Radical patronage in Luke-Acts.

Luke-Acts is often characterized in terms of God's "preferential option for the poor" as epitomized in Jesus' inaugural sermon on Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18-19. A quick read-through of Luke-Acts confirms that the narrative is often critical of "the rich." This engagement with the theme of wealth and poverty begins with the Magnificat (1:51-52) and moves on to include such well-known texts as the woes against the rich in the beatitudes (6:24), the special Lukan parable of the Rich Fool (12:13-21), the first/last saying of 13:31, (1) the special Lukan parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (16:19-31), and the punishment of the cautious property owners Ananias and Sapphira in Acts (5:1-11). (2)

While the emergence of Liberation theology in the 1970s may have been the impetus for a re-examination of the economic import of Luke among biblical scholars, a recognition of the scathing critique of privilege in Luke-Acts has long since traveled beyond these circles. (3) The advancement of "the poor" at the expense of "the rich" by Luke has become an accepted reading of Luke-Acts. (4)

Such a response to Luke-Acts provides a challenge to those who seek guidance from the canon, particularly those communities of faith that are not socioeconomically disadvantaged. How do you preach God's "preferential option for the poor" to those who, in global terms, are anything but lacking in material resources? Should Jesus' instructions to the young rich ruler in Luke 18:22 become the model of discipleship ("Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor!")? There are many possible responses to this query, including the frank acknowledgment of the well-established hermeneutic of suspicion directed toward those with wealth in the prophetic, apocalyptic, and even sapiential streams of ancient Judaism. (5) One must not domesticate the mandate for economic equity clearly revealed in biblical texts. (6)

Yet, as commentators have long noted, Luke-Acts' engagement with the severe disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in antiquity cannot be reduced to a simple dualism. (7) Christian patrons, as well as the poor, have positive roles in Luke's narrative. (8) The first are explicitly introduced in Luke 8:1-3 as people who directly support Jesus' itinerant ministry through financial gifts:

Soon afterwards [Jesus] went on through cities and villages, proclaiming
and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with
him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and
infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone
out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and
many others, who provided for them out of their resources. (NRSV;
emphasis added)

From the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the proclamation of the gospel was inseparable from expressions of favorable patronage. In Luke's acknowledgment of the presence of patrons in the Jesus movement there is, of course, the tacit recognition that a variety of models of discipleship are possible within Christian community. In Luke 8:1-3, one model is designated as "the twelve." It is marked by the divestment from all former attachments, allowing for radical itinerancy. Yet the text also implies that there are disciples who remain more grounded in the social locations in which they were called. (9) The two complementary models are further illustrated in the "sending of the twelve" in Luke 9:3-4: "He said to them, 'Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money--not even an extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there, and leave from there.'" As the HarperCollins Study Bible aptly notes, "Taking nothing along requires reliance on local hospitality," a pattern that is repeated in the story of the sending of "The Seventy" in 10:4-5. (10)

Social-scientific criticism and patronage

How is one to evaluate the different messages concerning wealth and poverty that are mediated to us by Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 6:24-25 and 6:38)? The gains social-scientific criticism has made in the last thirty years in understanding the patron-client relationship, as well as the honor-shame dynamic that accompanied it, provide the current reader with resources to puzzle out the tangle of messages concerning wealth in Luke-Acts.

A close literary reading of Luke-Acts, guided by social-scientific criticism, reveals that it is not "the rich" per se who are critiqued in these volumes but rather the abuses inherent in the ancient patronal system as well as the values into which both patrons and clients are socialized. The fact that each of the two volumes begins with a dedication to Luke's patron Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)--someone of significant material resources--should prompt exegetes and preachers to probe beneath the surface criticism of wealth in Luke-Acts in order to appreciate the radical transformation (but not elimination) of patronage that Lukan rhetoric encourages in Christian community. While Luke-Acts does articulate a "preferential option for the poor," it also offers a model of patronage to those of means that was intended to liberate them from the zero-sum game of ancient patron-client cultural dynamics. That is, Luke-Acts holds out a vision of what might be called "radical patronage" where (a) the cultural worth of a patron does not necessitate the diminution of clients, (b) the gift itself (charis) is accepted for the theological mission of the church and the social values it advances, and, therefore, (c) a patron's wealth does not buy inappropriate influence in the affairs of the ekklesia and/or the expectation of unconditional loyalty.

The vision of patronage that Luke-Acts lifts up, in short, has been transformed by the experience of the cross. It is one where the reality of great economic inequities is recognized but also one in which the dispensation of material resources is guided by the ideal of willing service for the benefit of those in true need. The model of patronage in Luke-Acts is "radical" in that it envisions a community in which the esteem of the patron comes at no one else's expense.

