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

might be an exception to the rule of ancient slavery, he refutes this possibility, outlining three
points through the lens of ancient slavery which presents new insight into the parable. To put
it more clearly, the rich man’s immediate response in vv. 1-2 and praise in v. 8a can be
explained simply from the fact that in the lens of ancient slavery, the slave was considered to
be entwined in his master’s honour, and that slaves praised by their masters occur on several
occasions, and is not foreign. Moreover, the fact that many managerial slaves participated in
the fortunes of the elite households makes the act of the steward feasible. 23 More recently,
Fabian E. Udoh contends that the word here is a person of servile status as in
Xenophon’s and Pseudo-Aristotle’s , and Columella’s, Varro’s, and Cato’s villicus.
According to the demarcation in the classical Greek and Hellenistic periods, while in
household and estate management, the title represented people of servile status, outside
household and estate management, the word pointed to people who were not servile. 24
Granted, the above observation sheds light on understanding the function and the role of
slaves in general. If anything, it is all the more desirable and feasible that the steward in the
parable is the rich man’s manager overseeing his estate, because the steward did not
anticipate demotion, physical punishment or sale, as a typical slave might have, but only
dismissal, according to his soliloquy. In addition, his master only considers dismissal as
opposed to other possibilities. 25
The master has received charges against his steward of squandering his possessions. Here,
some questions arise in the reader’s mind regarding the charges against the steward. Who
filed the accusations? What is the content of the charges? Are the accusations fair? Even
though it seems plausible that the accusations arise from the jealousy, retribution and greed of
26
the tenants, according to John G. Lygre, as far as the accusations are concerned, the
audience is left with no information. The content of the charge relates to the wasting of his
23. Rene A. Baergen, “Servant, manager or slave? Reading the parable of the rich man and his steward (Luke
16:1-8a) through the lens of ancient slavery,” Studies in Religion /Sciences Religieuses 35 (2006), 25-38, here
32-34.
24. Fabian E. Udoh, “The Tale of an Unrighteous Slave (Luke 16:1-8[13]),” JBL 128 (2009), 311-335,
particularly 314, 320.
25. Derrett, “The Parable of the Unjust Steward,” 198-219; Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 92; Herzog, Parables as
Subversive Speech, 241; Jennifer A. Glancy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Matthean Parables,” JBL 119 (2000),
67-90, here 72-79; idem, Slavery, 113-15, here 109; Forbes, The God of God, 156; Hultgren, Parables, 148;
Scott, Re-Imagine the World, 89-90; Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus, 157. Glancy sees the steward in the
parable as a freedman in classifying many stewards in which there were slaves, freedmen and freeborn men.
26. He simply speculates that if in a position with any authority, there is anyone that engages in thoughtless
boasting or spending, it is most likely that tenants who they did not hire are jealous or suspicious of a steward.
John G. Lygre, “Of What Charges? (Luke 16:1-2),” BTB 32 (2002), 21-28, here 23.
98