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

a symbolic function for possessions. L.T. Johnson feels that Luke’s use of the motif of
possessions works as a symbolic function to strengthen his literary pattern of the people and
the prophet, who consists of Jesus and the apostles. For him a man’s attitude towards
possessions expresses his interior disposition. In other words, possessions function negatively
as a sign of alienation when people reject the prophet, whereas possessions function
positively as a sign of conversion when they accept him. 21 From a different angle, D.B.
Kraybill and D.M. Sweetland introduce a sociological perspective into their study of
possessions in Luke-Acts from V. Turner’s conception of “structure” and “anti-structure”, so
as to understand the symbolic functions of possessions. They hold that in Luke-Acts, while
the rich stood within the existing social structures at that time, that is, the old hierarchical
social system in opposition to the new community being created by Jesus, the poor stood
outside of the existing social structures in expectation of a new community. At this point, the
use of possessions comes to symbolize one’s relationship to existing social structures. 22
At this point in time, it is worth dealing with J.L. Resseguie’s and J. A. Metzger’s work as
a recent study on wealth and possessions. Having dealt with the metaphorical meaning of
dropsy as overwrought consumerism, Resseguie holds that in 12:13-21 and 16:19-31, Luke
addresses the danger of immoderate accumulation and consumption respectively, whereas the
story of Zacchaeus and the Rich Ruler, in turn, show “a way out of the peril of plenty and the
consuming power of plenty.” On the other hand, the parable of the Unjust Steward (in 16:1-
8a) and the accompanying sayings (16:8b-13), he argues, carry the ruling power of wealth,
namely, “either a person controls wealth or wealth controls the person.” He concludes that
Luke indeed provides a way to avoid the vicious cycle of plenty and consumption through the
Unjust Steward and Zacchaeus. That is, the enslaving power of mammon and
hyperconsumerism are broken when the Unjust Steward makes friends as material
23
possessions, and when Zacchaeus divests and gives his wealth to the poor.
Employing principally reader-response criticism, Metzger tries to analyze four parables
21. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 144, 148. For him the radical dispossession is
not a lifestyle to be imitated, but just a symbol having a literary function. For a good summary on his point of
view, see also Donahue, “Two Decades of Research on the Rich and the Poor in Luke-Acts,” in ed., D.A. Knight
and P.J. Paris, Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 129-
144, here 137-38; Phillips, “Reading Recent Readings of Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke and Acts,” 256-
58.
22. D.B. Kraybill and D.M. Sweetland, “Possessions in Luke-Acts: A Sociological Perspective,” Perspectives in
Religious Studies, 10 (1983), 215-39, here 232-34.
23. J.L. Resseguie, Spiritual Landscape: Images of the Spiritual Life in the Gospel of Luke (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 2004), 101-114.
170