THE PARABLE OF THE HOLY ONE AND THE OUTCAST
01. INTRODUCTION
Most of the scripture commentators have interpreted, Luke 18:9-14[1] as a parable on prayer. But a few Indian scholars especially Samuel Rayan[2] and Kunduru Joji[3] have viewed it radically from the point of view of social justice. Keeping in pace with the Indian thought, I too would like to view this passage as a parable of God’s judgement on those who alienate themselves from their fellow human beings. The method of such an attempt is by diagnosing it as an entity in itself and at the same time as the integral part of the total Lukan Gospel which is summarized in Lk 4:18-19.
02. DELIMITATION
This pericope is a unit in itself: it talks about two characters who went to pray in a temple. Moreover the purpose of narrating this parable as it is explicated in v.9 gives a frame to this passage as an independent unit. Furthermore the location of the preceding parable is a city, where as this has the background of a temple and the succeeding unit hails children which is separated from the previous one with a word “now” (cf. v.15).
03. STRUCTURE
This parable of the Pharisee and publican has a fine literary structure with a nice beginning which creates a necessity to narrate, precisely for the some (v.9) and an antithetical ending (v.14). It is meticulously constructed by introducing the characters in a few words, picturing their deposition of hearts before God and accordingly followed up judgement.
The prologue 18:9
The introduction of the characters 18:10
The prayer of the Pharisee 18:11-12
The prayer of the tax collector 18:13
The epilogue 18:14
04. CONTEXT
4.1 The Immediate Context
This parable indicates the right attitude, with which an individual believer should pray the daily prayers.[4] It also brings out the sprit in which people should pray by highlighting the qualities of prayer – trust and humility.[5] Since it talks about prayer and preceded by a parable on prayer (cf. Lk 18:1-8), normally a reader would be satisfied with the immediate context. But to grasp the richness of the parable, it would be viewed from the total theological perspective of Luke, even though it is an entity in itself.
4.2 The Literary Context
The Gospels make extensive description about Pharisees as people who come on the way of Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel of building up a just human society (cf. Lk 5:20-22; 6:2; 7:30; 15:2). They are exposed to us as persons who are unnecessarily worried about the letter of the Law and not the sprit of it (cf. Lk 11:39-42,44). Jesus mocks at their double standards. In this parable Jesus presents them as unjustified before God. The Gospel of Matthew pays special attention to present them as the opponents of Jesus (cf. Mt 9:11; 9:34, 12:24; 21:45). Mark clearly pictures them, as disputers with Jesus for silly things (cf. Mk 2:18; 2:24; 3:2; 2:16; 7:1; 10:2). Surprisingly Luke makes a meticulous observation of Jesus dinning with Pharisees for three times, perhaps they are righteous and justified before God (cf. Lk 7:36; 11:37; 14:1). Therefore the whole biblical stream of thought could never be neglected, while studying this parable, though it is a separate unit in itself.
4.3 The Historical Context
It is implicitly evident by this pericope, which maintains a dramatic contrast by the two men, who prayed in the temple – represent the two extreme strata of Jewish society.[6] The Greek term “telenoi” for tax collector, could be used in three distinct groups: a) those who purchase the right to collect specific taxes; b) supervisory officials like Zaechaeus (cf. Lk 5:27) and; c) their employees who collected such taxes at the toll booths (cf. Mk 2:14; Mt 10:3; Lk 5:27). Here with whom Jesus associated are most likely, the toll collectors.[7]
A tax collector, being normally both dishonest in public life and betrayer of his own country, by working for the Roman Government is looked down upon, despised, and often associated with sinners (cf. Mt 9:10-11; 11:19), prostitutes (cf. Mt 21:31), and gentiles (cf. 18:17). And so he is an unlikely candidate for any religious exercises in the Jewish community. On the other hand, a Pharisee is the “holy one” or “one who is separate” as the Hebrew word, “parash” means.[8] At the time of Jesus, they were occupying the place of supreme religious authority. That’s why Jesus himself describes them as, “sitting in Moses’ seat (cf. Mt 23:2).
05. TEXTUAL CRITICISM
As the text has not indicated any thing regarding the textual errors, there is no textual problem at all. Hence it is clear that the text has come down the centuries with out any corruption.
06. FORM CRITICISM
Generally this narration falls under the category of discourse. But specifically it has the definite form of a parable. Very often Jesus prefers parable than any other form, to convey his sublime message. And parable is a special choice of form of the prophets, especially of Jesus as it is deliberated through the prophecy: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world” (Ps 78:2).
07. SOURCE CRITICISM
This passage has no reference in the other Gospels. Since it is found only in the Gospel of Luke, the source could be from the Lukan special. Though the parable proper comes from Luke’s source, a part of the last verse has reference in both Matthew and Luke, as it would be highlighted in the redaction criticism.
08. REDACTION CRITICISM
v.18:14b seems to tell that it is the Lukan editorial work, for such a dictum suits very much apt according to the theological motive of the editor. It has also parallel references in Mt 18:4; 23:12; Lk 14:11. It is also evident that this addition does not flow naturally since v.14a brings out effectively the purpose of narrating this parable (v.9).
