THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE
and
THE
MISSION OF THE
CHURCH
Justin S.
Ukpong
University of Uyo,
Nigeria
Â
(a chapter
of A Global Bible Commentary,
General
editor: Daniel Patte;
Associare
editors:Â J. Severino Croatto,
Nicole Wilkinson Duran, Archie Lee, Teresa Okure
Nashville;Â Abingdon, October
2004)
Â
Introduction
This reading focuses on Luke’s approach to
mission, and isÂ
done from the perspective of those being evangelized, rather than
that of the missionaries. Two well-known issues associated with the  nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christian missionary
work in sub-Saharan Africa-- negative attitudes towards African culture and the
missionariesÂ’ failure to directly confront colonial oppression-- will be the
contextual issues for the reading. Using the critical-analytical methodology of
inculturation hermeneutics, I intend to show, with specific reference to
Nigeria, how the Gospel according to Luke could be
said to legitimate this approach to mission. LukeÂ’s interest in Gentiles and
political figures is well-known; this reading will focus on Luke’s authorial
motivation and ask why Luke was interested in these figures. I shall argue that,
for Luke (and also the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christian missionaries
to Africa), mission was directed
to Gentiles/non-Christians because they were perceived as dwelling in darkness
without Christ. Christian mission meant bringing the light of Christ to them.
For Luke, the Christ event culminating in the ascension marked the kairos for this mission, while, for the modern
Christian missionaries, colonial exploration opened the way for mission. For
both, the process of evangelization did not involve direct confrontation of
oppressive colonial power.
Life Context:
Nigeria
Nigeria, a former West African British colony that
became independent in 1960, is about four times the size of the
United
Kingdom and the fourteenth largest country in
Africa. It stretches about 700 miles from East to
West, and 650 miles from South to North. It is the eighth most populous country
in the world (with 125 million people), and the most populous in black
Africa (making up 20 percent of
AfricaÂ’s population). There are about 250 ethnic
groups with different cultures. Though diverse, these cultures have many common
traits. English, the official language, is spoken in the cities alongside Pidgin
English and the indigenous languages.
In the late nineteenth century,
Nigeria, along with other countries in sub-Saharan
Africa, was the site of intense Christian missionary
activity. The missionaries, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, arrived by sea
in the Southern part of the country that borders on the Atlantic Ocean, and
moved northwards spreading the gospel. By the middle of the twentieth century,
Christianity had spread to the Northern part of the country, which had been a
Muslim stronghold since the eleventh century. Today, Christians make up about 50
percent of the population, and Muslims about forty five percent --- a testimony
to the great success of the Christian mission (practitioners of the traditional
religion and other religious groups make up the rest of the population). In
spite of this success, the early Christian missionary effort was marked by a
negative attitude towards Nigerian culture and an absence of direct and open
confrontation of the colonial oppression suffered by the people.
Contextual
Issues:
          Â
Negative Attitude Towards Nigerian
Culture by Christian Missionaries.
Christian missionary activity in
Nigeria took place at a time when there was general
ignorance of African culture in Europe. The information people got about
Africa was generally distorted, unreliable, and
exotic, and came from newspaper reports and travelersÂ’ accounts. In
nineteenth-century Britain, in particular, a body of literature developedÂ
exemplified by LivingstonÂ’s
Missionary Travels of David
Livingston in Africa and Henry Morton StanleyÂ’s In Darkest Africa, in which Africans
were depicted as savage, barbaric, pagan, primitive, lewd, and inferior to
Europeans. There were also films that depicted Africa as the Dark Continent; a fantasy at best, grossly racist at the
worst.. EuropeÂ’s ethnocentric intellectual climate combined
with DarwinÂ’s theory of evolution formed the basis for a
theory of social evolution according to which human societies followed a linear
development, with the so-called primitive societies at the bottom and European
societies at the top. Africa was, therefore, portrayed in the poorest
light.
Against this background, mission to Nigeria, for
both Catholics and Protestants, meant bringing Christ to people outside the pale
of God’s salvation. Both groups possessed an exclusivist ecclesiology: “outside the church no
salvation,” for Roman Catholics, and “outside the word no salvation,” for
Protestants (Knitter 1984,
50-53). Nigerian culture was thought to be incompatible with Christianity and in need of
being Europeanized before Christianity could take root in it. To this
end, among other things, the missionaries introduced western education in
Nigeria, which, rather than destroying Nigerian culture, led to the development
of a Nigerian elite who started the struggle for NigeriaÂ’s political
independence—an ironic situation the missionaries themselves did not intend or
foresee.
