32 MINUTE READ

From Luke’s Journal May 2025 | Vol. 30 No. 1 | MIMBY

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about ‘doing business as usual’. Shutdown has triggered economic uncertainty and, in many contexts, business failure. Governments have responded with unprecedented stimulus spending. With the security of ‘normal’ under siege, there has been a downturn in charitable giving. What are the right questions to ask in these circumstances? Is it time to reconsider ‘business as usual’?

As I remained attentive to these questions, I became aware of the emerging discipline of ‘oral media’ exegesis of the gospels. With this toolkit, the stories in Luke 16 became highly relevant. The silent witness of Lazarus is reminiscent of many who have died during the pandemic, often as unnamed members of a gruesome data set. The wealth of the ‘rich men’ in the stories holds some association with the mega rich, who have profited from the uncertain turmoil of our times. Somehow, our public commentators want business as usual to return and money to remain the central narrative of modern living.

Christopher Wright (Wright 2020, 29) has recently noted that “the gods we exalt so highly are nothing more than the resplendent products of our own creativity. It is not surprising we defend them so belligerently.” Reading Luke as a critique of our ‘as usual’ idolatry may guide us to a just and wise new normal. Stevens and Lim (2021) are also contributing to the conversation in their book Money Matters.

They explore the origins of the word ‘mammon’ and identify that the first use of money had a religious context. (Stevens and Lim 2021, 30) The temple provided standardisation of currency. “Money allowed goods to be measured and compared with one another for the purpose of trade and exchange” (Stevens and Lim 2021, 31). The temple became the administrator in this process and so contributed to socioeconomic stability. Fairly quickly, gold and silver became the preferred currency. The temple in Jerusalem operated on this basis and became a hub for wealth accumulation. It can be recognised that money systems developing outside the temple could be termed ‘unrighteous money.’ Apparently, the English word ‘mammon’ derives from an Aramaic word that has the same root as ‘amen’ (Stevens and Lim 2021, 40). Mammon is the term we use to describe the way money has become an idol; the way humanity chose to make money secure without reference to God’s providence.

“Mammon is the term we use to describe the way money has become an idol…”

My sense is this is a moment in history to audit our commitment to mammon. My invitation is to enter this important review through the insights of an oral media encounter with Luke. Have we lost some of the power of Luke’s story when literary perspectives dominate our approach to the text? There is some tension here as I am adopting a literary argument to champion an oral media hearing of these stories.

Luke 16¹ offers two intriguing parables to his audience as well as an associated commentary. The first story is often given the title The Dishonest Steward and the second story is called The Rich Man and Lazarus. Neither title is in the text, but publishers of modern English versions have chosen to create these headings to help us locate the stories in our reading.

Both stories feature ‘a certain rich man’. Both stories demonstrate an implied reporting on wealth management in relation to the rich person. Both hold prospects that transcend a lifespan and embrace ‘eternal habitations’. Both parables fit into two of Luke’s major themes:

1. The links between wealth and a reversal brought by the presence of the kingdom of God. The mighty are pulled down from their thrones, and the rich are sent empty away, while the lowly are raised up and the hungry are fed.
2. Hospitality and the coming of Jesus as the demonstration of the hospitality of God.

The gospel is attributed to Luke, a Christian physician and associate of the apostle Paul. Luke has used his education, which was a rare commodity, to assemble a carefully prepared report on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Luke has a patron in mind, in the person of Theophilus, who has the characteristics of a Greco Roman noble, and whose patronage it is likely has been required to pay for the production of the gospel as a document.

It is estimated that the cost of producing a Luke papyrus was in the vicinity of 65 denarii. This figure comes by adding a daily wage rate plus the cost of papyrus. This gospel utilised 3 ½ rolls, worth 17 denarii in total added to the wage of Luke and his 3 scribes for 12 days (Botha 2012). From this perspective, the whole gospel is a report to a patron, a rich man.

A Rumour at Large
Luke 16:1-9

The first story in Luke 16:1-9, tells of a rumour. Apparently for this rich man, his estate manager is wasting his resources. Sentiment and rumour can significantly influence markets and business confidence. In the Greco Roman world, wealth and business success were not tied to literacy. People relied on each other’s word. Business took place within the context of social networks. In big enterprises, literacy skills were useful in relation to the Empire and for taxation expectations. This ‘big’ business carried the strength of size as reflected in the scale of debts and the write down figures. Managers of such a business, even though a ‘slave’, may well be literate and a crucial worker on this basis (Botha 2012). Doctors and teachers serving wealthy families could also be slaves (Botha 2012). It is of note that a productive manager was an asset to such a rich man, however it is uncertain what ‘wasting the resources’ entailed in this story.

