The luKan Concept of ‘anāwîm, the Poor and good news to the rich
H. Joseph Lalfakmawia[1]
(To Quote: H.
Joseph Lalfakmawia, “The Lukan Concept of ‘anāwîm, The
Poor and Good News to the Rich”, Master’s College Theological Journal
1, no.1 (March 2011): 5-24.)
Page 5
Introduction
Both the OT and the NT present God taking the side of the poor and
hostile to the rich. However, there is something behind that scene. The
biblical word ‘poor’ seems to mean more than economic poverty but also
destitution from the society or the piety due to suffering. The term ‘anāwîm
and its equivalent are being used to connote such ‘poor’ throughout the OT and
the NT. Thus, the Lukan concept of ‘anāwîm has its background
in the OT understanding of the poor. This usage is seen both in Matthew and Luke
though there seems to be slight difference between Matthew and Luke, especially
in the Beatitudes. This article attempts to study the concept of Lukan ‘anāwîm
from the possible backgrounds and tends to show its distinctiveness from other
usages and its relevance in our today context.
The poor in the classical Greek
In
the classical Greek (Homer
onwards), ptwco,j (ptōchos) belongs to the root pth
(ptē), crouched together. It signifies utter dependence on
society. As an adjective, it means begging, dependent on the help of strangers,
poor as a beggar, poor. Commoner, still, is its use as a noun meaning ‘beggar.’
It stands in contrast to plou,sioj (plousios), rich, owning property. In early Greek
thought poverty was not considered to have religious value. It did not give
human any special standing before the gods, nor did it place one under their
special protection. There was no public care for the poor. In later Greek
philosophy the highest goal of life was to live virtuously in all material
conditions including poverty.[2]
In the classical Greek usage, the contrasting word for the poor (ptwco,j-ptōchos)
is materially rich (plou,sioj-plousios).
Page 6
The poor in the Old Testament
There are number of words for “poor”/“poverty” in Hebrew: ebyôn,[3]
dal,[4]
masôr,[5]
Nk2's;mi (miskeµn),[6]
#}rf (raµsû),[7]
yni(f (‘ānî),[8]
and wnf(f (‘ānāw).[9]
The Concept of the Term Mwinf(j (‘anāwîm)
The term ‘anāwîm
is the plural form for a supposed singular wnf(f (‘ānāw) that occurs 24 times in the Hebrew Bible. The word appears in the
prophetic literature, in the Psalms, and in wisdom texts. It has a close
semantic relationship with Myyi2ni(j (‘aniyyîm- its singular form is yni(f-‘ānî).
The Background of wnf(f (‘ānāw) or
yni(f (‘ānî)
Ancient Near East: In Arabic, anā means be lowly or submissive. The
same meaning also occurred in Syriac and Ethiopian. The root ‘nwh is
found in Aramaic inscription to mean poverty or humiliation; while
the same root, ‘nw is found in Mesa inscription to mean oppression.[10]
Terminology
In the semantic relationship of the Hebrew adjective wnf(f (‘ānāw) and yni(f (‘ānî), the difference between them is important. yni(f (‘ānî-its
plural form is Myyi2ni(j-‘aniyyîm) means to have been
humbled, afflicted by necessity or circumstances, stressing the difficulty of
the condition and implying some kind of disability present. In the earlier law
codes the meaning for yni(f is presented as a technical one of
dispossessed, thus without landed property (Lev. 19:10; 23:22; Deut. 15:11;
24:12) and poor, virtually without citizenship. The ‘ānî was on the same
level as the resident alien, the widow, and the orphan, all of whom were
disadvantaged because of their social standing and who lived from day to day,
dependent of others for their welfare and livelihood. They constituted a third
economic class positioned somewhere between the free people and the slaves,
threatened socially and probably excluded from normal communal life. Yahweh,
however, was their defender (cf. Deut. 10:17-18). In the OT generally, yni(f (‘ānî) was widely used of physical affliction or suffering
endured (Job. 24:14; 29:12; 36:15 etc.).[11] The yni(f, afflicted, needy is never linked to deserved poverty but always is used
to denote those who were exploited and wrongfully impoverished (Job. 24:4; Ps.
37:14; Isa. 32:7). The ‘aniyyîm are Yahweh’s special people in a special relationship
and Yahweh is their special protector (Prov. 22:22f.). Opposed to the yni(f (‘ānî) are not the rich, but the wicked (Ps. 9:18f.), the
violent, and the oppressor (Amos
Page 7
4:1).[12]
These poor are not because of their laziness or idleness but they were
wrongfully oppressed. As a result, they were suppressed and became poor. Here
is the difference between the classical Greek usage and the Hebrew usage: the
contrast term of the poor (yni(f-‘ānî) is the wicked
or the oppressor, but not economically rich.
wnf(f (‘ānāw- its
plural form is ‘anāwîm-Mwinf(j) means basically, bent over (under the pressure of circumstances)
and consequently, as affliction does its proper work, humble. LXX normally
translated yni(f into penes, ptochos, asthenes, tapeinos, and wnf(f mostly into praus or tapeinos.[13]
Drumbrell assumed that ‘aniyyîm is used exclusively
for economically poor while ‘anāwîm religious/morally humble.
