the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

oth vv. 16-18 and vv. 27-31 converge on the observance of the law, making a starting point
of major partition in his outline of Luke’s central section at Luke 16:14, such as 16:14-
18:14. 12 In a similar way, Talbert suggests that vv. 14-31 is an attack on the Pharisees’
assumptions about wealth, and that vv. 19-26 function as the exposition of vv. 14-15, while vv.
27-31 plays the role of an illustration of vv. 16-18. 13 On the other hand, vv. 14-31 continues
and stretches, Ireland contends, the polemic against greed which stands as a foundation for
Jesus’ teaching in vv. 1-13. For him, vv. 14-31 clarifies the exhortation in v. 9, but also
enhances the understanding of the parable of the Unjust Steward by the eschatological
background, in particular in v. 16. 14
Given the fact that v. 14 concerns avariciousness, which is related to both the preceding
parable and the subsequent parable in ch. 16, one will take it for granted that vv. 15-18 may
be meant to refer to the same problem. With such perspectives in mind, I believe that the
underlying theme of vv. 14-18 is Jesus’ polemic against the self-righteousness of the
Pharisees as once has been presented in the attitude of the elder son in Luke 15. Above all,
Jesus in vv. 14-15 notes the radical mistake that sets aside God’s sight in establishing their
self-righteousness. If anything, the Pharisees assess their righteousness only in the eyes of
other people, who never know one’s hearts. This is not a single example of their mocking, but
an illustration of their entire character. Such valuation of their righteousness causes them to
go on towards ostentation or hypocrisy. As with wealth, the desire of Pharisees to win the
public recognition before people appears inevitability in the love of money, since their
attitude towards wealth is rooted in something deeper, their thoughts that regard wealth as a
15
special blessing for careful obedience to the law.
16
The statement in v. 16 implies that, with Jesus’ coming and the proclamation of the
12. Ellis, Luke, 210.
13. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, 156-59.
14. Ireland, Stewardship and the Kingdom of God, 122, 138.
15. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1113; A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical commentary on the
Gospel according to St. Luke (ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 387-88; Derrett, “Fresh Light on St. Luke
XVI. II. Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings,” NTS 7 (1960-61), 364-80, here 376; R. Summers,
Commentry on Luke (Waco, TZ: Word, 1972), 192; J. Volckaert, “The Parable of the Clever Steward,” Clergy
Monthly 17 (1953), 332-41, here 341; Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the
Third Gospel, 156; David B. Gowler, ‘Socio-narratological Character Analysis of the Pharisees in Luke-Acts’
(PhD dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989), 261. The Pharisees’ scoffing in v. 14 presents
for them no conflict between piety and wealth, no contradiction in serving God and Mammon together, for
identifying wealth with righteousness.
16. There have been a lot of controversies over the matter of their material and their appropriateness for the
context, without consensus. All of these verses have parallel in Matthew as part of the Q material as follows:
Luke 16:16 par Matt 11:12-13; Luke 16:17 par Matt 5:18 and Luke 16:18 par Matt 5:32.
95