Why were the people so angry with Jesus in Luke 4:21-30?

Last time we imagined that we were in the synagogue where Jesus opened the Book of Isaiah and said that the Scripture was fulfilled in him (Luke 4:14-21). I suggested that the passage says that Jesus is the Messiah, the Anointed King. He has come to proclaim the kingdom of God to the poor (and everyone else). Here let us take a look at the next passage in Luke 4:21-30. (Yes, I know that verse 21 is included in both readings. It’s deliberate.) 

What is surprising in 4:21-30 is the contrast between these two verses:

       “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips.” (Verse 22) 

       “All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.” (Verse 28)

We can see why people spoke well of Jesus in verse 22, for Jesus had just said that he had come to proclaim good news. But why did they change their attitude toward Jesus so quickly? All spoke well of him in verse 22, and five verses later, they were furious (verse 28)! Why were they so angry with him?

The answer, I think, can be found in the verses between verses 22 and 28 — that is, verses 23–27.

In these five verses Jesus used two stories in the Old Testament to illustrate how the good news to the poor would work in practice. The first is about God sending Elijah to a Sidonian widow during a severe famine (Luke 4:25–26; 1 Kings 17). The second is about Naaman the Syrian commander being healed by Elisha (Luke 4:27; 2 Kings 5).

This made Jesus’ audience very angry. Why?

In Jesus’ day the Romans ruled over the Jews. The Jews were eagerly waiting for God to send a deliverer to rescue them from the hands of the Romans. This deliverer, it was believed, would be a son of king David — the messianic king.

The Romans were oppressors. They had killed many Jews, carried many of them away from their homeland and enslaved them. Not surprisingly, the Jews were very unhappy with the Romans.

In fact, before the Romans came, the Jews were oppressed by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Greeks (see, for example, the Book of Daniel). They were all “foreigners” and idol-worshippers. They were the enemies of the (ancient) Jews.

Amazingly, Jesus seems to be saying that he, like Elijah and Elisha, has come to bring healing and freedom to the “foreigners” — that is, a Sidonian widow and Naaman the Syrian. Some people in Jesus' audience might be asking:

How can God's blessing be given to the "foreigners" — the "outsiders"? How can non-Israelites share the privileges of Israel, the descendents of Abraham? How can idol-worshippers be given the opportunity to participate in God's redemptive plan?

Widows and lepers (Naaman was a leper) both belonged to the lower end of the social hierarchy. It seems clear that Jesus has come to bring salvation and healing specifically to the marginalised and oppressed.

Of course, we know that Jesus has come to proclaim good news to all humankind. But here in Luke 4, the emphasis is on the foreigners and the socially inferior. That is, even the enemy of Israel can be recipients of the gracious gift of God.

Throughout Luke’s Gospel we find that Jesus is at loggerheads with the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law (ie. Scribes). Often we find that they are unhappy with Jesus because he spends time with tax collectors and sinners.

Here in Luke 4:21-30 we find one of the confrontations between Jesus and (some of) the people in the audience. They may not be Pharisees and Scribes. But they seem to be very unhappy with Jesus’ message. I think they are unhappy because Jesus speaks of a gracious act of God that is hard for them to accept.

The grace of God is all-encompassing and inclusive. The good news of Jesus envisions a society without social or racial exclusion. The Sidonian woman was a widow and Naaman was a leper. Yet God used his prophets to bring them healing. Likewise, the blind, the tax collectors and sinners, were not “outsiders” according to Jesus’ good news. They can be recipients of the good news of Jesus. 

Imagine that we were there 

Imagine that we were in the audience when Jesus told the stories of God’s gracious gift of healing for the Sidonian widow and Naaman the Syrian. Would we celebrate with Jesus the good news of God’s kingdom? Would we welcome this amazing good news? Or would we reject it because it envisions a community that knows no social and racial boundaries? 

Who are the people that we tend to "exclude" because we think that they don't deserve God's blessings? Do we realise that God's grace is available to them too?

Let us imagine a world where Jesus reigns as the true King of the cosmos. Let us proclaim that he is the Lord and rightful King. Let us embrace his good news.