Ancient patronage: A description. The subject of the relationship between the rich and the poor in Luke has a long history of commentary, both ancient and modern. (11) A new era was introduced with Frederick Danker's 1977 commentary on Luke that incorporated philologically based investigations into the patron-client dynamic in ancient culture. (12) This material, as well as other studies on ancient patronage by classical scholars, (13) was soon picked up by those interested in applying social-scientific methods to the New Testament, including insights from cultural anthropology. (14) In short order, a cottage industry of reflecting over how patronage in antiquity might best illuminate biblical texts was born. This wave of scholarship has recently made it into New Testament introductory textbooks and is a now a fundamental part of seminary biblical instruction. (15) The list of scholars working in the area of social-scientific criticism as well as individual works on patronage in antiquity is simply too great to list in depth. (16) What follows is a quick paraphrase of the basic lines of investigation that are germane to the subject of wealth and poverty in Luke.

In antiquity, there was nothing akin to the post-enlightenment notion of equality in human relations. The obverse of the Declaration of Independence's assumption, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," obtained in the ancient world. Relationships between equals were very rare; rights were anything but unalienable. More common were reciprocal relations of individuals of unequal rank (and of unequal status before the law) in which one individual was clearly perceived as dominant, the other subordinate. In New Testament social-scientific criticism, the former is termed a "patron," the latter a "client." The archetypal expression of this dynamic is found in the relationship between a master and a slave, but the basic structure extended throughout all society in a bewildering variety of expressions, including that between husband (patron) and wife (client) and even between the two unequal classes (the elite and the non-elite) that made up the ancient world. (17)

An empire-wide hierarchy that stretched from Rome into the social system of the cities in the Greek East was structured on an intricate web of descending chains of patronage and power. The emperor in Rome, the overlord of the entire system, was enthroned at the apex of this social pyramid. The local high elite of the cities in the East (Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, etc.) were, for example, subordinate clients of the emperor while, at the same time, they were the dominant high patrons of other local clients. These latter clients (of the city's high elite) were, in turn, patrons of those of lesser rank and status in the city, and so on. At the bottom of the social pyramid were chattel slaves construed as a disposable source of hard labor. Though the public rhetoric that supported this system projected an ideology of patrons working benevolently on behalf of their clients, the ever-present threat of violent enforcement of the assumed dominance of the elite was never far from the surface. All were quite aware that the velvet glove of the patronal handshake contained an iron fist. A modern-day analogy of this system, as is often pointed out, is the Mafia, with its descending chains of command that ray out from the "Don" (short for the Latin Dominus, "Lord").

One difference between the modern versions of timocratic culture and the ancient varieties is that in antiquity there was no separation between "religion" and "state." Provincial and civic patrons were not only the ruling magistrates of the cities but were also religious functionaries. The high elite patrons of the Greek cities of the East were the high priests of the Imperial Cult. The cult of the emperor was popular in Asia Minor; its ritual clearly articulated the princeps' power while it positioned its subjects for the emperor's continued good favor by awarding him divine honors as though he were a god. (18)

A common definition of patronage that circulates in the secondary literature is that it is a "system of reciprocal relationships of mutual benefit between unequals." As the definition indicates, the exchange across the relationship is theoretically of benefit to both sides of the dyad. For instance, a local patron might provide necessary funds for the continued functioning of an association (a collegium of dye-workers, or a synagogue for Jewish residents of a city), (19) so that it might serve any number of purposes (as a resource for members' burials, education, celebration, worship, etc.). Clearly the clients in this exchange benefited from such largess. But what of significant worth did the patron receive in exchange? In the first place, the notable is awarded honor (time)--public recognition of the patron's beneficence. Honor, explored in more depth below, odd as it might sound to us, was considered the desideratum of antiquity.

In addition to being praised for their material contributions, however, it is also clear that the patron, by means of the gift given, gained influence in the affairs of the association while claiming the undivided loyalty (pistis) of its individual members. The patron's wishes, expressed directly or indirectly, were to be respected in the association. Also, there were economic gains to be had. It was expected that members of the association would favor the patron's extended network of business interests over those of the patron's competitors. In short, the quip sometimes attributed to Will Rogers is a true descriptor of socioeconomic and religious life in the ancient city: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." The patron's gift (charis) came with a variety of strings attached. Again, the Mafia is a good modern-day example. The patronal favor of the "family" comes at the price of an unquestioned loyalty to the Don and his chain of command.

