We have now considered all three of our chosen status-reversal texts in some detail, specifically through the interrelated spheres of intertextuality, sociological analysis, and contextual interplay. This exploration has proven fruitful on many levels, but most especially it has revealed clear evidence of resistance to the imperial status quo in the Gospel of Luke. The values and practices of the reign of God, as envisioned and proclaimed by the Lukan Jesus, are at odds with the values and practices of the Roman Empire, and this conflict is part of the imperial negotiation tactics of the third evangelist and his earliest reading communities. This concluding chapter will summarize the arguments and findings of the project, spell out its contributions to the scholarly conversation about status reversal and imperial negotiation in the work of Luke, and identify potential areas for further study on this and related topics.
The introduction and first chapter oriented us to status reversal texts in the Gospel of Luke, and to the relevant research in prior scholarship. In order to build on the recent recognition that the perspective of Luke-Acts on the Roman Empire is more nuanced and complex than previously assumed, I proposed a socio-rhetorical study of three prominent status reversal texts that are unique to the Third Gospel. Status reversal is a major theme in Luke, with significant ramifications for the question of imperial negotiation. Central to this project’s task of bringing status reversal and imperial negotiation into conversation with each other has been the identification by James C. Scott of status-reversal imagery as part of subordinated groups’ “hidden transcript of resistance.” Through this connection, my work in this project argues that the prevalence of reversal texts in Luke’s Gospel is yet another indicator of its multivalent relationship with the Roman Empire, particularly of its oft-ignored subversive aspects. Earlier perspectives on this topic most often maintained a view of Luke as political apology, either to Rome for the church,[1] or to the church for the empire.[2] Recent studies, however, have expanded and nuanced this approach to incorporate the whole of the Lukan text and the many methods of imperial negotiation at work within it,[3] and this project continues such work.
Chapter 1 examined in much more detail the relevant sociological and anthropological models of Scott, Gerhard Lenski, and John H. Kautsky; the specific evidence for the heuristic power of these models in describing and explaining important features of the Roman world; and the use of such models (that of Scott in particular) in Gospel studies thus far. This survey chapter demonstrated the great potential that Scott’s work holds for enhancing our understanding of the prevailing attitude toward Rome of both the author and the audiences of the Gospel of Luke.
Chapter 2 completed the foundational material of this project with an in-depth description of the sociocultural and historical milieu of the earliest audiences of Luke’s Gospel. Although the exact location of Luke and his Christian communities has proven difficult to pinpoint with any certainty,[4] even the Gospel’s general setting in Greek-speaking provinces controlled by the Roman Empire (the topic of the first half of chapter 2) offers insight into the ways in which the work of the third evangelist might have been heard and interpreted in the late first century. Status competition was an ever-present facet of daily life in the Roman Empire, and ambivalence toward imperial domination and Roman superiority characterized the attitude of the Greek East in particular. The second part of the chapter focused more closely on the Lukan communities themselves, specifically the likely diversity of status, occupation, ethnicity, and wealth among their members. I concluded that the earliest audiences of the Third Gospel probably included people from various areas of Roman provincial life, from retainers and maybe a few lower elites, through artisans and merchants, to the lowliest day laborers, beggars, and expendables. Thus it becomes necessary to consider how the status reversal texts addressed and affected not just one of these groups, but all of them individually and, even more significantly, as an interdependent community of Jesus-followers.
With the book’s methods, models, and context properly introduced, chapters 3–5 proceeded to analyze the Lukan pericopes themselves. Chapter 3 explored one of the first status reversal texts presented in the Gospel, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). As sung by a pregnant Mary, this poem is a strong opening declaration that God will radically alter the prevailing order and values of this world. It hints, too, that not only will the status quo be changed, but the usual means for achieving that social and spiritual change will also undergo transformation. The intertextual comparison of the Magnificat and other songs of victory and reversal from the Hebrew Bible, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Greco-Roman literature revealed that the Lukan text moves a few steps—but only a few—away from the military battles and harsh downward reversals celebrated in most of the parallel songs. The lens of Scott’s hidden resistance established the Magnificat even more firmly as a text that publicly questions the status quo in order to ignite hope for change among non-elite hearers, yet not so explicitly as to invite retaliation from the elites in control of the situation. The Magnificat represents Luke’s opening argument, developed further in the rest of the Gospel, for the coming reign of God that will turn upside down the world of elite and non-elite alike. Such a song, sung together in socially diverse Christian communities and in praise of a king and savior who willingly died a traitor’s death, would have made a powerful statement about the imperial world.