09. NARRATIVE ANALYSIS
v.9: It is important to be noted that “this parable“ is accompanied by a special reference precisely addressed “to some who trusted in themselves that they are righteous and despised others”. Scripture scholar Fitzmyer observes, “though Luke does not identify the some as the Pharisees, Jesus’ words in Lk 16:14-15 would suggest such an identification”.[9] Righteousness is considered as blessed and essential (cf. Mt 5:6,10,20; Lk 1:5-7), and on the contrary self-righteousness is given a negative outlook (cf. Ezek 33:13; Mt 5:20).[10] This parable is definitely addressed to the Pharisees, whose trademarks are trust in themselves and despising the others.
v.10: Prayers are offered three times daily at 9 am, 12 noon and 3 pm. Prayer was held to be specially efficacious, if it is offered in the temple.[11] As any Jew would do, a Pharisee and a tax collector go to pray. But the contrasting nature is that the Pharisee is a holy one (high cast) and the latter is an unfit person for any religious exercises – an outcast.[12]
vv.11-12: A true prayer is always offered to God and God alone. Here the Pharisee does not really go to pray rather he goes to inform God how good he is.[13] The parable does not condemn the Pharisee for the good deeds. There is also nothing wrong in his prayer. He lists what he has done as prescribed by the Law.[14] But the content of his prayer shows his inner attitude towards the tax collector, an outcast. The judgement of Jesus is against his alienation of the fellow human being, and the epilogue of this parable supports this.[15]
v.13: The prayer of the tax collector is very simple – a cry from the heart and he pours out his longing for forgiveness.[16] He acknowledges that he had gone away from his God and neighbour. He admits that he is a sinner and he expresses it by beating his breast (v.13 a). Beating the breast is a sign of sorrow.[17] It is a unique expression in the Gospels. Fitzmyer observes this: “smiting his breast as a sign of compunction, sorrow, contrition (cf. Lk 23:48) is apparently unknown in the Old Testament”.[18] Thus he genuinely wills to get rid of his wretchedness and longs for liberation.
v.14a: Jesus prefers not the sinfulness of the tax collector, but the recognition of his true image before God and his throwing himself on God’s mercy. Here, Jesus makes a dramatic reversal in justifying the tax collector, though he does deserve to be looked down upon along with the extortioners, unjust and adulterers (v.11) in terms of the letter of the Law. Jesus justifies such an outcast from the point of view of social justice (cf. Lk 4:18-19).[19] But the Pharisee is left unjustified though he deserves to be justified by the letter of the Law. Why then? Precisely because, he has neglected the dimension of the love of neighbour in whom God dwells too (cf. Mt 7:12; Lev 19:18; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14). Therefore he is left unjustified (v.14 b).
v.14b: Jesus authoritatively spells out the judgement. Such a declaration is usually brought out in the Gospel of Luke by the change of speech, which begins as “it is said”, and closes saying, “I tell you”.[20] To exalt means to lift up and to humble means to make little of oneself. Jesus justifies the tax collector because he humbled himself before God. Here, humility has to seen as a longing for liberation.[21]
10. THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATION
Luke specifically writing the Good News to the non-Jews had a strong theological need to proclaim God as a merciful Father (cf. Lk 15:17,20 b; 22:23) in whom all have place irrespective of class, cast, gender, race differences (cf. Lk 5:27-32).[22] The Travel-Narrative (9:51-19:27) constantly stresses that God descent to justify, primarily the alienated (cf. Lk 18:14). Jesus in his mission of liberating the oppressed set aside the entire system of taboos based on the ideas of purity, pollution of race, hierarchy of casts and classes.[23]
10.1 Conversion of Heart
It is realized in the study of v.13, that the tax collector’s justification before God was his awareness of sin with a desire for a change of heart from his sinful life. The grace of conversion is given to everyone, and it works miracles as one responds to it with a sincere heart (cf. Psalm 51).[24]
10.2 Restoration of Human Dignity
The tax collector after being justified by God goes back to his community as a full-fledged person.[25] Therefore he is no more a thing to be despised. The words of Jesus have transformed him into a new man. Though themes like “new community”, “table fellowship” are invisible, could be unearthed when it is viewed with reference to the whole of the Gospel of Luke.
