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

econsider and re-evaluate their understanding of lordship, stewardship and debt in the
parable as a metadiegetic narrative. 51 The audience confronts not only a new understanding
of loyal stewardship between the meticulous collection of the master’s debts seen in the
parable as faithful stewardship, and debt release as the image of forgiveness of sins in Luke’s
story of Jesus, but also a determination of a selection between two different , each
requiring an entirely different allegiance. In the light of the diegetic motif of debt reduction,
the steward’s behaviour is praised by the diegetic . Why then is the steward explicitly
called unjust? Because the commendation of the diegetic does not alter the norms
within the metadiegetic narrative, that is, the steward’s actions were unacceptable in the
metadiegetic narrative. In addition, even by the criteria of the diegetic , the steward’s
behaviour is not unjust, since he relies on reciprocity rather than divine reward. 52 In the
steward’s attempt to settle the problem of the , verse 8a and the inadequateness of the
appended sayings (8b-13) to the parable give us an insight into understanding the parable.
However, it is quite doubtful whether Luke, as Schellenberg was also worried, 53
was aware
of the concept of metalepsis and used such a narrative trope.
Even though the majority of interpreters hold that the parable does end with v. 8a and the
rest is the application of the parable, I view vv. 8b-9, which is Jesus’ application of the
parable, as an original part of the parable, and the rest in vv. 10-13 as Jesus’ other sayings on
the use of wealth. If the parable ends with v. 8a, the audience, as with the ending at v. 7, will
also be placed in the situation that they do not know why the parable is told. Vv. 8b-9 plays a
crucial role in making the story effective. Against Jeremias’ contention that vv. 8b-13 is an
attempt to explain the parable, it is not so much explanations to settle vexing problems of the
parable as proper applications focused on the eschatological crisis and the wise use of
material resources. Vv. 10-13, in line with vv. 8b-9, are more extended applications which
match the parable well. However, the origin of the verses is unclear, that is to say, whether the
verses could be sayings joined together with similar words and theme, or could have been a
unit from the beginning.
The issue that follows on the demarcation of the parable in question, is the reference of
in v. 8a. Jeremias sees the master in v. 8a as Jesus, on the grounds that the master in
the parable would not have praised a deceitful steward, and that the usages (eighteen of
51. Ibid., 273.
52. Ibid., 278.
53. Ibid., 269.
104