Enter into the stories of Luke’s Gospel (4:14-21)

My son’s school has provided him with a weekly Bible reading on Luke’s Gospel. Since I really like this Gospel, I have decided to (try to!) write a reflection on each of the readings.

The first reading is Luke 4:21-30. But I think we should take one step back to look at 4:14-21 first. Here is the text.

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (TNIV)

The passage before this one is Luke 4:1–13, and is about Jesus being tested by the devil. Jesus overcame the devil’s scheme. Then in 4:14–21 we find him reading Isaiah 61:1 (and 58:6) in a synagogue in his hometown Nazareth. It seems to me that most likely he is saying that he is the Anointed King anticipated by the prophets. That is, he is the anointed son of David, the messianic King.

I find this passage very encouraging. Jesus says that the promise in Isaiah 61:1 (and 58:6) is fulfilled in him. That means, Jesus himself is the one who proclaims good news to the poor. The blind will see and the oppressed will be set free.

We see throughout Luke’s Gospel that Jesus has indeed come to set the oppressed free. He heals the sick, and the poor hear the good news. Indeed, in Luke’s Gospel we find that Jesus has come to gather a community of disciples who will follow his way of life, and that this community includes all sorts of people, not least the poor, tax collectors and sinners.

Imagine we were there

Let us imagine that we were in the synagogue where Jesus spoke. Imagine that we were among those who were in need. Imagine that among our friends there were those who were economically poor, or oppressed because of their inferior social status. Wouldn’t it be good news that Jesus had come to bring us good news?

We live in a world out-of-joint. There is evil in this world. But Jesus has overcome the work of the devil (as demonstrated in Luke 4:1- 13). He is the Anointed King of God, and he has come to proclaim that the kingdom of God. This is good news indeed!

Next time we will take a look at Luke 4:21-30.

A biblical scholar participating in an urban neighbourhood (Tim Gombis)

Tim Gombis wrote a challenging blog post entitled "Evangelical Resistance to the Gospels: How & Why". (26th April 2012)

Here is one provocative thought from his post.

"We strip away the “husk” of Jesus’ clear words to find the spiritual “kernel” that we apply to our hearts and motives. 

This is a reading strategy whereby we keep Jesus safely tucked away in our hearts, self-satisfied with our piety.  But we intentionally avoid doing what he says with our bodies, social practices, and community dynamics.

It’s too threatening.  If we actually did the things Jesus says to do, we’d have to change, and we just don’t want to."

The post has attracted a robust discussion in the comments. I find the following story of Tim Gombis really helpful. I am always encouraged when a biblical scholar engages in the life of those living with poverty. This means that the scholar is not just teaching from some theories worked out in an comfortable library. Instead, she/he engages with both the Scripture and God's world at the same time, which enriches her/his own understanding of the Bible and the people whom God loves dearly.

Here is Tim's story.

"In the 90′s, my wife and I were in a doctrinally oriented church in which being Christian meant having the right mental furniture, having our doctrine sorted out right, and getting others to think the way we did.

During my doctoral studies in the early 00′s, we became convinced that being Christian was communally-oriented and needed to be lived out through service to one another and others. When we moved back to the States in ’04, we looked for a church that exalted Christ and reached out the poor and marginalized to absorb them into a thriving community life of flourishing. We found that church, an urban church plant that served a community hammered by poverty. We read the Gospels and sought to put many of these challenging texts into practice–learning to forgive one another, invite poor people to our homes, receive invitations to enter their homes (not easy for middle class people!), share the ministry load with “others” who didn’t do it like we did, etc. Those were wonderful years–hard, but so rich. Lots of other things to add here, but that’s just a sampling…

We recently moved to Grand Rapids and participate in a ministry that provides shelter for homeless people. We take up concrete service opportunities to participate in the ways our church proclaims the gospel and participates in it."

The following is an excerpt of a separate correspondence I had with Tim. I really like what he says here.