Another way the negative attitude towards
African culture manifested itself was the development of separate communities to
shield the newly baptized from “contamination” by the local culture. In
Nigeria, these were set up by the Roman Catholic
missionaries in Topo Island near Lagos, and Aguleri near
Onitsha, and were called “Christian villages.” Modeled
after similar institutions in Paraguay during the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
the so-called “reductions”), Christian villages were physically remote and
politically autonomous from the surrounding traditional villages. The
Protestants had none in Nigeria but developed them in other African countries
such as Zambia, and called them “mission villages.” Unlike the
Catholic villages, they were located within the traditional village around the
church compound. The communities had only occasional contact with their
non-Christian kith and kin, and tried to practice “Christian behavior”(i.e., European ways of doing things). The idea was to
create “cells” of Christian civilization in Africa that would eventually cause the old social
order to crumble. Because of conflicts and tensions between the Christian cells
and the traditional villages, the project was later abandoned. It could not
fulfill the ideal of Christian civilization that had been envisaged.
In
addition, Christian missionaries would not admit Nigerian cultural symbols and
practices into Christian life and practice. In liturgical practice, the local
language, musical tunes and accompaniments, and African liturgical expression in
dance were considered unfit for Christian worship. Africans had to worship the
European way, and sing using European tunes from European hymnbooks. The use of
indigenous African perspectives in theological reflection only began to surface
in the 1960s, and was viewed with deep suspicion (Bujo
1992, 56-66)..
          Â
Christian Missionaries Failed to
Critically Confront Colonial Oppression
Christian missionaries from
Ireland and England brought Christianity to
Nigeria during the golden age of British imperialism in
Nigeria. This came with the exploitation of the
material and human resources of the country.
NigeriaÂ’s palm produce, groundnuts, hide and skin,
cocoa, tin ore, coal, and other products (the prices of which were fixed by the
British merchants themselves) were exported cheaply to feed British industries.
The people had no voice in the way they were governed; they paid taxes but had
no say on how the money was spent. The country’s infrastructure—roads, potable
water, electricity, etc.—–was not developed. Racial discrimination was rife. In
the cities, thewhites lived in
special areas designated as “European Quarters” while Nigerians lived in the
slums, there were separate centers of recreation for whites and blacks, and
Nigerian workers received only a meager fraction of the wages of their white
counterparts. Life for Nigerians was a bitter struggle. Poverty was everywhere.
Above all, colonialism brought the dehumanizing commerce in human cargo. Nigerian villages were raided on a
regular basis for able-bodied men and women who were carried away into slavery
in  America.
The Christian missionaries posed no direct challenge to colonial
exploitation—particularly as colonialism was generally seen as bringing the
light of European civilization to Africa. Besides, how could one expect them to
criticize the very institution that provided them with protection and financial
support in spreading the gospel? Even when they had opportunities to support the
people against colonial oppression, they did nothing. For example,
in 1949 the coal miners at
Enugu, the seat of the Eastern regional
administration, organized a demonstration to press their demand for a pay raise.The colonial police fired at them, killing nine
people. When the minersÂ’ union organized a funeral service, neither the local
Roman Catholic nor the Anglican Church--whose ministers were white--would permit
the funeral to be held on their premises, even though some of the deadwere Catholics and Anglicans. The union then moved to a
small town, Aba, about forty miles west of
Enugu, for the funeral. In protest against the
attitude of the Christian churches, they had an open-air funeral, sang
traditional religious songs, and used traditional religious rites invoking the
ancestors. The occasion led to the founding of Goddianism, a modernized form of African traditional
religion, a movement that could have been averted had the missionaries been
sympathetic to the cause of the miners (Onunwa
1989, 116-125).
