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

The rich man in the parable intends to tear down his barns and build bigger ones because
his barns are too small to store the bumper crops. C. Hedrick claims that the rich man is
foolish, because at the time when he should be reaping crops, he plans to tear down his
barns. 15 The parable, however, only says that the ground of the rich produced a good crop,
not that it is time to harvest. In the light of this it is wrong to view the rich man as foolish.
Rather than his absurdities, the parable is largely concerned with his attitude toward wealth
and possessions that one’s life consists in the abundance of his possessions. M. A. Beavis
argues that the rich man wanted to withhold grain and drive up market prices. But I cannot
see any allusions or overtones of this in the parable. 16 As far as the parable is concerned, the
rich man has not the least desire to sell his crops. He only plans to take care of his own needs.
When it comes to storing up bumper crops, the story recalls Joseph’s story (Gen. 41-35-36).
However, Joseph’s story differs from the parable in that he stored grain for the benefit of the
community, not merely for his own benefit as the rich man in the parable. On the grounds that
he had enough crops to last for many years, the rich man addresses his soul with vivid and
colorful words (eat, drink and be merry), which present not only conventional language, but
reflect the epitome of Epicurean values. 17
In the same way, the self-contentment of the rich
man is thoroughly grounded in his possessions, and it can also be expressed as “enjoy
yourself.”
The striking features of soliloquy in the parable, are the use not only of the future tenses
that the rich man uses to express his thoughts of being in full control of his future, but also
the use of ‘self-centered’ language which indicates ownership, such as my crops, my barns,
my goods and my soul. In this manner, the parable candidly betrays his thoughts that he
himself is the owner of his life, as well betraying his attitude towards wealth that one’s life
consists in the abundance of his possessions. At this point, it seems as if he is a practical
18
atheist, who thinks and acts as if God does not exist.
The plan of the rich man is shattered by the abrupt intrusion of God in v. 20. God calls
15. Hedrick, Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus, 158-61. He makes the parable nihilistic,
getting rid of vv. 20-21 from it. To put it another way, the parable is carrying a sense of despair, death and
absurdity, not hope and future.
16. Mary. Ann. Beavis, “The Foolish Landowner (Luke 12:16b-20),” in ed., V. George shillington, Jesus and His
Parables (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1997), 55-68.
17. For Jewish and non-Jewish parallels, see Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 135-37; Joseph A. Fitzymyer, The
Gospel According to Luke X- X X IV, 2:973. For Epicurean values, see Euripides, Alcestis 788; Lucian, Navig.
25.
18. Peter R. Jones, The Teaching of the Parables (Nashville: Broadman, 1982), 133; Talbert, Reading Luke: A
Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel , 141.
44