"What changed everything for me was the day-in, day-out exposure to what it meant to live in poverty.  We recognized the power-differentials in our relationships when we just handed out money.  We invited others to minister alongside us in relationships of reciprocity and mutuality rather than top-down relationships of power-inequality.  It was tough, but it completely transformed us.

So many other lessons, too, but our eyes need to be opened through the actual experience--incarnational experience." (Used with permission.)

(Click here for Tim Gombis' blog post. His story above is dated 30th April 2012.)

What's your response to poverty if.......?

In my last post I tried to describe what poverty looks like in practice. Here I want to rephrase the same statements and pose the following question in the beginning.

How would you respond to someone who describes his/her situation in a low-income country?

I look at my children and worry that they will have the same life I have – that is, they will have to struggle to make ends meet all the time.

Playing a musical instrument is a remote possibility for me and my children, because I can never afford the tuition fees or the instrument itself.

I can’t see any hope for the future for me and my family, even though I work long hours everyday of the week.

My children have to work everyday to earn money rather than playing with other children.

My daily desire is that some day my economic situation can improve to a place where I can feel safe for my family, rather than a lifestyle where we can flourish and enjoy life's pleasures (because the latter is so out of our reach that I don't think we will get there).

I feel that people look down on me and my children, because I am powerless socially and economically. I know that I am trapped in a cycle of poverty and I cannot see a way out.

A US$3 coffee seems to be far too expensive for me.

If my loved one goes to the hospital she/he will be sleeping in a small portable bed in a busy corridor because the hospital is too crowded.

I don't know what "taking a break to get away for a holiday" is, because I need to work very hard to make ends meet.

I worry that I will be begging on the street if anyone in the family gets chronically sick.

I can’t imagine that I will ever travel overseas because I can never afford it. In fact, the few people I know who have travelled overseas are considered to be really wealthy by people in my social circle.

I know what it means to be marginalised due to the fact that the rich and powerful in my city call the shots.

The stress of not having enough money causes ongoing tension and disharmony in the family, leading to domestic violence and constant distress among the children.

My whole family sleeps in one bed, not because I choose to but because there is no room.

The daily stress and/or the marginalisation I have experienced leaves me emotionally scarred, but I know that I need to be strong for the sake of my loved ones.

Sometimes I just want to cry because life is simply too hard.

What does poverty look like?

I have been thinking about what poverty looks like. Here are some thoughts. (See the comments at the end about what type of poverty I am referring to.)

You know what living in poverty is like if you have experienced the following.

If you look at your children and worry that they will have the same life you have – that they will have to struggle to make ends meet all the time.

If playing a musical instrument is a remote possibility for you and your children, because you can never afford the tuition fees or the instrument itself.

If you can’t see any hope or future for you and your family even though you work long hours everyday of the week for months and years.


If your children have to work everyday to earn money rather than play with other children.

If your daily desire is that some day your socioeconomic situation can improve to a place where you can feel safe for yourself and your family, rather than a lifestyle where you can flourish and enjoy life's pleasures (because the latter is so out of your reach that you don't think you will get there).

If you feel that you are looked down upon by others because you are powerless socially and economically. You know that you and your family are trapped in a cycle of poverty and you cannot see a way out.

If a US$3 coffee seems to be too expensive for you.

If your loved one goes to the hospital she/he has to sleep in a bed in a busy corridor because the hospital is too crowded.

If you don't know what "taking a break to get away to somewhere for a holiday" is, because you need to work very hard to make ends meet. 

If you worry that you will be begging on the street if anyone in the family gets chronically sick.

If you cannot imagine that you will ever travel overseas because you know that you can never afford it. In fact, the few people you know who have travelled overseas are considered to be really wealthy by people in your social circle.

If you know what it means to be marginalised due to the fact that the rich and powerful in your land call the shots.

If the stress of lack of money causes ongoing tension and disharmony in the family, leading to domestic violence and constant distress among the children.

If your whole family sleeps in one bed, not because you choose to but because there is no room.

If the daily stress and/or the marginalisation you experience leaves you emotionally scarred, but you know that you need to be strong for the sake of your loved ones.

