1

In: Theological Understanding 27/2004, pp. 341-379.

LUKE 16 - A COMPACT RHETORICAL UNIT

Jiří Lukeš

1. The Prerequisites for the Application of the Method

The point of this study is to look into the 16th chapter of Luke from the point of
rhetorical criticism and to focus primarily on the “dispositio” (structure) of this chapter. The
emphasis will be on the compactness of this “rhetorical unit”, not on the comparison with
other texts. Two specific parables from Luke help show this, as they are not featured in the
other synoptic gospels. The goal will be to explore or perhaps to appreciate the singular
character this unit has, to define her inner and outer boundaries, and to point out the structure,
which is imperative for understanding1. A basic narrative characteristic of the unit, as well as
a brief view and characteristic of the chapter, which came from traditional diachronic
research, will help this.
But rhetoric criticism does not work with text, or perhaps not only with text, but also
with speech, and with discourse. The author becomes a speaker and the reader becomes
simultaneously a listener. Thus, a rhetorical triangle is made. This triangle shows the
relationships that are, in a rhetoric situation, fundamental2. The task of the speaker is to
present the listener with a speech that will contain the best arguments and that will be the
most fluent. Only this kind of speech will captivate and convince.
The Gospel as a literary form shows a number of similarities with the literary forms of
the Greek-Roman period, especially biographies3, but at the same time using Tenak as an
authority. Hellenistic literary and rhetoric rules mingle with elements of biblical history in the
hope of capturing events, which happened, and to highlight the importance and the character
of the person, whose name and influence led to the forming of a community that is “a new
alternative in both the Jewish and Hellenistic world“4.
That is why respecting at least a few principles of rhetoric criticism and analysis can
help contribute to a more complete view on the analyzed unit and help disclose the context,

1
G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (The University of North Carolina
Press 1984) lays down rules for methods of analysis using rhetoric criticism, pp. 14-38, particularly pp. 33-38. B.
Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1990) submits a certain analogy on pp. 21-
48 and R. Meynet offers a conservative alternative in Rhetorical Analysis. An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric
(Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield 1998), particularly pp. 154-161. W. Wuellner, Where Is Rhetorical
Criticism Taking Us? (CBQ 49/1987), pp. 455-460.
2
Kennedy talks about relationships between the speaker, the listener, and the argumentation on p. 15, J.L.
Kinneavy, Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith (New York, Oxford 1987), p. 49,52,107 and especially
Ch.Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric (Notre Dame, Indiana 1982), pp. 9-20. J. Jasinski, “Rhetorical Situation”,
in: Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (Oxford 2001), pp. 694-697, Kennedy, pp. 34-35, R.E. Vatz, The Myth of
Rhetorical Situation (PR 6/1973), pp. 154-161, I.H. Henderson, Rhetorical Determinacy and the Text (SEMEIA
71/1995) p. 169. J. Lambrecht, Rhetorical Criticism and the New Testament (Bijdragen 50/1989), pp. 240-241,
“Beyond the speaker (ethos), beyond the discourse (logos) and beyond the audience (pathos) there is always a
milieu, a context...”, p. 245.
3
J.L. Bailey, L.D. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament (Westminster, Louisville, Kentucky
1992), pp. 91-97, B. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (The Paternoster
Press 1998), pp.15-20. In depth D. Dormeyer, The New Testament among the Writings of Antiquity (Sheffield
Academic Press 1998), pp. 220-243.
4
Bailey, Vander Broek, Literary Forms, pp. 91-98, 92.
 2

which the listener from late antiquity no doubt perceived and did not overlook in text or in
speech.
This rhetorical and structural exegesis of Luke’s 16th chapter then originates from the
presumption that the evangelist intends to draw the reader into Jesus’ speech to his disciples
and to the Pharisees and to make him a confronted listener and witness of this episode.

2. Questions Bound Primarily to the Traditional Method

2.1 The Position of the Unit in the Context of the Book

Luke 16 is a part of the “Great Insertion” and thus in part forms the section of work
originally compiled by Luke.
Using a classifying method used by D. Lee, who compiled Luke’s book with the help
of narrative criticism and who dissected the story into seven “acts”, chapter 16 would be a
part of act four (9.51–19.44), “Jesus in the shadow of Jerusalem”5. The way to Jerusalem then
becomes the episodic boundary of “time” and “speeches”, which Jesus delivered on the way6.
Lee, following Talbert’s view, sees in the whole fourth act a symmetrical structure and
he divides the 16th chapter into two parts, where 16.1-13 is a mirror counterpart of 12.35-13.9
and 16.14-31 is a similar analogy of 11.37-12.347.

2.2 The Inner Classifying Structure of the Unit in Translation, Commentaries, and
Other Publications – Questions of Traditionally Classifying the Structure of the Text

There exists a great diversity in the area of classifying the structure of the text, which
affects translations and commentaries. The sections in the 16th chapter of Luke differ in
number, length, and naming, depending on what the individual translator or interpreter fixed
his attention on and what he thought important to emphasize.
In this situation the continuity of the Greek Nestle-Aland8 text appears to be a certain
advantage, because it does not make boundaries in the consideration of the 16 th chapter of
Luke as a coherent “speech” or “rhetorical unit” that were appointed on the basis of other
principles then rhetorical or narrative.
The diversity of views on the structure of the chapter is displayed in this summary of
translations and commentaries:

 Translations :
 Die Gute Nachricht – vv. 1-8 “Der untreue Verwalter“, vv. 9-13 “Über den Besitz“,
vv. 14-18 “Über den Willen Gottes“, vv. 19-31 “Lazarus und der Reiche“ – four
sections.
 Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments – vv. 1-9 “Das Gleichnis vom
ungerechten Haushalter“, vv. 10-13 “Von der Treue im Gebrauch der irdischen
Güter“, vv. 14-18 “Von der Gerechtigkeit der Pharisäer und der Geltung des
Gesetzes“, vv.19-31 “Das Gleichnis vom reichen Mann und vom armen Lazarus“ –
four sections.
5
D. Lee, Luke’s Stories of Jesus (Sheffield Academic Press 1999), pp. 189. D.L. Stamps points out the closeness
of rhetoric and narrative criticism in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (Brill, Leiden 1997), p. 219. It
is not possible to adopt the Lee’s (Talbert’s) macrostructure.
6
“The journey to Jerusalem“ is defined by J.A. Fitzmyer , The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (Doubleday
1985) section 13.22-17.10 and L.J. Topel, On the Injustice of the Unjust Steward: Lk 16.1-13 (CBQ 37/1975)
sees a context akin to the parable in the section of the “the way” 14.25-17.10, p. 221.
7
Lee, Luke´s, p.196.
8
Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26. Auflage (Stuttgart 1988).
 3

 Revised Standard Version – vv. 1-18 ”The dishonest steward“, vv. 19-31 ”The rich
man and Lazarus“ – two sections.
 New Revised Standard Version – vv. 1-13 “The Parable of the Dishonest Manager“,
vv. 14-18 „The Law and the Kingdom of God“, vv. 19-31 “The Rich Man and
Lazarus“ – three sections.
 The NIV Study Bible – vv. 1-15 “The Parable of the Shrewd Manager“, vv. 16-18
“Additional Teachings“, vv. 19-31 “The Rich Man and Lazarus“ – three sections9.

