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

Others link complete renunciation of all possessions to an extreme situation, 9 or a situation
of persecution, 10 or the apostolic era. 11 Apart from the above standpoints, there are attempts
to see it as an ideal, stressing the need for radical change 12 and a complete trust in God, 13 or
an indicative of the need for total commitment. 14
On the other hand, the scholar’s stance of almsgiving can be divided into some types,
according to the following questions: What is the rationale for almsgiving in Luke? Does
almsgiving in Luke have the potential to challenge or subvert the social order? In the first
place, whether the reason for giving alms lies in an improvement of the conditions of the poor,
or the spiritual health and eternal destiny of possessors, almsgiving is one of the main
interests in Luke. Justo Gonzalez claims that Jesus’ and the disciples’ ministry is based on a
desire to improve the conditions of the poor, taking an example of the community in Acts
where people abandon their own possessions, not for the sake of renunciation, but for the
15
sake of those in need. Pilgrim also argues that the good news to the poor, which is
at the eschaton.
9. Karris, “Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz-im-Leben,” in ed., C.H. Talbert, Perspectives on Luke-Acts, 112-25,
here 121-23; Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, 115-17.
10. W. Schmithals, “Lukas-Evangelist der Armen,” ThViat 12 (1975), 153-67. Having presumed that Christians
were persecuted by the Roman Empire with property confiscation, banishment from their home and family, and
facing the death penalty, Schmithals argues that if Christians were faced with a cruel choice between
renunciation of their possessions and apostasy, they were strongly urged to renounce their possessions by Luke.
On the contrary, Christians who did not face such a choice were demanded to give alms generously to believers
under persecution, and renunciation of their possessions. There are, however, still some lingering doubts as to
whether there is this kind of persecution in Jesus’ time and in Luke’s time.
11. T.E. Phillips, Reading Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2001),
286; idem, “Reading Recent Readings of Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke and Acts,” CBR 1.2 (2003), 231-
269, here 251-53. Phillips’ point of view concerning wealth and possessions in Luke is based overall on John’s
admonition toward crowds, tax collectors and soldiers (3:10-14). He takes that for economic norms of the Third
Gospel and Acts, and marks the apostolic times off from post-apostolic times, after setting the apostolic
conference of Acts 15 as a datum point of division. On these bases, he feels that the reader who lives in postapostolic
times no longer needed to have the strict requests regarding wealth and possessions in view, since the
apostolic times that requests for its stringent economic demands is past. From now on, the reader, he claims,
should follow Paul who stands in post-apostolic times.
12. B.E. Beck, Christian Character in the Gospel of Luke (London: Epworth Press, 1989), 52; W. Heard,
“Luke’s Attitude toward the Rich and the Poor,” TJ 9 (1988), 47-80, here 73; P. Liu, “Did the Lucan Jesus
Desire Voluntary Poverty of His Followers?,” EvQ 64(1992), 291-317, here 300-17.
13. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, 161-62, argues that the main problem with wealth in
Luke’s Gospel is the religious threat that objects to trust in God. This pattern of hostility toward wealth, he holds,
is also found in the Hebrew and Jewish traditions as well as in the Synoptic Gospels. For Schmidt, the emphasis
of possessions in Luke’s Gospel is primarily on dispossession, not concern for the poor, since there is little
evidence of sympathy for the poor in the Third Gospel.
14. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 232.
15. J. Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and Use of
Money (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 82.
168