If you just want to cry because life is simply too tough for you.

PS. The above is not about extreme poverty where people are starving or have no place to live at all, but a good measure of poverty where daily existence is a struggle. Primarily I am thinking of the experience in a low-income country, although some of the above would apply to a country like Australia as well. Also, people perceive their experience of poverty differently, and so the above list is by no means exhaustive.

An article on power and powerlessness - a partial response to Dr Andrew Sloane's lecture

ETHOS has just published my latest article, entitled "Reflections on Power and Powerlessness".

This is the description the editor inserted.

[The article] follows up on Andrew Sloane's lecture 'Justifying Advocacy' with reflections on the biblical notion of power, especially in relation to the paradox of power in weakness.

Click here for the article.

Re-thinking generosity (Deborah Storie)

Deborah Storie wrote a thought-provoking article just before Christmas about "giving well". This article is relevant to giving in general, not just at Christmas time. Take a good look and be challenged. Here is an excerpt.

"The growing popularity of sending gift boxes overseas, orphanages in far-away places, and some short-term 'mission' trips, are all symptoms of a broader shift in Australian thought over the last few years. They reflect a hierarchical worldview in which some give generously and others gratefully receive. According to this worldview, rich Christians are responsible to give generously to the poor and not much more. This worldview is based on a narrow understanding of poverty which equates it with material deprivation and fails to acknowledge the complex networks of forces that give more to those who already have too much, and take from those who already have  too little . In this worldview, deeper structural causes of poverty and inequality don’t exist."

"I long for us to give respectfully and intelligently in ways which address underlying problems and empower the poor. Sadly, our love of mercy often blinds us to the need to do justice and walk humbly with our God."

Click here for the full article.

Income inequality in the ancient world and now (Scot McKnight and Tim De Chant)

In his recent blog post Scot McKnight points us to an interesting post by Tim De Chant, which is about income inequality in the Roman Empire in the ancient world. (Click here and here for the two blog posts.) Here are some quotes from the blog post.

"Over the last 30 years, wealth in the United States has been steadily concentrating in the upper economic echelons. Whereas the top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent."

"In total, Schiedel and Friesen figure the elite orders and other wealthy made up about 1.5 percent of the 70 million inhabitants the empire claimed at its peak. Together, they controlled around 20 percent of the wealth..."

"These numbers paint a picture of two Romes, one of respectable, if not fabulous, wealth and the other of meager wages, enough to survive day-to-day but not enough to prosper. The wealthy were also largely concentrated in the cities."

"Schiedel and Friesen aren’t passing judgement on the ancient Romans, nor are they on modern day Americans. Theirs is an academic study, one used to further scholarship on one of the great ancient civilizations. But buried at the end, they make a point that’s difficult to parse, yet provocative. They point out that the majority of extant Roman ruins resulted from the economic activities of the top 10 percent. “Yet the disproportionate visibility of this ‘fortunate decile’ must not let us forget the vast but—to us—inconspicuous majority that failed even to begin to share in the moderate amount of economic growth associated with large-scale formation in the ancient Mediterranean and its hinterlands.”"

"In other words, what we see as the glory of Rome is really just the rubble of the rich, built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers, traces of whom have all but vanished. It’s as though Rome’s 99 percent never existed. Which makes me wonder, what will future civilizations think of us?"

The gap between the haves and have-nots was huge in the Roman Empire as well as in many countries in the West today. Since the events of the New Testament took place in the Roman Empire, the socioeconomic context of the Empire is important for us as we read the Bible. (See my previous post about the economic profile of the earliest church in the Roman Empire here.) This, in turn, is important for us today as we try to apply the New Testament to our own contexts in the affluent West.

Some reflections on different ways to see the world - Affluence, poverty, making a difference

Here are some reflections about how people in the West and those in low-income countries see things differently.

In the West, we want to see how we can make a difference. We want to see how we can fight injustice and alleviate poverty in the world. But for the poor in low-income countries, it is a matter of whether there can be any difference at all. If daily existence is a struggle, how can one find hope in the midst of injustice and poverty? Only a relationship with Christ and his identification with injustice and poverty can give us true hope and comfort.

