[PT 11.

3 (2010) 383-398] Political Theology (print) ISSN 1462-317X

doi:10.1558/poth.v11i3.383 Political Theology (online) ISSN 1473-1719
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010, 1 Chelsea Manor Studios, Flood Street, London SW3 5SR.
BEYOND MINT AND RUE:
THE IMPLICATIONS OF LUKES INTERPRETIVE
CONTROVERSIES FOR MODERN CONSUMERISM
Christopher Hays
1
Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultt
Universitt Bonn
Am Hof 1
53113 Bonn
Germany
cmhays@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Lukes Gospel features repeated confrontations between Jesus and the
socio-religious elite of his day, in which Jesus disputes with his opponents
regarding how the Hebrew Bible bears upon social ethics. The present
essay examines the character of Jesus controversial interpretations in the
accounts of Jesus polemics against the Pharisees and lawyers in Lk. 11:37-
52 and 16:14-31. Against the paradigms of his contemporaries, Lukes Jesus
stands in the stream of the Hebrew prophets, calling for fulfllment of the
Law especially in terms of justice and mercy. After describing the contours
of Lukes ethical interpretation of Scripture, the investigation seeks to imi-
tate prophetic and Lukan interpretation. Lukes message challenges modern
consumerist practice, particularly what sociologists have referred to as ide-
alist consumption of symbols and status. Idealist consumption drives the
western consumer to insatiable, narcissistic expenditure and neglect of the
poor, and is dissonant with the prophetic summons to justice and mercy.
Keywords: consumerism, law, Luke, poverty, riches.
Introduction
In 1985, when Madonna giggled about being a material girl in a mate-
rial world, some Christians doubtless recognized the crassness of her glib
construal of identity in terms of possessions. Still, Christian patterns of
1. Christopher Hays holds a doctorate in New Testament studies from the Univer-
sity of Oxford, and is currently a wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter in Church History at the
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitt, Bonn.
384 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
consumption are often indistinguishable from those of people without
any particular religious affliation. Popular authors smilingly justify con-
temporary consumptive patterns by calling it your best life now or
breaking through to the blessed life. These thinly veiled prosperity
theologians play into the extant consumerist value system by selectively
appealing to Old Testament promises, while ignoring prophetic invec-
tives against the wealthy and wisdom teachings that laud the piety of the
poor. How might twenty-frst-century readers respond to these Old Tes-
tament voices? Perhaps one could take a cue from Luke. The present essay
intends to highlight in two pericopae how Luke brings the Old Testa-
ment to bear on issues of wealth ethics (Lk. 11:37-44; 16:14-31). A brief
summation of contemporary sociological discussion on consumerism will
ensue, in order to permit a closing criticism of the modern consumer
phenomenon.
The Interpretive Controversies in Luke
Woes against the Pharisees: Lk. 11:37-44
One revealing skirmish between Lukes Jesus and the interpretive tradition
of his contemporaries occurs in the Woes to the Pharisees of Lk. 11:37-44,
when Jesus neglects to wash before a meal. In particular, I would like
to highlight how this account criticizes the manner in which Pharisaic
preoccupation with purity led to their neglect of the fundamentals of
the Law.
The occasion for the narrative is the Pharisees perturbation at Jesus
failure to wash before the meal. Jesus responds to them, however, not by
defending his bathing practices, but by adopting the metaphor of washing
utensils. In so shifting the issue, his response can be seen as addressing the
global conception of purity.
2
He indicts the Pharisees for being foolishly
concerned about the cleanliness of the outside of their vessel (i.e. their
external purity),
3
when internally they are full of plunder (harpags)
4
and
2. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:5124:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 1112.
3. M. Kelim 25:1-9; on which see Jacob Neusner, First Cleanse the Inside: The
Halakhic Background of a Controversy Saying, New Testament Studies 22 (1976): 48695;
and the response of Hyam Maccoby, The Washing of Cups, Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 14 (1982): 35.
4. Harpage refers to the act of violently seizing property or plundering someones
property (Judith 2:11; Tob. 3:4; 1 Macc. 13:34), or to that which is plundered (4 Macc. 4:10;
Nah. 2:13; Isa. 3:14; 10:2). This lexeme in all the LXX occurrences (save Lev. 5:21) identi-
fes the plunderer as exploiting their position of social or military power. It is not a word
just for robbery, but for exploitation (as esp. in Isa. 3:14; 10:2; Eccl. 5:8). Major lexica have
contended, on the basis of the present passage (since it is paralleled to ponria, but ponria
can also refer merely to wicked deeds), that harpag also refers to a state of mind that leads to
Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 385
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
wicked deeds (ponrias).
5
Ironically, the fastidious Pharisaic attention to
external purity avails for nothing, since they are already inwardly profane.
No amount of washing will purify them.