 Commentaries:
 W. Grundmann – The title of the chapter is: “Die Entscheidungsfrage der zeitlichen
Güter“, vv. 1-7 “Das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Verwalter“, vv. 8-18 “Gespräche
über die rechte Verwaltung des Besitzes im Anbruch der Heilszeit“, vv. 19-31 “Das
Gleichnis vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus“ – three sections.
 J. A. Fitzmyer – vv. 1-8a “The Parable of the Dishonest Manager“, vv. 8b-13 “Three
Applications of the Parable“, vv. 14-15 “Avaricious Pharisees Are Reproved“, vv. 16-
17 „Two Sayings about the Law“, v. 18 “On Divorce“, vv. 19-31 “The Parable of the
Rich Man and Lazarus“ – six sections.
 I. Howard Marshall – The title of the chapter is: “Warnings about Wealth“, vv. 1-9
“The Prudent Steward“, vv. 10-13 “Faithful Stewardship“, vv. 14-15 “Reproof of the
Pharisees“, vv. 16-17 “The Law and the Kingdom“, v. 18 “The Law concerning
Divorce“, vv. 19-31 “The Rich Man and Lazarus“ – six sections.
 J. Nolland – The title of the chapter is: “Use and Abuse of Riches“, vv. 1-8 „The
Dishonest Steward: ´What Am I Going to Do?´“, vv. 9-13 “Serving God and Using
Mammon“, vv. 14-15 “Lovers of Money and Seekers of Honor“, vv. 16-18 “The
Demands of the Law and the Prophets, and Those of the Gospel of the Kingdom of
God“, vv. 19-31 “The Outcome of Life for the Rich Man and Lazarus“ – five
sections10.

From the list of authors above we can safely deduce that the only thing that the
translators and interpreters wholly agree on is the length of the second parable (vv. 19-31).
But even this parable did not escape attempts to determine the primary length, for example J.
D. Crossan states that “methodologically, Luke 16.27-31 cannot be taken as part of the
original parable of Jesus” and that he only considers as “Jesus’ actual” the first part (vv. 19-
26)11. On the other hand C. L. Blomberg points out that “more plausible is the suggestion that
the second ´half´ of the parable is Jesus’ own distinctive addition to a tale which circulated in
different forms. Nevertheless, structurally, the break after v. 23 (when dialog begins) seems
more pronounced than the shift in focus between vv. 26-27”12. R. Bauckham’s view is that “as
a parallel to the parable, it confirms that the motif in Luke 16.27-28 could easily have been
current in Jewish storytelling”13.
There are severe disagreements on the length of the first parable, whose span is
different in each translation and is problematic for interpreters as well. Their views can be
divided into essentially four categories. R. Bultmann, J. D. Crossan, L. Goppelt, H. Preisker,

9
Die Gute Nachricht (Berlin, Zwickau 1974), Die Heilige Schrift, (Zürich 1975), RSV (The British and Foreign
Bible Society 1973), NRSV (Nashville 1990), The NIV Study Bible (Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1995).
10
W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 9. Auflage (Berlin 1981), pp. 315-330, Fitzmyer, The Gospel,
pp. 1094-1136, I. Howard Marshall – The New International Greek Testament Commentary. The Gospel of Luke
(The Paternoster Press 1998), pp. 613-639, J. Nolland – The Word Biblical Commentary 35B (Texas 1993), pp.
793-833.
11
J.D. Crossan , In Parables (San Francisco 1973), p. 67.
12
C.L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Apollos 1990), p. 204.
13
R. Bauckham, The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Paralleles (NTS 37/1991), p. 242.
 4

W. Grundmann, and H. Drexler used the first interpretation, that is, they saw the span of the
parable from v. 1 to v. 714. The second view, that v. 8 belongs to the parable, was proposed by
K. E. Bailey, M. Beavis, E. Güttgemanns, J. Jeremias, F. Maas, and C. Westermann 15. To the
possibility that it is not the whole of v. 8, but only the first part of it (v. 8a), cling J. A.
Fitzmyer, D. M. Parrott, B. B. Scott, L. J. Topel, W. O. E. Oesterley, and others 16. Knowing
that v. 9 is a supplement to v. 4, C. L. Blomberg, D. R. Fletcher, and others add it to the
parable as well17.
E. Brunner stands a bit to the side. He does not occupy himself with the starting point
of individual verses, but rather focuses on commenting vv. 1-1318. Even though the
differences in length are quite different for each scholar (taking into account Brunner with up
to six verses), they all agree that with vv. 8a, 8b, 9, or 10 begins the application, interpretation
of the parable, or secondary appendix. Some of them add it to the parable, while others
separate it and give it its own title. For example, D. R. Fletcher sees the application in vv. 8-
1319, while C. L. Blomberg considers vv. 10-13 as “additional sayings of Jesus”20.
A view that unambiguously dominates is that the parable is authentic, but the
additional sayings are not. The motive for determining the exact length of the parable is often
the endeavor to distinguish between Jesus’ original statements and the later editorial, and the
question that occupies most interpreters, which is who is κύριος the v. 8a.
The section between both parables has, because of the different views on the length of
the first parable, a fluctuating span and number of subsections and the material is not strictly
from Luke’s special source, but it has parallels in other synoptic Gospels – vv. 13, 16, 17, and
18 come from Q. J. Nolland holds a different position, being influenced by H. Schürmann,
who considers vv. 14-15 to be rooted in tradition but substantially Lukan21. Bultmann
considers verse 14 to be transitional and E. P. Sanders does not think it corresponds to
authenticity. Bultmann then describes v. 15 as Jesus’ authentic saying22. The Matthean form
v. 16 seems to be more primitive23 and appears to come from Jesus´ and the early church´s
critics24. Verse 17 is a variant of Matt 5.18 but in a different form. We can find the isolated
saying of v. 18 with certain differences in Matt 5.32 and as a dublet in Matt 19.9, which is

