|
Jacques
Matthey It might be appropriate to meditate once more on one of the most famous "editorials" in the New Testament, Luke 4:14-30.1There are several strata one can discern in this ecumenical bestseller" among the Gospel texts. The interpretation one gives will depend on the balance made between various emphases appearing in this story about the Nazareth event, Placed just after the Spirit’s descent on Jesus — his empowering for mission-and the temptation, which pictures the missionary methods and tasks Jesus refused to use and accomplish, this text, inserted between two editorial summaries (v. 14-15 and 31-32), has all the characteristics of a programmatic manifesto or policy document. It can first be read as the Spirit’s mission manifesto, revealing the Spirit’s priorities as formulated through a combination of texts taken from the prophet Isaiah. Second, Luke 4 reveals something of Jesus’ own priorities, and shows how he understood his specific role within God’s mission. Finally, the Nazareth incident can also be read as the personal editorial Luke puts at the beginning of his theological history of Christian origins in two volumes. Mission priorities of the Spirit As in most parts of Luke’s writings, it is the Spirit who has the initiative: Jesus is "drawn" by the Spirit to the desert for temptation; Jesus is "filled" with the Spirit and might even find Isaiah’s text as a consequence of the Spirit’s guidance.2 It is quite interesting that in Jesus’ reading, the Isaiah quotation is socially "sharpened" by the omission of the phrase "to heal the brokenhearted" and the addition of "let the oppressed go free", the sixth verse of chapter 58. There is a clear holistic liberation emphasis in the Spirit’s mission programme: the aim is to radically change the spiritual, personal, social and economic conditions of all the victims, of all those who have been put aside by religious, social, political or economic developments in society. The categories are clear: the poor, the captives, the blind, the oppressed. The aim is clear also: good news, release, sight, freedom. There is no "priority" within this holistic vision.3 Usually, the various exclusion processes reinforce each other anyhow. The roots for understanding what the Spirit is all about are to be found in the Hebrew tradition, in the specific laws and institutions which God’s people had developed to express their understanding of, and faithfulness to, God’s calling. Without such reference, the Spirit’s emphasis and message may not be understood in its fullness and sharpness.4 Whenever the presence and manifestation of the Spirit are unlinked from the specific criteria of interpretation, rooted in what we call the Old Testament, there is a risk to "spiritualize" the Spirit and to bypass his (or her) interventions in the concrete manifestations of human injustice and suffering. Such a spiritualizing tendency can already be discerned in the first inculturations of the Gospel in Hellenistic society, even in Luke’s own writings.5 It is however correct to emphasize the proclamatory aspect in Isaiah’s text and in the way Luke 4 is edited.6 All verbs are missionary verbs: evangelize, proclaim (twice, with three objects), send in freedom. The emphasis on the proclamatory aspect is even highlighted by Jesus’ personal comment, starting with: "Today, this scripture has been fulfilled .i.in your hearing.r. (literally: in your ears)". Yet, one should not weaken the meaning of "proclamation". Jesus’ announcement of the year of the Lord’s favour (which is not the year of the Jubilee as described in Lv 25) as such radically changes the situation by putting the traditional Jewish institutional and social systems out of order. The proclamation of a change of regime in a country basically modifies the overall conditions of life. One should thus not minimize what Jesus’ proclamation implies; it really gives dignity to the poor, liberates the oppressed and opens up the eyes of those who do not understand, by declaring that the "old" social and religious rules of the game have been replaced by the kingdom of God (see Lk 7:18-23 and 11:20 ). Jesus’ own activity indicates how fundamentally the situation has changed. The first to really understand what was going on were the demons (Luke 4:34). Given the powerful overall modification of the basic rules of life, it seems unfaithful to the text to distinguish between a spiritual priority and a holistic consequence.7 Jesus’ comments Jesus own sermon is centred around two main emphases. He first says, "Today" the scripture has been fulfilled. Like in a Pentecostal worship, Jesus addresses his listeners directly, promising them the immediate fulfillment of their most dear hopes and needs by identifying himself with the promised Messiah or messianic Servant. It is a direct powerful proclamation of God’s presence, not a highly intellectual explanation of an obscure detail. No wonder that the public reacts positively to such a message. Whether they really understand what Jesus is about remains open. The second essential aspect of Jesus’ homily is his identification with the expected final bearer of the Spirit. This has of course important missionary consequences: the promises of Isaiah are fulfilled in