LukeÂ’s Gospel is open to multiple readings,
depending on the readerÂ’s perspective and context. For example, it has been read
in ways that inspire economic, social, and political liberation (see below, René
Krüger’s “God or Mammon: The Social and Economic Theme of
Selected Passages of Luke”). However, by focusing on Luke’s authorial motivation
(a choice made in view of the above interpretive context), this reading seeks to
identify some of the inadequacies of LukeÂ’s missiology
that seem to have influenced Christian mission practice in Nigeria, and that
might be masked by the great success of LukeÂ’s Gentile mission. As already
pointed out, LukeÂ’s motivation for the Gentile mission was the desire to bring
Christ to people believed to be without
him. However, the question is, did Christian missionaries bring Christ to the
Gentiles? Was Christ not already present among these people even before the
arrival of the missionaries? LukeÂ’s interest in political figures also stems
from his desire to gain the good will of the empireÂ’s elite. While this may have
well served Luke’s cause, it is an inadequate paradigm  for today.
Â
Contextual
Comment
Following the general scholarly consensus, I
date LukeÂ’s Gospel to about 80 c.e. (or shortly
thereafter), and understand his intended audience as predominantly Gentile.
Antioch in Syria is generally suggested as a possible location
for the bookÂ’sÂ
writing, but Rome or any major city in the
Roman
Empire could have been
its base. Although some have proposed a female author, I share the majority
opinion that the author is a male who may have been a Gentile or Diaspora Jewish
convert to Christianity. Today, it is a matter of debate whether the author was
a travel companion of Paul. He need not have been. For writing his story, he
depended on Mark, Q, and other special sources that may have been either written
or oral.
Like the rest of the New Testament, LukeÂ’s
Gospel was written in the context of the first-century Christian mission
movement. The mission issues of the time, as well as LukeÂ’s and his communityÂ’s
experience of the Christian mission, shaped its focus
and goal in the light of which Luke reinterpreted the tradition he had received.
The Gospel begins with the birth stories of John the Baptist and Jesus
(1:1-2:21); recounts the preparations for JesusÂ’ ministry (3:1-4:13), JesusÂ’
ministry in Galilee (4:14-9:50), and his ministry on the journey to
Jerusalem (9:51-19:27); and concludes with his ministry, death,
resurrection and ascension in Jerusalem (19:28-24:43). Though he pays attention to history, LukeÂ’s
approach is more theological and thematic than chronological. Luke has many concerns, including women,
the poor and their relationship with the rich, Gentiles, and political figures.
As we shall see, for Luke, the Gentiles dwelt in
darkness, and the Christ event marked the fulfillment of GodÂ’s promise to bring
the light of salvation to them. I shall explore this theme below by focusing on
passages  selected throughout the
Gospel.  With regard to his
interest in political figures, Luke is trying to present Christianity in a way
that would attract the support of the middle class elite of the
Roman
Empire but not appear
to incite people against RomeÂ’s colonial authority. I find this accentuated
in a second series of passages  that I discuss in the second
section below. Â
          Â
Interest
in Gentiles
LukeÂ’s Gospel expresses a strong interest in
Gentiles. He alone of the four evangelists gives a detailed account of the early
churchÂ’s mission to Gentile territory. By dedicating his two volume work to a
Gentile, “Theophilus” (Luke 1:4)--who may already have been a convert, was
undergoing instruction to be converted, or was merely interested in
Christianity--Luke indicates that his message has some relevance for Gentiles.
Symbolically, the Greek name (which means “lover of God”) also points to
Christians, particularly Gentile Christians, as addressees. Luke depicts Jesus
as determined to include Gentiles in GodÂ’s plan of salvation: Jesus is seen as
the savior of all nations (2:32);Â
JesusÂ’ genealogy is traced to Adam the father of all humanity (3:38);
Jesus speaks positively of Gentiles (4:25-27); in the Sermon on the Plain, in
contrast to MatthewÂ’s account, which presents a Jewish versus Gentile ethic
(Matt 5:47), Luke presents a universal ethic for Jews and Gentiles (Luke
6:27-35); and a centurion
acknowledges Jesus to be an upright man (23:47-48).
LukeÂ’s interest in Gentiles is shown in his
understanding of the Gentiles as dwelling in darkness awaiting GodÂ’s salvation.
At the time Luke wrote, the frontiers of Christianity had extended beyond
Palestine to Gentile lands, with Gentiles flocking to the
church in large numbers. The large presence of Gentiles in the church raised
questions, for Luke, of legitimizing Gentile mission and the near total Gentile
“take-over” of an originally Jewish heritage . Luke
saw, in the Christ event, the time of the fulfillment of GodÂ’s Hebrew Bible
promise of the redemption of Israel and salvation for the Gentiles who dwelt in
ignorance of the true God (Acts 17:23).