It also needs to be noted that the "gifts" of the elite were not generally philanthropic. Little of the munificence given by the elite actually trickled down to those of the lowest status who, from a modern perspective, needed it most in the city. Indeed, ancient patronage usually excluded the more destitute inhabitants of the city (its noncitizens, including immigrants and slaves). (20) Ancient patronage served to advance the interests of the elite, not the "welfare" of the city.

Honor/shame, purity/impurity, holy/profane, righteous/sinner. The patronage system of antiquity represented a zero-sum game. Material resources, especially land, as well as honor (time), were rarefied commodities that were the possession of a very few. The two commodities combined to create a world of remarkable privilege for the elite patrons. As in any zero-sum game, the increase of prestige for "the few" (hoi oglioi) meant the decrease in prestige for "the many" (hoi polloi). (21) This system was structured by means of a variety of social values that cogged into one another. The complementary pair most often analyzed in social scientific descriptions of antiquity involves "honor" and its inverse, "shame."

Honor was given publicly in a variety of ways, from setting up appreciative inscriptions by clients to ritual acclamations of a patron's generosity by those who had benefited from them during festivals, games, or religious ceremonies (events that were also funded by patrons and for which they received honorific acknowledgment in turn). Epideictic rhetoric (the rhetoric of praise or blame) was formally subdivided into particular forms of praise depending on context (the encomium, panegyrics, funeral oratory). The modern "eulogy" (literally, "good word") is a descendent of this ancient rhetorical grouping. In short, the public and formal acknowledgment of the public's indebtedness to the generosity of the patron was ubiquitous. This public awarding of honors also followed a precise etiquette that made careful distinctions among the levels of gratitude particular benefactions demanded. In the rivalrous atmosphere of antiquity, patrons actively competed for these public honors. The higher civic offices (the magistracies) were open only to those elite who could successfully demonstrate their ability to attain the highest honors. With public recognition of honor, then, came incredible power won at no little cost to the elite.

It was not only in such formal settings that the honor of the patron was constructed. It was reinforced in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways in the daily life of the city. The elite were distinctly marked by differences in dress, education, and speech, the means of their travel, and even their diet. The homes they built in the city and their villas in the countryside set them apart (literally). Their living quarters isolated them from the congested squalor of ancient urban life and buffered them from many of the diseases that came with it. Their aristocratic mores elevated them above others and were often accompanied by a display of contempt for cultural entities construed to be below one's own station, such as labor, social inferiors, "filth," and low culture.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

It was, however, not simply that the elite of antiquity exhibited markers of a high status and were confident of their own superiority. Their dominance also required the ritualized performance of others' submission on a day-to-day basis. The manner in which the elite moved daily through "their" cities--with entourages of lictors and bodyguards--assumed their own right-of-way and others' "natural" deference. When the cities gathered in the theater or arenas, the high elite were given preeminent seats of honor. In religious processions they led the way. As adjudicating magistrates they presided over the disputations of citizens seated upon what amounted to thrones. They had an elevated status before the law that made it difficult for those of lower status to challenge them in court, and so on. While they were in public, in whatever context, the elite expected ritualized deference to be given to them. This script was basic to the public discourse of antiquity, and it did not have much room for critical revision. As Wayne Meeks notes, "Submission and dignity were, at every stage, the most important lessons to be learned." (22) Real or imagined public slights to the dignity of a notable, where a subordinate was perceived to be not sufficiently submissive, could bring violent retaliations. For the non-elite, it was wiser and safer to defer to the elite rather than to risk the consequences of insubordination. Often such submission masked the true feelings of the subordinate. In the Latin context the word that best captures this kind of deference is dissimulatio--"the concealment of one's true feelings by a display of feigned sentiments." (23)

The inculcation of negative shame, the social inverse of honor, was one result of the repeated experience of social inferiority among the large underclass of antiquity. This form of shame represents the internalization of being "less than" that which enjoys society's public and positive evaluation. (24) Yet expressions of honor and shame were not the only complementary social values that structured ancient culture. The elite, because of their material resources, access to leisure time, and religious duties were able to attend to purity issues in ways the non-elite could not. The elite, therefore, were often designated by participation in cultic rituals as "righteous" and "holy" to the exclusion of the non-elite.

The patron-client relationship, therefore, provided the foundation that allowed antiquity to construct an elite who enjoyed a life of separation and distinction supported by their remarkable wealth and control of material resources. They enjoyed elevated status and rank, prestige, honor, purity, holiness, and righteousness before both human society and God (or the gods).