14
R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford 1963), p. 175, Crossan, In Parables, p. 66, L.
Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 3.Auflage (Göttingen 1980), p. 616, H. Preisker, Lukas 16.1-7 (TLZ
74/1949), pp. 85-92, Grundmann, Das Evangelium, pp. 315-318, H. Drexler, „Miszellen: Zu Lukas 16,1-7“
(ZNW 58/1967), pp. 286-288.
15
K.E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Michigan 1983), pp. 86-118, especially107, M.
Beavis, Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the NT Servant Parables with Special Reference to the
Unjust Steward (Luke 16.1-8) (JBL 111/1992), pp. 37-54, E. Güttgemans, Narrative Analysis of Synoptic Texts
(SEMEIA 6/1976), pp. 138-140, J. Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (München, Hamburg 1966), pp. 121-122, F.
Maass, Das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Haushalter. Luke 16,1-8 (Theologie Viatorum 8, Berlin 1961), pp. 173-
184, C. Westermann, The Parables of Jesus (T.&T. Clark, Edinburgh 1990), p. 185,189.
16
Fitzmyer, The Gospel, pp. 1094-1099, D.M. Parrot, The Dishonest Steward (Luke 16.1-8a) and Luke’s Special
Parable Collection (NTS 37/1991), pp. 499-515, B.B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Fortress Press 1990), pp.
255-266, L.J. Topel, On the Injustice, pp. 217-218, W.O.E. Oesterley, The Parable of the ´Unjust´Steward: (Exp
6/7 1903), pp. 273-283.
17
Blomberg, Interpreting, pp. 243-247, D.R. Fletcher, The Riddle of the Unjust Steward: Is Irony the Key? (JBL
82/1963), pp. 15-30, believes that “V. 9 is the real crux interpretations of the parable.”, p. 19. In depth Fitzmyer,
The Gospel, pp. 1096-1099.
18
E. Brunner, Sowing and Reaping. The Parables of Jesus (John Knox Press, Virginia 1965), pp. 76-83.
19
Fletcher, The Riddle, p. 15.
20
Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 244.
21
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm, p. 809.
22
E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1985), p. 281, Marshall introduces Bultmann’s
argumentation, The New International, pp. 624-625.
23
Fitzmyer, The Gospel, p. 1115.
24
F.W. Danker, Luke 16.16 - An Opposition Logion (JBL 77/1958), p. 232.
 5

derived from Mark 10.11, a verse nearer to Luke25. R. Banks considers Luke’s formulation of
v. 18 as the earliest and most probable form of the saying26.
Schürmann believes that vv. 16-17 were kept only as an introduction for v. 18 and F.
W. Danker says that vv. 16 and 17 existed separately27.
Regarding the middle section of the parable, we can mention the stance of A.
Plummer, who divides the middles section into two parts. He sees the first part, vv. 9-13, as a
supplement to the first parable, and the second part, vv. 14-18, as an introduction to the
second parable28. J. W. Sider thinks that vv. 14-15 relate to the first part of the second parable
(vv. 19-26), and that vv. 16-18 focus on the second part (vv. 27-31)29.

Summary: It is clear from previous analyses that a certain agreement exists between
commentators about the description of the text and that certain tendencies to create as many
subsections as possible dominate. The text is divided into specific logia, which are then
subjected to analysis and then commented upon. After this, the structures are then well
arranged and almost identical on this level. The disunion becomes only apparent on a larger
scale, when determining the original length of the two parables, or when identifying
appendixes.
A problem that often occurs is that the translation is, in order to bring the text “closer”
to the reader, dissected into many subsections, which dilutes the original structure that is
important for the interpretation of the text, and the focus is shifted on the secondary
organization of the text done by the translator. It could be said that the number and
organization of the subsections in the chapter create awareness about the arrangement of the
text in the reader, and with it a certain pre-understanding, with which they can start using
other parts of the text. This type of organization into small subunits tends to ease the
comparison with other parts of the Scripture and is necessary in the creation of the synopsis,
but the price we pay for that is that the inner bonds, the symmetry, and the subsequent
antithetic relations, with which the 16th chapter is filled and bound by, are broken.
The diversity in the names of the subsections is not that important, since they are not a
part of the original text and the only character they posses is supplementary. The only thing
important to add is that the first parable is almost identically named, after the steward and his
doings, and the second parable is named after Lazar and the rich man, in all the translations
and commentaries. The names of the parables thus do not imply the connections between
them.

3. A Brief Literary Characteristic of the Unit – Overview

Parable 1
Some scholars agree on the fact that this is the most difficult of all synoptic and
biblical parables and the “Lord’s” praise of the swindler invoked embarrassment even in the
days of Julian the Apostate30. In spite of this the authenticity of the parable cannot be doubted.

25
Fitzmyer, The Gospel, pp.1119-1120, Marshall, The International, pp. 630-631.
26
R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge University Press 1975), “... the Lucan
formulation in 16.18 that is probably the most original form of the saying.”, p. 193.
27
H. Schürmann („Sprachliche Reminiszenzen” NTS 6/1960, str.193) cites Banks, Jesus and Law ”, vv. 16-17
were merely retained as an introductory piece to v. 18...”, p. 220, Danker, Luke 16,16...”... and the probability
increases that both vss. 16 and 17 existed separately...” p. 242.
28
A. Plummer, St.Luke – International Critical Commentary 4th ed. (Edinburgh 1910), p. 380.
29
J.W. Sider, Interpreting the Parables. A Hermeneutical Guide to Their Meaning (Zondervan, Grand Rapids
1995), p. 214.
30
Bailey, Poet & Peasant, p. 86, Brunner, Sowing and Reaping, p. 76, K. Gabris, Jezisove podobenstva II (UK
Bratislava 1991), p. 112.
 6

