In the literary
context discussion of the previous post, what happens is that if readers
recognize the implicit assumptions in the narrative that illnesses have social
consequences, then all of Jesus' healing activities actually reflect the proclamation
of release in Luke 4:16-30. People assaulted or possessed by
unclean/evil spirits, for example, can be properly described as oppressed or
held prisoner by demons (note how the spirit/demon in Luke 9:38-39
"seizes" the child, "convulses" him, "mauls" him,
and will "scarcely leave" him). As John Pilch notes (The Cultural
Dictionary of the Bible), illness removes a person from status and disturbs
kinship relationships (77); thus the "good news to the poor" includes
both economic and social implications.
The Characterization of the Pharisees prior to Luke
16:19-31
Before I start a
discussion of the literary characterization of the Pharisees, I cannot stress
too strongly that this examination is of the Lukan Pharisees, not the historical
Pharisees. The author of Luke and Acts constructs his own portrait of the
Pharisees that sometimes does not reflect the historical Pharisees (cf. John
Meier’s reconstructions in A Marginal Jew).
The seemingly
disparate elements of Luke 16:14-31 must be analyzed in conjunction with one
another, because they are all directed toward a single group: the Lukan Pharisees.
As Luke T. Johnson noted, the Lukan travel narrative is often vague concerning
spatial and temporal settings, but changes of audience for particular teachings
of Jesus are quite specific (e.g., 15:2-3; 16:1, 15; Johnson, The Literary
Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 107-10). Therefore, to a
considerable degree, the content of Jesus' sayings is appropriate to the nature
of the group addressed. Jesus often speaks to his disciples, not surprisingly,
about the nature of discipleship (e.g., 12:22-53). The crowds are often given
warnings and calls to repentance (e.g., 12:54-13:9). Jesus often condemns the
Lukan Pharisees (e.g., 11:37-54), but sometimes he includes a call to
repentance in those rebukes (e.g., 14:14; 15:3-32; Johnson, Possessions, 109-110).
So it is clear from this pattern that the parable of the rich man and
Lazarus should be read in light of the narrative's characterization of the
Pharisees, because no change of audience is mentioned until 17:1. The parable
is mainly directed to the Lukan Pharisees— and people like them—who are
"lovers of money" (16:14).
The Pharisees (and
scribes/lawyers) in the Lukan narrative serve as legitimation devices via
negativa for Jesus. The conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees play a
crucial role in their characterizations. When the narrative implicitly and
explicitly contrasts Jesus' teachings, authority, and person with those of the
Pharisees, all the portrayals become clearer. Because of his victories in
verbal contests with various religious leaders, Jesus gains honor and confirms
his authority and stature.
I will write much more
on the characterization of the Lukan Pharisees in my next post. That will place the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus into its literary context and make it much more understandable.
No comments:
Post a Comment