6
Instead of worrying about external purity, the Pharisees should attend
to their internal purity by giving alms. The puzzling logion o tvovo
ot titqoouvqv uses o tvovo (ta enonta, that which is inside) as
an accusative of respect. Protestant commentators tend to translate this
phrase give alms in expression of what is inside,
7
that is, to show your
internal purity. However, this interpretation is diffcult since what is
within the Pharisees is plunder and wicked deedshow can almsgiv-
ing be an expression of that? Thus commentators are forced to assume
a middle term of repentance, altering the Pharisees hearts so that alms-
giving would justly express their purity. Alternatively, might one not
understand give alms with respect to what is within as indicating that
almsgiving actually ameliorates the problem of what is within? This inter-
pretation commends itself from a strictly economic perspective, since
by giving alms the Pharisees could disperse the defling plunder they had
amassed. Further, this reading fts nicely within Jewish theological tra-
dition. Drawing on a variety of Old Testament passages,
8
Second Temple
seizure, i.e. greediness, rapacity (BDAG, 133; NIDNTT, 3:604; LSJ 235). The only other
passage cited by BDAG and LSJ to support this translation is Xenophon, Cyr. 5.2.17, but
it makes equally good sense as referring to the act of seizure (the standard meaning) as
to an intent to plunder. The Xenophon passage (which Millers Loeb translation renders
quite loosely) reads better for no Persian of the educated class would allow it to appear that
he was captivated with any kind of food or drink, neither in [the act of] seizure it nor in thought
(out oopyq out o vo) as to fail to observe things that would attract his attention if he
were not at meat. The italics indicate my modifcation of Walter Millers translation, which
reads quite expansively either with his eyes gloating over it, or with his hands greedy to get
it. Nonetheless, while this translation is more accurate and provides a more helpful image
of a cup flled, not with abstract intentions but with actual plunder and deeds, this does not
preclude harpags from functioning as a trope for greed. As the cup is a material metaphor for
the Pharisees person, so also what is inside the cup is a material metaphor for their spiritual
state.
5. This term can refer either to evil intentions (Matt. 22:18; Exod. 10:10; 32:12;
Ps. 73:8; Prov. 26:25; Dan. 11:27) or to wicked deeds (Judg. 11:27; 2 Esd. 16:2; 23:7, 27;
1 Macc. 13:46; Ps. 7:10; Wis. 4:6; Sir. 46:7; 47:25; Jer. 51:3, 22).
6. A similar point is achieved in the saying of Jesus in P.Oxy. 840:2.
7. John Nolland, Luke 9:2118:34 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 664, my emphasis;
Bock, Luke, 111415.
8. Dan. 4:27, the LXX of Prov. 15:27, and Sir. 3:30. I discuss this topic at greater length
in Christopher M. Hays, By Almsgiving and Faith Sins are Purged?: A Critical Analysis
of the Theological Underpinnings of Second and Third Century Christian Almsgiving,
in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Interpretation, ed. Bruce W.
Longenecker and Kelly Liebengood (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 26675. Cf. Gary A.
386 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
and rabbinic interpreters contended that almsgiving could function to
atone for sins,
9
and this position found a variety of adherents among early
Church fathers.
10
In a similar vein, rabbinic material indicates that alms-
giving might also increase ones piety or receptivity to God
11
and could
even win eternal life for the giver.
12
Thus Jesus would ft neatly into his
interpretative milieu by contending that almsgiving, in a manner analog-
ical to sacrifcial atonement, could reintegrate the sinful Pharisees into
covenant relationship with God.
The part of Jesus claim that does not cohere with Jewish assumptions
is the contention that proper attention to almsgiving (and deeds of that
sort)
13
excuses a person from rigorous observance of purity laws. In this
connection one cannot but call to mind the account of Cornelius in Acts,
whose uncleanness was overcome on account of his almsgiving and prayer
(Acts 10:2), with the result that God admonishes Peter what God has
made clean, you must not call unclean (10:15, 28).
Luke gives further theological support to Jesus displacement of purity
with almsgiving in his ensuing Woe against the Pharisees. You tithe mint
and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is
these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others (11:42).
In spite of their scrupulous tithing, of which Luke approves, the Pharisees
failed to pursue justice and the love of God. How should one understand
qv oyoqv ou tou (the love of God) here? The mention of the love of
God naturally recalls the encounter of Jesus and the lawyer in Lk. 10:27.
The lawyer explains the Laws account of eternal life, You shall love the
Lord your Godand your neighbor as yourself (oyoqoti, |upiov ov
tov oou|oi ov iqoiov oou o, otouov; Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). In
Anderson, Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms: Sin, Debt, and the Treasury of Merit
in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition, Letter and Spirit 3 (2007): 3767; Roman Garrison,
Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity (Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1993), 4659.
9. t. Pe ah 4:21; b. Git. 7a; B. Bat. 9a10a; Shab. 156b; Suk. 49b; Midr. Ps. on 50:8.
10. Cyprian, Eleem. 2 cites Lk. 11:41 to support almsgiving for the remission of sins.
Other patristic sources endorsing redemptive almsgiving include 2 Clem. 16:4; Cyprian,
Laps. 35; Ep. 51:22; Eleem. 1.
11. b. B. Bat. 9a, 10a; Eliezer Segal, Rabbi Eleazars Perutah, Journal of Religion 85.1
(2005): 2628. This was based upon an interpretation of Prov. 19:17, which identifes
almsgiving as lending to God and thus allowing one to expect recompense, see Anderson,
Redeem Your Sins, 4055; George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian
Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 169.
12. b. Ros. Has. 4a; B. Bat. 10ab, 11a; Git. 68b; Ex. Rab. 31:14; Midr. Pss. 118:19. On
entering into or being excluded from the future life through merit, see Tg. Ruth 2:13;
b. Sanh. 110b; Ber. 10b; b. Abot 3:15 (3:16 in the Mishnah).