In the West, we get to choose. Yes, we don't always get to choose, and there are those among use who are marginalised and disadvantaged. But comparatively, many of us get to choose - to study hard to go to university or work hard to learn a trade, save up for a holiday overseas, go to church and spend time with friends on the weekend, etc. Yet for many who live in low-income countries, the only choice is to keep staying alive and not to give up hope. They don't really get to choose in the way we do. There is no such a thing as a holiday overseas to see what the world is like. There is no such a thing as going to university - that is, for most of them because there aren't too many places at university, if there is one at all.

Many of us (not all of us, of course) in the West live in affluence. With our money and relatively high social status, we have the power to help the poor. We find satisfaction and meaning as we give to them. But for many who live in low-income countries, they learn to share with others with the little they have. Sharing resources out of poverty and powerlessness produces a profound sense of grace, hope and love that those living in affluence cannot fully understand.

None of the above means that living in the affluent West is wrong. Nor does the above mean that the rich should all become poor. It is not about guilt. But I hope the above helps us to learn from each other - to see the world from another perspective. I think God sees the world from all the different worldviews, and he knows exactly what the poor have to go through.

The gulf between us and the poor

Sight Magazine has reprinted this article. Check it out here.

Here is a quote:

I do believe that Scriptural truths are universal and the poor do not have moral superiority over the rich, and hence at least in theory our material affluence should not adversely affect our ability to understand the Bible. But I wonder whether our wealth can be a hindrance that stops us from fully understanding the plight of the poor and the Scripture.

Serving the poor through incarnational love (Tim Gombis)

Tim Gombis recently posted an excellent post in his blog (on 2nd November 2011). Here I cite from his post some profound insights about serving the poor. I will highlight a few things in this colour.

If we seek to help others motivated by guilt or emotion, we will typically seek to pacify our own immediate feelings rather than seek to do what’s in the long-term best interest of others. 

Doing good that ultimately helps is something radically different.  It requires incarnational love and boldness to get involved personally with difficult situations.  It may also take long periods of time to build trust and establish healthy relationships of mutuality.  Further, most ministry situations will require that we relate from our weaknesses rather than our strengths. That can be very disorienting.

Perhaps most difficult—and why guilt and sentiment hinder rather than help—doing good challenges us to discern when and how to act in ways that benefit others in the long run.  We may have to fight our impulses and resist the manipulations of others in the interests of avoiding doing immediate and long-term damage.

Beyond all this, Scripture doesn’t motivate service to the poor and needy out of guilt.  Solidarity with the suffering and service to the poor and needy are motivated eschatologically and sacramentally.  That is, we are motivated by a future-orientation toward the day of Christ and by an awareness of where we have access to the life-giving and sustaining presence of Jesus.

We could look at a number of texts, but I’ll just point to John 12:25-26:

Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

If you grasp too tightly to stuff and give yourself to lustful accumulation, you will lose your life.  But if you let it go in service to Jesus, you will honored by God himself!  That’s the eschatological orientation.

But Jesus goes on to say that “whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be.”

Where is Jesus?  Read the Gospels.  Where is he? 

Jesus spent his days on earth with the poor, the outcast, the shamed woman in the Samaritan village, the despised and traitorous Zaccheus, the single mother from the red-light district in Syro-Phoenicia.  Jesus goes on to say in John 15 that when we serve others we are sustained by Jesus’ own joy.  There’s a “sacramental” character to serving those in need.  That is, those actions and patterns of life are encounters on earth with the very presence of Jesus.

We serve others, especially those in need, because that’s a pattern of life that is sustained by the life-giving and joy-generating presence of Jesus.  And we serve because that’s the mode of life that has its end in exaltation with Jesus himself at the final day.

....... Christian leaders would do well to cultivate language that expresses these motivations, shaping the imagination of God’s people to serve the world joyfully in the name of Jesus.

Click here for the entire post by Tim Gombis.