This social elevation of the elite came at the expense of the non-elite, who were socialized into roles that took on the zero-sum burden of various grades of poverty, shame, impurity, and an embeddedness in the common and the profane. Because of material deprivation, poor diet, dangerous occupations, and the crowded conditions in which many urban poor lived, they were susceptible to sickness and disfigurement in ways the elite were not. The resultant physical "weakness" of the poor was often read as evidence of their "sinfulness" before God and human patrons alike. As one looks out over the city life of antiquity, one can only conclude that the honor, power, and prestige of the few came at the expense of the many.

Patronage and biblical interpretation

Understanding the phenomenon of ancient patronage from a social-scientific perspective has proven to be helpful in biblical interpretation. Insights into the world that lies behind biblical texts have been achieved and the biblical texts themselves have come alive in a new way. For example, it is helpful to recognize that many of the central Greek terms of the New Testament point to semantic domains that range over various aspects of patronage. Often, given the reciprocity of the dyad, technical terms can describe both sides of the relationship. For instance, "grace" (charis) can mean three different things depending on what aspect it describes within the dynamics of the patron-client relationship:

The first meaning of charis ... is the benefactor's favorable
disposition toward the petitioner. In its second sense the term can be
used to refer to the actual gift of benefit conferred, as in 2
Corinthians 8:19 where Paul speaks of the "generous gift" he is
administering (i.e., the collection for the church in Jerusalem). The
third meaning is the reciprocal of the first, namely, the response of
the client, the necessary and appropriate return for favor shown. In
this sense the term is best translated as "gratitude." (25)

So, charis can mean "graciousness," "benefaction," or "gratitude," depending on what aspect of the giving/receiving dynamic is in sight.

Similarly, "faith/faithfulness" (pistis) has its home in the patron-client dynamic. The appropriate meaning of pistis is also dependent on whether it refers to the attitude of the patron or the client or denotes that which is believed ("the faith"). The reason for the flexibility of this term lies in the cultural assumption that if the patron-client relationship (of mutual benefit) is to work (as ideally constructed), it demands the good will and fidelity of both parties. The patron must be reliable, that is, exhibit a faithfulness in providing what has been promised. The client, in turn, must exhibit a trust in the patron's intentions that, when lived out, also involves the client's loyalty to the patron. (26) Thus pistis can mean "faithfulness," "trust and/or loyalty," or "that which is entrusted" depending on the aspect of the reciprocal dynamic that is under review.

Although in this article I have focused on the manner in which the patron-client relationship functioned to order ancient society, it is evident that New Testament authors use the same terminology (charis, pistis) to describe aspects of humanity's relationship to God, whom the ancients construed as the ultimate patron(s). It is also clear that the New Testament understands that the God of Israel, as revealed in the death of God's son Jesus, does not act in a manner similar to that of other patrons of ancient experience. David deSilva points to the difference inherent in the New Testament's understanding of God as opposed to normal patrons encountered on a day-to-day basis:

God's favor is surprising not in that God gives freely or uncoerced.
Every benefactor, in theory at least, gave freely. Rather, God
astonishes humanity in God's determination to benefit those who have
insulted and alienated God in the extreme. The high-water mark for
generous giving in the ancient world was to consider giving to the
ungrateful--if a patron had enough to spare after giving to the worthy
beneficiaries. Providing some modest assistance to someone who had
failed to be grateful in the past would be counted a proof of a noble
spirit. God, however, exceeds all expectation when God gives the most
costly gift, the life of God's own Son, to benefit those who have not
merely been ungrateful but have been openly hostile to God and God's
law. (27)

The revelation of the radical love of God for humanity, understood in terms of the crucifixion of God's son through the agency of unworthy clients (humanity), provided the early Christians with a totally different understanding of charis ("graciousness/grace") than that normally experienced in the cities of the East.

Luke appropriates this theological understanding of patronage from the Christian tradition he inherits. Yet he takes it a step further by suggesting that such patronage might provide the basis upon which one might imagine a different kind of Christian stewardship. In 6:35, for example, in the context of Q material on "The Love of One's Enemies," we find the special Lukan saying that makes God's unusual expression of patronage a model for Christian emulation. Luke does so in a remarkable conceit by means of a critique of usury: "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked." This is a radical revisioning of the very terms of ancient patronage by Luke-Acts, modeled on the odd favoritism God displays on those whom "the righteous" of a culture traditionally deem unworthy clients.