In the GospelÂ’s prologue, Luke states that his
purpose for writing is to
attest to the proper (scriptural) foundation of the Christian catechesis
that Theophilus has received or knows about (Luke 1:4) --- a catechesis
whose genuineness is guaranteed by the tradition handed down by eye witnesses of
the life of Jesus, and his own careful research (Luke 1:1). As far as can be
reconstructed from the Acts of the Apostles, the early Christian Kergyma (which formed the substance of this
catechesis) included a retelling of the story of JesusÂ’ life as a
fulfillment of ancient prophecies of GodÂ’s salvation to all peoples as well
as a call to repentance and
acceptance of Jesus. (Acts 2:14-36, 38-41; 3:13-26;Â 10:42-43 13:17-41). Thus, one
purpose of LukeÂ’s two-volume work was to testify to the arrival of GodÂ’s time of
universal salvation that included Gentiles. Luke announces this theme in the
infancy narrative and, in his characteristic way, reviews and refers back to it
in the rest of the Gospel (Tannehill 1986).
Luke 1-2: Gentiles Dwell in
Darkness
In the infancy narrative in which he introduces
some of the major themes of his Gospel, Luke presents his theological viewpoint
by commentating on the materials he received. He interspersesÂ
hymns (not all of his own composition) in his narratives of the
visitation (1:39-56), the circumcision of John (1:59-79), the birth of Jesus (2:1-20), and JesusÂ’
presentation at the temple (2:22-35) as his theological commentary on these
incidents..
In the annunciation of JohnÂ’s birth, JohnÂ’s
mission is set within Israel: he is to bring
Israel back to God, effect a
reconciliation, and prepare them for the approaching redemption
(1:11-25).
Israel is recognized as having defected but is not
excluded from GodÂ’s favor. In the Benedictus, ZechariahÂ’s hymn (Luke 1:67-79),
the birth of John the Baptist inaugurates the dawn of
IsraelÂ’s freedom from its enemies, and the
establishment of GodÂ’s salvation and peace in
Israel. Again,
Israel is the focus of JohnÂ’s reconciling mission.
Unlike John, Â in the annunciation of JesusÂ’
conception (Luke 1:26-38), Â his mission is ruling over
Israel, which implies putting things in order and
establishing peace. In MaryÂ’s Magnificat, the theme of God as the savior of
Israel is prominent: what God does for her symbolizes
what God will do for Israel. Thus, the time of
IsraelÂ’s redemption has come with the birth of the
savior Jesus.
It is in SimeonÂ’s hymn, Nunc Dimitis (which
is very likely LukeÂ’s own composition, Luke 2:29-32),that we find the
core of the theme of Gentiles being without the light of salvation. Jesus is
identified as the glory of Israel (2:32), an allusion to GodÂ’s glory that dwelt with
the chosen people in the desert on their way to freedom (Exod 40:34), and an
indication of the arrival of IsraelÂ’s time of redemption. Jesus is also identified
as the bearer of “salvation” for all peoples (2:30-31), not just
Israel. He is then specifically identified as a light
for the Gentiles, a reference to Isaiah’s “servant songs” (Isa 42, 49, 52 ) with the prominent theme of
Israel as GodÂ’s covenant people who will be a light to
the Gentiles. Already in the Benedictus
(Luke 1:67-79), we know that those for whom this light is to shine
(2:32, Gentiles) dwell in darkness comparable to
death (1:79). This does not, however, connote an inability to do good, as is
clear from the rest of the Gospel (10:13-16; 23:47). Rather, it has to do with the absence of the
knowledge of salvation (Isa 49:6b). Jesus is the “light” that makes salvation
known to the Gentiles (2:31-32).
Thus, God sets divine salvation and glory within
Israel (Isa 42:6-8).  Though the salvation that Jesus brings is
for all people, it is located in Israel, from where its light reaches out to the
Gentiles (Isa 49:6, as read by Luke).
IsraelÂ’s glory and divine salvation are intertwined in
Jesus. The resurrection is the point at which Scripture about GodÂ’s salvation
for the Gentiles is fulfilled and, thereafter, Christian missionaries are to
bring the light of Christ to the Gentiles through their preaching (24:44-48).
