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

and offerings” when he defended himself before Felix (24:17, cf. 11:28-30; 12:25). In
addition, Paul admonished the elders of the church in Ephesus using a saying of Jesus that “It
is more blessed to give than to receive” (20:35). On the one hand, the Ethiopian eunuch
(8:25-40) and Cornelius and Lydia (16:14-15) serve as good examples, in that they were not
blinded by their wealth and possessions to the all-important message about Jesus. On the
other hand, the caution of covetousness appears in the story of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11)
and the reprimand of Peter that “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could
obtain the gift of God with money!” (8:20). In this way, Luke in Acts, also shows great
concern for wealth and possessions, supplying a number of examples of a proper or an
improper use of possessions, and attitude toward wealth.
In discussing wealth and possessions in Luke’s Gospel, one finds a tension between two
calls to renunciation and almsgiving. Even though Lukan scholars strive to explain the
reasons for these two different perspectives, there still seems to be no consensus. Some
associate total renunciation with only a select few: ecclesiastical leaders and itinerant
preachers, 6 the disciples in the Third Gospel (the Twelve), 7 and wandering prophets. 8
6. H.J. Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen: Besitz und Besitzverzicht in den lukanischen Schriften
(Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965), 36-41, 215-22. He claims that Luke seeks to apply Jesus’ basic
attitude of wealth as a major hindrance to gaining spiritual salvation to members of his community, especially
church leaders. In making a sharp distinction between and , it seems absurd, however, to see the
word in Luke’s Gospel as a small group, since there are some texts to indicate that the word
is a bigger group (6:13; 5:30; 19:37), and especially Acts where in most contexts (Acts 4:32; 6:2, 7;
9:26; 11:26; 14:21-22) is virtually equivalent to “believer” or “church member.”
7. L. Schottroff and W. Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, 69-77; W.E. Pilgrim, Good News to the
Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts, 101. Schottroff and Stegemann basically believe that a demand on a
total renunciation of possessions is not merely applicable exclusively to the disciples in Luke’s Gospel, but
cannot be reiterated in Luke’s time, because of a phenomenon of the past. For them a request for a complete
renunciation only has the function of criticism toward the rich in Luke’s time. Furthermore, they go so far as to
argue that there were no destitute in Luke’s community as an ideal Christian community on the basis of
distinction of almsgiving between insides and outsiders of the Christian community. It is unreasonable, however,
for them to assert no destitute persons in Luke’s community, as almsgiving is probably applicable to the poor in
Luke’s community frequently appears in texts of Acts (3:2, 3,10; 9:36; 10:2, 4, 31; 24:17).
8. J. Koenig, New Testament Hospitality: Partnership with Strangers as Promise and Mission (OBT, 17;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 93-94; K.-J. Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke’s Theology
(JSNTSup 155; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 100-110. Koenig holds that, after distinguishing
between residential disciples and wandering prophets, a complete renunciation of possessions is demanded
solely of wandering prophets, whereas residential disciples are liable to supporting the ministry of the itinerant
prophets with hospitality of their possessions as well as participating in the mission of the house churches. On
the other hand, accepting Koenig’s view that while itinerant disciples are requested to forsake their total
possessions and residential disciples are free from the demand, Kim has the master-slave motif in mind rather
than that of discipleship in discussing wealth and possessions in Luke. For him, a steward as a slave must
confess that all things, including his or her own things, belong to God, and still more must bear the
responsibility of the wealth entrusted by God, thereby giving an account of his or her management of that wealth
167