Earlier in his gospel, Luke has picked up on the value of diligent, steady work as opposed to reckless partying and exploitation or the bullying of other slaves (Luke 12). The Greek word here translated as “wasting the resources” carries the concept of “spreading around,” and suggests sowing in a field (Swanson 2006, 201). Options include a “throwing pearls before swine” activity, or a more productive, even creative investment strategy. Perhaps the owner is conservative in economic outlook while his manager is willing to take risks. The detail stays locked in the rumour (Botha 2012). Investment rules try to protect investors today. Oral media exegesis seeks to explore what first century listeners heard when Luke’s gospel was performed. This prepares us to ‘hear afresh’ today.

Reporting and a World of Patronage
Selections from Luke 2-9

Fearing dismissal, the manager is asked to prepare a report. Financial reporting is a very important part of business over time, and certainly no less important in our own times.

I want to reflect on ‘reporting’ as a narrative thread. At a macro level, all the gospels are a challenge to our own response. What is our report to the question, “Who is Jesus?” (Luke 9:20).

Starting with an introduction of his report to Theophilus, Luke moves then to Mary’s report to Elizabeth that in her pregnancy, a great reversal would come, and that God was now coming to “the aid of His servant Israel.” There are shepherds who report what had been told to them about a child born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:7). A very significant report in this gospel is of Jesus’ own mission statement, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me. He has sent me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to liberate the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour” (Luke 4:18-19).

This report from Jesus is a stark challenge to Greco Roman sensibilities, as well as to the Jewish elites of the time. “Happy are you who are poor,” says Jesus, “because God’s kingdom is yours.” The gospel becomes Luke’s apology to the Greco Roman elites of this new radical epoch in the history of the world. God’s kingdom is rising from within the Roman Empire. The Pax Romana has established never before seen economic opportunities. The gospel predicts that it will be terrible for those who are rich because they have already received their comfort (Luke 6:24).

“Luke needs to negotiate a delicate path in developing this storyline, while at the same time maintaining a broad message that God’s love is indeed universal.”

Luke needs to negotiate a delicate path in developing this storyline, while at the same time maintaining a broad message that God’s love is indeed universal. Frederick Danker (1976) has argued that Luke’s gospel casts Jesus as the supreme expression of God’s benefactions. Caesar, as the head of the Roman Empire, was its premier benefactor. Like Caesar, Jesus offers the world “peace.” Benefaction and patronage rolled back and forward throughout the Empire. Festivals sponsored “in the name” of the emperor kept the masses generally happy, fed, and compliant. Propaganda and violence were the rear-guard. Danker (1976, 13) notes that Jesus brought “word and deed” to such a level of coincidence and concurrence that he is unique in the history of politics. A state bakery in Rome itself provided free bread for its citizens on a daily basis (Garland 2012). Jesus claimed to be the “bread of life” and taught us to pray for God’s daily bread (Luke 11:3). Many comparisons emerge between the patronage of Rome and the hospitality of God in Luke’s storyline.

At one point, Luke includes a story of a centurion who has a servant who is very important to him. He does not want to see this slave die from an acute illness. A group of Jews reported to Jesus on behalf of the centurion, “He deserves to have you do this for him. He loves our people and has built our synagogue for us” (Luke 5). Quite simply, we should hear the wheels of patronage turning in such a story. After Jesus raises a widow’s dead son, an awestruck crowd praises God saying, “a great prophet has appeared among us. God has come to help his people” (Luke 7:18). A high point for reporting occurs on the mountain of transfiguration when God speaks from a cloud, “This is my son, my chosen one. Listen to him” (Luke 9:35).

Literacy rates in first century Israel were three to five per cent (Botha 2012). This was an oral media world. Today we find great comfort in reading the gospels privately. During the era that Luke prepared his document, it would have been read, or better, performed in public to a mainly illiterate audience. These themes would have been a way of both helping the storyteller remember the plot line and also a way in which an audience would become intensely engaged in how the story came to them. They lived with both the rich long story of Israel and now the Roman empire and its strengths and weaknesses.