“It hardly seems plausible that an apocryphal parable involving such obvious difficulties of
interpretation should have been incorporated by the early Christian community into its
traditions of the parables of Jesus”31.
C. L. Blomberg classifies this parable as a “complex three point parables”, using the
master – steward – debtor system. K. Gabris points at the “dramatic triangle”, primarily
relating to the persons and the tensions between them32. A. C. Thiselton characterizes Luke
16.1-9 on the basis of the works of D. O. Via, D. Patte and S. Prickett as a parable with a
“comic plot” and simultaneously sees an “open-ended texture and a deliberate ambiguity”33.
J. D. Crossan takes notice of the “elegantly structured” parable, which forms a “mini-
drama”, and emphasizes the division of the parable into three scenes (16.1-2; 3-4; 5-7), where
the first scene displays a chiastic structure, which is important in setting up both the problems
and the avenue of solution, and where each of the scenes is an internal diptych. Type wise, the
parable can be classified as a ”servant parable”, in which he takes notice of the “thematic
unity” revolving around the “master – servant” relationship that does not lack in time or
moment of critical reckoning34. Crossan uses a structural - narrative analysis and builds upon
the ways of Formgeschichte. Influenced by D. O. Via, he seeks an analogy in the “trickster -
dupe stories” and follows Heda Jason’s model for such stories35.
K. E. Bailey sees Luke 16.1-8 as a “parabolic ballad”. The structure is ABBCB’B’A’,
where v. 4 is the pinnacle. He even mentions Luke’s distinctive parabolic form, a significant
number of stanzas with direct speech, and an interpretive model, where the master has the
status of a “partner in crime” (Oesterley)36.
From the view of rhetoric antique, D. Dormeyer classifies the parables into two
“subgenres”. He calls one “the parable in the narrow sense” and the second “the parable”.
Luke 16.1-13 belongs to the second subtype (parable) and demands an ending “a minor ad
maius”37.
C. Westermann sees Luke 16.1-8 as an “exemplary story”38. J. W. Sider suggests that
Luke 16.1-13 should be read as a “dramatic narrative” and simultaneously advises to “ask the
right questions” for the right solution39. J. D. Derrett tries for an economical reconstruction40,
while Mary A. Beavis puts it into an interpretive context of ancient slavery, comparing it to
the slave Aesop and to Plautus’ slaves41.

Middle section
The characteristic, viewed from the point of the original material and organization of
the middle unit, was already discussed in the earlier part of this article. Worth mentioning
here is that vv. 9b-13 are formed by a cluster of aphorisms that closes v. 13, which has a
parallel in Matt 6.24 and it’s equivalent in Epictetus42. This cluster of aphorisms can be the

31
Fletcher, The Riddle, p. 15.
32
Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 241, 243, Gabris, Jezisove podobenstva I (Bratislava, Lipt. Mikulas 1990), p. 10
33
A.C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1992), p. 476, 492.
34
Crossan, In Parables, pp. 96-120, especially 110.
35
Scott clarifies the viewpoint of H. Jason (in Hear Then the Parable, pp. 259-260).
36
Bailey, Poet & Peasant... pp. 95, 99.
37
D. Dormeyer, The New Testament among the Writings of Antiquity (Sheffield 1998), pp. 162-163.
38
Westermann, The Parables, p. 189.
39
Sider, Interpreting, p. 150, 242-243.
40
J.D.M. Derrett, Fresh Light on St Luke XVI (NTS 7/1960-61), pp. 198-219.
41
Beavis, Ancient Slavery, pp. 37-54.
42
Dormeyer, The NT among, ”Epictetus offers a joking antithetic parallel: ´You cannot play Thersites (a bald
hunchback) and Agamemnon (tall and handsome) at the same time´. (Diss.4.2.10 Gnilka 1988: I,243)”, p. 107.
 7

product of Hebraic parallelism and culminates with the declaration: ”You cannot serve God
and mammon”43.
R. Banks shows us vv. 16-18 as a kind of “anomaly” in Luke’s gospel because other
than here Luke never seems interested in the Law itself and even his other works concerning
the Law are offered to us without any apparent comments44.
About v. 18 we could say that only the Essenes of Qumran had similar settings for the
prevention of divorce45.
Marshall, based on Manson, notices that the proper audience of vv. 14-31 would be
primarily the Sadducees and he gives several reasons for this46, however, these Sadducees are
not mentioned in the text at all.

Parable II
B. B. Scott, who organizes Jesus’ parables according to the social realities of agrarian
cultures of Palestine of the 1st century, classifies Luke 16.19-31 the parable as belonging to
the category of “Family, Village, City, and Beyond”47. A. C. Thiselton sees in it “metonymic
parable of paradox”48.
C. L. Blomberg classifies the parable as a “simple three-point parable” and asks at the
same time if the story could be considered “fictitious narrative”49.
E. Güttgemanns understands it “as an exemplary story”, which is a classification close
to the organization used by Quintilian and Jüllicher50. The first two of these researchers point
out the apocalyptical motive in Jesus’ words that is important for the unraveling of the
message of the parable.
C. Westermann does not consider Luke 16.19-31 as a parable. Neither does D.
Gooding, who reasons that it does not have a foundation in actual things and activities in this
world51.
J. W. Sider mentions the fact, that a lot of Jesus’ “story-length parables”, as Sider
categorizes it, are like “Aristotle’s ´tragedy of double outcome´, where the doom of evil
characters sets the tone of the end despite the happiness of the good”52. Sider also points out
that the other archetypes in the parables include the Paradise-Hades image in the Rich Man
and Lazarus53. J. Jeremias sees the parable as “double-edged”54.
Many researchers highlight the fact that the parable has an affinity to folkloric
materials in both Egyptian and Jewish tradition, specifically the story of Bar Ma’jan from the
Palestinian Talmud and the Egyptian Si-Osiris55. R. Bauckham pays special attention to this