relation to the communication event and encounter between Jesus and human beings. This is one of the "refrains" of all the Gospels: the central manifestation of the kingdom of God (or the Spirit’s essential intervention in history) cannot be dissociated from the person of Jesus of Nazareth. And this is also the problem. Indeed, the most striking factor of the whole text is not the formulation of the good news — as important as it is - but the mysterious change of mind of the whole group of people assembled in that synagogue. The text is carefully and dramatically written: "the eyes of all were fixed on him" (indicating a tension), "all spoke well of him"(cf. also the use of "all" in Lk 4:15) and then, suddenly, "all were filled with rage"(Lk 4:28). Luke’s editorial Told as it is, the story shows Luke’s own insistence and priorities and can be read as an "editorial" to the whole of his double essay — Gospel and Acts. In the latter book, most of the preaching of the first missionaries is described, somewhat schematically, as starting in the synagogue to continue outside, after a change of mind of the public. There is the mystery of the rejection of Jesus by his own people in his own town. This question is hinted at in the other Gospels as well, and generalized in the first chapter of John’s Gospel, which shows how the Word came to what was "his own" and was refused by his own people, i.e. humanity. The rejection is not unique to the inhabitants of Nazareth. Luke shows how Jesus’ own preaching unfolds an interpretation of the tradition which shocked people. Interpreting the tradition — the Bible — was and is the essential aspect of any "teaching" of Jesus and his followers (Lk 4:15 and 31). Jesus’ activity is hermeneutical, which he is able to accomplish with authority because he is "filled" by the Spirit. Some have argued that people would already have been shocked when Jesus stopped reading the Isaiah text before mentioning the "day of vengeance" (Is 61:2). That might be. Yet, while present in Isaiah 61, the idea of vengeance over the enemies is not given as much emphasis as the "positive" proclamation of the "year of favour". Jesus’ "mild" interpretation has some justification in Isaiah. In any case, one should take into consideration that the story is told in a way which indicates that people were not shocked at the moment of the reading, but by what Jesus then said.8 But it remains strange that in verse 23, Jesus seems to refer to an incident which happened in Nazareth according to the other Gospels (cf. Mk 6:1-6 par.), but which Luke does not tell. This gives to the story quite a provocative flavour. It looks as if Jesus intended to exasperate his fellow-citizens. And while presenting himself as prophet and healer, he appears not to be able to manifest his authority in his hometown (unlike what will happen in Capernaum, v. 33 ff). He preaches, but does not heal the sick nor expel evil spirits; the kingdom of God does not manifest itself in full power in Nazareth. This also shows that "proclamation" alone may not always manifest the fullness of the year of God’s favour. The rushing in of the kingdom can fail to reach its aim. Whether that is due to the Lord’s choice, the people’s reactions, or both is left open by Lukes’ editorial. In mission, we should not fix what the Bible leaves unexplained. Renewed hermeneutics Jesus’ hermeneutical practice is indeed paradoxical and very interesting for our own mission. The two prophets he mentions were well known. Their life was mostly dedicated to reinforcing Israel against its enemies.9 The two stories Jesus mentions represent a minority tradition in the life of those prophets. But for Jesus the significance of both events in Sidon and Syria is essential and more important than the other stories about Elijah or Elisha. For Jesus, this healing activity of God outside the boundaries of God’s people has a fundamental meaning and is constitutive for his re-interpretation of the tradition. He thus applies a strange, scandalous but liberating hermeneutics.10 Of course, this reflects a Christian interpretation of the biblical tradition which is specific and can differ from Jewish interpretation theories and practises. There is a justification for a selective Christian understanding of Old Testament stories.11 Jesus proclaims that God’s liberating power and solidarity is not exclusively meant for the benefit of the physical descendants of the patriarchs, of the people of the exodus and the great prophets. God’s mission has a universal scope — transcending any ethnic, cultural, social, racial or confessional barrier. God’s preferential option for the poor is not for the poor of Israel only, and may even give priority to others. That message comes as a challenge to every human group and not only to the Jewish inhabitants of Nazareth. Their instinctive and fundamental refusal of such "universalism" is representative for all of us throughout the ages and continents. This universalism is also what prevents an interpretation of Luke 4 as meaning the establishment of a Jubilee year, which was clearly limited to the people of Israel and linked to their handling of the land issue in Palestine.12 Widening the perspective: towards a liberation principle There