A “Certain” Rich Man

Our text is introduced with Jesus interacting with the disciples. He is telling the story of “a certain rich man, who had an estate.” Generally speaking, in our current western context, wealthy people have either worked hard or have somehow or other fallen on good times. Maybe wealth has come to them through an inheritance, or an insurance payout, or they have established a successful investment strategy. Tax evasion, money laundering and so on rounds this out. The context of Luke’s story most likely refers to a wealthy Roman, who is enjoying spoils of the Empire by acquiring lands wherever the Pax Romana extends. This was a part of the way that Romans rewarded themselves and kept control over subjugated populations (Holland 2019).

Many commentators have cast the rich man in the story to be representative of God or even Jesus. The exegesis from this point of view is often unsatisfactory. How can God endorse ‘dishonesty’? It could work if God is the rich person and the whole world is his estate. Humanity created in the image of God are partners with God in earth keeping. The introduction of triple bottom line reporting in our time picks up on this stewardship perspective. A further option would be to remember Joseph and his contribution to Israel as the manager of Egypt during a great famine. If, however, we stick with a rich, wealthy, estate-owning individual, and work from there, another light will shine on this story. Note that the story that Jesus is telling, and that Luke reports, sits in the context of other ‘rich man’ stories which Luke records. Stories of rich young rulers and dishonest tax collectors and so forth. An interesting aside is there are no rich woman stories in Luke. Draht (Stevens and Lim 2021) concludes that the dynamics of the story represent this ‘rich man’ in a negative light. Indeed, Swanson suggests the options are the master has no loyalty for his workers or he has no interest in sharing his wealth (Swanson 2006). In the oral media context, “hearers will make links from one rich man story to the next” (Botha 2012, chapter 8). All the stories together generate a body of teaching around wealth.

“Ultimately, slaves who upset Roman masters get hung on crosses (Holland 2019). This was the most decisive way the Romans maintained the subjugation of people in slavery throughout the Empire.”

Through the rumour mill, this wealthy individual has heard that his household manager is wasting his estate. Ultimately, slaves who upset Roman masters get hung on crosses (Holland 2019). This was the most decisive way the Romans maintained the subjugation of people in slavery throughout the Empire. Luke is silent at that point, but the steward/slave is in serious danger of losing his life when such rumours reach his master. We should not ignore thinking about Jesus from this scenario perspective.

In an oral society, rumour is often the way that information is spread; if enough mud is thrown, it usually sticks. Rumour can appear valid by holding to a thread of the truth. However, Luke may be working other parts of the oral gospel presentation to intensify the impact of rumour here. The audience will already have in their memories the story of a rich man who built bigger barns and whose life suddenly came to an end. The moral conveyed here was, this is the way it will be for “those who hoard things for themselves and are not rich towards God.” “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be too.” Jesus warns his disciples (Luke 12:21). He also warns that, as servants, they need to be prepared in their role of managing households, economic enterprises, the church, or indeed the whole world that is in God’s hands, so that when the owner returns, they are ready to be called to account, to provide a report (Luke 12:35-48).

A Manager “Under a Cloud”

In this parable we find the manager has a reputational problem and the estate owner asks for a report in preparation for his dismissal. We are left to imagine if a good report might clear his name. Will a good report soften any discipline? Will the manager simply be demoted rather than dismissed? If we think about wealth managers today, shareholders and institutional players in the market are often willing to hold them to high standards. If profits fall, there are often strong conversations about simply poor performance. Shareholders will look at a manager’s ability to change when environmental conditions such as COVID-19 come into play. All these questions can lead to a manager finding her/himself in an acutely stressful context; having to give an answer to scrutineers at an AGM.

The manager in such a context as this parable, may be someone who is literate. Managers have the ability to order and to set prices, and to invest resources for growth in value. Levi Strauss (Botha 2012) has hypothesised that literacy in the Roman epoch should be linked to exploitation. The main impact of literacy was to reinforce the vast system of slavery throughout the Empire. Julius Caesar had a slave scribe travel as his constant companion. Jesus does tell a story about investment, where it appears the servant who takes the biggest risk and gets the best return is praised, compared to the servant who simply protects money and avoids losing it (Luke 19:11-27). A listener will connect these links.

“Parables, like all good stories, don’t tell us everything. It is clear, however, a space opens up at this moment.”