43
Fletcher, The Riddle, p.15 taken from W.O.E. Oesterley, The Gospel Parables in the Light of their Jewish
Background (London, SPCK 1936), p. 196.
44
Banks, Jesus and the Law, „As for the Lucan section itself (Lk 16.16-18), it appears at first sight to be an
anomaly in the gospel , for nowhere else have we found Lucan interest in the Law itself, as seems to be the case
here“., pp. 219-220.
45
Dormeyer, The NT among, p. 93.
46
Marshall, The New Internat, p. 625.
47
Scott, Hear Then, pp. 77, 141-159.
48
Thiselton, New Horizons, pp. 117-118. “Metonymic parables” are also noticed by Crossan, who recognizes
three and finds them all in Luke (Lk 10.30-37, 18.9-14, 16.19-31).
49
Blomberg, Interpreting, pp. 203-205.
50
Dormeyer, The NT among, pp. 161-165, Güttgemanns, Narrative Analysis, p.162.
51
Westermann, The Parables, ”... Lk 16.19-31, which is not parable”. p. 188. D. Gooding, According to Luke
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1987), p. 227.
52
Sider, Interpreting... pp. 134-135.
53
Sider, Interpreting... p. 190.
54
Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, p. 25, „Die Gleichnis ist eines der vier doppelgipfliegen Gleichnisse (s.S.25).
Der erste Gipfel (V.19-23)..., der zweite Gipfel (V.24-31)...“ p. 125.
55
Crossan, In Patables, pp. 67-68, Sider, Interpreting, pp. 183-184 and others.
 8

concept while R.F. Hock expands on this view to include motives from the Greek-Roman
world and concentrates primarily on the Gallus and Cataplus of Lucian of Samosata56. S.
Aalen sees certain parallels with Enoch I57. L. Goppelt mentions Bultmann’s hypothesis that
this parable is the only genuine Ebionic one in Luke58.
A. Di Marco brings to attention in v. 25, a chiastic form59.

4. The 16th Chapter as a “Compact Rhetorical Unit”

4.1. The “Dispositio” of the Unit

The formations with the greatest length in this rhetorical unit are two parables. The
Greek term “ðáñáâïëx” originally included “comparison” or “juxtaposition”60, from which
surprising and dual meaning characteristics are derived. These characteristics draw the
listener into an instantaneous involvement with the story and ask him new and fundamental
questions. The opposed positions of these formations against each other amplify the moment
of surprise and emphasize the already substantial rhetorical effect.
Both parables turn into dialogues displaying a time sequence. The first one especially
communicates through intentional obscurity and unexpected resolutions. Both build upon the
dualism of two characters (the rich man and caretaker, the rich man and the beggar) and two
interactive groups of listeners (the disciples and Pharisees). In both cases the importance
comes at the end. Both contain direct speech, are to a certain extent open, and demand an
anticipated judgment of the listeners. The first intent is to force the audience (the disciples and
Pharisees) to imagine principles of a different world given the actuality of the closeness of the
Kingdom of God. The second intent is to target today’s audience, meaning us.

The listener/reader of antiquity could, be he Greek or Jew, appreciate the smoothness

of the speech, its sophisticated construction, and even an argument hidden in its structure. The
structure was for him a valuable instrument to appreciate the quality of the speech and to
understand the speaker’s intention. Because of that we need to give it due attention.
An exegete fluent in rhetoric will not miss the fact that both parables in Luke 16 have the
same beginning :
16.1b - Tνθρωπος τις ƒν πλούσιος. . .
16.19 - Tνθρωπος δέ τις ƒν πλούσιος. . .
R.Meynet notices this fact and points out that “ these parables are symmetrical” 61. Quintilian
mentions that the “rhetorical figure” contained within this phenomenon evokes “the
comparison of opposites” or “antithesis”62.
Considering that only Luke included these parables into his gospel, we have enough
evidence to say that chapter 16 is a specific, thematically and structurally defined
compact unit with symmetric parables in an antithetic relation, where a monothematic
content dominates.

56
Bauckham, The Rich Man, pp. 225-246, R.F. Hock, Lazarus and Micylus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to
Luke 16.19-31 (JBL 106/1987) pp. 447-463.
57
S. Aalen, St.Luke´s Gospel and I Enoch (NTS 13/1966-67) pp. 1-13, especially 5-6.
58
Goppelt, Theologie des NT, „Daher meinte Bultmann, diese Erzählung sei als einzige im Lukas-Evangelium
tatsächlich ebionitisch gemeint“., pp. 130-131.
59
Bailey, Vander Broek, Lit. Forms are based on the enumeration of chiasms from the NT done by Di Marco,
pp. 182-183.
60
J.B. Soucek, Recko-cesky slovnik k NZ (Praha 1973), Bailey, Vander Broek, Lit. Forms, pp. 105-114, Scott,
Hear Then, pp. 19-30.
61
Meynet, Rhet. Analysis, p. 339.
62
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Zaklady retoriky (Odeon, Praha 1985), p. 423 (9.3.32-33).
 9

The middle unit, located between parables, cannot be considered thematically separate,
but rather it’s length and content must be compared to the length and content of both parables.
It is unlikely that Luke, being literarily and rhetorically educated, would put between
two related parables a body of text rhetorically different. On the contrary, the narrative signal,
explaining the commentary of the narrator in v. 14, shows the initiative to smoothly
incorporate the unit between the parables.
It is clear from the fact that separately the parables have only an incomplete meaning
that the parables belong to each other and that they are antithetical, and that to understand the
author’s intention we need to witness both. The middle part is used by Luke (Jesus) to give
the listener a “key” to the unraveling of the two parables, to acquaint him with the author’s
view, and to introduce Jesus’ rivals. Thus, the middle unit transforms into speech during the
meeting of Jesus and the Pharisees. The portrayal of the rhetorical situation first occurs in v.
1a and subsequently in this middle interpretive part of the unit. The placement of this shared
commentary in the middle between the parables is very effective, thus confirming the earlier
mentioned symmetrical structure. Both parables with their interpretational core form a
compact rhetorical unit, thematically and structurally separate from their surroundings and
having this schema:

"The parable
le of
of the
the merciful
merciful rich
rich man"
man" Antithetic "The parable of the unmerciful rich man"
relation
16.1-8 16.19-31

Interpretation
"Parable
with a 16. 9-18 "Metonimic
comic parable of
plot" paradox"

16.13
Key verse
with maxim

4.2 A Synchronic Analysis and “Inventio” of the Unit

The speaker, who knows Jesus’ story and sayings, proclaims in verse 1a that his
speech is directed at the disciples. Even though Jesus is not directly mentioned and the
sentence contains an unexpressed subject (IÅ έ ί πρός τούς μαθητάς) it is clear to
the listener/reader that it is the beginning of another of Jesus speech. This sentence also takes
the form of, from a narrative point of view, “the beginning signal of the text”. That helps the
storyteller to bring into his narrative mode a multiple stratification. A signal of this type also
suggests to the reader/listener that he needs to advance to a different narrative plane.
Afterwards, the narrative modus of the parable is set into “the world described by Jesus” 63.
Verse 1b is the true beginning of the parable and Jesus speaks in it, beginning with the
words T  ƒ ύ… The “rich man” and the “steward” (οkκον’μος) are
introduced and the caretaker is presently “accused” (Þ - aor.ind.pass.) that he
“wasted” (διασκορπrζων – pres.act.part.) “his property”. The listener and the disciples then