This preaching is important and must start from
Jerusalem and reach out to the ends of the earth. Â Thus Luke locates the urgency of the
Gentile mission and the explanation for the large Gentile influx into
Christianity at the resurrection and ascension, whereby GodÂ’s plan to bring
salvation to the Gentiles is fulfilled. Up to that point, during JesusÂ’ earthly
ministry, such urgency is not apparent.
Gentiles are on the Periphery: Luke
7:1-10, Cure of the CenturionÂ’s
Servant
Having announced the theme of Gentiles dwelling in
darkness at the beginning of his Gospel, Luke refers back to it in the rest of
the book (Jervell 1979). He does this by negatively
depicting the Gentiles as people peripheral to the Jews. In the Synoptic
Gospels, the only two instances of Jesus healing at a distance involve Gentiles:
the healing of a centurionÂ’s servant (Matt 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10), a Q text, and
the healing of the daughter of a Canaanite/Syro-Phoenician woman (Matt 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30), a Markan text. Luke generally follows
Mark, but omits the latter narrative. (This is a portion of Luke’s so-called “great
omission” of Mark; Luke makes no use of the materials in Mark 6:45-8:26.) Luke may have omitted this story because the
saying that Jesus came for the Jews alone militates against his theology thatJesus also came for the Gentiles.
In a comparative analysis of Matthew and LukeÂ’s
versions of the healing of the centurionÂ’s servant, LukeÂ’s redactional emphasis is on the centurionÂ’s peripheral
position as a Gentile. In Matt 8:5-7, the centurion approaches Jesus directly
with his request; in Luke, he approaches Jesus through Jewish elders. The ground
for the Jewish elders acting on the centurionÂ’s behalf is that he is favorably
disposed towards the Jews (Luke 7:3-5). His fate is therefore defined in
relation to the Jews. In both Gospels, the centurion confesses his unworthiness
to receive Jesus in his house (Matt 8:8; Luke 7:6-7), but in Luke the centurion
is also too unworthy to approach Jesus in person.
Luke 8:26-39, Healing of a
Demoniac
Three things invite our curiosity when we
compare the story of the exorcism of the demoniac at Gerasa (8:26-39), a largely Gentile city with a non-Jewish
population, with LukeÂ’s story of the exorcism of the demoniac in
Capernaum (4:31-37), a Jewish city. First is the reaction of
the crowds. In Capernaum, the Jewish residents were at first astonished,
then came to appreciate and affirm the power of Jesus (4:36), an act consistent with a more “enlightened”
point of view by a well-established and accepted people. Â Â However, in the case of Gerasa, the people who were probably Gentile were seized
with fear and asked Jesus to leave their territory (8:37), an action consistent with marginal
people. Second, at Gesara Jesus expelled the demons into a herd of swine
considered “unclean” by the Jews (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8) but “clean” by the
Gentiles. Destroying such a substantial means of livelihood underscores Jewish
“enlightened” contempt for this Gentile “unenlightened” outlook. Lastly, Luke
states that, though the exorcized Gesarsene sat at
JesusÂ’ feet (8:35) in an act of discipleship, Jesus does not
accept him as a disciple(8:38-39). From the contextual perspective described
above, it appears that, even though he acts as a disciple, he is not “worthy” to
enter the mainstream of discipleship: a Gentile “disciple” is considered unfit
to evangelize others except his own people (8:38-39).
Luke 23: 1-25, PilateÂ’s Vacillation
at JesusÂ’ Judgment
LukeÂ’s presentation of Pilate in the judgment of
Jesus shows that while Pilate (a Gentile) wielded enormous political authority,
he could not come to a decisive judgment on Jesus. He was convinced that Jesus
was innocent, but hesitated many times, sent him to Herod, then condemned him to
death on the basis of pressure from the Jews. From a contextual perspective , it appears that, in spite of his enormous
political power, the Gentile Pilate acts from the periphery; it is the Jews that
exercise the power in the situation.
