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

marginalized, it is natural that here we, as the proper procedure, take up the theme of wealth
and possessions. It has been argued that Luke’s concern for wealth and possessions is selfevident
in the light of the different layers of tradition in Luke. 4 In the first place, compared to
Mark’s and Matthew’s material, Luke’s material lays special emphasis on the theme. In Lk
5:11, Peter and his companions respectively left everything, whereas in Mark’s parallel, the
word for “everything” is absent, and instead they left their nets and their father respectively
(Mk 1:20). In the same way, Luke, in the story of the call of Levi, adds to Mark the mention
that Levi left everything and followed Jesus (Lk 5:28 cf. Mk 2:17). Similarly, in the story of
the rich young ruler, Luke has also added the word “all” to Mark, namely, “sell all that you
own” (Lk 18:22 cf. Mk 10:21). In the sending out of the twelve, Luke, in contrast to Mark
(Mk 6:8), records that the disciples have virtually no possessions at all (Lk 9:3). The prime
reason for this seems to be an emphasis on full dependence on God, not on the material
possessions. The emphasis on wealth in the Luke’s Beatitude, in contrast to Matthew’s
version (esp. Mt 5:3), is all the stronger because of diametrical contrasts between the poor
and the rich, through blessing and woe (Lk 6:20, 24). To sum up, it is tenable to say that such
redactional changes point to Luke’s concern to accentuate the theme. 5
In addition, we can
also ascertain his great concern for wealth and possessions from material unique to Luke’s
Gospel (1:47-55; 3:10-14; 6:24-26, 34-35, 38; 12:13-21; 14:12-14, 33; 16:1-9, 14; 19-31;
19:1-10).
We can say that Luke’s concern for this is virtually consistent throughout Acts in various
forms. First of all, the early Christian community is introduced as a model in an attitude to
wealth and possessions, in the sense that they held not only everything in common, but used
it for the common good (2:43-47; 4:32-35). In Acts 10:2, Cornelius who feared God with all
his household, “gave alms liberally to the people.” Tabitha in Joppa “was full of good works
and acts of charity” (9:36). Paul said that he came to Jerusalem “to bring to my nation alms
4. D.L. Mealand, Poverty and Expectation in the Gospel (London: SPCK, 1980), 12-37; Esler, Community and
Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology, 164-69; Schmidt, Hostility to
Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, 166-67; G. Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in
the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 288; John Gillman, Possessions and the Life of Faith:
A Reading of Luke-Acts (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 15; Tuckett, Luke, 96-99; Forbes, The
God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 230.
5. Against the contention that redactional changes in Luke’s Gospel generally present Luke’s concern to wealth
and possessions, Mealand, from a different angle, argues that Luke does not accentuate this theme, but, in
contrast to Mark and Matthew who softened the tradition, was simply loyal to tradition. For him this is largely
because there is no consistent tendency to grow the severity of Mark and Matthew to the theme. Mealand,
Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels, 16-20. See also, Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels,
166-67; Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition, 288.
166