Wealth, poverty and being servants

A friend pointed me to David Chronic's article about Jesus' being a servant. I think he makes some very good points here. Although some may disagree with his view on economics, he is right about exploitative power dynamics and the sinful human nature that tends to misuse power. Here is an excerpt.

"Early in my Christian walk, Jesus’ words, “Go and sell what you have, give to the poor, and then come follow Me,” challenged me to simplify my life in order to serve God. I didn’t hear these words as a harsh, top-down command; rather, I saw how Jesus modeled this message and invited me to walk after Him. He gave up the riches of heaven to “take the nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7). His actions encouraged me to give up my comforts and to become a servant. In my experience of “downward mobility,” I identified myself with Jesus’ move from master to slave or royalty to servant — or at least, so I thought. Focusing on Jesus’ actions, I missed something essential about the nature of God. And it has been among socially and economically excluded peoples that my eyes have been opened to see beyond God’s serving actions to God’s servant nature.

I had thought that the move of Jesus was one from lord to servant, a sort of trickle-down movement. Margaret Thatcher, a former British prime minister, is quoted as saying that if we want to serve the poor, we need to empower the rich. When the rich have wealth, they, like the Good Samaritan, take care of the poor. Since Thatcher said that, the trend of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer has debunked her trickle-down theory.1 Never having “enough,” the rich tend to serve their own interests — without “taking the form of a servant.”

Not only do we rarely see servanthood modeled by the upper classes in the stewardship of their power and possessions, but it is among the marginalized and oppressed that we find amazing lessons of servanthood. One of our friends, a mother of five, awakens early to go to the market. She spends the days cooking, cleaning and caring for her kids. On top of all this, she is always looking for odd jobs to bring some income to the family, often working late into the night. Although extremely poor, she is one of the hardest-working people I know, and she does it for the love of her family."

(Click here for the entire article.)

Australians (generally speaking) are not poor

Recently the ABS released the results of a survey on Australian Household Expenditure on Goods and Services for the 12 months prior to June 2010.  (Click here for the link to the ABS survey.) Here are some of the stats from the survey.

This means that the annual expenditure of an average Australian household is over $64,000, and that of a household with children is over $106,000.

Let me put this in perspective. For our family, our net income (after tax) is less than the average household expenditure ($1,236), and hence is much less than the average family expenditure ($2,046). How do we survive? By having a weekly expenditure that is closer to that of a household which relies on government pensions and allowances ($613).

(Both my wife and I work in Christian organisations. That explains our salary rates.)

As Christians, we have financial commitment to our church, mission, and overseas relief and development organisations. We also provide financial support for a parent overseas. But overall we are surviving (well, not very easily, and with a level of stress).

And, amazingly, our life is still much better off than the majority of people in the world, where 22,000 children in low-income countries die before the age of five because of preventable diseases.

Australians, in general, are not poor. Of course, there are those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale who suffer - and we need to stand in solidarity with them. But for the rest of us, let us be loving and generous to those who are less fortunate than we.

Galilean life from a peasant's perspective (Bruce Longenecker's book)

I am enjoying an excellent book written by Professor Bruce Longenecker called The Lost Letters of Pergamum: A Story from the New Testament World.

It is an excellent book that will help you to understand the New Testament. The following recommendation by Professor Stanley Porter tells us what the book is about.

"This fictional correspondence is not true, but it certainly could have been. Longenecker writes a very engaging account of several characters who, in their different ways, came to experience and respond to the risen Jesus Christ through Luke's narrative. I was especially moved by the character of Antipas as he is ennobled by being transformed from a Roman dignitary into a model of Christian self-sacrifice."

The book consists of many letters written by Antipas, Luke, and others. Here is an excerpt from one of the digests, in which Antipas gives an account of what Galilean life was like from a peasant's perspective.

"Like most other sectors of society throughout the empire, Galilean society is marked by two tiers of position: those in secure positions and those in insecure positions. Those enjoying a high degree of security are members of the elite, the ruling class and their high-ranking retainers. Those in an insecure situation include the peasants, most artisans and merchants, along with the unclean, the degraded, and the expendables. Although those in secure positions of wealth and power are few in number, they control the majority of the wealth of the society. The elite enjoy an extremely extravagant lifestyle, while the majority of the peasants live the most meager existence.