Chapter 4 of this study explored another major proclamation of status reversal, specifically in the opening act of Jesus’ public ministry, set in the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4:16-30). In many ways, this event mirrors the Magnificat’s reversals as introduced before Jesus’ birth, but it also departs from them in significant respects. For example, the reversals in the Nazareth proclamation, carefully chosen from the Hebrew Bible, are all upward reversals in favor of the afflicted—including a foreign elite (4:27) who is helped by the God of Israel, along with the more usual beneficiaries: the poor, oppressed, captive, and widowed (4:18-19, 25-26). This surprising twist on the conventional hidden transcript of resistance supports the major conclusion of chapter 4, namely that the Lukan Jesus critiqued the imperial status quo and its unjust domination of non-elites, but also sought to disrupt social divisions and prejudices among the subordinate groups themselves. Luke takes this critique even to the point of advocating for the inclusion of foreigners and repentant elites within the reign of God and its representative Christian communities on earth. Coupled with its intertextual connections with the Year of Jubilee, this pericope reveals a tendency toward social leveling rather than total inversion in its proclamation of status reversal. Thus chapter 4 demonstrates how carefully nuanced was the Lukan approach to imperial negotiation, in its attempt to find a balance between resistance and survival in the Roman Empire, particularly as exhibited by a willingness to challenge the non-elite, too, to make reforms.
The final status reversal text, studied in chapter 5, is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), situated in Luke’s narrative toward the end of Jesus’ ministry. As in his opening proclamation at Nazareth, this later teaching of the Lukan Jesus centers around status reversal between the rich and well fed and the poor and hungry (cf. 1:52-53; 4:18-19; 6:20-21, 24-25). The intertextual section of this chapter revealed that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is unique among contemporaneous stories of a similar afterlife reversal, in that it explicitly attributes the reversal to the characters’ socioeconomic status rather than their morality or piety (16:25). But even while highlighting the basic injustice of the Roman social hierarchy, the third evangelist reaches out to elites and retainers with a harsh warning and an urgent call to repent and to transform their wealth and power by using them to provide honor and material comfort to others, rather than to increase their own status. Thus even the stark inversion of the parable functions rhetorically to offer a glimmer of hope for the repentance of its Lukan audience (if not to the parable characters; see 16:27-31). It also, implicitly in Luke 16 and explicitly in conversation with the rest of the Gospel (e.g., 4:16-30 as discussed in chapter 4), continues to exhort the non-elite to accept such gifts and their elite benefactors not as enemies, but as fellow participants in the dawning reign of God. The final section of this chapter explored the possible reactions of elite, retainer, and non-elite readers, and confirmed once again that resistance to the status quo, as proclaimed in the Gospel of Luke, issues challenges to Jesus-followers from all levels of social status.
Overall, the results of the above study of the Magnificat, the Nazareth proclamation, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man support the argument that Luke had a complex and multifaceted relationship with the Roman Empire. It was neither entirely resistant nor entirely complicit and conciliatory, but rather accepting (for now) of imperial dominance, while also determined to proclaim and enact the radically different values and practices of God’s reign in the midst of the opposing Roman status quo.[5] I have focused in this study on the subversive or resistant elements of Luke’s Gospel, specifically the status reversals, because they are more often downplayed in favor of the aspects that seem conciliatory. Close attention to such resistance texts, however, particularly in light of their predominance in the traditions and history of subordinated groups, demonstrates that Luke and his audiences were well aware and presumably supportive of the resistant overtones of this “world-upside-down” imagery.
Scott’s study of the subtle resistance of oppressed non-elite groups to their domination, and, in particular, the role of status reversals in such resistance, played an important role in the above contributions. I have applied Scott’s models to the Gospel of Luke more systematically and more extensively than previous studies. This task has proven illuminating for Luke, which has so often been regarded as the most “pro-Roman” of the canonical Gospels. This is not to say that Scott’s work proves that Luke is unambiguously against the Roman Empire; imperial negotiation of Rome or any other dominating system is seldom that clear-cut. But it has helped us a great deal in revealing the nuances of the imperial negotiation techniques that would have been considered by the earliest communities reading the Gospel of Luke. Of particular importance is the conclusion, borne out through the sociological analysis of all three focal texts, that Luke’s nuancing of hidden resistance and status reversals involved challenges and exhortations not only for elites and other beneficiaries of the imperial system, but also for retainers and non-elites who had their own hierarchies and values that were not entirely in line with Luke’s envisioning of the reign of God. This discovery may contribute important nuance to the changing conversation in Lukan studies: it is not an “either-or” question of whether Luke is conciliatory or resistant to Rome, but must, instead, become a “both-and” exploration of the complexities of Lukan imperial negotiation.