13. Almsgiving is certainly meant literally, but should not be considered exhaustive of
Lukes intention; it is metonymy for a lifestyle of justice and love of neighbor.
Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 387
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
this instructive summation of the Law, one imperative verb (oyoqoti,,
agapeseis, you shall love) governs the combination of the two commands,
emphasizing the integral connection between love of God with all ones
being
14
and its necessary corollary in love of neighbor.
15
This is almost
certainly the evocation Luke intends when he accuses the Pharisees of
neglecting the love of God, since 10:27 is the closest Lukan verbal paral-
lel to 11:42. But of equal signifcance is the fact that, while Luke might
frequently speak of God acting lovingly or mercifully towards people,
16
or
encourage humans to show love to each other,
17
there is only one other
occasion in Luke and Acts in which Luke mentions people loving God.
18

In 16:13, Luke discusses the idolatry of wealth by saying, No slave can
serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other,
or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and
Mammon. This passage construes loving God in terms of proper use of
wealth. As such, the love of God which the Pharisees are said to neglect
in Lk. 11:42 refers most likely not to emotive affection,
19
but specifcally to
concrete actions that demonstrate piety. Since the Pharisees could hardly
be accused of failing to show love of God in their observation of issues
such as purity or tithing, it is likely that their neglect of love of God
refers to their failure to love their neighbor, particularly in the sphere of
the use of wealth, as is also implied by the context of 11:39-42 enjoining
almsgiving and indicting their greed.
This pairing of justice and love functions to evoke passages from the
Minor Prophets like Mic. 6:6-8 (cf. Zech. 7:9-10); what is good and
what the Lord requires is to do justice and to love mercy dsx tbh)w
(+p#m tw#(). One would also do well here to recall the famous
14. Cf. Bock, Luke, 1025; Vincenzo Petracca, Gott oder das Geld: Die Besitzethik des Lukas
(Tbingen: Francke, 2003), 8990.
15. It might be salient to mention that at this point in the history of interpretation, the
Hebrew term meodecha (your strength) (rendered q io_ui oou by Luke) was often inter-
preted as referring to ones money (Tg. Onq., Neof., Ps.-J. Deut. 6:5; m. Ber. 9:5//b. Ber.
54a). In Sifre Deut. 32, Rabbi Eliezer accounts for the combination of all your soul and
all your might on the grounds that some peoples lives are more important to them than
their wealth, and for others the case is reversed; so also b. Ber. 61b, Pes. 25a, Yom. 82a, Sanh.
74a; cf. Str.-B. 1:905-907).
16. Gods action: 1:50, 54, 58, 72, 78; 15:20; Jesus action: 7:13; 17:13; 18:38-39. This
survey included examination of all occurrences of tito,, oyoq, oioy_vov, iiio,
oyooo, iito, titto, and oioy_viooi in Luke and Acts.
17. Lk. 6:27, 32; 7:5; 10:33, 37.
18. Perhaps one might also add Lk. 7:42, 47, though this love is directed towards
Jesus.
19. See also Reinhard Neudecker, And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as YourselfI
Am the Lord (Lev 19,18) in Jewish Interpretation, Biblica 73 (1992): 496517.
388 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
prophetic dichotomy between mercy and sacrifce la Hos. 6:6, so
also Amos 5 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain
offerings, I will not accept them But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-fowing stream (Amos 5:25-26). So
Jesus locates himself in the tradition of the Prophets, denouncing Isra-
elites whose vigorous cultic piety is not accompanied by justice to the
poor, widow, and orphan. Seeing almsgiving as an expression of justice
and love, however, explains theologically how Jesus could tell Pharisees
to give alms instead of attending to purity. He was following a well-
established prophetic precedent.
Jesus follows quickly upon this blow with an assault on the Pharisees
preoccupation with status acquisition and honor maintenance, for they
love to have the seat of honor in the synagogues and to be greeted with
respect in the marketplaces (11:43). Not only does this prefgure Jesus
teachings against squabbling over the best seats in banquets in Lk. 14,
Jesus will also level this precise charge against the scribes in chapter 20
(vv. 4647), who love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and
to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets
but devour widows houses. Instead of loving God, the Pharisees
love the best seats in the synagogues; instead of giving alms they brim
with plunder. This charge explains why Pharisees, so preoccupied with
religious observances like purity and tithes, could neglect the crucial
biblical commands of justice and love; their meticulous religious obser-
vance arose from a desire to garner honor or prestige in their local social
economy. Acquiring wealth and scrambling for good seats at banquets
served the same end, and yet inexorably dulled their commitment to
justice and love of neighbor.
Luke subordinates the role of purity to other ethical issues he perceives
to be more fundamental to adherence to the Law and Prophets, namely,
love and justice.
20
Justice and love, particularly as manifested by alms-
giving, are the crucial elements of covenant fdelity, and no amount of
tithing or hand washing suffce as its substitute. As the next text shows,
this interpretive decision is not incidental, but rather is signifcant to the
theological substructure of Lukan ethics.
