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

conceived in a social and economic sense, presents physical, social and economic liberation,
though he does somewhat touch on the need of the spiritual dimension. 16 Seccombe insists
that Luke shows very little concern for the literally poor, as “there is nothing socio-economic
or socio-religious about Luke’s use of poor” terminology. For him, the poor in Luke is not the
destitute at the margins of society, but just Israel which has great need of salvation. The rich
must give alms to avoid the great power of material things that binds them to earthly things
and prevents them from entering into the kingdom. 17
With respect to the question as to whether almsgiving in Luke have the potential to
challenge or subvert the social order, Douglas Oakman argues that Luke’s authorial audience,
in effect, has no expection for dramatic social reconstruction, since Luke makes them more
aware of a discriminating use of the radical Jesus tradition. For him elites are not asked to
abandon their property, nor are they forced to participate in reforming society at large. In this
respect, Oakman believes that the audience in Luke would have taken the social system of
18
those days for granted. On the contrary, Moxnes contends that limitless almsgiving, or
giving without expecting something in return in Luke, does indeed have potential power to
subvert the patronage system in ancient Greco-Roman society. As a consequence, giving
without expecting a return of any kind, creates the relationship of families or friends, instead
of reciprocity of the patronage system, which worked to sustain the power and privilege of
the elite. 19 Green also argues that sharing with someone, without the expectation of return,
incorporates them in kinship. Still more, it strikes at the root of the patron-client relationship
in antiquity. 20
Aside from the above, there are scholars who attempt to a symbolic reading, which posits
16. Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, 82-84. For the same view, see R. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society: A
Study of Luke’s Gospel (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1978), 20-24; Geillman, Possessions and the Life of
Faith, 45-48.
17. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, 19, 21-43, 95.
18. D.E. Oakman, “The Countryside in Luke-Act,” in ed., Jerome Neyrey, The Social World of Luke-Acts:
Models for Interpretation, 176-78. See also Phillips, Reading Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts, 180-81;
Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, 143-46.
19. H. Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel, 157,
165, idem, “The Social Context of Luke’s Community,” 386. See Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke’s
Theology, 281-83; Gillman, Possessions and the Life of Faith, 114.
20. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 113-17,
especially 114; idem, “Wealthy… Who? Me?: Surprising Perspectives on Faith and Wealth from Luke-Acts,”
The Living Pulpit April-June (2003), 18-19, suggests that Luke would have conceived an ideal in his community
which consists of egalitarianism and mutuality through an economic sharing. He also notes that Acts 4:32-35 is
reminiscent of Deuteronomy 15:4: “there will be no poor among you,” as a privilege of God’s people of the
Exodus.
169