The distinction between them was a prophetic one designed to distinguish the
poor-‘ānî, ’ebyôn, dal- from the pious-‘anāwîm.[14] ‘anāwîm
does not necessarily mean economically or materially poor, but bent over or
humble due to the pressure. This humility can also be best understood in terms
of religious or pietistic humility.
Theological Reflections
a)
Pentateuch: Moses is
presented as more humble (wnf(f-‘ānāw) than anyone else on earth (Num. 12:3). This true nature
of humility in human experience is paradigmatic for Israel.
b)
The prophets: Amos used it
to mean ethically humble.[15] Isaiah
used the plural anāwîm to mean humble and meek to connote the
faithful Israelites.[16]
Zephaniah used the anāwîm to mean those who follow God’s laws and were humble (Zeph. 2:3).[17]
c)
Psalms: The term is extensively used in the
Book of Psalms. For instance, Ps. 37 identified anāwîm with
the righteous (vv. 11, 12, 16a, 29 etc.). They are also the ‘meek’ (v. 11),
‘the blameless’ (vv. 18a, 37a), ‘those the LORD blesses’ (v. 22a) etc. The
humble are not reconciled to the situation of oppression and exploitation but
seek to break out of the circle of violence. They rely on God, who promises
change and blessing, dependent of their relationship with one another.[18]
The above OT references indicate that ‘anāwîm
usually meant moral uprightness
rather than poverty. As the ‘anāwîm are morally upright, they
are humble and meek. It has religious piety and humility in its essence.
Page 8
d)
Later Judaism
wnf(f (‘ānāw)
completely lost religious nuance in the Rabbinic literature, and it is used
almost exclusively for meek and humble. In translations ptwco,j (ptōchos) and pe,nhj (penēs) are mostly used interchangeably. Only in better Greek
is there differentiation.[19]
ptwcos (ptōchos)
In the New Testament
In
the NT, ptwco,j (ptōchos) is the usual term for the poor (pe,nhj [penēs] in not common in
the NT[20]).
ptwco,j (ptōchos) occurs
34 times in the NT, mostly in the Gospels (24 times; of these 10 times in Lk.,
6 times in material peculiar to him); ptwcei,a (ptōcheia), poverty,
3 times; ptwceu,w (ptōcheuō), be poor, only in 2 Cor. 8:9.[21]
The
Gospels
1) Mark:[22]
After pointing out Mk. 12:41ff., 10:17ff. and 14:5, 7, Bammel concluded that
Mark is not concerned about the problem of poverty. The point of the story lies
elsewhere.[23]
However, other scholars opine that as Mark has several indirect references[24]
the movement within Judaism in
Palestine was a movement of the poor for the poor.[25]
2) Matthew: ptwco,j (ptōchos) is used five
times even in Matthew also. Three of them (19:21; 26:9, 11) are taken from Mark
(10:21; 14:5, 7); the other two (5:3; 11:5) are from Q (= Luke 6:20; 7:22).[26]
Bammel again
commented that the blessing of the poor in the Beatitude displays the full
breadth of ‘anāwîm
piety from purely earthly hopes to
pure eschatology. The emphasis is shifted from the material sphere to the
spiritual and hence the religious sphere. The first and programmatic ptwcoi, (ptōchoi) saying of the
Evangelist shows that he is not greatly interested in the problems of actual
want.[27]
However, some scholars asserted that despite of the less occurrences, Matthew’s
option for the poor is also evident in the importance he attaches to almsgiving
(6:1–4) and in his fierce denunciation of oppression (23:1–36).[28]
Page 9
The
social setting of Luke’s Greco-Roman world
Social Classes
The population of the
Roman world can be classified into the following hierarchical divisions:
1) Roman
Aristocratic Families: This
class is composed by the Senate. Their position was based on heredity.[29]
At the peak of this pyramid stood the Emperor, supported by the imperial
household, then the officials of the central administration in Rome; below them
were the senatorial order.[30]
2) The
Equestrian Order: They were just below the Senate in legal rights and
social dignity, but they were equal to them in wealth.[31]
They were wealthy landowners.[32]
3) Decurionum
or Decurions: These were
the members of the families who made up the local councils and filled magistrate
positions in the more than one thousand towns and cities of the empire. There
were probably around 100,000 persons, i.e., 0.5% of the 50-80 million
population of the empire.[33]
These classes are the
upper classes, and only a tiny percentage of the population was included within these three
orders.[34]
4) Middle
Class:[35]
The great mass of the
population belonged to this class. They were mostly small landowners,
craftsmen, shopkeepers and the lower ranks of Roman citizens in the army, from
centurions down to ordinary legionary soldiers and veterans. Stambaugh and
Balch assessed that most of the Christians listed in the New Testament belonged
to this group.[36] Teachers[37]
and petty bourgeoisie[38]
were also counted in this class.
