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

Jesus to divide the inheritance of the restored Israel to Jewish brothers, viewing v. 14 as
second Moses allusions. 10 Although this event is quoted twice in Acts 7:27, 35 in a
Septuagintal form with “ruler and judge,” it is quite doubtful whether Luke 12:14 intends to
allude to Exod 2:14. In addition, v. 13 can be pertinently explained in terms of a personal
grievance, according to m. B. Bat. 8.1-9.10. 11
Jesus directs his concerns to teaching the moral
demands of Kingdom living rather than concentrating on reconciliation or restoring brotherly
love.
In v. 15, Jesus deals with the heart of the problem, not a temporary solution, that is, the
matter of “covetousness”, which was a common subject of moral exhortation in Greco-
12
Roman world, as well as the New Testament. The warning in v.15a is followed by a reason:
“because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions” (12:15b). With respect
to the awkward syntax of v. 15, which seems to be an overloaded sentence, it is most likely
that the clumsy syntax is deliberate to produce a rhetorical effect. 13
Jesus tells the crowd this parable as a warning against greed. The parable then functions
as an illustration and an example of v. 15b. With regard to the reader’s impression of the rich
man, it is likely that, according to Nolland, the reader is already prejudiced against the rich in
the parable on the basis of the previous negative portrayals of the rich in the Gospel of Luke
14
(1:52-53; 6:24; 8:14). V. 16 carries the sense of wealth as a gift of God, not wealth acquired
by human effort: “there was a certain rich man whose land brought forth plenty.” The parable
betrays the planning of the rich and his attitude toward wealth and possessions, by means of
the narrative device of soliloquy.
10. T. Gorringe, “A Zealot Option Rejected? Luke 12:13-14,” ExpTim 98 (1987), 267-70. Derrett also views v.
14 as second Moses allusions. See Derrett, “The Rich Fool: A Parable of Jesus Concerning Inheritance,” 101-
102.
11. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 82.
12. Diodours Siculus called it “the metropolis of all evil deeds,” in Diodorus Siculus 21.1.4 and Dio Chrysostom
called it “the cause of the greatest evils,” in Oratio 17. For the New Testament, See also Rom. 1:29; 2 Cor. 9:5;
Eph. 4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5; 2 Pet. 2:3, 14.
13. While Moule claims that what the syntax is awkward is due to the juxtaposition of two separate expressions,
Bailey contends that this is deliberate in order to produce a rhetorical effect. Forbes looks for the reason in a
combination between Moule and Bailey: “Luke may have deliberately left the words he found in his source so
as to produce a rhetorical effect. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of
Luke’s Gospel, 83. For Moule’s standpoint, see C.F.D. Moule, “H. W. Moule on Acts iv. 25,” ExpTim 65 (1954),
220-21. Derrett, according to M.J. Lagrange, believes that Luke wanted to allude to Aristotle, Nicomacheau
Ethics X, 8.9-10: “Self-sufficiency [which has a particular evaluation in the system] does not depend upon a
superabundance of means, nor does conduct [i.e. moral achievement], and a man may perform noble actions
without being master of land and sea.” J.A.K. Thompson, The Ethics of Aristoltle (Harmondsworth, 1959), 308.
14. Nolland, Luke, 686. Forves also agrees with the contention of Nolland. See Forbes, The God of Old: The
Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 83.
43