The elite have the luxury of establishing profitable relationships with other members of the elite, usually facilitated by means of lavish banquets that parade their wealth and opulence in contests of consumption. A member of the elite continually seeks ways of increasing his influence through investment opportunities, business partnerships, patron-client relationships, currying favor with imperial officials, or serving lucrative ambassadorial function on behalf of his city... The elite portray themselves as favored by the gods and go to great lengths to ensure that the religious institutions of the society promote this claim...

Rural peasants, conversely, expend significant energy simply trying to ensure the survival of themselves and their families. They usually live meager lives at subsistence level, having just enough food and resources to get by. Many fall below that level. Their poor standard of living is not the result of laziness or ineptitude, since a peasant's workday is long and hard. Nor is it the result of poor harvesting techniques, since peasant farmers reap significant gains from agricultural production. Instead, subsistence living is the result of imposed dues, tributes, and taxations, which peasants usually regard as excessively harsh because these expensive burdens extract everything over and above what is required to sustain the peasants' meager existence."

"Lament for a Neighbourhood" by Tim Gombis

Here is a profound prayer by Tim Gombis in his blog on 3rd September 2011. (Click here for the post.)

"Father, we hate that your world is broken,

and we confess that we are broken, too.
Our hearts break at the brokenness of this neighborhood,
and at our own inadequacy to fix any of it.
How long, O Lord, will you let your people suffer,
and let those created in your image languish in poverty,
fear, rejection, abuse, imprisonment, addiction, relentless sorrow?
Come and save; come and restore;
heal our hearts; without you we are completely lost."

What is "social justice"? Some thoughts from my friends

Someone asked me recently for a definition of "social justice". I actually found it hard to answer her question, and so I asked some friends to help me. Here are suggestions from them. I think they are insightful.

"One of the first things that comes to my mind is that it isn't about issues, but about the breaking through of God's justice into a social/communal/corporate setting, as opposed to remaining an element of personal salvation."

"Social Justice is about seeking God's perspective on social issues and working for change so that our world (and the issues we face) look more and more like God's will."

"I would say that social justice is the setting right of all relationships in the world."

"Social justice is an expression of God's love, about the last being first and the first being last. It is about the breaking in of God's kingdom on earth."

"I also see social justice inseparably linked to hope. While it is the breaking in of God's kingdom on earth, it also anticipates the future new creation, when there will be no more tears and no more pain and the old order of things has passed away. Social justice is God's order of things, it is the restoration of creation, it is transformation, and therefore it is inherently part of salvation."

"I would prefer to talk about transformation, which includes things like social justice, personal transformation of the human heart (from selfishness to self-giving, from harbouring personal resentments to having an attitude of forgiveness etc) and care for the earth."

As for me, I think one reason why it's hard to define "social justice" is that the Bible does not have the word “social justice”. Instead, the New Testament uses the word dikaiosunē, which refers to a range of notions including righteousness and justice. It seems to me that justice, according to the biblical worldview, does not separate social justice and the justice of God. The Bible speaks of a God who is righteous, justice, loving and always faithful to his covenant with his people. And this God wants his people to do what is right, just and loving; and they are to do so not only as individuals but also communally in their inter-personal relationships. Indeed, God wants us to act justice, show mercy and walk humbly with him in all spheres of life.

Ultimately, if we understand that our Christian life is about following Christ and his self-giving way of life, then walking humbly with God is about living out a cross-shaped life as disciples of Jesus.

If we understand justice from a biblical perspective, then what we call “social justice” is in fact an integral part of discipleship. It is about how we may be faithful people of God.

My new article: The gulf between us and the poor

ETHOS at the Australian Evangelical Alliance has published my article entitled The Gulf Between Us and the Poor.

Here is the heading provided by their editor.