5) Really
Poor: The bottom
most people were those who had no property and supported themselves by
piecework at the docks, in construction, or on farms.[39]
Tidball particularised the lower end of the division into three groups. They
were 1) free plebs/ordinary citizens;[40] 2)
freedmen, who were formerly slaves who had been given their freedom by their
masters.[41] Some were administrators but many served
in ordinary jobs as sailors or firemen; 3) slaves:[42] it is estimated that by the second century
the Emperor possessed about 20,000 slaves.[43]
There
were also peasants in this section.[44]
Page 10
The
poor in Luke and its social setting
Out of the many proposals
regarding the place of writing,[45]
Kümmel pointed the uncertainty and cautiously concluded
that the Third Gospel was surely written outside Palestine.[46]
Esler assumed that Luke-Acts was written in a city of the Roman Empire,
probably in one of its eastern provinces.[47]
So, the Lukan ‘poor’ are the urban poor, who had two basic needs: food and
shelter. The most important food at that time was bread baked from wheat. Their
problem was that they were often hired on a daily basis and failure to obtain
work meant that the laborer and his family went hungry the next day. For the
urban poor, existence was a day-by-day struggle to obtain enough food to live,
and hunger was an ever-threatening reality.[48]
The miseries that the Lukan
poor suffered were extreme forms of economic, social and political deprivation.
For them, life was a very grim business. Ill-fed, housed in slums or not at
all, ravaged by sickness, precluded from all access to social prestige and
power over their own destinies, and having virtually no hope of improvement in
their condition. They went through life with under the overlordship of the
elite.[49]
Explicit references to the poor in Luke are: i) widow of Zarephath (Lk. 4:18f);
ii), other women and widows (Lk. 1:46-55; 7:12; 21:2, 3; Acts 6:1f.); iii) the
infirm and the sick (4:18f.; 4:40f; 6:17-19; 18:35-43 etc.).[50]
The
concept of ‘anāwîm in Luke
As indicated above, Luke used
the Greek word ptwco,j (ptōchos) to
mean the Hebrew Mwinf(j (‘anāwîm). His usage too, as said above, does not retain the
religious nuance as in the Old Testament. In a Greco-Roman city in the first
century CE, ptwco,i (ptōchoi) did
mean ‘beggar.’ The word ptwco,j (ptōchos) is
related to ptw,ssw (ptōssō), which means
‘cringe’ or ‘crawl.’ Therefore, Lukan
ptwco,j (ptōchos) cannot mean only
beggars. Although Dibelius argued that the word ‘poor’ by the time of Jesus had
a religious sense,[51]
others saw them as an organized party called the ‘anawim’ or the ‘humble ones.’
Others still regard it as virtually synonymous with ‘pious.’ However, the
phrase ‘the poor, the maimed, and the blind and the lame’ in Luke is closer to
the economic sense than religious.[52]
The Lukan tradition
has in mind those who are really poor. Joachim Jeremias argued that o`i ptwcoi, (ptōchoi) does not simply mean
those who have no material possessions; rather, it means the disciples, who
have to suffer poverty, hunger and persecution because of their discipleship.
Their
Page 11
differences in emphasis indicate that Luke thinks of outward oppression
and Matthew thought inner need. Their situation was also different. The
Matthean tradition of the beatitudes was formulated in a church which was
fighting against the pharisaic temptation to self-righteousness while Lukan
tradition was in a church which was in deep distress and needed to be
comforted.[53]
They are physically, economically and socially poor and oppressed. Now we can
say that the Lukan poor are not only the destitute but at the same time they
are those who live in an outcast condition. These people represent the extremes
of social and economic status.[54]
Some scholars hold that Luke has no special interest in the ptwcoj (ptōchos). One of them is E. Bammel. He argued,
Everything must be done for the ptwcoj, and yet, though he is the first
heir of the basileia, he is not the
only one. The word ptwcoj is not
important in Luke. It does not occur in redactional material, cf. the absence
in Acts. Luke neither thinks from the standpoint of the poor nor really seeks
to address them.[55]
Esler argued against Bammel’s argument about the absence of ptwcoj (ptōchos)
in Acts as Luke’s lack of interest in the destitute
and said that as a result of the koinwnia (koinōnia) of the early community,
there was no one who was evndehj (endeēs-needy-Acts 4:34). In other words, ptwceia (ptōcheia) was abolished.[56] Bergquist
proposed some theories in order to solve its absence in Acts. He said that
though Luke no doubt has emphasis on the outsiders, his fundamental good news
is of salvation, a basic feature of which is that in Jesus outsiders by grace
are incorporated into his fellowship. He also assumed that in the Gospel, the
outsiders are the poor, the sinners, the repentant rich and other marginalized
people. But in Acts, because the missionary situation has changed from Galilee,
Samaria and Judea to the wider world, the outsiders become the Gentile. So, the
term Gentiles replaces the characteristic Gospel terms for outsiders.[57] Quoting
several Lukan texts,[58]
Robinson also affirmed that Jesus was specially concerned with the poor.