Parables, like all good stories, don’t tell us everything. It is clear, however, a space opens up at this moment. The owner, Richman, may have had to travel from Rome to dismiss him. This allows for the manager to embark on a period of strategic write downs and debt cancellations. He then writes his report against this new background context with debtors buzzing with goodwill to this creditor. Verse 8 of this chapter says, “The master commended the dishonest manager because he acted cleverly.” Perhaps the word ‘dishonest’ is a translation choice that misunderstands the context. Byrne (2000) chose an exegesis of the parable which many commentators have followed. Essentially, they are arguing that the steward has overplayed his hand in charging commissions on the loans involved and has decided in his difficult circumstances to cut his commission altogether. This is a plausible idea, but the size of the commission is outrageous. Fifty per cent commission just does not make sense. I do not think this theory really fits the story. These write-downs are very substantial, in the vicinity of 500 denarii, in both instances (Marshall 1978). 450 gallons of oil is the annual output from good sized olive groves (Stevens and Lim 2021). Isn’t what the manager has done shown to be good business practice rather than dishonesty? By behaving in this way, he has prepared an exit strategy that allows him to be invited into the homes of a range of people in the community who have held big debts but are now freed of much of this responsibility. The write downs may act as a stimulus package in the local economy.

In Greek, this word includes the ideas of wrongdoing, wickedness, and injustice, and may refer to the “whole career” (Marshall 1978, 620) of the steward. Another perspective is that ‘dishonesty’ represents the “standing characteristic of behaviour in a world corrupted by sin,” (Marshall 1978, 620) i.e. the steward is a “worldly man.” It could simply be that Luke has suggested the steward has used his wits, his money smarts, in a crisis (Marshall 1978, 620), something most of us do. This seems to fit the parable best. This steward is wise and comes out of this alive. The rich man comes out of all this with “positive public sentiment”. The community rejoices because of the relational expression of jubilee justice. We should not be surprised to find Jubilee law references in Luke (Sloan 1977), after the mission statement from Jesus in Nazareth. Luke’s oral media audience would recognise prudence is a big picture virtue and Jesus is a shrewd storyteller.

The Hospitality of God

Hospitality, in a variety of expressions and often during a meal, forms a notable frame of reference for the ministry of Jesus. How the visitation of God will be received by the world is of great interest to the storyteller. Byrne (2000, 4) argues that for Luke, the storyline of Jesus is, “the one who comes as visitor and guest in fact becomes host and offers a hospitality in which human beings (potentially the whole world) can become truly human, be at home, can know salvation in the depths of their hearts.” Hospitality becomes a component of how, to use Jesus’ words, “we store up treasure in heaven.” This is Kenneth Bailey’s (2008, 4) understanding of the steward’s action here.

We could argue that the rich man suddenly recognises, with the power and the resources at his disposal, that he could all along have instructed the manager to work the positive sentiments of the marketplace by behaving in this generous and constructive way. It may well be that the manager was behaving as if the money needed to work for the community, he was practicing the debt cancellation claimed by Jesus in ‘his report’. Was the rich man imagining that more and more wealth concentrated in the estate [bigger barns] was the name of the game (Luke 12)? Our parable is a ‘big end of town’ story. As such, patronage status and reputation are in play. The irony in these stories will engage Jesus’ listeners and us today.

Serving God and Serving Money
Luke 16:10-18

Jesus tells his disciples the story with a very long end in view, as he describes the manager being welcomed into the eternal homes. Here, the echo of reversal and the bigger picture of the gospel are brought into focus. A number of confusing, and perhaps even perplexing questions, then come to the fore. Does faithfulness in a little imply faithfulness in a lot, and the opposite seem true as well? Does faithfulness with worldly wealth give some confidence that we can be trusted with true riches? What do these questions mean for the rich man in this story? How should we understand the question, “If you have not been faithful with someone else’s property, who will give you your own?” Questions help us to realise the characters in this story all have their problems and it may just be the manager is not the dishonest one, but the character who has learnt to use money wisely. Has this ‘slave’ escaped a very dire outcome, indeed crucifixion itself? The manager’s actions allow Jesus to subsequently say, “You cannot serve God and wealth” (Luke 16:13).

This parable searches our commitment to wealth and points to a wisdom that frees the rich to make money work for the whole community. This should not mean that a Christian cannot be an accountant or a business owner or manager, but that if we allow the focus on wealth to become intense, it will distract us from the bigger picture questions about what a good life is really all about. Jesus has already said that life is more than food, drink, money and so on. In this gospel, life flourishes in the wake of following Jesus and enjoying the hospitality of God. It is the hospitality of God, breaking in as a kingdom reality in our world.

