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

master’s goods, . The word “squander” can have quite
different meanings: ‘to disperse simply’ or ‘spend extravagantly’. If the meaning of
is seen as “scatter,” then the charges may be considered as unjust accusations,
since it can present simply a lack of attention to using his owner’s possessions responsibly in
operating a business. 27 By contrast, if we take the negative meaning, namely, “to spend
extravagantly,” one then takes the accusations for granted, for the steward would have
misappropriated his master’s goods for selfish or immoral activities. This is reminiscent of
the prodigal son’s loose living expressed in the word in Luke 15:13. 28 On the
other hand, Kloppenborg argues that the reason why the steward is dismissed is not the
wasting of his goods, but the damage to his social honour. 29
It is important to note however,
aside from the dictionary meanings of the word, that it is a very complex problem to solve
given his silence over the charges, his monologue, and the commendation of the steward in v.
8. In any case, it is reasonable to view the steward’s silence as an admission of his guilt,
although his defense and excuse would be useless or only further provoke his master to anger
in first century Palestine’s social situation. Moreover, if the charges are unjust, the steward
would do his best to prove his innocence at a critical moment, not yielding to any social code
at that time.
The master commands his steward to submit the account books, since he is to be
dismissed from his stewardship. Surrendering the account books,
27. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 257, idem, “Praise,” 179-80; Beavis, “Slavery as an Interpretive Context,” 48;
Lygre, “Of What Charges?” 25; J.S. Kloppenborg, “The Dishonoured Master,” Bib 70 (1989), 474-95, here 479-
86, 487-88; Wright, “The Parable of the Shrewd Manger,” 224; Via, The Parables: Their Literary and
Existential Dimension, 157-62; John Dominic Crossan, ‘Structuralist Analysis and the Parables of Jesus: A
Reply to D. O. Via, “Parable and Example Story: A Literary-Structuralist Approach,’” Semeia 1 (1974), 50-54.
Via and Crossan see the parable as a comic, pricaresque and rascal story which avenges his master on his unjust
charges. With regard to the content of the charges, there are several suggestions. Stein, Herzog and Lygre argue
that it is of inefficiency, incompetence, or inattention to duty. Even B.H. Young views it as dishonest business
dealings rather than ineffectual management. Stein, Parables, 109; Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech, 244;
Lygre, “Of What Charges?” 24, 27; Young, Jesus and his Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’
Teaching, 233.
28. L.M. Friedel, “The Parable of the Unjust Steward,” CBQ 3 (1941), 337-48, here 337-38; Fitzmyer, “The
Story of the Dishonest Manager (Lk 16:1-13),” 31, n19; Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 97; Stanley E. Porter, “The
Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13): Irony is the Key,” in ed., David J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl, and S.E.
Porter, The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University
of Sheffield (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 127-53, here 140; Forbes, The God of God, 156; Hultgren, Parables, 149;
David Landry & Ben May, “Honor Restored: New Light on The Parable of The Prudent Steward(Luke 16:1-8a),”
JBL 119 (2000), 287-309, here 297-98; Metzger, Consumption and Wealth in Luke’s Travel Narrative,110-11.
For the comparison between the prodigal son’s squandering and the steward’s one, see Donahue, The Gospel in
Parable, 167; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1100; Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 244.
29. Kloppenborg, “Dishonoured Master,” 486-93. His point is followed by Landry and May, Lygre and Metzger.
99