Need to Bring Salvation to Gentiles
(3:23-38;
4:16-30;
24:44-48)
Luke 3:23-38: Having presented Jesus as
the glory of Israel and Gentiles as dwelling in darkness in the infancy
narrative, Luke next records JesusÂ’ ancestry, where he presents the ontological
rationale for bringing the light of GodÂ’s salvation to the Gentiles. Unlike
Matthew--who traces JesusÂ’ genealogy up to Abraham, the father of the Jewish
people-- Luke traces it to Adam, the father of all humanity, thus indicating
JesusÂ’ oneness with all humans. With his incarnation, the Gentiles with whom
Jesus also identifies are no longer on the periphery; they may now see the light
of GodÂ’s salvation.
Luke 4:16-30: In this pericope of JesusÂ’
preaching at Nazareth, Luke reinterprets the material he got from Mark by expanding it and moving it from its
location in the middle of JesusÂ’ ministry (Mark 6:1-6) to the beginning (Luke
4:16-30). The central text, Luke 4:18-19, a programmatic statement of JesusÂ’
ministry, is taken from Isa 61:1-2.
Within this strategic section we meet the first
Jew/Gentile contrast on JesusÂ’ lips (4:25-27). In this text, which is unique to Luke, the
Jews (whom we know already to be the children of light) are unfavorably
contrasted with the Gentiles (who dwell in darkness). This
“preferential option” for Gentiles so infuriates the Jews that they want to
throw Jesus over a cliff. But Jesus has made his point: though rooted in
Israel (4:23-24), his ministry extends beyond
Israel to the Gentiles. In this way, Luke claims a
historical-theological justification for the mission to Gentiles. Here again,
the background is HebrewÂ
prophecy interpreted by Luke in a new light.
Luke 24:44-48: Luke closes his Gospel
with Jesus pointing to the fulfillment of GodÂ’s plan for universal salvation:
The appointed time has come, hence the urgency and success of the Gentile
mission.
Jew/Gentile Contrast
As in the other Gospels, we find harsh words for
the Jews on the lips of Jesus in Jew/Gentile contrasts. In Luke 10:13-16 (= Matt
11:20-24), for example, the Gentile cities of
Tyre and Sidon are favorably contrasted against the Jewish
cities of Chorazin and
Bethsaida. In the trial of Jesus (Luke 23), Luke
contrasts the Jews who want Jesus killed and Pilate, a Gentile who sees Jesus as
innocent. Another Gentile, a centurion, confesses JesusÂ’ innocence
(23:47) in contrast to the Jews who see him as guilty.
For Luke, Gentiles are marginal people compared to the Jews. He argues this
point with subtlety. The contrast is not between the Jews who rejected Jesus and
the Gentiles who accepted him, for Luke gives instances (particularly in Acts)
of acceptance and rejection on both sides. Rather, the contrast is between the
Jews as the children of light, who should know better, and Gentiles who dwell in
darkness, of whom not much is expected in the first place. Thus, their
acceptance of Jesus becomes significant, while their rejection does not command
as much condemnation as that of the Jews.
 Colonial
Oppression is notÂ
Directly Confronted in LukeÂ’s Gospel
Luke wrote his Gospel against the backdrop of
the first Jewish war (66-70 c.e.), the
expulsion of Christians from the synagogue (80 c.e.),
localized persecution of Jews/Christians, and the spread of fledgling
Christianity into the wider arena of the Roman Empire. There are indications that, though he wrote
for his community, he had an eye on the upper middle class readership of the
empire as well. The prologue (Luke 1:1-4) is written in elegant and technical
Greek. This sets the work within the respected Greco-Roman literary tradition of
the time, and makes it one destined to adorn the libraries of the elite. The
book is dedicated to a certain Theophilus who bears the title “His Excellency”
(1:3, authorÂ’s translation) which was used for people of high social status like
governors (Acts 24:2). This is an important indication that Luke expects the
likes of Theophilus to read his story. Also, Luke constantly refers to the
political authorities of the empire in his story: the annunciation of the births
of John and Jesus took place when Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5); Jesus was
born when Caesar Augustus was reigning in Rome (2:1); John and Jesus performed
their ministries when Tiberius Caesar was reigning in Rome, Pontius Pilate was
governor Judea, and Herod was administrator in Galilee (3:1-2, 19-20); and the
passion narrative is set in a similar political context (23:1-25, 47, 50-54).
All this suggests that Luke wants to acknowledge the presence and authority of
the Roman colonial power in Palestine during the period he writes about, and intends
his story to be meaningful within that context.