20. This does of course raise the issue of Lukes view of the Law, which cannot be fully
explored here. Suffce it to say at present, while one might be inclined to see Luke as reject-
ing purity wholesale, his depiction of Paul in Acts suggests that he does not see purity laws
as wholly defunct or irrelevant. Paul takes vows (Acts 18:18), circumcizes Timothy (Acts
16:1-3), undergoes purifcation rituals (Acts 21:23-26), and loudly asserts that he never vio-
lated the purity of the temple (Acts 24:18). So also, the account of Peters visions does not
sweepingly discard purity, but rather shows that God can declare clean things which were
previously unclean (i.e. the food [Acts 10:12-16] or Gentiles [Acts 10:28; cf. Acts 15]).
Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 389
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
Dives and Lazarus: Lk. 16:14-31
The issues of Lukan interpretation and wealth resurface in Lk. 16, on the
heels of the warning that one cannot serve God and Mammon. Luke turns
this apothegm against the Pharisees, indicting their greed (he calls them
flargurioi, greedy),
21
and thus implying that in spite of their great piety
they are guilty of idolatry (cf. T. Jud. 19:1). The appellation of flargurioi
for the Pharisees comes as no surprise, since Lk. 11 has already indicted
the Pharisees for loving honor more than God, and exhorted them to give
alms to remedy their wickedness. So again in Lk. 16, Jesus denounces the
Pharisees for justifying themselves before men. The wealth and status that
they so revere (o tv ovpooi, uqiov; that which is high among men)
are nothing less than an idolatrous abomination (bdelugma)
22
before God.
But more than just denouncing the greed of the Pharisees as idola-
try, Luke condemns the Pharisees on the very grounds upon which they
justify themselves before men, namely, he impugns their adherence
to the Law and the Prophets.
23
To articulate the manner in which the
Pharisees neglect of the poor is tantamount to neglect of Old Testament
teaching,
24
Lukes Jesus spins the tale of Dives and Lazarus in order to
show in which respect Pharisees failed to adhere to the Law and Prophets
21. Scholars have often contended that the Pharisees associated prosperity with divine
blessing; see, e.g., John Gillman, Possessions and the Life of Faith (Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
1991), 81; J. Duncan M. Derrett, Fresh Light on St. Luke 16: II. Dives and Lazarus and
the Preceding Sayings, New Testament Studies 7 (19601961): 367; Walter E. Pilgrim, Good
News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in LukeActs (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 116. While
it would be facile to say that wealth is a sign of divine blessing (in the Weberian sense that
creeps into the discussions of certain proponents of this view), wealth is one of the blessings
of God on the pious in the Old Testament and rabbinic literature (e.g. Gen. 26:12-14; Lev.
26:3-5, 9-10; Deut. 6:1-3; 7:12-15; 8:7-10; 11:9-12; Prov. 8:21; 22:4; m. Abot 5:19; Num.
Rab. 11:5), and so one can identify the reason for the Pharisees scorn without assuming
they were ignorant of the phenomenon of the wicked rich.
22. The identifcation of money as bdelugma indicates that one capacity in which money
is reprehensible is as an object of idolatry, a point which was made two verses previously
(16:13) by Jesus saying that one can not serve God and Mammon, personifying Mammon
as a rival to God; Thomas E. Schmidt, Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt 6:33,
Luke 14:33, and Luke 16:15, Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 186; Brian S. Rosner, Soul Idolatry:
Greed as Idolatry in the Bible, Ex auditu 15 (1999): 78.
23. Cf. Rom. 2:17-23; Gal. 1:4; Phil. 3:6; James D. G. Dunn, Pharisees, Sinners, and
Jesus, in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard
Clark Kee, ed. Jacob Neusner et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 26674. By saying they
justify themselves I refer to a standard by which they attempt to demonstrate their righ-
teousness, not a means through which they attempt to make themselves righteous, pace
John J. Kilgallen, The Purpose of Lukes Divorce Text (16,18), Biblica 76 (1995): 236.
24. The transition between 16:14-18 and 16:19-31 is merely indicated by a in 16:19,
and there is no change of narrative scenery; so also Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity
390 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
they claimed to prize.
25
There is little need to review the parable in detail.
What is crucial to the present investigation is the reason that Luke gives
for the post-mortem reversal in the situations of Dives and Lazarus.
26
For the majority of the last century, interpreters have focused on the
various Jewish, Egyptian, and Hellenistic parallels to this text, claiming
that a parallel texts explanation of reversal should be transplanted into
the Lukan account. More recently, however, the weight of opinion has
shifted, albeit not entirely, to recognizing that the relations between the
parable and the parallels are more likely indirect.
27
Luke engages not with
a single text from which his agenda can be inferred, but dialogues with an
existing folkloric motif
28
in developing his unique moral agenda.
Because of this shift in focus from parallel traditions to the Lukan
composition, scholars have zeroed in on Lk. 16:25 to account for the
inverted fates of Dives and Lazarus, in which Abraham reminds Dives,
during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like
manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony
(16:25). Giving pride of place to this explanation, Richard Bauckham has
of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation: Volume 1: The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986), 185.
25. Some commentators claim that 16:16-18 has nothing to do with the surrounding
material (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation,
and Notes [New York: Doubleday, 1985], 1114, 119, even Tannehill, Narrative Unity 1, 185).