In the Greco-Roman world, the rhetoric of benevolence continually made the claim that the system was "a relationship of mutual benefit between unequals" and that patrons had the best interests of their clients at heart. However, given the inequality of power in the relationship, abuses were endemic to the system. There are examples of true benevolence in antiquity, both within Judaism and in the wider Greco-Roman world, but they are rare. Israel's prophets as well as Greco-Roman rhetoricians, philosophers, and historians often reminded the elite how far they had strayed from the ideals of benevolent patronage, yet with little effect. (28) It is precisely into this world of systemically corrupt patronage that Jesus enters, as well as the church that follows him. Luke-Acts' narrative revision of the Greco-Roman patronal template is, in particular, a remarkable achievement worthy of further investigation.

Patronage in Luke-Acts

Luke-Acts proclaims good news to the poor. It also contains a steely criticism of wealth and privilege as it was experienced in everyday life in Palestine during Jesus' ministry and in the cities of the Greek East in the following generation, the time of Luke-Acts' composition. In addition, as already noted, Luke's narrative holds out the possibility of a peculiarly Christian form of patronage, a form that supports the expressed values and mission of the church, including its unique (for antiquity) focus on the poor and disadvantaged. But there is more. Luke's narrative also describes a patron-client relationship that is marked by the cross. Concretely, this meant that a Christian patron was to exemplify a kind of charis (graciousness) that did not anticipate a reception of public honor and the other socially ascribed attributes of patronage that would be a patron's due in the outside world (e.g., loyalty). In short, the zero-sum game that was part and parcel of Greco-Roman experience of patronage is both critiqued and replaced in Luke-Acts by the model of leadership lived out in voluntary abdication of privilege and in service of those who were destitute. In doing so Luke recognizes the true worth of clients as fellow children of God. The poor are lifted up; the mighty are brought down "from their thrones" (Luke 1:52).

This revisionist model of patronage is constructed throughout the narrative of Luke-Acts. It is perhaps best epitomized in the synoptic tradition of Luke 22:24-26, interestingly translated in the NIV as follows:

Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be
greatest. Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over
them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves
Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest
among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the
one who serves."

In the NIV translation, the hubris of the elite is subtly brought to the surface ("they call themselves Benefactors"). (29) In this text we find both criticism of the patronal systemics of antiquity and instruction in another model.

The radical revision of patronage, lest one miss it, is illustrated concretely in the special Lukan material that follows in verse 27: "For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves." Here is clear acknowledgment of the values into which all had been socialized ("of course the patron who is waited upon is greater!") as well as a model of a different way to construe "service" (diakonos) in the church. At one stroke, the low have been lifted up (the importance of ministering to the other is recognized) and the world's notion of greatness as experienced by the large underclass, in real terms on a day-to-day basis, is exposed for what it is: an abuse of authority. God has intervened, in Jesus, to reveal to the world another way, another model of stewardship of the earth's resources.

Once one's eyes have been opened to the radical transformation of patronage that is affected in the narrative of Luke-Acts, one can discern it everywhere. It begins, I believe intentionally, by the dedication, in elevated Greek style, to Theophilus (literally, "the lover of God"), Luke's own patron. The narrative that follows the praise of "most excellent Theophilus," however, does not eulogize this patron's elitism. Rather, in many different ways Luke boldly portrays the extent to which the wealthy have abused the privilege they enjoy. Luke does not shrink from criticizing the elite class that funded the expensive research project that resulted in Luke's two-volume historical narrative (Luke 1:2). Theophilus gave the money. Luke received it with no strings attached.

In this brief essay I do not attempt a thorough, close reading of Luke-Acts' reconstruction of patronage by means of the exegesis of specific texts. However, some further observations can be made working sequentially through the text of the Gospel.

Luke's revision of the basic structure of patronage receives an important impetus with the appearance of the ministry of John the Baptist. In response to John's warning of imminent apocalyptic judgment (Luke 3:7-9, Q material, largely shared with Matthew), we encounter the special Lukan material that records the following exchange between the crowds and Jesus (3:10-14):

And the crowds asked him, "What then should we do?" In reply he said to
them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and
whoever has food must do likewise." Even tax collectors came to be
baptized, and they asked him, "Teacher, what should we do?" He said to
them, "Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you." Soldiers
also asked him, "And we, what should we do?" He said to them, "Do not
extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be
satisfied with your wages."

This direct instruction from John at the beginning of his ministry sets the tone for the entire Gospel with respect to those with material resources or positions of power. John's objective is the elimination of the suffering of the poor; his instructions are directed to those who have the resources to make a difference among people they encounter in their present vocations, in the course of their daily lives.