are actually three enlargements or widening of meaning in Jesus’ interpretation and actualization of the tradition which lies behind the remittance and jubilee years: 1) The Jubilee year was understandable specifically in a situation of economic and religious unity of the People of God forming one nation and one legal system. In that system, every 49 years, everyone who had not been able to regain his land was given it back. This was one of the "legal institutions" that allowed for everyone, at certain periods, to start their lives again, with equal chances. While never put into practice as such (most probably), that principle still remained a model for correcting growing economic and social injustice. Together with the Ten Commandments and the sabbatical and remission years, it was like a "legal incarnation" of the prophets’ message. In Jesus’ reintepretation of the year of God’s favour, there is no more limitation to one specific people within specific boundaries. That is what scandalized the inhabitants of Nazareth. The Spirit "de-nationalizes" the jubilee and remittance principle. 2) In the tradition, there is a periodic remission of debts and recovery of one’s freedom or land as means to readjust society. The realm is economic and social, within a specific legislation based on God’s revelation. In Jesus’ message, the scope is widened. What was to happen in economics should and can now happen in all relations, between God and humans, among societies and individual persons, among families and ethnic clans: liberation, remission and forgiveness can and must be the mark of any relation in any domain of life. The sharpening of Isaiah’s quotation as well as the texts and stories transmitted in Luke’s specific tradition forbid the interpretation of it as if Jesus did away with the economic part of the jubilee and remission message to concentrate on the spiritual. He starts from the tradition and enlarges its principle. That is why the prayer he taught to his disciples includes the forgiveness of debts/trespasses in a language which is the same as the one of the remittance year (Lk 11:4). It is not only financial — all debts are taken away. All that hinders reconciled relations with God has been put aside: relations are healed between God and all of humanity. The ancient jubilee year was linked to the day of forgiveness. That now has been generalized. All human and social relations now have a new quality. Forgiveness and freedom are granted. 3) The third limitation of the jubilee and remission tradition is its periodicity. Some rearrangements in the unjust social order were to take place every seven years, others every 49 years. No such limitation of time exist — any more — at every moment of life the jubilee or liberation principle can and thus should mark all our activities and relations. The Nazareth proclamation proclaims a permanent year of favour.13 All limitations of the jubilee traditions are overcome. That is the sense of the phrase, it is accomplished "in your hearing". Through Jesus’ proclamation, in the power of the Spirit, reality has been changed fundamentally, so that all human relations and societies can be arranged accordingly. Bursting from its roots in the legal tradition, the "jubilee" or "remission" has become an inspiring principle which today we have the freedom to apply and adapt to the many contexts in which we are living. It is the Churches’ mission to proclaim it to the world and live accordingly. But one must take care that the biblical principle includes criteria which cannot be bypassed: the link to the person of Jesus; the social aspect of that liberation; and the impossibility to limit it to any ethnic or racial or national boundary. Open-ended story The end of the Nazareth drama, v. 28 ff., introduces the end of Jesus’ own life story. The description given of the town of Nazareth does not correspond to its geographical setting, but could allude to that of Jerusalem.14 If that is the case, then Luke’s’ editorial already shows how Jesus life will end, at the cross. But his time has not yet come. He passes through the mob, walking with authority, in a manner which reminds us of the Son as pictured in John’s Gospel.15 In mission, time is not chronological. Some consequences occur at certain times, yet not at others. This is also true for success or failure in the churches’ witness. As it happened to our Lord, it can happen to us. We have indeed, with the succession of the temptation and Nazareth stories, two clear indications of what inspiration by the Holy Spirit does not mean. It does not mean ruling the world with globalized power by following the Devil’s rules. It does not mean to honour one culture more than another, even if it is considered a "divine" tradition. That is why liberation and jubilee, indeed, can be proclaimed to all peoples of the earth, a new situation in history which the second book of Luke’s work emphasizes. At Pentecost the same Spirit, having been "concentrated" on Jesus during his earthly ministry, is given to his followers — Jews first, non-Jews in a second stage. There are two pentecosts in Acts: chapter 2 and chapter 10. The second was necessary, because even the best Christians — the Apostles and first witnesses — had not