"The gulf between the rich and the poor is not simply an economical one. While the poor do not have moral superiority over the rich, and at least in theory our material affluence should not adversely affect our ability to understand the Bible, is our wealth a hindrance that stops us from fully understanding the plight of the poor and the Scripture?"

There is a great cartoon in the article. Have a look!

Click here for the full article.

Reflection: Two recent movies, discipleship, justice for the oppressed

Two recent movies reflect elements of what I have been thinking in my studies and in my work in an overseas aid and development Christian organisation. Of course different people have different takes on the movies. But here are my reflections.

(1) Movie: Of Gods and Men

Based on a true story, this movie is about the choices made by a group of monks in a monastery in Algeria when their lives were threatened. I think true discipleship is ultimately about following Christ's sacrificial way of life, which is expressed in our solidarity with the community, not least those who are vulnerable and powerless. This is no abstract theology or theory, but a call to be authentic followers of Jesus.

Click here for a review from Guardian, UK.

(2) Movie: Oranges and Sunshine

This movie is based on true events that happened in the 1950s and 1960s, in which thousands of children were transported to Australia from England wrongfully. I think this movies highlights the fact that we need to recognise the fact that injustice and oppression is often embedded in a web of systemic social and individual sins. There are political, social and even religious systems and structures that oppress the vulnerable in our world. We need to stand in solidarity with those who suffer from injustice because of their powerlessness. Unfortunately Christians often are unaware of this, despite the fact that the Bible speaks of this in the Prophets (not least Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, Zechariah) and in Jesus' own ministry.
 
Click here for a review from ABC At the Movies.

Putting the above two reflections together, I think the church is called to participate in Christ's life, suffering, death and resurrection, just as he participated in human frailty in order to accomplish his atoning sacrifice for our sins and his redemption for his entire creation. We are to proclaim this Christ to all humankind - through our words and daily life - so that people may have hope and shalom through faith in Christ Jesus.

Paul wrote to the poor people in Rome (Tom Wright on Romans)

In N T (Tom) Wright's Paul for Everyone - Romans Part 1, he aptly describes the type of people his audience would consist of. I think this provides useful information for us to understand Paul's letter to the Romans, and what the gospel (literally means "good news") means for Paul's audience.

"In ancient Rome as today, of course, the rich people lived up in the hills, the famous seven hills on which the city stands. The original imperial palace, where the Emperor Augustus lived at the time when Jesus was born, occupies most of one of them. Nero was emperor when Paul was writing this letter; his spectacular palace is on another hill, the other side of the Forum. But then as now the poorer people lived in the areas around the river; not least, in the area just across the river from the main city centre. And that is where most of the first Roman Christians lived. The chances are that the first time this great letter was read aloud it was in a crowded room in someone's house in the low-lying poorer district, just across the river from the seat of power." (page 6; emphasis added)

Economic profile of the earliest Christians - Urban Jesus-followers in Paul's letters (Bruce Longenecker)

In his new book Remember the Poor (2010), Bruce Longenecker provides a picture of the economic profile of a typical urban group of Jesus-followers in the days of the New Testament.

Longenecker emphasizes that the following figures are only rough estimates. But it seems that he has done extensive research on this and there are good reasons to use them as fairly reliable background information when it comes to interpreting Paul's letters in the New Testament.

Here is what he says,

"1.  Roughly 10% of this community is among the middling groups of Roman urbanism (ES4), not without economic risk, but also with a relatively significant level of economic security...

2.  Roughly 25% of this community has some minimal economic resources (ES5)...

3. Roughly 65% of this community is marked out by subsistence-level existence (ES6 to ES7)."

It is clear that the majority of the Christ-community in Paul's house churches lived below, at, or near subsistence level. This, I think, means that we should read Paul's letters in light of this important background.

For example, when we see the words "suffering" or "affliction" in Paul's letters, at least one aspect of these words would be related to socioeconomic hardships from the audience's perspective (unless the context clearly says otherwise).

Also, financial generosity in Paul is not so much about the wealthy giving to the destitute. Rather, it is about sharing the scarce resources available in the community. That is, it is about the relatively "less poor" Christians sharing their resource with the poorest among them.