However, these verses are a crucial step for Luke, as he advances from indicting the greed
of the Pharisees as idolatrous to condemning their greed as leading to neglect of the Law
and Prophets. In addition, the discussion of all entering the Kingdom (in v. 16) links back
to the confict that catalyzed the entire scene of 15:116:31, in which the Pharisees balked
at Jesus social intercourse with tax collectors and sinners (15:1-2). This passage is perfectly
consonant with Lukes narrative agenda and deliberately placed in this location to develop
a second line of polemic against the Pharisees. See also Mark A. Matson, Lukes Rewriting
of the Sermon on the Mount, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39 (2000): 64042.
26. Texts on economic reversal abound in Luke (1:52-53; 6:20-21, 24-25; 14:16-24; so
also E. S. Wehrli, Luke 16:9-31, Interpretation 31 [1977]: 278), and are a subset of a larger,
more general reversal motif: Two Debtors (7:41-43); Good Samaritan (10:30-35); Prodigal
Son (15:11-24); the Cleansing of 10 Lepers (17:11-19); the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
(18:9-14); see further Outi Lehtipuu, Characterization and Persuasion: The Rich Man and
the Poor Man in Luke 16:19-31, in Characterization in the Gospels, ed. David Rhoads and
Kari Syreeni (Sheffeld: Sheffeld Academic Press, 1999), 8485.
27. Since these parallel relations only account for the frst half of the Lukan parable
(and in so doing, neglect the manner in which Luke has crafted it for his narrative context),
and because of the signifcant differences in the accounts (on this see R. F. Hock, Lazarus
and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31, Journal of Biblical Literature
106 [1987]: 452; Richard Bauckham, The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and Paral-
lels, New Testament Studies 37 [1991]: 22729).
28. Bauckham, Rich Man, 229.
Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 391
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
argued that, What has to be put right is the fact that one man lived in
luxury while another was destitute. The next world compensates for this
inequality by replacing it with a reverse inequality.
29
Bauckham is not
alone, having been followed by James Metzger, who contends, had the
rich man opened the gate and given alms to Lazarus, yet remained wealthy,
he would not have improved his chances.
30
Metzger and Bauckhams line possesses signifcant advantages to posi-
tions that circumscribe the application of this text to unjust methods of
acquisition or abandoning the poor; they are right to emphasize that Luke
considers lavish lifestyle amidst a world of suffering to be fatly intoler-
able, and that no amount of charity will paint over the ugliness of that
disparity. But in order to make this point, Bauckham and Metzger have
limited the explanation for the reversal strictly to 16:25, and thus overly
truncated the ethical teaching of the parable.
Abrahams reasoning goes further than Bauckham and Metzger allow.
He explains that obeying Moses and the Prophets would afford Dives
fve brothers the opportunity to escape his miserable fate;
31
the obvious
implication is that Dives did not obey them in the salient manner. This
29. Bauckham, Rich Man, 232; cf. Stephen I. Wright, Parables on Poverty and
Riches (Luke 12:13-21; 16:1-13; 16:19-31), in Challenge of Jesus Parables, ed. Richard N.
Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 232.
30. James A. Metzger, Consumption and Wealth in Lukes Travel Narrative (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 2007), 146; italics original. The problem with Bauckham and Metzgers line of inter-
pretation is that in spite of maintaining frmly that the interpreter should focus exclusively
on Abrahams unique formulation of the rationale in v. 25 (Metzger, Consumption, 146),
Bauckham and Metzger import the terms luxury, wealth, decadence and overcon-
sumption into the explanation of 16:25 (Metzger, Consumption, 146, 56; Bauckham, Rich
Man, 232) where Abraham only said ta agatha (good things). Doubtless, it is right to think
that Dives reveled in luxurious overconsumption, as v. 19 makes explicit; it is furthermore
appropriate to think that Luke intends to indict that decadence. What is problematic, how-
ever, is that reading v. 25 in isolation from the rest of the text implies that Dives should not
have partaken of good things in his life, and that Lazarus was fortunate not to have enjoyed
them, since deprivation afforded him a chance to avoid eternal torment. (Though admit-
tedly there are parallels to this sentiment in the Beatitudes and the Woes, most scholars
would affrm that what is not enjoined is that the rich should be hungry, nor is it considered
a good thing that the poor have been hungry.) It further entails that ta agatha are not, in eter-
nal reality, actually good things. And by restricting account of reversal to v. 25, Bauckham
and Metzger box themselves into contending that Dives had simply to divest himself of
his wealth to dodge hell, without necessarily alleviating the condition of Lazarus (Metzger,
Consumption, 15556; Bauckham, Rich Man, 23233). Doubtless they would not want
to undercut the importance of almsgiving; they simply have to preclude charity from this
parable.
31. Cf. William R. G. Loader, Jesus Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels
(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 339.
392 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
mention of Moses and the Prophets weighs heavily against Metzger and
Bauckhams analysis, for the prophets do not denounce the mere posses-
sion of wealth. But previous scholarship on this passage has not seriously
attempted to evaluate what is intended by the phrase Moses and the
Prophets.
The actual details of the parable suggest an allusion to Isa. 58:6-7. Is
not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injusticeto share
your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from
your own kin? This likely constitutes part of the intended referent to
the Prophets, since Jesus invokes the same passage in his programmatic
Nazareth synagogue sermon (Lk. 4:18-20, mixed with Isa. 61:1-2). Jewish
interpreters frequently used Isa. 58:6-7 in a similar fashion, engaging the
passage as an impetus to charity,
32
promising blessings (b. B. Bat. 9b; Lev.
