Barthes y el sistema de la moda

91 _{Especially between the Lukan text and 2Kgs 5:3 LXX. Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 574.}

92 _{Johnson points to Luke’s reference to the woman as a widow (7:12) and how Jesus presented the son to}

his mother after the cure (7:15), which are in parallel with 1 Kgs 17:20 and 1 Kgs 17:23 in the Septuagint respectively. Johnson, Luke, 118-119.

Scholars differ significantly in their interpretation of “the poor” in Luke. Some argue that Luke’s motif of poverty has literary or spiritual significance,93 _{while others maintain}

that Luke refers specifically to the economically poor and downtrodden.94 _{Byrne rightly}

points out that there is more than one layer of meaning in Luke’s motif. According to Byrne, Luke certainly refers to the economically poor and such texts as the Magnificat and the Beatitudes ought to inform the way Christians perceive economic and social justice issues.95 _{At the same time, “the poor” in Jesus’ day had become a standard self-}

identification of those in Israel who waited for salvation from the Lord – like Simeon and Anna in the infancy narrative. “The poor” in this perspective indicates the afflicted who await salvation, including those who do not suffer primarily from economic poverty. Nevertheless, in Luke’s Gospel Jesus frequently intervenes on behalf of the poor and the marginalized, often by defending them against those in positions of power.96 _As

Tannehill points out “God’s mercy on the physically hungry and economically poor is a major theme in Luke.”97 _{This theme comes through especially in the “programmatic”}

texts in Luke’s Gospel: the Magnificat (1:46-55), Jesus’ inaugural address in Nazareth

93 _{For instance, Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 39}

(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); Sharing Possessions Mandate and Symbol of Faith (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1981); David Peter Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, Studien zum Neuen

Testament und Seiner Umwelt, Serie B, Band 6, (Linz: A. Fuchs, 1982). Seccombe argues that “in a number of key passages Luke uses ‘the poor’ as a soteriological term characterizing Israel in her great need of salvation,” and the Lukan passages on renunciation “are not intended to teach a general ethic of

renunciation, but to inculcate a certain view of ‘limitless’ discipleship,” 19.

94 _{For instance, Philip Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke Acts, SNTSMS 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge}

University Press, 1987); W. E. Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1981); Mary Ann Beavis, “‘Expecting Nothing in Return’: Luke’s Picture of the Marginalized,”

Interpretation 48, 1994, 357-368.

95 _{Byrne, The Hospitality of God, 66.}

96 _{Tannehill, The Unity of Luke-Acts, Vol. 1, 103.} 97 _{Ibid, 127-8.}

(4:18:19), and the Beatitudes (6:20-26).98 Jesus’ reply to John the Baptist in 7:22 links Jesus’ healing ministry with the proclamation of the good news to the poor.99 _{The story}

of the great banquet (14:16-24) lists the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame as those received into the messianic banquet, in contrast with people of wealth who decline the invitation. As Esler points out, the concern for the poor in Jesus’ teachings – exemplified by his behavior – is radically at odds with the cultural norms of the Greco-Roman world, though it is consistent with the Hebrew prophetic tradition.100 _{Similarly, Jesus’ critique}

of the rich (Luke 12:21; 16:13; 18:22-32) is also in line with the Hebrew tradition and foreign to Greco-Roman values. Esler believes that Luke’s radical view of salvation even includes “the elimination of injustice, the alleviation of the sufferings of the poor and the destitute” in the here and now.101 More than other evangelists, Luke stresses the social aspect of conversion. As Johnson puts it, “as God’s visitation of the people for salvation was a revelation of his loving-kindness above all to the outcast (Luke 1:50, 54, 58), so are his people to reach out in love to all without thought of repayment (6:32-36; 10:27-37).”

102

Related to this is Luke’s theme of reversal, which occurs at the visitation of the people by the Prophet. In the Gospel, those who are rich and powerful typically reject the Prophet, for they already receive consolation in society. 103 As a result, people of wealth

98 _{Beavis, “Expecting Nothing in Return,” 359-60.} 99 _{Tannehill, The Unity of Luke-Acts, Vol. 1, 128.}

100 _{Philip Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke Acts, 187-190.} 101 _{Ibid, 193.}

102 _{Johnson, Luke, 24. Cf. Tannehill, The Unity of Luke-Acts, Vol. 1, 132.} 103 _{Johnson, Luke, 22-23.}

and power are “cast down” or “lowered” by God. In contrast, the poor and the outcast accept the Prophet, and they in turn are “raised up” to become part of the restored People of God. Among “the poor” are the crippled, the lame, the blind and the deaf, tax-

collectors, public “sinners” and all those ritually excluded from full participation in the life of the people. The repeated pattern in Luke suggests that Jesus’ good news not only challenges personal attitudes and behavior, but also exposes the social structures

underneath such attitudes and behavior. As Tannehill puts it,

Human society perpetuates structures of injustice and exclusion, but God intervenes on the side of the oppressed. The disruptive effect of this intervention is often presented in Luke as a reversal of the structures of society: those with power, status, and riches are put down and those without them are exalted.104

This reversal is found in the Magnificat (1:51-53), also in Simeon’s prophecy concerning the fall and rise of many in Israel (2:34); the Beatitudes (6:20-23, 27); and the parable of the Great Banquet (14:16-24). 105 _{Luke also presents often and in positive light the role}

of women,106 and his portrayal of Mary is symbolic of the way God intervenes to “lift up” the poor and the lowly. Part of this reversal is also the inclusion of Samaritans and Gentiles among the People of God. 107

104 _{Tannehill, The Unity of Luke-Acts, Vol. 1, 109.} 105 _{Ibid, 110.}

106 _{See Barbara E, Reid, Choosing the Better Part?: Women in the Gospel of Luke (Collegeville, Michael}

Glazier Books, 1996); “Beyond Petty Pursuits and Wearisome Widows: Three Lukan Parables”

Interpretation, July, 2002, Vol.56(3), p.284(12). On the other hand, there are also critics of Luke’s

presentations of women, for instance, Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Women in Luke-Acts: A Redactional View,” JBL 109/3 (1990) 441-461; Jane Schaberg, “Luke” The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 275-292; Elaine M. Wainwright,

Women Healing/Healing Women: The Genderization of Healing in Early Christianity (London: Equinox,

2006). Wainwright faults Luke for his overt tendency to present illnesses as manifestations of demonic possession, for this represents an attempt to discredit women healers within the community. However, Wainwright does not provide examples of such representation of women healers in the Third Gospel.