However, this is not a bias for personal gains; it is a bias for the sake of
the salvation of the poor and the oppressed.[59]
Luke addresses the poor, even the utterly destitute, and that they
constituted part of his congregation. The clearest evidence is the parable of
the Great Banquet. The first groups of invitees are the beggars, maimed, blind
and lame. This can be interpreted as the indication of the truly poor in the
Page 12
society.[60]
This banquet may tell us about the social stratification and the conflict
between the rich and the poor. It can be assumed that Luke is writing in the
context of a situation where the rich and the poor no longer are in good terms
with one another. Luke understood the poor, the maimed, the blind and the lame
in a socio-economic sense. They refer to the poorest of the poor in Luke’s
Hellenistic community. They are not only physically poor, but they are also
poor in a social sense. He also asserts that the rich looked down upon the
poor.[61]
Luke’s theology of the poor
One of the most remarkable aspects of Luke’s vision of the Christian
community is that, although it contained wealthy and influential member, the
privileged places in it were reserved for the very dregs of Hellenistic
society, especially the beggars and the physically disabled.[62]
There is abundant evidence in the text of the Lukan emphasis on the priority
accorded to the utterly destitute in the
scheme of salvation. Jesus’ inaugural preaching in Nazareth plays an
important role in establishing this priority (4:16-30), but the theme begins
even earlier, with the words of Mary in the Magnificat, ‘He has exalted the
lowly, the hungry he has filled with good things’ (1:52f.). After the Nazareth
incident, the theme is continued in the beatitudes, ‘blessed are the destitute/poor
(oi` ptwcoi,) … hungry now, because you will be satisfied’ (6:20f.)
Luke is speaking in a literal and physical sense of destitution and
hunger and the alleviation of both. In Luke’s Parable of the Great Banquet, the
first people invited to fill the places of the original guests are the beggars,
the crippled, the blind and the lame (14:21). In the story of Zacchaeus, he
distributed half of his property to the poor/beggars (toi/j ptwcoi/j-19:8). The interest which Luke, unique among the evangelists, manifests
in the plight of the poor has been motivated by an unusual sensitivity to their
hunger and the other forms of physical deprivation to which they are subject.[63]
The Lukan good news to the poor/destitute is quite grim for the rich,
threatening them with the total loss of their status, wealth and power. This
theme is evident in a number of features unique in Luke, such as the Magnificat
(1:52-52); the woes of the rich in the Sermon on the Plain (6:24-25), the
Parable of the Rich Fool (12:12-21) etc. In the urban context of the East, the
ruling elite controlled most of the available resources of wealth, prestige and
power, and imposed on the rest of the population to
Page13
value this system. The Lukan
Gospel questioned the propriety and the legitimacy of the entire system of
social stratification in the Hellenistic cities. However, Luke did not advocate
the revolutionary overthrow of those arrangements, but he was insisting that
they be shunned by any of the rich and influential who wished to be members of
the Christian community.[64] This
implies that Luke’s concern is not to overturn the rich to poor and the poor to
rich. Luke’s primary intention is salvation of human beings, irrespective of the
rich and the poor/destitute. It is much easier for the poor to trust in God and
draw near to God due to their suffocating misery of life while the rich usually
misuse their status/wealth at the expense of the poor, oppressing and
sidelining the lower section of the society. As this is against the ethical and
spiritual as well as philanthropic teaching of Jesus, they are, at this stage,
far from salvation (Lk. 18:25).
In the meantime, the
OT background that ‘anāwîm
were those who throw themselves humbly before Yahweh
for rescue from their oppression, cannot be ignored.[65] God
as the lover of the weak does not necessarily mean that poverty is the
automatic password for the entrance of the kingdom of God. Humility, meekness,
moral uprightness, and subsequent submission to God and dependence on God are
rather the characteristics of the true ‘anāwîm.
The elimination of injustice, the alleviation of the sufferings of the
poor and the destitute, is not merely an eschatological reality in Luke, but is
a vital constituent of Christianity in this world, here and now. Luke wishes
his wealthy Christian contemporaries to put the instruction of Jesus into
effect within the confines of the ekklesia. Thus, while the complete
reversal of the conditions of the rich and the poor will not occur until the
next world, the process must begin here on earth. Salvation for Luke is not a
purely eschatological reality but it begins here and now within the Christian
community.[66]
While we are discussing about the reversal of the rich and to poor, R.
Koch’s view of wealth is a thought provoking one. In his observation Lukan Jesus does not
condemn riches as such, but only the improper use of riches, the greedy and
God-abandoned striving after their increase.[67]
Esler quoted Lk. 18:25 that says ‘For it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God,’ and said
that the rich stand condemned by their wealth, and the only
Page 14
means they have of
avoiding judgment is by helping the poor (Lk. 14:12-14; 18:22).
A cautious observation should be had
on Lukan demarcation between the pious rich and the rich oppressors. An
assumption that wealth is sin and all the wealthy people are sinners is a
partial and irrational underestimation of Jesus and his teaching. Jesus’ metaphor,
“…it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom
of God,” (Lk. 18:25) is not to be mistaken.
Jesus did not mean all the rich people are condemned. This prejudice is
immediately shattered by Jesus’ own word, “What is impossible for human
is possible for God” (Lk. 18:27). Thus,
a new fact, “The camel goes through the eye of a needle” can be composed within
this life setting.