New insight, perhaps, can also be gained from the enigmatic Luke 9:23-25 if the text's primary implied reader is construed as a patron rather than the poor who had no chance to "gain the whole world":

Then he said to them all, "If any want to become my followers, let them
deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those
who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life
for my sake will save it. What does it profit them if they gain the
whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves?"

This text suggests that those of means, in particular, will (daily) experience not "honor" from the outside world for their continued support of Christian mission but the social inverse: ascribed shame.

The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37, special Lukan material) illustrates the ability of a patron to extend help in a manner that transgresses cultural boundaries (by not respecting that which is construed as "righteous" activity for a patron) and subsequently redefines who is one's "neighbor." It is a form of patronage, one might also note, that does not come naturally to those socialized by strict sectarian social ethics (priest, Levite, Samaritan) that drew clear, cultural boundaries to what constitutes "honorable" activity.

In Luke 11:42-46, while dining as the recipient of a Pharisee's hospitality, Jesus calls the question of the relationship between the ritual displays of honor and the neglect of "justice and the love of God" and manages to offend not only his host's circle (a breach of etiquette for a client) but the legal profession as well.

In the parable of the Rich Fool (12:13-21, special Lukan material) Jesus concludes with the pithy "So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God." The assumption is that the rich man could have been wise in his use of his wealth if guided by a recognition of God's concern for the poor.

Clearly, the "Teaching on Humility" (Luke 14:7-14, special Lukan material) moves Luke's project of the revision of patronage forward. Beginning with the transitional verse 11 the pericope reads:

"For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble
themselves will be exalted." He said also to the one who had invited
him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends
or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may
invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a
banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you
will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid
at the resurrection of the righteous."

Such texts represent a selection from the first half of the Gospel of Luke that addresses the theme of wealth and poverty, lightly gone over. The exercise is enough, perhaps, to indicate the extent to which Luke-Acts addresses itself to those of some means with the expectation that their patronage will be redirected to benefit those "who cannot repay." In addition, the patronage that Luke is advocating will clearly gain his contemporary Christian patrons no "honor" within the competitive public discourse of the cities of the East (Luke 9:25). If one were a patron of a cult that worshipped one crucified by Rome as a subversive criminal, one had placed oneself far outside the boundaries of a system whose highest honors were awarded to the Roman emperor as though he were a god. Also, within wider Judaism, the indiscriminate patronage by Christians was found by some Jewish sectarian formations as highly problematic. In the narrative of Luke-Acts this is represented most particularly by the "character" of Pharisaic Judaism.

The Christian patronage of the earliest church was radical patronage. It was countercultural in that it proposed a value system that was a clear alternative to that which structured the public discourse of city and empire. From Luke's perspective, the cross of Christ had put an X through the zero-sum terms of the normally experienced patron-client dynamic.

Contemporary application

More work needs to be done to tease out the profoundly radical notion inherent in the early Christian appropriation and transformation of ancient patronal ideology as it is mediated to us in New Testament texts. It is clear, however, from later church history that Luke's rhetoric did not fall on deaf ears. The model of patronage presented to the church by Luke-Acts did come to influence the church's understanding of its obligation to the disadvantaged in late antiquity. Peter Brown, for instance, notes that the Christian bishop's rise to prominence in the fourth-century city was specifically linked to the bishop's ability to provide for its poor:

[The bishop] publicly associated himself with precisely those categories
of persons whose existence had been ignored by the ancient, "civic"
model of the urban notables. In the words of the Canons of Saint
Athanasius: "A bishop that loveth the poor, the same is rich, and the
city, with its district, shall honor him." One could not have asked for
a more pointed contrast to the civic self-image of the notables of two
centuries earlier. (30)

In time, Christian patrons would come to compete with one another in their ability to alleviate the suffering of the poor. The amazing shift in public values affected in late antiquity by the fourth-century institutional church witnesses to the power of Luke-Acts' rhetoric to persuade people of means to acknowledge and enact God's "preferential option for the poor."

A cutting criticism of self-indulgent wealth is clearly present in Luke-Acts. It is, as commentators have long noticed, a theme that is emphasized in Luke as it is not in the other gospels. But there is also a clear appreciation in Luke-Acts of those who support the mission of the gospel "out of their own resources" (Luke 8:3). There is an awareness in Luke-Acts that there are different kinds of discipleship, each worthy in its own way. These range from giving up everything in order to be free to follow the call of Christ wherever it might lead, to the equally respected model of the Christian patron ("O Most Excellent Theophilus!"). The latter is a model of a discipleship that is embedded in the complexities of real life but still gives freely to those who cannot repay. The patron also gives without expecting that the gift, the charis, will buy influence in the community, a community made holy not by costly repeated ritual cleansings but by a single baptism in Christ. In such an understanding of patronage, clients are not construed as instrumental means to "honor." Rather, they are held to be of value in their own right.