Rab. 34:11) and eschatological rewards (2 En. 9:1; cf. 2 En. 63:1-2) to those
who fulflled its demands.
In addition, other Lukan references to the Law and the Prophets, by that
name or via citation, help fll in our picture of Lukes understanding of the
essential social message of the Hebrew Scriptures. Lk. 4:16-20 (cf. 1:46-
47; 7:22; Acts 10:38) invokes the Jubilee traditions via Isa. 61:1-2.
33
In Lk.
10:25-26, What is written in the Law is the double love command; the
parable of the Good Samaritan interprets that command to entail becom-
ing a neighbor to a person in need rather than neglecting him. So also
Lk. 16:16 (cf. Lk. 7:26; 20:6) avers that John the Baptist stands among the
Prophets, and thus his commands to share food and clothing (Lk. 3:11)
34

and not to exploit the poor (Lk. 3:12-14) should be considered as well.
In sum, by examining the portions of the Old Testament of which Luke
was fond and the manner in which Luke interpreted those passages, one
can conclude that Abrahams injunction for Dives brothers to listen to
Moses and the Prophets entailed that they should indeed desist from their
neglect of the poor, and show charity through sharing their possessions.
Corroborating this analysis, one should remember that this parable is
being told in response to the Pharisees, not for being rich, but for being
flargurioi (greedy),
35
a trait that led them to neglect justice and the love of
32. Ps.-Phoc. 2324; b. B. Bat. 9a; Yeb. 63a; Gen. Rab. 17:3; Lev. Rab. 34:14; S. Eli. Rab.
ER 135137.
33. So Metzger, Consumption, 149.
34. Note also that unlike Dives, John was not a man dressed in soft robes and living in
luxury (Lk. 7:25).
35. Cf. John J. Kilgallen, Luke 15 and 16: A Connection, Biblica 78.3 (1997): 376;
David B. Gowler, At His Gate Lay a Poor Man: A Dialogic Reading of Luke 16:19-31,
Perspectives in Religious Studies 32.3 (2005): 254.
Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 393
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
God, according to Lk. 11 (vv. 3942). So also, Dives is not merely depicted
as rich, but as lavishly dressed and feasting brightly every day. Luke has
already made it quite clear that those who would inherit eternal life must
share their food with the poor (Lk. 3:11; 14:12-24; Acts 2:43-46), and has
expressed some chagrin towards luxurious clothing (cf. Lk. 7:25; 12:27;
Acts 10:21).
This analysis need not confict with Metzger and Bauckhams con-
tention that Dives is indicted for living in luxury; it merely means that
the manner in which they have excluded the neglect of charity from the
charges against Dives need to be reassessed. When Abraham says Dives
brothers should listen to Moses and the Prophets, he endorses a great deal
more than divestiture; he demands care for the poor.
Contemporary Ethics
The fundamental values of Lukes ethical-interpretive framework could
be aptly applied to any number of contemporary themes; the present
investigation will only briefy examine its bearing upon the phenomenon
of modern consumerism. I will briefy delineate the contours of current
sociological discussion on consumerism before describing how the Lukan
texts that have been examined might inform our evaluation of contempo-
rary practice.
Early sociological discussions of consumerism emphasized the manner
in which consumptive patterns delimit boundaries between socio-
economic classes,
36
but in recent decades, postmodern social fragmenta-
tion and diversifcation have led individuals to establish identity through
belonging to much smaller social sub-groups. An individual manifests
group belonging by adopting the lifestyle of the group through consum-
ing a conglomeration of goods, such as shoes, music, hairstyles, or cars.
37

Footballers identify themselves by sporting jerseys and athletic shoes both
on and off the pitch; motorbikers are infamous for their kit, and can be
subdivided in their leathers and haircuts between those who ride hogs and
others who prefer crotch-rockets.
38
Goths commodify their rebellion with
36. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard
Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 172. Cf. Zygmunt Baumann, Inti-
mations of Postmodernity (London: Routledge, 1992), 223.
37. Under post-modern conditions, identities are in a constant state of change; indi-
viduals move freely from one cultural group and enthusiasm to another; they mix and
match what were formerly distinct categories; Robert Bocock, Consumption (London:
Routledge, 1993), 81.
38. For the uninitiated, hog is an acronym for Harley Owners Group and refers
to large Harley-Davidson motorcycles; crotch-rockets are smaller, sport bikes with large
engines.
394 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
macabre makeup and raven hair, black trenchcoats, and Marilyn Manson
sound-tracks; scholars distinguish themselves through collecting extrava-
gant libraries and ratty sports coats.
Consequently, consumerism now functions to create and maintain a
sense of identity through the display of purchased goods.
39
What one con-
sumes signifes who one is, which is to say with which group one should
be identifed; thus consumption is not only a process of consuming
material products, but more importantly of consuming signs and symbols.
40

Goods have meaning, they possess social signifcance which is imbued
in a variety of ways, the most prominent of which are the modern com-
munications media. By juxtaposing meaningful visual images and phrases
with a certain product, an advertisement implies that the product itself
possesses meaning.
41
This creation of meaning can occur on a billboard
(adventurous people drive an X-Terra), in a page of a magazine (sexually
exciting women wear Victorias Secret), or during a movie when the pro-
tagonist dons a certain article of clothing or consumes a certain beverage
(drinking a vodka martini carries meaning, in part, because it is James
Bonds mixer of choice).
