Luke. In Luke and John. Vol. 9 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Neil M. Alexander, 1-149. Nashville: Abingdon.
Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
Moxnes, Halvor. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Heretical Rhetoric 