The present world is experiencing a polarization between the poor and the wealthy that rivals that of antiquity. North Americans, it should be noted, have been leading the way in this socioeconomic trend. It is also clear that our late-capitalist consumerism is creating a culture of self-indulgence in which the elite of the world, while leading lives of separation and distinction, are increasingly isolated from the effects of their hubris. In this cultural environment, as in Luke's, the clear articulation of God's "preferential option for the poor" must be heard, as well as the curvatus in se that often comes with wealth in any culture.

The contemporary church, among other things, should preach the full range of options that are available to Christian patrons that a close reading of Luke-Acts, guided by social-scientific criticism, can recover--from voluntary poverty and "itinerancy" on behalf of the gospel, to a form of embedded patronage enlightened by the cross of Christ.

There is a public dimension to this project as well. The wider world also needs to be reminded, by the body of Christ, of God's true love of justice--whether it is found in a renewed engagement on behalf of the poor or in witnessing to the world how the cross of Christ reveals what is prestigious in God's eyes. Given the culture of denial that surrounds our common life these days, such public theology will constitute hard work. It will be hard, in part, because it is not granted much honor by the contemporary timocratic society the gospel seeks to serve. Given the "dishonorable" work that lies in store for a church that takes the radical patronage of Luke-Acts seriously, the ekklesia needs daily to be reminded of the power of God's grace (charis) to redeem human relations as well as the power of sin to corrupt them. It is the task of the priesthood of all believers to do so.

Erik M. Heen

Professor of New Testament and Greek

The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

[e-mail]

1. For a consistent reading of the apocalyptic reversals between rich and poor see John O. York, The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

2. These texts represent but a sampling of this motif in Luke-Acts. For a more comprehensive listing see, for instance, the discussion of the theme by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke (2 vols.; Anchor Bible 28-28A [Garden City: Doubleday, 1979]), 1:247-51; and John Gillman, Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of Luke-Acts (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991).

3. A consistent liberationist reading of Luke may be found in the ongoing, multivolume work by Herman Hendrickx, The Third Gospel for the Third World (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996-).

4. See, for example, the comment by Mary C. Orr, "Luke 12:13-23," Interpretation 56 (2002): 314: "The real issue posed by the story of the Rich Fool for Americans in the twenty-first century is whether or not it is a sin to be rich. The Gospel of Luke seems to indicate that it is."

5. See the evaluations of the influence of Jewish critiques of wealth on Luke-Acts in the multi-article discussion in George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning, vol. 2, ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck (Leiden: Brill, 2003). This extended dialogue includes a reprint of a 1979 NTS article, Nickelsburg's "Riches, the Rich, and God's Judgment in 1 Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel according to Luke," 521-46, as well as his more recent "Revisiting the Rich and the Poor in 1 Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel according to Luke," 547-71. John S. Kloppenborg responds to the two articles on pp. 572-88. For a reading of the "turn" of the wisdom tradition to the suspicion of wealth (from an understanding of it being a reward for covenantal faithfulness), see p. 575.

6. For an articulate representation of this reading see Craig L. Nessan, "The Gospel of Luke and Liberation Theology: On Not Domesticating the Dangerous Memory of Jesus," Currents 22 (1995): 130-38.

7. See, for example, Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: Mac-Millan, 1927), 260-63. After a balanced discussion of Luke's "sympathy with the poor" and the narrative's examples of the "generosity of the rich," Cadbury concludes that "the rebuke of wealth, as of Pharisaic pride (Luke says 'the Pharisees were lovers of money') and of Jewish national conceit, betokens a concern for the oppressor rather than pity for the oppressed, and, as a technique for social betterment, the appeal to conscience and sense of duty in the privileged classes rather than the appeal to the discontent and to the rights (or wrongs!) of the unprivileged."

8. A partial listing includes, in the Gospel of Luke, the giving of alms, which is praised by Jesus in Luke 6:38, 11:41, 12:33. Acts 20:35 quotes Jesus in this regard. Also in Luke one has the positive model of Zacchaeus (19:8), the hospitality and/or support shown the disciples and Jesus by a variety of figures in 7:36; 8:1-3, 9:3-4; 10:4-5, 10:38. In Acts one has the tradition of house churches that assumes individuals of means (e.g., 12:12). Almsgiving is illustrated by Barnabas (4:37), Tabitha/Dorcas (9:36), Cornelius (10:2), the disciples who give famine relief according to their ability (11:29), Paul notes his bringing of alms (24:17). There are other persons of means who function as patrons, hosts, or positive examples including the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26), Judas (9:11), Simon (10:6), Proconsular governor Sergius Paulus (13:4-12), Lydia (16:15), influential Greek men and women from Beroea (17:12), Dionysius, a member of the court of the Areopagus (17:34), Aquila and Priscilla (18:1-4), Crispus, a synagogue leader (18:8), Philip (21:7-14), and Mnason (21:16).

