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

elated to wealth and possessions in Luke (12:13–21; 15:11–32; 16:1–13; 16:19–31), since
these four parables share wealthy persons as characters, settings, and a common motif. He
adds Jesus’ encounters with the anonymous Jewish ruler (18:18-25) and Zacchaeus the tax
collector (19:1-10), so as to determine whether these parables provide a consistent
perspective which matches with the overall perspective of the travel narrative on wealth and
possessions. He views the wealthy landowner, and the father and his two sons as challenging
overconsumption, whereas he sees the unjust steward, and the rich man and Lazarus as
criticizing wealth as such, not merely overconsumption. While in his encounter with the ruler,
Jesus shows that personal wealth has no place in his vision of the kingdom, and in his
encounter with Zacchaeus, that he is prepared to enlist those who are rich in order to “assume
the initiative in redistributing land and resources and furthering his ministry on behalf of the
poor.” As a consequence, the latter two parables and two encounters indicate either explicitly
or implicitly that “by eliminating wealth, the material source of overconsumption is removed
as well,” that is, “the demise of mammon releases the land’s resources from the firm grip of a
few and enables all to find what they need.” Metzger comes to conclusion that his reading
will appeal to other readers who are concerned about overconsumption in the United States
and who wish to enlist the Gospel of Luke “as a conversation partner with the hope that it
would prove to be an insightful and challenging interlocutor, perhaps offering a vision for
society that is more just and humane.” He raises, however, many interpretive problems, not
only owing to him stressing ambiguity in the meaning of parables and texts, but also due to
him premising inconsistence between Luke’s Gospel and the narrative. 24
From the survey of wealth and possessions in Luke’s Gospel and Acts, we can take up
some general conclusions: First, it is assumed that Luke’s community at least embraced both
wealthy and poor members together, but Luke primarily addressed the wealthy rather than the
poor. Along this line, Luke indeed cautions the rich about the dangers of material possessions,
and urges the rich to use their possessions wisely, such as giving generously alms to those in
need. In a sense, Luke’s admonition and warning chiefly toward the rich are thought to be
inevitable, since the poor are in the condition of enervation which prevents them from doing
anything for themselves, but also for others. Second, Luke, as we have seen, nowhere shows
contempt toward the rich, nor praises for the poor. Rather, Luke’s criticism of the rich,
contain a challenge and the possibility of salvation, in that it may give rise to repentance on
the part of the rich. At the same time, they are urged to be generous with their material
24. Metzger, Consumption and Wealth in Luke’s Travel Narrative, especially 25-61, 169, 180-84.
171