In terms of an oral performance, these verses act as a bridge between two rich man stories. They allow Luke to add a prophetic edge to the material. The phrase ‘what is highly valued by people [especially the Pharisees] is deeply offensive to God’ (Luke 16:15) is central. From this perspective, the love of money is an idolatry, which both the law and prophets of Israel have repeatedly warned the people against. The gospel message of the kingdom urges against such idolatry. Luke has Jesus challenging any listener to step away and enter the kingdom way. The way of God’s hospitality, of the impending reversal of the rich for the poor. To drive home this warning, Luke has Jesus exposing another Pharisee weakness; an accommodation to divorce. The implication seems to be that choosing to be a money lover is like a convenient marriage exchange. Our relationship with God is not a gamble. It calls for loyalty and trust in the most hospitable lover. It is impossible to serve God and money. To imagine it is possible is treacherous unfaithfulness. This ‘bridge’ then raises the bar in Luke’s storytelling. It allows no respite for the challenge the gospel brings to the rich in Jesus’ world and beyond. Money should never be regarded as a measure of covenant blessing.

Rich Man Story Two
Luke 16:19-31

The story often named The Rich Man and Lazarus continues to develop these themes. In fact, it again locates the way money is used with the whole issue of making eternal friends. This story seems to be more situated in the context of the Jewish community. As a name, Lazarus means “God helps” (Howard 1978, 63). We once again have a rich man who is nameless, but who we are told dresses in pretty fancy fine linen [underwear] and purple clothes and enjoys feasting every day. It is not surprising, with all this excess, that we find this fellow has a short life expectancy. His home is designed for entertaining rich friends. His life came from whatever money can buy. He seems to have abandoned God, abandoned the Torah, and no longer practiced Sabbath rest prior to his demise.

At the gate, we find a poor fellow named Lazarus, who is covered in sores and who is hoping for some crumbs from the rich man’s table. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to think that, from time to time, a few scraps or coins were thrown his way. The story indicates a consistent indifference and lack of commitment to Lazarus as a human being from this rich man and his circle of friends. In his desperate state, and despite the care of dogs who lick his wounds, the poor man dies. Any Hebrew listener would be aware that love of neighbour, included generosity to the poor (Deut 15:7-11). The reality of the “poor always with a community” should create a universal response of generosity. Not only the nameless rich man, but anyone who encountered this desperate skin infected person, were obligated to respond. This breakdown of Torah observance implies the whole community is indicted. Jesus’ story related by Luke and performed for the crowd engages every listener then and now.

During 2020, the world’s top ten wealthiest people increased their wealth by $1.9 trillion (Peterson-Withorn 2020). At the same time, 150 million people moved into absolute poverty (Peterson-Withorn 2020). Are we also participating in a rich man/Lazarus age? As we hear these stories, we will naturally bring our own questions to both public and private conversations.

A surprising new context emerges in Luke’s story: the poor man is located in the care of Abraham. The theme of reversal has returned to centre stage. In Jewish thinking, Abraham was not only thought of as the spiritual father of Israel (Howard 1978) he was also regarded as a patron saint of charity. In The Mishnah (Danby 1933), apart from all the resources that he accumulated as a patriarch, Jewish tradition informs us Abraham also established a garden with plenty of produce, fruit trees, and crops that poor people were allowed to glean and use. They could restore themselves and get through severe experiences of poverty or famine. At the time of Jesus, I believe there was a monument outside of Jerusalem that acknowledged Abraham in this way. The ‘acceptable year of the Lord’ was in full swing at this oasis.

The Old Testament patriarchs were also part of a patron system that had evolved and was now front and centre in the Greco Roman cultural context. Patronage required some discernment as there was an expectation of reciprocity, i.e. if you did something good, inviting people over for a meal, you expected a return invitation. In the reverse ethics of the kingdom, Jesus has already outlined that when his disciples have a party, they should “invite the poor, the crippled, the lame”; people who had no capacity to invite them back for an equivalent meal (Luke 5).

The rules of patronage might explain how the rich man kept having banquets and not involving Lazarus at all. As a more Jewish orientated story however, a performance audience would recognise the prophetic line that Israel has failed to care for the poor adequately, as the Law and the Prophets had demanded (Lev 19:10, Deut 15:7-11, Isaiah 58:6-7). The duty of every Israelite was to love God and to love their neighbour as themselves (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18). This rich man loves ‘mammon’ and has scarce regard for God or neighbour.

Lazarus “the Poor Man”

Stories like this one leave many spaces for imagination. For instance, “why are we informed about skin sores which are licked by dogs?” The dogs seem to reinforce the offence of failure to respond. Could it have been that Lazarus may have developed leprosy, or some other illness with disfiguring sores, and therefore was dismissed from this rich man’s service (Swanson 2006)? Is that why he was at this rich man’s gate, hoping to receive some of the banquet food? The rich man expects others to be of service to him, and could have known Lazarus in his previous life as one of his servants (Swanson 2006). With both in the state of Hades, the rich man now expects Lazarus to be released from Abraham’s bosom and come and provide comfort to him. The audience listening to the story are likely to have been roused, perhaps even indignant at this point.