Against this background, Luke wanted to present
Christianity in a way that would not antagonize the colonial authority and would
also appeal to theÂ
elite of the empire, as Christian communities needed the goodwill
of such people to survive. Â This meant avoiding to confront directly, and thus condoning, important part of
the ideological position of that class without sacrificing Christian identity
and principles. Thus, while not exonerating Pilate, he excuses him for the
execution of Jesus by emphasizing that it was on the demand of the Jews that
Pilate ordered JesusÂ’ death (23:24-25).
Compared to both Matthew (27:11-14) and Mark (15:2-5), who only record
PilateÂ’s confession of JesusÂ’ innocence once, Luke records it three times (23:4,
14, 20-22), and has this corroborated by a Roman centurion (23:47).
He presents a Jesus who did not directly confront the colonial
authorities, but was critical of them within the circle of his followers, who
was interested in the poor and marginalized in society, and was against the
wrongful accumulation of wealth by the rich.
Contemporary historical research shows the
widespread existence of great poverty and deprivation in first-century
Palestine and how this was linked to the colonial
occupation (Lapide1986, 99). Luke is sensitive to this for, in addition to
reminding us of the presence of Roman colonial power in
Palestine in his Gospel, he shows much concern towards
the poor. JesusÂ’ programmatic statement of his mission is set within the context
of the jubilee proclamation of liberation for the poor (Luke 4:18-19), Jesus pronounces blessing to the poor and
woe to the rich (6:20-26), and there are more stories of GodÂ’s favor
towards the poor than in any other Gospel. LukeÂ’s own community may have been
comprised of many who were poor (6:20). However, there is no indication that Jesus
directly confronted the colonial power responsible for the grinding
poverty in Palestine. The closest Jesus comes to directly
confronting the colonial oppressors is his charge to his disciples to carry a
sword in the passion story; even so, he restrained their use of it
(22:36-38, 48-51). In contrast to the other Gospels,
Luke presents a Jesus who represents peace. Unlike Mark, who uses the term eirÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÄ“nÄ“e
(“peace”) once (Mark 9:50); and Matthew, who uses it four times (Matt
10:13, 34); Luke uses it fourteen times: angels pronounce peace on earth to
herald Jesus’ birth (2:13-14), Jesus’ words to the sinful woman are “go in
peace” (7:50), Jesus advocates making peace with the enemy in advance (14:32),
and laments over Jerusalem for failing to know what would bring her peace
(19:42). Thus, instead of one engaged in direct confrontation with the enemies
of Israel who were responsible for the plight of the
common people that were the focus of his ministry, Luke presents Jesus as a
peace maker from birth.
However, to say that LukeÂ’s Jesus was a peace
maker and did not engage in direct confrontation with the Roman colonial
authorities is not to say that he condoned the political status quo. LukeÂ’s
Gospel contains indirect and covert revolutionary sentiments and actions
against the political status quo. Luke records Jesus attacking the Jewish
religious-political leaders, the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, agents of
the colonial authority (Luke 6:1-5; 11:37-44; 19:45-48; 20:45-47); Jesus did not
defer to Herod, calling him a fox  (Luke 13:31-33); he cautioned his
disciples against the behavior of Gentile rulers who lorded it over their
subjects (22:24-27); above all, the kingdom of God, the theme of JesusÂ’
preaching, had characteristics antithetical to the “kingdom” of Caesar. In the
material unique to Luke, the magnificat
has the theme of GodÂ’s overthrow of the mighty at the coming of Jesus
(1:46-56); the Benetictus has the theme of
GodÂ’s overthrow of IsraelÂ’s enemies the greatest being the Roman colonial power
(1:67-79); and Jesus is accused of forbidding tribute to Caesar (23:2).
These actions point to an indirect criticism of the colonial power.
LukeÂ’s handling of the tribute issue (Luke
20:20-26) sheds light on his strategy in presenting
the political dimension of his story. Jesus’ answer, “Pay Caesar what belongs to
Caesar, and God what belongs to God” (Luke 20:25, author’s translation), was an indirect, and covertly
negative response to the question that was asked, “should we pay tribute to
Caesar or should we not?” For, since Israel was totally God’s people, and God’s right
supersedes CaesarÂ’s, Caesar had no claim on
Israel, and therefore no right to demand taxes from
them (Ukpong 1999, 433-444). Luke alone records that,
at his trial, Jesus was (falsely) accused of forbidding tribute to Caesar
(23:2). Even though Jesus did speak
against paying tribute (in 20:25), LukeÂ’s story understands his response to
PilateÂ’sÂ
question as claiming that this is a false accusation. In a similar
way, in the entire Gospel, Luke presents a Jesus who did not confront the
colonial authorities directly and
openly though he did not condone the status quo. Therefore, Luke
indicates that the movement Jesus founded to carry on his mission was not a
political danger like the violent resistance of the zealotsÂ’ movement.