63
Güttgemanns, Narrative Analysis, p. 138, S. Rimon-Kenanova, Poetika vypraveni (Brno, Host 2001), p. 16-24.
 10

know the characters of the story and the reason behind the consequent happenings. In v. 2a
Jesus, who knows what the rich man did, unfolds the plot. Subsequently, the rich man uses
direct speech (v. 2b) in the form of a rhetorical question (τί το™το Pκούω περί σο™;) to
express suspicion. The rich man’s direct speech (v. 2c) continues, introduced by the
imperative aorist (Pπüδος), and following that comes the statement to the steward that he can
no longer take care of his property. Here ends the rich man’s direct speech.
Jesus is again in the position of the speaker (v. 3a), but a different one than in verse 1a,
knowing that the steward is talking to himself. At first, his direct speech takes on the form of
a question, in which the rich man becomes ¿ κύριός μου (v. 3b), subsequently relating his
precarious situation, for he “cannot dig” and is “ashamed to beg”. His hopelessness is
expressed in the form of a rhetorical question, forcing him to consider his future. This
dramatizes the plot. The direct speech of the steward continues (v. 4), finding a solution to his
situation. At the same time, in v. 3b, the parable changes into “discourse mode”
(monologue/dialogue). Jesus speaks as a narrator in v. 5a. The steward summons debtors of
his master. What follows is the direct speech to the first debtor in the form of a question about
the amount of the debt (v. 5b). Several people speak in verse 6. On the one hand Jesus (verse
6a,c), on the other the first debtor (v. 6b) and the steward (v. 6d) who are on a different
narrative level. The amoral actions of the steward become apparent. The steward shows the
debtor his bill, urging him to write another reduced one. To achieve this, he uses two
imperatives of aorist δέξαι and γράψον. In addition to that, he urges the debtor to write
quickly. The notion of the rich man that the steward was “wasting his property” is confirmed.
Even the listener is taken aback.
In v. 7, the structure, speaker, and content repeat as in v. 6. Again, the amoral actions
of the steward become apparent. The second debtor, however, is “forgiven” twenty measures
of wheat instead of the fifty measures of oil forgiven to the first one. There is no doubt about
the strangeness of the solution used by the steward. The same imperatives are heard again.
From a narrative point of view, vv. 5-7 are a mixture of narrative and discourse mode64. Verse
8a brings surprising proclamations. It does not have the form the rich man’s direct speech, but
is said by Jesus – the narrator. The Master praises the steward! That is a shock to the listeners.
The Master’s praise is unexpected and the listeners do not know how to interpret Jesus’
words. The steward is nevertheless labeled dishonest. The only thing praised is that he acted
“shrewdly” (φρονίμως)65. Verse 8b comments on the previous verdict by comparing the
shrewdness of the “sons of this world” and “sons of the light”. The parable stops at this place
and v. 9 is the beginning of a new section of speech, different from the previous one, having a
different sentence Καr dγþ ›μsν λέγω. The span of the first parable can then be defined by v.
1-8.
Evaluation of the characters
If we overlook the person of the narrator from v. 1a, we have Jesus, who in fact
presents the parable. Other persons included in the “mini-drama” are two “side characters”,
the two debtors, who help create the “plot” of the story and whose statements are parts of the
dialogical structure of the parable. This fact multiplies the listener’s doubts about the actions
of the steward. The steward is a person that commands the debtors and is in contact with the
master. He commands the debtors to do things which are pleasant, because they are to lower
the debts that they owe to the master. However, from an ethical point of view, he pulls them
in the wrong direction. He does not astonish with the fact that he cannot dig or that he is too
ashamed to beg. His attributes are human and so is his wanting to be “secure”. Even though
his part in the parable is the greatest, his behavior is not that surprising. History knows many
64
Güttgemanns, Narrative Analysis, p. 139.
65
Fletcher takes notice of the term φρονίμως and the interpretation from this perspective in The Riddle, pp. 17-
18 and 22-23.
 11

dishonest stewards. The “mysterious” and most important person in the story is the rich man.
He changes into the “master” and delivers a verdict that no one expects. His statements
especially (vv. 8a,b) make the reader and his disciples think. He knows the misdeeds of the
steward, he does not grieve over the lost property, and he pardons in circumstances in which
others would condemn. “Who is this master?”, “ Is he not acting strangely?”, “Do other rich
men act like him?”, “Is he so rich he does not mind?”. The listener asks these questions and
an analogy is hard to find. This particular person, this rich man / master, is what “jams” the
parable. Here it abandons the customary horizon. The actions of the rich man – master are
atypical. His statements in v. 8 dominate. This is why the parable could be named after him –
The parable of the merciful rich man.
This rich man / master can cope with the fact that his property will serve others
without recompense. He serves God, not the property, as said in v. 13c, which explains the
actions of the rich man / master. Property has to serve people, not people serving mammon.
Even the dishonest steward understood this in his own way. He did not bury the talents, but he
let them spread. The merciful attitude of the master then spread as well, helping others. The
debts are lowered; instead of punishment comes praise. The unexpected happens to everyone.
The parable ends surprisingly well. It functions on the principles of “the Kingdom of God
being near”. It is not the logic of hoarding, but the logic of altered human relations and the
serving function of property.
We could say that the character of the master cannot, from a narrative point of view,
exceed the framework. But we can, after setting the parable in macrocontext, recognize in it
the parable’s narrator, Jesus66.