The rich but condemned in the Bible are the tax collectors. Maccoby’s
information is useful to know this:
If
(Jewish) tax collectors entered a house, all within it becomes unclean, whereas
thieves do not render all the contents of the house unclean. This is not
because tax collectors are uniquely unclean, but because tax collectors are
assumed to touch everything in the house (in order to assess the value of its
contents), while thieves touch only items they are interested in stealing. On
the other hand, if the tax collector returns and declares to the house owner
that he did not touch anything (i.e., he entered but only looked at the objects
he was assessing), he is believed, since as a Jew he is assumed to have some regard
for truth and fellowship, especially as he has taken the trouble to return to
explain matters.[68]
Tosefta (BM 8:26) says that it is difficult for
tax-collectors to repent because it is so difficult for them to make
restitution to their victims. The only possible way out is by making contribution
to public works, such as the water-system so that they could reach their
victims. According to this instruction, restitution demands action, by repaying
back in one way or the other.[69]
To expound this, it is good to quote Zacchaeus the chief tax collector as an example. When
Zacchaeus made public repentance (Lk. 19:8) he put an end to the objections
from the Pharisees. He became a
Page 15
repentant sinner.[70]
What is he then? Is he still the enemy of Jesus or God? Jesus’ acceptance and
welcoming note, “Today salvation
has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man
came to seek out and to save the lost,” (Lk. 19:9-10) validates the godly rich and nullifies the prejudice on the
rich as the enemy of God. Jesus tries to set the mind of human right in order
to make known the right use of wealth and the priority of the service of God than
wealth. Anything that hinders God and service to God is sin, whereas anything
that serves God is a blessing.
Luke tried to set the interrelationship between the rich and the poor
right, with special emphasis on the rich not to be oppressive and aggressive.
The rich fool is a sinner not because of his wealth but because of his
negligence of others and the giver of his wealth. Mary sang that God pulled
down the powerful from the throne not because they were simply powerful but because
they were the oppressors of the poor (Lk. 1:52). God lifted up/exalted the
lowly (tapeinos) not because they
were materially/economically poor but because they were humble and meek and
lowly, and as a result, they called God, the only hope of the poor. The rich
were sent away with empty hands not because they were rich but because they
failed to help the needy, that is, the manifestation of the Risen Lord Jesus (Lk.
1:53, cf. Mt. 25:40-45). It is demanding to remember the opposite meaning of
the poor (‘aniyyîm) is not the rich but the wicked, in other
words, rich oppressors. Similarly, ‘anāwîm
does not strictly mean economically and materially poor but pious, meek,
humble and upright. Their opposites were also not simply the ‘rich, but the
proud, the arrogant, those who felt no need of God.’[71]
The ‘anāwîm in
Indian context
It is known to us that about two third of the population of India lives
below or just above the poverty line. Economic disparity is prevalent in the
society. A small group of the rich manipulate the whole wealth of the country
for their selfish purposes and enjoyment leaving the majority in poverty and
destitution. In this context, the time of God’s kingdom, God’s intervention
into history has taken place in Jesus. God’s revolution in Jesus will liberate
all people from all types of poverty and oppression. Jesus has pronounced his
love even for the rich by warning them against the danger of riches,
Page 16
inspiring
them to a new style of life of non-exploitation. Jesus called for a society in
which all, transformed by the experience of God’s love manifest in the life and
ministry of Jesus, live in harmony as the children of God without distinctions
and inequalities, hatred and conflicts, and with no evils of exploitation and
hunger. For the poor in India, the good news comes in the form of daily bread,
education, medical care, awareness of one’s dignity etc. Any form of greed,
oppression and exploitation is a form of godlessness.[72]
I want to challenge the customary interpretation of the ‘poor’ as economically,
materially or socially needy. This challenge also embraces the estrangement of
the so-called ‘rich’ in terms of material wealth or political and/or social
dignity. An idea that all the haves
are the enemy of God and all the have-nots
are the unique people of God is a dubious assumption basing on bias attitude. Labeling
Tribals, Adivasi, Dalits, outcastes, slum dwellers, street beggars etc. in
general as God’s only favourite people and all the other dignitaries as the
cursed of God is not differed from the attitude of Israelites who generalized
themselves as the unique children of God, and Gentiles as opponents of God.
One has to think that the primitive Christianity was not without the
well to do figures. The reference by Jesus to the starving widow of Zarephath
and to Naaman, the Aramean army commander (Lk. 4:25-27) indicates the presence
of the representatives from either extreme of the socio-economic spectrum in
Luke’s community. A number of features in Lukan text suggest that some of his audience
were wealthy and influential. Several examples can be pointed out for this. The
Prologue (1:1-4), the sea voyage and shipwreck description in Acts 27 imply
that its author came from the upper segment of Greco-Roman society.[73] A.