understood the breadth of the message and promise. One can be filled with the Spirit and yet not understand the Gospel fully!16 The outpouring of the Spirit provokes joy, including ecstatic and charismatic joy (Rom 14:17), enables intercultural communication, and empowers people for sharing. This is the jubilee or remission principle embodied in the first Church community as described in Acts 2 and 4. Through its "radiance", that early Church is in "centripetal" mission, attracting people to the new life experienced in its midst. Later on, under the guidance of the same Spirit, the Church of Antioch will adopt another mission strategy, a more "centrifugal" one. It will also send out people to other parts of the world to communicate the message to those who otherwise could not know it, and to enable Churches to be formed and to grow in other cultural traditions (Acts 13:1ff). But the programme remains the same. It is a permanent liberation and forgiveness principle,17 valid for all peoples of the world, centred on the person of Jesus Christ, who rises out of the Jewish tradition but universalizes the Spirit’s priorities which that tradition had transmitted. That mission remains valid for the Middle East as well as for other parts of the world. Last but not least, from the New Testament point of view, there is no reason to celebrate a specific millennium feast. The year of the Lord proclaimed at Nazareth is permanent — the importance of time has less to do with chronology than with the Spirit’s presence. We usually call Spirit-filled time "kairos". It is not excluded that the year 2000 might let us experience such "kairoi". One could only hope that it might happen in the Middle East also. But that would have more to do with political and economic justice than with pilgrimages and Church declarations. What if the Nazareth mission manifesto was realized in Middle Eastern societies and Churches? Then again light would go out from that region to the whole world. For all of us who are not from that region, we must remember that it is through the tradition of a specific Middle Eastern cultural ethos that the Spirit’s priorities were communicated once for all to the whole world. But we have access to them only because a man called the "Nazarean" opened up the horizon of that tradition, through his death opened it up to allow it to illuminate any human, social, cultural, ethnic, national or religious tradition, for the salvation of humankind. PS: What can one say today about Christian presence and witness or mission in the Middle East at the beginning of the year 2000? Different angles, theological, sociological, historical and from different, yet not fully representative, confessional points of views. More needs to be said by other Christians on how they perceive such a necessary presence and witness. That debate has significance for intercultural dialogues among Christians in general. Notes 1 There is an incredibly large bibliography on Luke 4 and it is not possible to mention even the most important books and articles here. As a sample, let me just enumerate a few: the chapter "Luke-Acts: Practising forgiveness and solidarity with the poor" in Bosch, D.J., Transforming Mission. Paradigm shifts in theology of mission, Maryknoll, Orbis, 1991, pp. 84-122; Larkins, W.J. Jr., "Mission in Luke", in Larkins, W.J. Jr.and Williams, J.F. (eds), Mission in the New Testament. An evangelical approach, Maryknoll, Orbis, 1998, p. 152-169; Larkins, W.J. Jr., "Mission in Acts" in Ibid., pp.179-186; Osborne, Th. P. and Stricher, J. L’année jubilaire et la remise des dettes Reperes bibliques, Paris, Bayard, 1999, 126 pages; Ucko, H. (ed), The Jubilee Challenge. Utopia or Possibility? Jewish and Christian Insights, Geneva, WCC, 1997, 197 pp; Yoder, J.H, The Politics of Jesus. Vicit Agnus Noster, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1972, 260 pp. 2 There is no certainty as to the tradition in the synagogues. It is not possible to know whether Jesus was given the text of the day or whether he chose the passage. Luke’s readers generally did not know the details of the Jewish practise. Since Luke does not give any precise indication, he probably intends to mean that the text was found by inspiration. 3 The structure of the text seems to show that "good news" and "the year of the Lord’s favour" are the overarching concepts, the others giving the content. At the structural center is the sentence "recovery of sight to the blind" which in Luke, as in the New Testament generally, has a literal as well as a symbolic meaning. Jesus came to open the eyes of the blind, but also to open the minds and hearts of all people (cf. Osborne and Stricher, op. cit., pp. 96-97). 4 This comment is made with specific reference to a debate presented in this issue of IRM (cf. the articles by Mulder and Valkenberg). 