The Greek in both these stories is not easy to translate. The phrase, “Now, Lazarus is being comforted,” is not straightforward. In one sense, Lazarus is being encouraged as, say, a crowd at a football game, to start cheering for their team. What might be a better explanation here is that Lazarus is actually being called on as a witness to the rich man’s behaviour under both the circumstances of life and death (Swanson 2006). He shares the role with Abraham, an iconic Jewish figure.

Richard Swanson (2006, 207), commenting on this parable says, “Whether Lazarus would be tender-hearted or not is beside the point. The story does not go there. God’s justice requires that he be called as a witness, to determine whether the rich man sought to balance the world before death or not. It would appear from the situation in which each character finds himself, that he did not do much balancing.” That is, the rich man did not share his resources during his life with the very needy Lazarus. Ultimately it was God alone who had to comfort Lazarus through his representative Abraham. And as the audience knows, Abraham was someone who had made the choice to share resources with the poor.

Confronting Silence

Silence is a powerful contributor in an oral media world (Lowry 2013). Lazarus is a silent witness, and like many at a performance audience, he is a poor man. As such, he is well placed to represent the humble witness of millions through world history who have waited patiently for recognition and support from the rich. The witness of millions of deaths from hunger is an ever-present challenge to the rich in a world where the gospel is spreading and impending reversal is coming. Jesus, who is silent “as a sheep before its shearers is dumb,” stands with the poor in this story. His resurrection from the grave initiates a new era, a new creation hope for the world where all will share the shalom, the peace and wellbeing of God.

Jesus, the original storyteller, is able to make the point here, that while the rich always have the poor with them, they also have Moses and the prophets, and also before them, Abraham, as examples of people who have witnessed to God’s heart for the poor and for justice in the world. As Christians today, we also have the witness of Jesus himself, reported to us in Luke’s gospel account.

At the crucifixion, Luke has a Centurion, who is monitoring “another exercise of Roman justice,” saying of Jesus’ death, “It is really true. This man was righteous.” (Luke 23:47). In both of these stories in Chapter 16, I hear that Luke is simultaneously presenting Jesus as righteous to Roman and Jewish elites, to the disciples, and also to the crowds. In both stories, Jesus is revealing that the heart of God is about the reversal of hunger and poverty and powerless misery. Those who have enjoyed what they think is a good life, with riches, power and good health, have tremendous responsibilities to respond to God’s vision of the world. Christians who have money should be willing to wisely use it so that the poor, in particular, welcome them into eternal habitation and that even in a society based on patronage, the justice of God will break through and give all a life that transcends the wealth and power that we consider are important achievements outside of the kingdom of God.

Gospel Transformation

The transforming power of these parables has often been resisted, even from within the church. Famous testimonies of selling all possessions, of giving the wealth to the poor and following Jesus, remind us that the gospel is changing our world’s financial systems. St Anthony the desert father, Martin of Tours, St Francis of Assisi are some names. In 394 AD, a Roman senator by the name of Paulinus, and his wife Therasia, surrendered their vast estate and senatorial privileges, and distributed their resources to the poor (Holland 2019). The power of Jesus’ parables was shaking the whole world and its sensibilities.

There are several lessons for rich Christians here. Listening to Luke’s storytelling evokes the following.

1. The gospel of Jesus sets in motion a great reversal so that the poor will be blessed, and the rich experience time limited, temporal comfort.
2. In the new kingdom of God world, managing money as if it belongs to God will reset priorities.
3. The poor (always with us) in God’s economy are witnesses, together with Abraham, the Law, and the prophets, and Jesus himself. as to whether our lives are Jubilee justice focussed, Christian lives. “Remembering the poor” (Galatians 2:10) was strategically embraced by the early Christian community.
4. Luke’s gospel brings together a spectrum of responses open to the rich when confronted by the great reversal contained within the gospel of Jesus Christ. The hearer is called to manage the tensions created.
5. Hospitality, as part of the wealth sharing process, emphasises the relational, community forming consequences of liberating wealth through the gospel.

These stories reinforce for listeners that public striving for wealth while claiming to be identified with Jesus and his kingdom are incompatible and spiritually dangerous.

---