42
The process of attributing meaning to objects is facilitated by micro-
diversifcation of consumer goods. Consider designer jeans.
43
Your jeans
can say that you are a rugged cowboy (tight Wranglers), a sexy, metropolitan
party-femme (hip-huggers that keep no secrets), or a tough urban survi-
vor (heavy and dark with superfuous pockets, suspended mid-buttock by
a studded leather belt, affording insight into the individuals personality
39. Bocock, Consumption, 67; italics original.
40. Steven Miles, Consumerism: As a Way of Life (London: Sage Publications, 1998),
23.
41. Grant David McCracken, Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Sym-
bolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,
1988), 77.
42. One ought not underestimate the impact of advertising, since the average Ameri-
can is exposed to three to four hours of television a day, twenty hours a week of radio,
forty-one pounds of junk mail a year, and millions of corporate logos, icons, and slogans on
billboards, T-shirts, and ball-caps; Michael Budde, The (Magic) Kingdom of God: Christian-
ity and Global Culture (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 81. Cf. Rodney Clapp, Why
the Devil Takes Visa, Christianity Today 40.10 (1996): 20; Rodney Clapp, The Theology of
Consumption and the Consumption of Theology: Toward a Christian Response to Con-
sumerism, in The Consuming Passion: Christianity and Cultures of Consumption, ed. Rodney
Clapp (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 170; William Gibson, The Lifestyle
of Christian Faithfulness, in Beyond Survival: Bread and Justice in Christian Perspective, ed.
Dieter T. Hessel (New York: Friendship, 1977), 129.
43. Cf. Yiannis Gabriel and Tim Lang, The Unmanageable Consumer: Contemporary Con-
sumption and its Fragmentation (London: Sage, 1995), 141; Miles, Consumerism, 91106.
Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 395
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
through the statements made by their boxer selection). The variety of
consumer goods entails a potential variety of meanings.
Because consumption is a process of appropriating a given identity, it
should be understood as an idealist practice. However, if consumerism
seeks to develop social images rather than to address physical needs, then
the only limits to ones consumption are the boundaries of ones imagina-
tion and potential for self-construal. As one premier sociologist put it,
If [consumerism were] that which it is naively taken to be, an absorption, a
devouring, then we should achieve satisfaction. But we know that this is not
the case: we want to consume more and more If consumption appears to
be irrepressible, this is because it is a total idealist practice which has [little
to do]with the satisfaction of needs.
44
The Bearing of Lukan Interpretation on Consumerism
To conclude, then, for those who consider the Law and Prophets yet to
be fully stocked with jots and tittles ( la Lk. 16:17), how does the Lukan
interpretive strategy inform our perception of the modern consumer phe-
nomenon? The appropriation of biblical ethics invariably entails a process
of analogy making, in which the directness of the analogy inversely cor-
relates to the novelty of the situation being examined. I would contend
that identity construction provides a neuralgic analogy between the
Pharisaic pursuit of honor and contemporary idealistic consumptive pat-
terns.
45
The parable of Dives and Lazarus, as well as the Woes of Luke 11,
viciously indict the neglect of the poor by the Pharisees, arising from their
preoccupation with status acquisition and honor maintenance. Identity
fabrication through group integration, however, is a provocative analog
to honor maintenance and status acquisition. Pharisees wanted greetings
in the market and good seats at banquets and synagogues; people today
seek belonging to group(s) through purchasing clothes, music, cars, and
hairstyles. Perhaps in themselves these desires are only moderately discon-
certing as manifestations of pride or vanity. But the insatiability of desire
for consumer goods that results from the idealistic character of identity
consumption means that people, regardless of their incomes, seldom live
below their means or seek to limit their acquisition. More often, people
push restlessly at or beyond the boundaries of their means; a raise in pay
or a line of credit simply means greater opportunity to facilitate integration
44. Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings (Cambridge: Polity, 1988), 24. Cf. Bocock, Con-
sumption, 75; Gabriel and Lang, Unmanageable Consumer, 50.
45. While further points of critique of consumerism could well be raised, the nature of
the analogy I have adopted requires that I limit my discussion to the manner in which both
honor and consumption function as mechanisms of identity construal.
396 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
into their social group, or to join a further group in order to buttress their
sense of identity. There is seldom much left over for the poor.
Luke (11:42; 16:29), however, contends that the crucial aspects of the
Law and the Prophets are justice and love, which marginalize the impor-
tant sources of Pharisaic identity, in particular ritual cleanliness. But if the
Lukan Jesus is happy to relativize the practice of purity, which has clear
Old Testament grounding, then how much more would he bring woes
against people who choose to construe their identity through purchas-
ing a given look, ride, or soundtrack?
46
Justice and love are hardly values
bounded by time in their ethical applicability.
One might fairly remark that the exhortation to spend less money
on oneself and more money on the poor is nothing new; indeed, this
invective is at least as old as the prophets. Yet the very antiquity of the
imperative makes it all the more embarrassing that westerners persist in
their selfsh habits of expenditure. Part of the reason for this expenditure,
beyond the undeniable infuence of avarice, is that it is a means by which
we pursue self-defnitionis that really so objectionable? Perhaps Dives
would not have been denounced for his purple garment, fne linen, and
perpetual feasting in a world where no Lazarus festered outside his gates.