5 There is indeed a striking difference in emphasis in vocabulary between Lukes’ Gospel and Acts. In his Gospel, Luke, faithful to his specific tradition, most probably going back to Jesus himself, insists on the effect of the message on the relation between poor and rich. That emphasis practically disappears in Acts, if one accepts the description of the first community in Jerusalem (Acts 2 and 4, and the related stories), the first inter-Church aid programme (Acts 11:27-30 ) and Paul’s’ final handover of responsibility to the church’s elders (Acts 20:33-35 ). One can explain that by the necessary new inculturation of the gospel within Hellenistic urban milieus. (Luke-Acts is most probably written for wealthy people.) On can also refer to the specific emphasis Luke puts on the frontiers to be crossed during what he presents as the time of the first witnesses, a time ending with the Book of Acts (symbolically already in Acts 20:17-35). The same tendency shines through some of the Pauline writings and more in the epistles written after Paul. James shows something like a necessary reaction against the loss of the specific emphasis of texts like Luke 4:18 within early Christianity. 6 This is well described in Larkin, op. cit., p. 158. 7 While I appreciate the detailed treatment of the text by Larkin, I have difficulty with his categorization of priority- consequence within the overall change brought by the rushing in of the kingdom (cf. p.160 and 169). 8 The translation attempted by Jeremias and mentioned by Yoder (op. cit. p. 35 ff., note 11) and Bosch (op. cit. p. 110 ff.) is not convincing. 9 Look at the way Elijah treated Baal’s priests at the Carmel in I Kings 18. 10 Today, Spirit-influenced hermeneutics could perhaps also take the same liberty. Some texts which may appear secondary in the New Testament could today receive more emphasis on the basis of an understanding of God’s mission. Such an argument might be used with regard to a positive relation between the Gospel and other religious experiences, or between Christians and people of other faiths. There are some texts in the NT opening up the possibility for such a relation. Admittedly they are not numerous. Nevertheless, they could be essential to an understanding of mission "today". Interestingly enough, the same happens in the portrait made by Luke of Jesus himself. Unlike what happens in other Gospels, in Luke, Jesus does not often encounter people who are not members of Israel. Nevertheless, such encounters are essential in his theology — as shown in Acts. 11 This also hints at the debate between the various contextual interpretations of Jesus as rooted in the Jewish tradition, cf. the articles by Mulder and Valkenberg. 12 I agree with Osborne and Stricher, op. cit. and several other authors on this. Yet it must be said that the return from exile to the original land of Palestine had a "jubilee" effect, since once of the most striking elements of the jubilee year was the possibility to possess again the land originally owned. The whole tradition of remission of debt and freedom for slavery is somewhat included in the description of the promised change of condition: cf. the environment of the term "favor" in Is 49:8. One may also refer to the way Nehemiah will treat social injustices. But even Nehemiah does not proclaim the beginning of a jubilee or remission year. He requests that people practice such principles even between the 7-year periods. In that, he is foreshadowing Jesus’ own way of treating that tradition. 13 cf. Matthey, J., "A propos de la dette du Tiers-Monde. Une réflexion théologic et étique" in Fédération Protestante de France (ed), Le développement en question. Eléments de réflexion pour une approche chrétienne, Paris, Bergers et Mages, Strasbourg, Oberlin, 1992, pp. 34-43. 14 cf. Osborne and Stricher, op. cit. p. 100. 15 Here, exceptionally, I disagree with Bosch (op. cit. p. 95). It seems evident to me that in Acts, the first Apostles did not grasp the breadth of Jesus’ own ministry, of the Spirit’s sending. For them, it remained limited to the renewal of Israel, which then would attract other people (hoping for the nation’s future pilgrimage towards Zion). It needed repeated hints and some forceful convincing by the Spirit to force the Church of the origin to admit the fact that mission was not directed only towards people of Jewish origin. Acts is an interesting illustration of John 16:13, showing that the Spirit’s interventions cannot be reduced to the anamnesis or remembrance of already known and understood messages. The Spirit, conducting us in full truth, can push us further to unknown theological territories, present in the message, but not yet developed. 16 It could also be understood to mean that Jesus’ walking among humans will not stop at Golgotha, but will be continued in the Spirit’s descent. Again, a theme near to John’s theology. 17 The Greek word aphesis means liberation (concretely) in Is 61 and Luke 4, in line with the texts of the Christmas story. It is true, however, that in the rest of Luke’s Gospel and in Acts, the term is specifically used in relation to the remittance of sins (cf. Larkin, op. cit. p. 162). This may be understood as a narrowing of the meaning, saying that Luke focuses on spiritual liberation. It may also be understood that this is the specific "added" value which Jesus brings or emphasizes again, stressing that the relation to God is the fundamental principle behind any individual and social life. That was already the message of the Old Testament, but its holistic meaning had at times been forgotten. Ref.: International Review of Mission, Vol. LXXXIX, n. 352, 1/2000
|