The results of this study of three Lukan texts featuring status reversal have answered some questions about the role of such texts in the Gospel of Luke and in shaping its audiences’ relationships with one another and with their Roman context. But it has also, inevitably, raised additional questions that are suggestive for future projects. First, there are many other status-reversal texts in Luke that could be profitably examined using the various lenses employed in this book, particularly the lens of sociological analysis using Scott’s work of differentiating modes of resistance to the status quo on the part of subordinated groups. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but prime pericopes for such a study include the beatitudes and woes in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (6:20-26); the anointing of Jesus at the house of Simon the Pharisee (7:36-50); Jesus’ teachings on meal practices, honor seeking, benefaction, and hospitality at the Pharisee’s banquet (14:1-24); and the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14).[6] In light of the discussion (in chapter 5) of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as told to scoffing Pharisees, the setting of two of these additional reversal texts in scenes of meal fellowship between Jesus and a Pharisee is particularly intriguing. Study of these pericopes might further strengthen the argument that the author of Luke was seeking to persuade elites and retainers among his audiences, rather than simply to condemn them. Future work might also consider the development of the theme of status reversal, both as leveling and as total inversion, in the book of Acts.
There is also a need for studies that address the sociological issues of hidden resistance and imperial negotiation in the Gospel of Luke beyond the status reversal texts. This work would fall into two main areas, the first being consideration of Luke’s nonresistant tactics of imperial negotiation, such as mimicry and conciliation, alongside the subversive ones represented in this project, for there are clearly treatments of Rome in Luke-Acts that seem conciliatory or placating. For example, Roman military officers such as Cornelius (Acts 10–11), the Capernaum centurion (Luke 7:1-10), and the centurion at the crucifixion (Luke 23:44-47) are portrayed as well-disposed toward Judaism and responsive to the person or message of (or about) Jesus. Likewise, comparisons of the Synoptic passion accounts show that Luke has emphasized the role of the Jerusalem authorities in Jesus’ trial and crucifixion over that of Pilate and the Romans, and made the ultimate responsibility as ambiguous as possible by using an unspecified “they” throughout much of the crucifixion account (Luke 23:1-5, 13-43).
Granted, these are not wholly positive depictions of the Roman Empire; Luke’s portrait of Pilate as one swayed by the crowd to condemn an innocent man to death (23:13-25) is not complimentary of his strength as a Roman administrator (cf. 13:1), nor is his depiction of later procurators Felix and Festus as involved in bribes and favors (Acts 24:24-27; 25:9). It could also be argued that there was obviously something wrong with the system if even those heavily invested in enforcing Roman rule, such as centurions, were attracted to this new movement of Jesus-followers. Detailed discussion of these seemingly conciliatory pericopes was beyond the scope of this project, but they certainly deserve focused attention in future studies in order to elucidate the full complement of imperial tactics used in the Gospel of Luke—resistant, conciliatory, and everything in between.
The second area of Lukan studies that would profit from further examination in light of imperial sociological models, particularly that of Scott, is the exploration of other hidden resistance techniques (beside status reversal) that are evident in Luke-Acts. Jesus, for example, repeatedly acts as a trickster-hero in dealing with the local elites of Jerusalem. In the final few days before his crucifixion, he employs multiple hidden transcript techniques: when the scribes try to trap him into revealing his resistance to Roman domination, he counters by trapping them into either revealing their own agenda or losing face by not answering (Luke 20:1-8); he tells a parable against the Jerusalem elite that is fraught with double meaning (20:9-19); he subtly resists Rome’s idolatrous domination of Israel (20:20-26);[7] and he continues his proclamation of disturbing status reversals by praising the miniscule gift of a penniless widow and in the process gives a backhanded rebuke to the leaders, specifically the scribes, who “devour the homes” of such widows (20:45—21:4).[8]
We might take, as one more example of hidden resistance in Luke, the intriguing and uniquely Lukan parable about a widow and an unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8). The very expression κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας (18:6)—a judge who does not know justice—has a certain irony to it, and renders an indictment of a political system that places those who do not know their job in positions of power. This parable also picks up another theme of hidden resistance, that of God and Jesus as the true benefactors, the ones who truly provide what earthly rulers only claim to provide.[9] According to the public transcript, the dominants rule mainly on behalf of and for the benefit of their subordinates.[10] This often involves provision of safety, security, productive work, food, shelter, and other basic survival necessities.[11]
The Lukan Jesus, however, asserts that the true provider of these things is not the elites, especially considering that they do not share their wealth with the peasantry and the poor (12:13-21; 18:18-25). It is instead God who fulfills the public transcript claims upon the elite by providing food, clothing, and other needs (12:22-31), and then goes beyond it: God is compared to a master who will not only eat with but even serve his faithful servants (12:37), and Jesus exhorts a questioning ruler to emulate God in giving all that he possesses so as to provide for the poor (18:22). Thus it becomes obvious, even from the two brief examples given here, that there is much potential work still to do in the study of Luke-Acts and the early Christian imperial negotiation techniques revealed in these two books.