As was mentioned earlier, Jesus’ words from the beginning of v. 9 (καr dγώ ›μsν
λέγω) are a signal that opens another, interpretive, part of the unit, and simultaneously stress
the importance of following the text. The arrangement of vv. 9b-13, that are formed by a
cluster of aphorisms, concern mammon, riches, and the honest and dishonest use of the them.
Two questions appear here (vv. 11-12) that are related by their meaning to both parables. The
answer to these questions is in v. 13, which has the form of a “proclamation” (as do verses 9b
and 10). These questions and proclamations invite the listener to accept the truths that Jesus
declares and function as a potent rhetorical argument. Verse 13 then expresses what both of
the parables meant, forms the pinnacle of the cluster, and its maxim (gnome, sententia) οš
δύνασθε θε² δουλεύειν καί μαμωνZ is the key that opens both of the parables’ meaning.
The aphorism of v. 10 had the appearance of a parallelism, having the AB//AB
structure with antithetic meaning, which creates semantic friction. Verses 11 and 12 are
“hypothetic enthymemes”, while v. 13 is a “categorical enthymeme” completed by a maxim.
Enthymemes function as deductive arguments67, while examples (in this case parables)
function as inductive arguments. The aphorisms affect the listener here in the form of
“exhortation - discouragement”.
In v. 14, in which the narrator speaks, the reader/listener discovers that the Pharisees,
who were implicitly present, had also heard Jesus’ speech. It is not a speech directed only to
the disciples, as would correspond to v. 1a, but others hear it too, others who love money and
mock others. The storyteller’s v. 15a begins Jesus’ speech to the Pharisees and the segment of
vv. 15b-31 is Jesus’ direct speech addressed to them. However, the disciples hear this speech

66
Güttgemanns, Narrative Analysis, „Within the isolated ´narrative mode´ of the parable, ho kurios can only be
the donor, … Within the parable embedded in the macrocontext ho kurios can be at the same time the narrator,
Jesus, since in such embedding context sometimes work together functionally. The ambivalence is therefore
almost necessary as a semantic effect of the embedding“., p. 140.
67
Kennedy, NT Interpretation, p.16, D.E. Aune, The Use and Abuse of the Enthymeme in New Testament
Scholarship (NTS 49/2003) pp. 299-320.
 12

as well as the reader/listener, thanks to Luke’s testimony. The Pharisees suddenly take on the
role of those who defraud the true values and are worse off than the false steward (v. 15).
In vv. 16-18, the subject of the Law and divorce are brought forth. If we cover these
verses in the text, we find out that this does not directly influence the analysis of the parable.
These parables are meant for that implicit listener, who appears in the scene in v. 14. The
speech would be more fluent without these verses, but this latently present listener, who also
needs to be taken into account, would not have his interpretation and would not have been
directly reprimanded by Jesus for his scorn (v. 14). Using this inner logic of the unit, vv. 15b-
18 could then be understood as Jesus’ accentuated warning to those who love money and react
to Jesus’ previous parable and it’s explanation with disdain. People who love money cannot
press themselves into the Kingdom of God (v. 16) and they cannot truly love their neighbor
(see next parable), not even their own wife.
The segment of vv. 15c-18 is, in a sense, similar to the segment of vv. 9-13. Here
each verse can stand out singularly as in the first segment, but their accumulation makes the
argument more extensive and plastic. We find a hyperbole in v. 17, which can be a sign of
Jesus’ irony towards the Pharisees or a reference to his own teachings and the fulfillment of
the Law. Verse 18 is a synthetic parallelism68 and has the character of a “lawful decree”.This
means that the middle section of the unit extends from v. 9 to v. 18.
If analytical criticism of the redaction is used and if we focus on Luke’s adaptation on
the subject of the Law, it is clear that this subject is not his primary topic, since he pays it only
little attention and he uses the presence of the Pharisees to associate this theme with them.

The second parable of the unit is the continuation of Jesus’ direct speech to the
Pharisees. The conformity and the contradiction with the first parable is achieved firstly by
the same beginning (v. 19a), which also has the function of the “beginning signal of the text”
and uses the “postpositive word particle” δέ, which hints at a contradiction69, and secondly,
allows for the reverse of the “discursive mode” to the “narrative mode”70.
As in the first parable, the first rich (πλούσιος) man with his attributes is introduced
first. He clothes himself in “purple” and “fine lined” and “fared sumptuously (εšφραινόμενος)
everyday” (v.19). After him “Lazarus” comes. He “is laid at the rich man’s gate”, is “poor”
(πτωχός), “full of sores” (εjλκωμένος), “desiring to be fed” (χορτασθyναι – aor.pass.inf.) by
at least the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table, and even “the dogs came and licked
his sores” (vv. 20-21). Even as the rich man lives every day in comfort and is content, so
Lazarus continually lives in poverty and misery. The beggar desires (dπιθυμ§ν) that which is
ordinary (καθE ½μέραν) for the rich man. Two completely contradictory characters are
presented here, their striking dissimilarities are formed by their differences in social standing
and property. The rich man has more than he needs, while Lazarus does not have enough to
live. One luxuriates his life, the other barely survives.
But what they both have in common is death. Death changes everything. “The beggar”
is “taken” (Pπενεχθyναι – aor.pass.inf.) by angels to “Abraham’s bosom”, while the “rich
man” is merely “buried” (dτάφη – aor. ind. pass., v. 22). The roles are reversed and Abraham
enters the story. The rich man finds himself in “hell” (Vδης), while Lazarus is in “Abraham’s
arms” (κόλπον EÁβραάμ). On top of that, the rich man can see him there (v.23). The rich man
of Earth becomes a beggar in the afterworld, while poor Lazarus becomes the one who has
more than he needs. Verse 23 is a preparation for the dialog and the “discursive mode” that
follows.

68
Dormeyer, The NT among, p. 93.
69
Souček, Recko-cesky slovnik k NZ, “δέ”.
70
Güttgemans, Narrative Analysis, p. 162.
 13

Until now, property and the right handling of it were the main theme. If the rich man
had helped the beggar with his “unrighteous mammon”, his lot in the afterworld would have
been, given the logic of this unit, different (in comparison to v. 9). Even though Lazarus lay at
his gate, the rich man did not pay him any heed. Thus the rich man did not make friends and
could not be admitted into everlasting habitation (see v. 9). The reader/listener, who is
enlightened by the ending of the first parable and the following aphorisms (vv. 9-13), knows
how to handle property and is aware that the middle part (vv. 9-13) extends to the second
parable, especially it’s beginning.
The parable assumes the quality of a dialog after approximately the first third of the
parable. In v. 24, the rich man implores Father Abraham (πάτερ EÁβραάμ) to have mercy
(dλέησόν – aor.imp.act.). Abraham is to send (πέμψον – aor.imp.act.) Lazarus that he may dip
the tip of his finger and cool his tongue, for he is tormented in the flames. The rich man
demands Lazarus’ services even after death! Lazarus should lessen his torment even though
he did not lessen Lazarus’. Abraham promptly urges the rich man to remember (μνήσθητι –
aor.imp.pass.-dep.) the life where he obtained everything good and Lazarus everything bad.
That is why Lazarus is now “soothed” (παρακαλεsται) and the rich man, who is no longer
rich, is being “tortured” (“δυνOσαι). The rich man without his riches is nobody, while
Lazarus is somebody.
The debate, using imperatives on both sides of the argument, uses already formed
contrasts and emphasizes what the antagonists did while they still lived. That is the time when
one must choose rightly and know who to serve. The debate puts the ones who hear it, love
money, and mock others into an unfavorable position (v. 14). These antithetic relations do not
permit a disengaged attitude. The listener has only two choices, for both “realities” are
divided by a “deep chasm” (v. 26) in the afterworld. Lazarus is close to Abraham, while the
previously rich man is insurmountably far away. In spite of that, the rich man asks “the
father” for Lazarus to do more for him. He is to go to his father’s house (v. 27) and to warn
his five brothers, lest they should come to this place of torment (v. 28). Yet even now his plea
is refused, although the rich man does not think of himself, but of others, and the request is
not imperative. On the contrary, Abraham bids them to listen (Pκουσάτωσαν – aor.imp.act.3rd
pl.) to Moses and the prophets (v. 29). The rich man does not give up but tries to convince
Abraham that if one goes to them from the dead, they would repent (v. 30). But Abraham is
inconvincible: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded
through one rise from the dead” (v. 31).