9. An early analysis of the relationship between the "wandering charismatics" of the Jesus' movement and their patrons may be found in Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 8-23.

10. The reliance on local hospitality is also evident in Acts 9:43 (Peter) and Acts 16:15 (Paul).

11. For a bibliography of modern commentary, see Joel B. Green, "Good News to Whom? Jesus and the 'Poor' in the Gospel of Luke," in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 60-61 n. 7.

12. Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: According to St. Luke (St. Louis: Clayton, 1977). A second edition was published in 1988. The epigraphical research was published in Benefactor: Epigraphical Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982). The theme was also explored by Danker in the Luke volume of the Proclamation Commentaries published by Fortress in 1987. Critical engagement with Danker's work includes such articles as David J. Lull, "The Servant-Benefactor as a Model of Greatness (Luke 22:24-30)," Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 289-305.

13. For example, Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), and Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. Andrew Wallace-Hadril (New York: Routledge, 1989).

14. The classic work is Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Louisville: John Knox, 1993).

15. David deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), for example, is deeply indebted to this scholarship that deSilva himself has helped push forward in The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), and Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000).

16. Significant early works specifically addressed to Luke-Acts include Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), and Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World," in The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 25-65. In situ analysis of Lukan texts may be found in Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

17. The two classes (the "haves" and the "have-nots") in antiquity exhibited an inverse ratio of power to size. Although the high elite controlled most of the property (and hence the power), it has been estimated that they represent only .5 to 5 percent of the total population.

18. For an investigation of this aspect of patronage in antiquity, see S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); as applied to the world of the New Testament, see Erik M. Heen, "Phil 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule: Isa theo and the Cult of the Emperor in the East," in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2004), 125-53.

19. See the descriptions of the centurion in Luke 7:4 and Cornelius in Acts 10:2.

20. See Peter Brown, "Late Antiquity," in A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, ed. Paul Veyne (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 261: "The civic notables 'nourished' their city; they were expected to spend large sums maintaining the sense of continued enjoyment and prestige of its regular citizens. If such nourishment happened to relieve some distress among the poor, this was considered an accidental byproduct of relief from which the civic body as a whole, the rich quite as much as the poor, benefited by virtue of being citizens. A large number of the city's inhabitants--most often the truly poor such as slaves and immigrants--were excluded from such nourishment. These large sums were given to the city and its citizens to enhance the status of the civic body as a whole, not to alleviate any particular state of human affliction among the poor.... The idea of a steady flow of giving, in the form of alms, to a permanent category of afflicted, the poor, was beyond the horizon of such persons."

21. See the discussion in James C. Scott, "Prestige as the Public Discourse of Domination," Cultural Critique 12 (1989): 146-66.

22. Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 39.

23. Vasily Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero: The Price of Dissimulation (New York: Routledge, 1993), xii.

24. Bruce Malina, The New Testament World, 31, defines honor as "the value of a person in his or her own eyes (that is, one's claim to worth) plus that person's value in the eyes of his or her social group." In Malina's understanding, "shame" has both positive and negative aspects. "Positive shame," he notes on p. 50, "means sensitivity about one's own reputation, sensitivity to the opinion of others."

25. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 132.

26. In BDAG, the three semantic domains identified for pistis mirror the above threefold definitions of charis: "(1) that which evokes trust and faith ... the state of being someone in whom confidence can be placed, faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment ... (2) state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith in the active sense = 'believing' ... (3) that which is believed, body of faith/belief/teaching." A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 819-21.

27. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 135.

28. David L. Balch, "Rich and Poor, Proud and Humble in Luke-Acts," in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 214-33, analyzes Greco-Roman treatments of the social-political theme of rich and poor in a variety of genres and concludes that Luke is actually reinforcing pre-Christian attitudes toward patronage that argue for benevolence by the rich on behalf of the poor. The rhetoric, it seems, though persistent, was largely unpersuasive.

29. The Greek term translated "Benefactor" is euergetes, a common designation for "patron."

30. Peter Brown, "Late Antiquity," 280.