At the end of his book The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide, Warren Carter observes that discussions of imperial negotiation in the late-first century have significant contemporary applications that are sometimes overlooked. In the modern world, the United States, with its broad reach of global power, has aptly been described as an “empire,” as have been national and multinational corporations that are deemed “too big to fail.” In light of this, Carter raises the question, “How might Christians—whether they live at the center of the world’s most powerful empire ever, or who know the impact, reach and power of such empires—engage these realities?”[12] In modern-day communities of faith, a self-understanding of believers as participants of varying social status in the imperial systems of today’s world makes the tactics of imperial negotiation employed by Luke and the other New Testament authors much more relevant than they might otherwise seem. As well as being part of our Christian heritage, they are also examples that people of faith can continue to reflect upon and learn from.
The conclusions reached in the course of this study about the Gospel of Luke should encourage churches to consider their relationship with the values of the dominant culture today, specifically where those values conflict with the values and practices that mark God’s reign. In North America, many church communities are composed of middle- and upper-class members with more status and wealth than many of our fellow citizens, and much more than the great majority of people around the world. In Luke’s vision of the reign of God, it is our responsibility to dedicate these resources to status reversal and improving the lives of others. It is scary to think of ourselves on the receiving end of a downward reversal like that faced by the rich man in Luke 16:19-31, and it is easy to argue that we do not live any more extravagantly than our peers, that we are actually modest by the standards of today’s culture. But the first-century lower elites, retainers, and prosperous non-elites most likely would have felt the same; they, too, lived reasonably within their culture’s norms. The status reversals of Luke remind us that the in-breaking of God’s empire into the empire of this world should compel us to be different from today’s systems of power and domination—not only in individual morality (a prominent and sometimes exclusive emphasis in many Christian communities), but also in social and economic practices. Finding myself at the end of a book such as this, I find it nearly impossible to ignore the central importance that the biblical texts assign to such holistic and communal transformation.
This study of Luke’s imperial negotiation techniques, particularly those that seem to originate from subordinated groups and resist or question the status quo, can also make us more aware of the times and ways in which we are on the giving and receiving ends of prejudice and oppression. The Lukan reversals remind us to listen carefully to those who have a different experience in our own stratified societies, whether because of race, socioeconomic status, or other identity markers, and to examine the boundaries that Jesus’ vision in the Gospel of Luke would call us to cross and break down. How to emerge fully from oppression and discrimination, without engaging in similar acts of injustice and exploitation oneself, is an ongoing issue with which communities, groups, and nations continue to struggle, even in the present day. In the Gospel of Luke, the evangelist and his reading communities were wrestling with similar questions, and some of their answers we may like more than others. The conclusions drawn in the preceding chapters do not necessarily offer definitive answers, but they do call us to consider both how injustice can be stopped, and how (or if) those who perpetrated the injustice can be reintegrated into community with those whom they used to oppress.
While I was writing chapter 4 on the Nazareth proclamation, news broke that Osama bin Laden had been killed. I observed (and cautiously participated in) the ensuing frenzy of opinions, Facebook posts, conversations, celebrations, and riots, but with mixed feelings. From one perspective, justice had been served, as someone responsible for the deaths of many was now dead himself. But at the same time, it did not feel right to celebrate death of any kind when we worship a God of life and resurrection, and are to be participating in God’s work of bringing “the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19) into reality for all people, even elites and other (former) oppressors. What is the proper response to domination, oppression, and violence, from a faith perspective? This question is closely related to the debate between inversion and leveling in the imagery of status reversal, and it is, I think, one without a definitive answer that can be applied to all situations. We saw in the Lukan texts studied here examples of both inversion and leveling, but the search for the right balance between the two seems to be an ongoing one in the Gospel of Luke, in the life of the earliest communities reading Luke, and in the life of those of us reading it today. Luke and his status reversals offer one more theory, and one more attempt at addressing these questions—not a perfect theory, perhaps, but a carefully considered one with much wisdom to offer us today.