But no such a world has ever existed, nor ever will, at least not this side
of the parousia.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, G. A. Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms: Sin, Debt, and the Treasury of
Merit, in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition. Letter and Spirit 3 (2007): 3767.
Bauckham, R. The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and Parallels. New Testament
Studies 37 (1991): 22546. doi:10.1017/S0028688500015678
Baudrillard, J. Selected Writings. Cambridge: Polity, 1988.
Baumann, Z. Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge, 1992.
Bock, D. L. Luke 9:5124:53. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Bocock, R. Consumption. London: Routledge, 1993. doi:10.4324/9780203313114
Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Budde, M. The (Magic) Kingdom of God: Christianity and Global Culture. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1997.
Clapp, R. Why the Devil Takes Visa. Christianity Today 40.10 (1996): 1833.
46. Neither are tithes (cf. 11:42) to the local church suffcient excuse for neglecting
direct support of initiatives of justice and redistribution. Notwithstanding the fact that
most Americans tithe 2.66 percent of their income (Ron J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of
Hunger: Moving from Affuence to Generosity, 5th ed. [Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1997],
200), only paltry portions of most church budgets are directed toward social initiatives or
even missions work that is attuned to justice issues.
Hays Beyond Mint and Rue 397
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
The Theology of Consumption and the Consumption of Theology: Toward a Chris-
tian Response to Consumerism. In The Consuming Passion: Christianity and Cultures of
Consumption, ed. R. Clapp, 169204. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Derrett, J. D. M. Fresh Light on St. Luke 16: II. Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding
Sayings. New Testament Studies 7 (19601961): 36480.
Dunn, J. D. G. Pharisees, Sinners, and Jesus. In The Social World of Formative Christianity
and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee, ed. J. Neusner et al., 26489. Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Fitzmyer, J. A. The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and Notes.
New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Gabriel, Y., and T. Lang. The Unmanageable Consumer: Contemporary Consumption and its Frag-
mentation. London: Sage, 1995.
Garrison, R. Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity. Sheffeld: JSOT Press, 1993.
Gibson, W. The Lifestyle of Christian Faithfulness. In Beyond Survival: Bread and Justice in
Christian Perspective, ed. D. T. Hessel, 11140. New York: Friendship, 1977.
Gillman, J. Possessions and the Life of Faith. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.
Gowler, D. B. At His Gate Lay a Poor Man: A Dialogic Reading of Luke 16:19-31.
Perspectives in Religious Studies 32.3 (2005): 24965.
Hays, C. M. By Almsgiving and Faith Sins are Purged?: A Critical Analysis of the Theo-
logical Underpinnings of Second and Third Century Christian Almsgiving. In
Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Interpretation, ed. B. W.
Longenecker and K. Liebengood, 26080. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Hock, R. F. Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31. Journal
of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 44763. doi:10.2307/3261067
Kilgallen, J. J. The Purpose of Lukes Divorce Text (16,18). Biblica 76 (1995): 22938.
Luke 15 and 16: A Connection. Biblica 78.3 (1997): 36976.
Lehtipuu, O. Characterization and Persuasion: The Rich Man and the Poor Man in Luke
16:19-31. In Characterization in the Gospels, ed. D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, 73105.
Sheffeld: Sheffeld Academic Press, 1999.
Loader, W. R. G. Jesus Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1997.
Maccoby, H. The Washing of Cups. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 14 (1982):
315. doi:10.1177/0142064X8200401401
Matson, M. A. Lukes Rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount. Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Papers 39 (2000): 62350.
McCracken, G. D. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of
Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988.
Metzger, J. A. Consumption and Wealth in Lukes Travel Narrative. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2007.
doi:10.1163/ej.9789004162617.i-217
Miles, S. Consumerism: As a Way of Life. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 2.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.
Neudecker, R. And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as YourselfI Am the Lord (Lev
19,18) in Jewish Interpretation. Biblica 73 (1992): 496517.
Neusner, J. First Cleanse the Inside: The Halakhic Background of a Controversy Say-
ing. New Testament Studies 22 (1976): 48695. doi:10.1017/S0028688500010183
Nolland, J. Luke 9:2118:34. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.
Petracca, V. Gott oder das Geld: Die Besitzethik des Lukas. Tbingen: Francke, 2003.
398 Political Theology
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2010.
Pilgrim, W. E. Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in LukeActs. Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1981.
Rosner, B. S. Soul Idolatry: Greed as Idolatry in the Bible. Ex auditu 15 (1999): 7386.
Schmidt, T. E. Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt 6:33, Luke 14:33, and Luke
16:15. Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 171-89.
Segal, E. Rabbi Eleazars Perutah. Journal of Religion 85.1 (2005): 2542. doi:10.1086/
424975
Sider, R. J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affuence to Generosity, 5th ed.
Nashville: Word Publishing Group, 1997.
Tannehill, R. C. The Narrative Unity of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation: Volume 1: The
Gospel of Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Wehrli, E. S. Luke 16:9-31. Interpretation 31 (1977): 27680.
Wright, S. I. Parables on Poverty and Riches (Luke 12:13-21; 16:1-13; 16:19-31). In
Challenge of Jesus Parables, ed. R. N. Longenecker, 21739. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000.
Copyright of Political Theology is the property of Equinox Publishing Group and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.