Hermeneutic
Conclusions
The nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christian
mission in Nigeria and LukeÂ’s interest in mission to the Gentiles
share a common motivation --- to bring the light of Christ where it
was believed to be absent. Luke interpreted the prophecies in the Hebrew
scriptures about the time of GodÂ’s salvation as having arrived for the Gentiles,
while the missionaries to Nigeria were influenced by the their cultural biases,
misconceptions about Africans , and an exclusivist ecclesiology that denied the
presence of Christ among non-Christians. The problematic idea is that Christian
missionaries bring Christ to non-Christians. Was the risen Christ not already
present and active among the Gentiles and in Africa before the missionaries arrived there? Though
Jesus was confined to one locality and culture in his earthly life, by the
resurrection he transcends time and space and is made present to all creation as
the first fruits from all those who die  (1Cor 15:20-23). Besides, if Jesus is the
logos through whom all
creation came into being (John 1:1-8), and
at the same time the way, the light, and the truth (John 14:6),
then we must presume the light of Christ to have been already present among the
Gentiles and Africans even before the arrival of the Christian missionaries
(Shorter 1988, 83-85; Mbiti 1992, 21-30). This does
not negate the need for missionaries but, rather, redefines their role in
helping people discover Christ in their midst.
Because of the political atmosphere in which he
wrote was unfavorable to Christians, Luke condoned parts of the ideological
position of the elite ] Romans in his
presentation of Christianity so that it would not appear as a politically
dangerous movement. Thus, despite his interest in the poor, he did not present
Jesus as directly challenging the colonial authority responsible for the
peopleÂ’s plight in the same way that Luke depicts Jesus challenging the Jewish
religious leaders. Given LukeÂ’s influential position on mission to the Gentiles,
this approach is potentially paradigmatic for contemporary mission practice, as
it seems to have been for the early missionary efforts in
Nigeria that did not openly challenge colonial exploitationof the people. Considering that, at the time of
the Christian mission to Nigeria, the Bible was read in a spiritualized way, the
inspiration we draw today for political action from LukeÂ’s interest in political
figures was not drawn by missionaries.
The mission to the Gentiles that Luke championed
became a great success. Similarly, there has been an unprecedented phenomenal
growth of Christianity in Nigeria because of the nineteenth- and
twentieth-century missionary efforts. However, this success should not be
allowed to mask LukeÂ’s missiological inadequacies for
contemporary mission practice, nor should the success of the Christian mission
in Nigeria be allowed to mask the inadequacies of its
original bearers. Contemporary missionary efforts must take note of these
inadequacies in LukeÂ’s missionary theology to avoid the mistakes of the past.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bujo, Benezet 1992 African
Theology in Its Social Context. Maryknoll:
Orbis.
Jervell, Jacob 1979 Luke and the People of God: A New Look at
Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
Knitter, Paul F. 1984 “Roman Catholic Approaches to
Other Religions: Developments and Tensions”, International Bulletin of
Missionary Research 8 (April 1984)
50-53.
Lapide, Pinchas 1986 The Sermon on the Mount: Utopia or Program for
Action? Maryknoll: Orbis.
Mbiti, John S. 1992
“Is Jesus Christ in African Religion?” Pp.21-30 in Exploring Afro-Christology.
Ed. John S. Pobee.
Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Onunwa, Udobata R. 1989 “Goddianism: A
Resurgence of an Old Cult in Christian Garb” Africa Theological Journal vol.18 no2
(1989) pp.116-125.
Shorter, Aylward 1988
Toward A Theology of Inculturation
London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Tannehill, Robert C.
1986 The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A literary
Interpretation, Volume 1, The Gospel of Luke.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Ukpong, Justin S. 1999
“Tribute to Caesar, Mark 12:13-17(Matt 22:15-22; Luke 20-26)”, Neot, 33:433-444.
Â
Â
Â