H. M. Jones also agrees to this and said that the literary education offered by
the Hellenistic cities, probably as had by Luke, was largely inaccessible to
the lower orders.[74] It
is unlikely that Luke was the only member of his community with this background
that there should be other members from the higher status.[75]
Another example that Esler gives is the converts of elevated status such as the
Roman centurions (Lk. 7:1-10; Acts 10:1ff.). Besides, some passages such as the
parable of the Rich Fool (Lk. 12:13-21), the command to sell one’s possessions
and give alms (14:33), the instruction to invite beggars etc. to banquet
(14:12-14) etc. are taken as evidence of the presence of wealthy Christians
among Lukan audience.[76]
Page 17
Thus, we can say that
true Christianity implies a community of the‘anāwîm that
comprises of the really poor and the really rich, who submit themselves under
the sovereignty of God, and who obey the will of God. The wealthy people are
the‘anāwîm
as
long as they serve God by serving the weak and the needy. Though the original
usage does not mean what we attribute here, its characteristics, however, allow
us to say that the rich are the ‘anāwîm as much as they are
humble, meek, upright and submissive to God’s will. The needy are the ‘anāwîm
as long as they are humble, meek, upright and submissive to God’s will. The
needy who are aggressive to the wealthy misusing the Bible or ignoring the
Bible are not the ‘anāwîm for they do not love and serve
their fellow human, as well as God.
M. V. Abraham is right when he said the good news to the poor and woes
to the rich is not a call to a christen egalitarianism but a challenge to live
in a community, the chief mark of which is agape and koinonal sharing. But this
sharing extends beyond the community of believers.[77]
Bibliography
Books and Dictionaries
Bammel, Ernst. “ptwco,j, ktl..” Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 6. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1968], 1988, 885-915.
Coenen, L. “Poor.” New International Dictionary of
the New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. Vol. 2. Exeter:
The Paternoster Press, 1976, 820-821.
Dibelius, Martin. James. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976.
Drumbrell, W. J. “wnf(f.”
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited
by Willem VanGemeren. Vol. 3. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, [1996], 1997,
454-464.
Duff, A. M. Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire. New
York: Barnes & Noble, 1958.
Page18
Esler, Philip Francis. Community and Gospel in
Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lukan Theology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Esser, H.-H. “Poor.” New International Dictionary of the New
Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. Vol. 2. Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1976, 821-826.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke I-IX: The Anchor Bible. Vol. 38. New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.
Grant, F. C. The Economic Background of the
Gospels. London: Oxford University Press, 1926.
Hanks, Thomas D. “Poor, Poverty: New Testament.” The Anchor Biblical
Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 5. New York:
Doubleday, 1991, 414-424.
Holmberg, Bengt. Sociology
and the New Testament: an Appraisal. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Part
one. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971.
Kümmel,
Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. London: SCM Press Ltd.,
1963.
Pleins, J. David. “Poor, Poverty: Old Testament.” The Anchor Biblical
Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 5. New York:
Doubleday, 1992, 402-414.
Robinson, Gnana. Good News
to the Poor. Madurai: The Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, 1984.
Stambaugh John E and David L. Balch. The New Testament in Its Social Environment.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986.
Takatemjen. The Banquet is Ready: Rich and Poor in
the Parables of Luke. Delhi: ISPCK, 2003.
Tidball, Derek. An
Introduction to the Sociology of the New Testament. Exeter: The Paternoster
Press, 1983.
Journals
Abraham, M. V. “Good News to
the Poor in Luke’s Gospel.” Bible Bashyam: An Indian Biblical Quarterly XIV/1-2
(March-June 1988), 65-77.
Page 19
Bergquist, James A. ““Good News to the Poor” – Why
does this Lukan Motif Appear to Run Dry in the Book of Acts?” Bangalore
Theological Forum XVIII/1 (Jan-March 1986), 1-16.
Maccoby, Hyam. “How Unclean Were Tax-Collectors?” Biblical
Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2001, 31/60: 60-63.
Maleparambil, Joseph.
“Beatitudes and Woes in Luke 6:20-26: The Challenge of the Good News of Jesus
to the Poor and the Rich.” The Living Word: Journal of Philosophy and
Theology 110/3 (May-June 2004), 115-136.
(H.
Joseph Lalfakmawia)
Department of New Testament
Master’s College of Theology
Visakhapatnam
India
[1] Mr. H. Joseph Lalfakmawia was born and brought up in Champhai, Mizoram, India. He did his BD
studies in Aizawl Theological College (2002-2006) and MTh studies in North
India Institute of Post Graduate Theological Studies (2007-2009). He is
currently teaching New Testament at Master’s College of Theology,
Visakhapatnam.
[2] H.-H. Esser, “Poor,” New International Dictionary
of the New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown, vol. 2
(Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1976), 821.
[3] It means “economically or legally distressed; destitute or
beggar.” It occurs 61 times in the Hebrew Bible. J. David Pleins, “Poor,
Poverty: Old Testament,” The Anchor Biblical Dictionary, edited by David
Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 403.
[4] The term dal (“poor; weak, inferior; lacking”) is used 48 times in
the Hebrew Bible, and half of these occur in prophetic and proverbial texts. In
many cases it seems to allude to the plight of the beleaguered peasant farmer.
Cf. Pleins, “Poor, Poverty: Old Testament,” ABD, vol. 5, 405. It is used
to mean physical weakness and of social status, lowly, poor, wretched,
insignificant. Cf. Ernst
Bammel, “ptwco,j, ktl.,” Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, vol. 6, edited by Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1968], 1988), 888.