11. RELEVANCE OF THE PARABLE
Oppression “is a world wide phenomenon perpetuates everyday on the basis of race, colour, religion, class, power, gender, idea of purity…”[26] In India the ancient exploitative caste system, class and colonial system mixed with missionary expansion have used the human beings daily for profit and pleasure, and then discarded.[27] The most oppressed are the dalits. In these people, Jesus is still being insulted, persecuted and tortured. In such a situation of oppression, the response of Jesus in this parable would remind us, the basic duty to treat all fellow human being with dignity and as equals, however unworthy they may socially seem to be.[28]
12. CONCLUTION
The presentation of Luke on the crusade of Jesus against all alienation is remarkable in this parable. That’s why, as it is analyzed, it could never be mutilated by spiritualizing it as a parable of prayer alone. Rather it extends itself to be interpreted radically from the point of view of social justice, as long as it is a part and parcel of Lukan Gospel of the Outcast (Lk 16-19). Through his ministry Jesus has set the path: by acknowledging the woman (cf. Lk 10:38-42), having table fellowship with the outcasts (cf. Lk 5:29; 7:34,36-50; 15:1-2), and interpreting the sprit of the Law than the letter of it (cf. Lk 6:1-5,6-10). Besides he has also given us a task through this parable to extend solidarity with the downtrodden. Because without the participation in the pain of those who are alienated for various reasons we scarcely keep the memories of the brokenness of our Lord in the Scripture and in the Eucharist.
13. BIBLIOGRAPHY
A) Books
Canon Leon MORRIS, Luke – An Introduction and Commentary, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.
John J. KILGALLEN, A Brief Commentary on the gospel of Luke, New York: Paulist Press, 1988.
Joseph A. FITZMYER, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, New York: Doubleday & company, 1985.
Joseph FICHTNER, Many Things in Parables, New York: Alba House, 1988.
Norval GLEDENHUYS, The Gospel of Luke, Michigan: Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979 12.
Wilfrid J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel According to St.Luke, New York: Newmwn Press, 1967.
William BARCLAY, The Gospel of Luke, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1970.
Zacharias MATTAM, Opening the Bible, Bangalore: KJC Publications, 1998.
B) Articles
David Noel FREEDMAN, (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.6, London: Doubleday.
Kunduru JOJI, S.J., “From Brokenness to wholeness-the Jesus’ way”, in Vidhya Jothi 61(1997).
Samuel RAYAN, S.J., “Outside the Gate, Sharing the Insult”, in Jeevadhara 11 (1981).
Stany GOVEAS, Class notes on Parables, 2000.
THE HOLY BIBLE, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1973.
G. Robert John Kennedy
I Theology, 31.08.2000.
* This is presented in the class on 10.11.2000.
* This paper is published in Observer 2002-2003, the wall magazine of the Theology section, St Joseph’s Seminary, Mangalore.
[1] Henceforth, all quotations are from THE HOLY BIBLE, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1973. They are immediately noted by permitted abbreviations for the particular book in the Bible. Moreover the study is essentially based on the text of this Bible.
[2] Samuel RAYAN, S.J., is a professor of Theology at Vidhya Jothi, Delhi. He is the author of The Holy Spirit, New York 1978; The Anger of God, Bombay 1982.
[3]Kunduru JOJI, S.J., has completed his doctorate on St Luke’s Gospel. He is associated with Arul Kadal, Chennai.
[4] Cf. Norval GLEDENHUYS, The Gospel of Luke, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979 12, p.450.
[5] Cf. Joseph FICHTNER, Many Things in Parables, New York: Alba House, 1988, p.130.
[6] Cf. Wilfred J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel According to St Luke, New York: Newman Press, 1967, p.214.
[7] Cf. David Noel FREEDMAN, (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.6, London: Doubleday, pp.337-338.
[8] Cf. Zacharias MATTAM, Opening the Bible, Bangalore: KJC Publications, 1998, p.247.
[9] Joseph A. FITZMYER, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, New York: Doubleday & company, 1985, p.1185.
[10] Cf. Stany GOVEAS, Class notes on: Parables, 2000.
[11] Cf. William BARCLAY, The Gospel of Luke, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1970, p.232.
[12] Cf. Kunduru JOJI, S.J., “From Brokenness to wholeness-the Jesus’ way”, in VidhyaJothi 61 (1997), p.476.
[13] Cf. William BARCLAY, op.cit., p.233.
[14] Cf. John J. KILGALLEN, A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, New York: Paulist Press, 1988, P.174.
[15] Cf. Kunduru JOJI, S.J., op.cit., p.476.
[16] Cf. Wilfrid J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel According to St.Luke, New York: Newmwn Press, 1967, p.215.
[17] Cf. Canon Leon MORRIS, Luke – An Introduction and Commentary, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992, p.290.
[18] Joseph A. FITZMYER, op.cit., p.1187.
[19] Cf. Samuel RAYAN, S.J., “Outside the Gate, Sharing the Insult”, in Jeevadhara 11 (1981), pp.203-31.
[20] Cf. Kunduru JOJI, S.J., “From Brokenness to Wholeness – The Jesus’ Way”, in Vidiya Jothi 61 (1997), p.473.
[21] Cf. Ibid., p.477.
[22] Cf. Stany GOVEAS, op.cit.
[23] Cf. Kunduru JOJI, S.J., op.cit., p.478.
[24] Cf. Ibid., p.479.
[25] Cf. Ibid., p.479.
[26] Samuel RAYAN, S.J., op.cit., pp.215-216.
[27] Cf. Ibid., p.222.
[28] Cf. Kunduru JOJI, S.J., op.cit., p.478.
No comments:
Post a Comment