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

here and now, not a revolutionary action for the future.” 98 For him the charges are a
slanderous accusation in the oppressive system and the reason why the steward is called
unrighteousness in v.8 is a general perception of their characters, not a climax action in vv. 4-
7 where he cancels the hidden interest in line with prohibitions of the law. Even though “the
structures of this world are unjust, there remains still the possibility of a creative and proper
use of the world’s unrighteous mammon”, when we take v. 9 into account. 99
Jesus praises the steward who uses money to make friendships. That, Schottroff contends,
is why he plays a role of a model for a praxis that can be applied by Christian
100
communities. To put it more concretely, paradoxically, the sons of light can learn
something from a treacherous money man, that is, it is of using money to build friendships in
the world. For Schottroff, the steward who could be business manager, not a slave, is a cheat
from the first moment and continues to violate the law (the Torah, Roman law, provincial law)
in reducing the debts of the debtors due to his master for his own interest. In addition, she
regards the master and the debtors as people within the realm of merchandising rather than
tenants, leases and landowners, on the grounds that the magnitude of the debts are large sums,
but also on the grounds that the account book is the bill alone as a one-sided legal document,
not lease agreements which contain mutual legal contracts between landowners and
tenants. 101 In v. 8 she finds two different social systems which are concretely classified by
the definition of halakah in 1 Cor 5:10 and 7:31-34. Luke 16 is a chapter of halakah on the
subject of money that is criticized by other interpretations of the Torah. For Schottroff the
attitude of Christian communities toward money is to do their best to prevent hunger and
extreme poverty for other members of the communities more than giving alms. 102
Even though it is believed to be conducive to understanding the parable by reading it
against the honour-shame background, shifting the focus from the steward to the master in
the parable, on these grounds there is still reason to question it. For one thing, there is no
evidence in the parable to support the fact that the master not only dismisses the steward to
prevent further loss of his honour, but also praises the steward to retrieve his honour. Initially,
the reason for the dismissal of the steward is plainly his squandering of his master’s property,
not the damage to his master’s honour. The same can also be said of the master’s praise.
98. Wright, “Parables on Poverty and Riches,” 226, 229.
99. Ibid., 228.
100. Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus, 161.
101. Ibid., 159.
102. Ibid., 161.
112