[5] It connotes the Lazy Poor. It also means “lack of, or need for,
material goods,” and occurs 13 times in the Hebrew Bible, mainly in Proverbs.
Pleins, “Poor, Poverty: Old Testament,” ABD, vol. 5, 407.
Page 20
[6] The word miskeµn, “poor,” is a late Hebrew term for “poor,” appearing
only in the wisdom text of Ecclesiastes (4 times). Pleins, “Poor, Poverty: Old
Testament,” ABD, vol. 5, 407. It also means dependent, and then socially
inferior. Bammel, “ptwco,j,
ktl.,” TDNT, vol. 6, 889. One text in Ecclesiastes (4:13) advises that it is
better to be a poor (miskeµn) youth than an old, foolish king who fails to heed
warnings. Pleins, “Poor, Poverty: Old Testament,” ABD, vol. 5, 407.
[7] The word raµsû (“economically poor, of modest means; beggar, bum”) occurs
22 times in the Hebrew Bible, mainly in wisdom texts. The word raµsû refers to someone who is politically and economically
inferior, frequently referring to someone who is lazy. Cf. Pleins, “Poor,
Poverty: Old Testament,” ABD, vol. 5, 407. It exclusively meant socially
and economically poor, needy and famished, usually antithesis to ‘rich.’ Bammel, “ptwco,j,
ktl.,” TDNT, vol. 6, 889.
[8] See below.
[9] See below.
[10] W. J. Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem VanGemeren, vol. 3
(Carlisle: Paternoster Press, [1996], 1997), 454.
[11] Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” NIDOTTE, vol. 3, 455.
[12] Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” NIDOTTE, vol. 3, 455.
[13] Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” NIDOTTE, vol. 3, 455.
[14] Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” NIDOTTE, vol. 3, 455.
[15] In his context, Amos used ‘anāwîm
(2:7) in parallelism with the
preceding social terms, ’ebyôn, needy and dallîm, poor, as a defined innocent group within
Israel involved with the economically oppressed and judicially disadvantaged,
yet conceptually different from them. Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” NIDOTTE, vol. 3, 456.
[16] Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” NIDOTTE, vol. 3, 457f.
[17] Pleins, “Poor, Poverty: Old Testament,” ABD, vol.
5, 411.
[18] Drumbrell, “wnf(f,” NIDOTTE, vol. 3, 460f.
[19] Bammel, “ptwco,j,
ktl.,” TDNT, vol. 6, 894.
[20] The NT, following OT thought but not the
LXX’s choice of words, has clearly decided on ptwco,j,
so as to show not merely a person’s standing in society but especially his
standing before God, for he/she has nothing to bring God. pe,nhj occurs
only in 2 Cor. 9:9 in a quotation from Ps. 112:9. Cf. L. Coenen, “Poor,” New
International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, edited by Colin
Brown, vol. 2 (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1976), 821.
[21] Esser, “Poor,” NIDNTT,
vol. 2, 824.
[22] Mark employs ptwco,j only five times in three contexts (10:21, the rich
man; 12:42–43, the widow’s mite; 14:5, 7, the anointing in Bethany).
[23] Bammel, “ptwco,j,
ktl.,” TDNT, vol. 6, 903.
[24] Such indirect references to poverty are: the lifestyle
of John the Baptist (1:6; 6:17, 27) and of Jesus (6:3; 11:12; 14:65; 15:15,
19); the voluntary deprivations of the disciples (1:18, 20; 2:23–25; 6:8–9,
36–37; 9:41; 10:28–31); the socioeconomic level of the “crowds” and their
environment as reflected in Jesus’ teaching (2:21,
Page 21
the use of old, mended
clothes; 5:2–3, 5; 7:11–13; 8:1–2; 12:1–2). Cf. Thomas D. Hanks, “Poor,
Poverty: New Testament,” The Anchor Biblical Dictionary, edited by David
Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 416.
[25] See W. Stegemann, The
Gospel and the Poor, 23. Quoted in Hanks, “Poor, Poverty: New Testament,” ABD,
vol. 5, 416.
[26] Hanks, “Poor,
Poverty: New Testament,” ABD, vol. 5, 417.
[27] Bammel, “ptwco,j,
ktl.,” TDNT, vol. 6, 904.
[28] Hanks, “Poor,
Poverty: New Testament,” ABD, vol. 5, 417.
[29] Derek Tidball, An
Introduction to the Sociology of the New Testament (Exeter: The Paternoster
Press, 1983), 68f.
[30] John E.
Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New
Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1986), 110f.
[31] Tidball, An Introduction to the Sociology, 69.
[32] Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment,
111.
[33] Bengt
Holmberg, Sociology and the New
Testament: An Appraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 22.
[34] Takatemjen, The Banquet is
Ready: Rich and Poor in the Parables of Luke (Delhi: ISPCK, 2003), 41.
For detail, see 41-48.
[35] Actually middle class here is not
the literal term used by sociologists, but we can use this term since they
seemed to stand middle between the aristocracy and the lower class.
[36] Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment,
112.
[37] They were regarded with some
respect even though they were not wealthy. Their education and rhetoric skill
gave them some status and rank among the populace. Philosophers and religious
leaders also seemed to have been given the same honour or status as that to the
teachers. Cf. Takatemjen, The Banquet is Ready, 44.
[38] They were small landowners,
craftsmen, shopkeepers and artisans like the shoemakers, builders, dyers,
professionals like doctors, ordinary soldiers, salaried government clerks and
minor municipal officials. Takatemjen, The Banquet is Ready, 44.
[39] cf. Stambaugh and David L. Balch,
The New Testament in Its Social
Environment, 112.
[40] They
were the lower-class freeborn citizens. They were the really poor who had no
property and supported themselves by working at the docks, in construction or
on farms. Takatemjen, The Banquet is Ready, 44.
Page 22
[41] They were the slaves who had been
released through the process of manumission. A. M. Duff, Freedmen in the
Early Roman Empire (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1958), 12-35. A majority
of them were becoming in artisans, shopkeepers, agents and craftsmen.
[42] They were at the bottom of the
socio-economic pyramid. Different types of slaves were there such as a) slaves
of the emperor’s household; b) slaves of the ranches and the mines; c) slaves
of the cultured Romans. For detail, see Takatemjen, The Banquet is Ready, 46-47.
[43] cf. Tidball, An Introduction to the Sociology, 69.
[44] Peasants and small farmers made
up the majority of the population who were estimated to be 30% of the
population. They provided the basic food need of the empire, however, they were
often oppressed brutally by their masters. Cf. F. C. Grant, The Economic
Background of the Gospels (London: Oxford University Press, 1926), 105-106.
They had to pay heavy taxes and since most of them were tenants, they had to
pay very high rent to the absentee landowners.
[45] Scholars conjectured
about Caesarea (Michel, Klijn), Achaea (T. W. Manson), the Decapolis (Koh),
Rome (Michaelis, Geldenhuys, Hastings etc.), cf. Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London:
SCM Press Ltd., 1963), 106.
[46] Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 106.
[47] Philip Francis Esler, Community
and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lukan Theology
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 169.
[48] In the first century
CE there was no general system of wheat-distribution in the cities of the roman
East. Rome, of course, did have a public corn-distribution system. However, it
was limited to a fixed number of roman citizens who were residents of the
capital. Resident foreigners, such as Jewish expatriates were ineligible.
Esler, 175.
[49] Esler, 179.
[50] Takatemjen, The Banquet is
Ready, 59f.
[51] Martin Dibelius, James (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1976), 39ff. Dibelius assumed that in Israel, as in every
healthy human society, poverty was originally considered a disadvantage, not
something good. Only when Israel no longer possessed her national strength did
the idea win acceptance that the poor person was close to God in a special way.
This was expressed in two ways: firstly, the populace itself had become ‘poor’
since the downfall of the nation; secondly, the rich had estranged the people
from God, so, it must be the poor to whom the
Page 23
divine favour belonged. As a
result, ‘poor’ and ‘pious’ appear as parallel concepts, and the typical enemy
of the poor is also the enemy of God.
[52] Cf. Takatemjen, The Banquet is
Ready, 91-93.
[53] Joachim Jeremias, New
Testament Theology, part one (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971), 112f.
[54] Takatemjen, The Banquet is
Ready, 356.
[55]
Bammel, “ptwcoj,” TDNT, vol. VI, 907.
[56]
Esler, Community and Gospel in
Luke-Acts, 186.
[57] James A. Bergquist, ““Good News
to the Poor” – Why does this Lukan Motif Appear to Run Dry in the Book of
Acts?” Bangalore Theological Forum XVIII/1 (Jan-March 1986), 12.
[58] Such as 7:20f; 6:20f;
6:24-25 etc.
[59] Gnana Robinson, Good
News to the Poor (Madurai: The Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, 1984), 9.
[60]
Esler, Community and Gospel in
Luke-Acts, 186.
[61]
Takatemjen, The Banquet is Ready, 105-109.
[62] Esler, 187.
[63] Esler, 188.
[64] Esler, 189.
[65] Esler, 180.
[66] Esler, 194f.
[67] Quoted in Esler, 196.
[68] Hyam
Maccoby, “How Unclean Were
Tax-Collectors?” Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and
Theology 2001, 31/60: 60.
[69] Maccoby, “How Unclean Were Tax-Collectors?” Biblical
Theology Bulletin, 63.
[70] Maccoby,
“How Unclean Were Tax-Collectors?” Biblical
Theology Bulletin, 63.
[71] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I-IX: The
Anchor Bible, vol. 38 (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981), 361.
[72] Joseph Maleparambil,
“Beatitudes and Woes in Luke 6:20-26: The Challenge of the Good News of Jesus
to the Poor and the Rich,” The Living Word: Journal of Philosophy and
Theology 110/3 (May-June 2004), 130f.
[73] Philip Francis Esler, Community
and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lukan Theology
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1987], 1996), 184.
[74] A. H. M. Jones, The Greek
City, 285 quoted in Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 184.
[76] Esler, Community and Gospel in
Luke-Acts, 184f.
[77] M. V. Abraham, “Good
News to the Poor in Luke’s Gospel,” Bible Bashyam: An Indian Biblical
Quarterly XIV/1-2 (March-June 1988), 76.