Evaluation of the characters

Three times the rich man pleads for something and three time it is in vain. He is
obviously in a different position than he was when he was alive. While alive, he could have
had anything. In hell he can have nothing. The debate takes place between the rich man and
Abraham. Twice we hear the reference to Moses and the prophets, who are the essential parts
of the Tenak, which has the greatest authority. Great lessons are hidden in Abraham’s
statements. Opposite Abraham stands the rich man, who only asks, demands, and pleads. He
is in a contrary role than in his former life. In his case however, it is too late for anything. 71
Lazarus is not active in this discussion and is a passive character in the parable.
Instead, the meaning of Lazarus’ name speaks to the reader/listener – “God helps” (a variation
of the Hebrew or Aramaic ‫)אלעזר‬. At the same time, a parallel can be drawn to Abraham’s
servant Eliezer, the heir of the house of Abraham, who is childless. But Lazarus not only
inherits the house, he is placed directly into the arms of the “father”.

71
O. Glombitza sees from this perspective in Der reiche Mann und der arme Lazarus (Nov. T. 12/1970), pp. 166-
180. In the rich man’s case, it is “Zu spät”.
 14

The dialog between Abraham and the rich man, the parable, Jesus’ speech, and the
whole rhetorical unit ends in v. 31. The conclusion (v. 31) is negative, empowered by
Abrahams’ uniqueness in the Jewish nation. The rich man finds no compassion in Abraham
because he was not himself compassionate in life.
Abraham’s statements in vv. 29 and 31 are conformable to what Jesus says to the
Pharisees in vv. 16-17. In fact, Jesus says the same thing to the Pharisees twice, once in the
form of a parable, thus confirming his statements, escalating the situation by enclosing
himself in the authority of Abraham. Using the unit’s synchronous inner logic, he does not
actually overlook the Law (v. 17), but he extends the Law beyond the boundary of life, into
Abraham and the rich man’s dialogue (v. 31). Abraham’s figure, as well as the reference to
Moses and the prophets, serves as ”external evidence” of the argumentation known to the
ones involved and originating in the Bible. The “external evidence”, ergo evidence invented
by the author, can be found in v. 14 and is told by the narrator, Luke.
Verses 16-17, which discuss the Law, were very hard to categorize on a diachronic
level. We see in synchronic analysis that the verses do not interfere. On the contrary, they
categorize and confirm the arguments of the parable. There is no doubt that both of the
parables correspond to each other.
The parable can be entitled “The parable of the unmerciful rich man”, and it
extends from v. 19 to v. 31.

The Comparison of the Parables

The “master” declares his vindicative statement (v. 8) in the first parable. The disciples
(v. 1), forming a new community around Jesus, are the main audience of the parable. The
second parable contains a warning memento to those who do not heed Moses and the prophets
(the Pharisees, vv. 14-15) uttered by Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. Both Abraham
and the master judge their own subject. One sentence is merciful, the other is not, which in the
“second plan” symbolizes Luke’s view of the Jewry of his day. The lesson to take from this
unit as a whole is: “ Do not serve mammon, serve God” (v. 13) and be a disciple, for it is
“there” parable that ends with salvation, not the one meant for the Pharisees, the keepers and
authorities of the “old order”. The “first plan” certainly concerns itself with possession and
one’s relationship to it. But the crucial point is the mercifulness and un-mercifulness of the
rich men. One is surprisingly merciful, the other is his direct counterpart. The mercifulness of
the first rich man leads to the salvation of others. The un-mercifulness of the other does not
lessen Lazarus’ earthly agony, but is the cause of his doom. The merciful rich man has the
correct attitude towards possessions and people and serves God. The un-merciful serves
mammon, not God or people (from the maxim in v. 13).
A parallel exists between the counterparts in the second parable and the antithetic
relations between the parables – “The parable of the merciful rich man” versus “The
parable of the unmerciful rich man”. The circumstances that the parables begin in the same
way, handle the same topic, but each in a different way, and both turn into dialogues which
enable us to find the figure called “expolitio”72, which some authors of old rhetoric handbooks
do not consider a real figure, but only as a technique of amplification.
Concerning the “rhetoric situation”, the whole unit lacks information about time and
place. The disciples are in the role of listeners and do not interfere with Jesus’ story in any
way. Friction is created between Jesus and the Pharisees (it is this way in the whole story),

72
Kennedy, NT Interpretation, “Expolitio occurs,...when we linger on the same topic and seem to be saying
something different . It occurs in two forms: we either state the same thing again or we speak about the same
thing. We will not say the same thing in the same way – for that would tire the reader, not refine the subject – but
you /sic/ should change it. We can change it in three ways: by changing the words, by changing the tone of
delivery, or by treatment”., p. 29.
 15

who hear his speech and mock him. Jesus reacts by telling another parable, in which, once the
parable is deciphered, the Pharisees acquire the undesirable position of the unmerciful rich
man. However, the reader/listener is already prepared for this in v. 14. The narrator does not
document more of the Pharisees´ and disciple’s reactions, Jesus’ lessons being clear. The
thinking of both of the participating groups of listeners will be made clear later in Jesus’ lot.
Luke’s reader/listener has acquired the knowledge how to manage possessions given to him
by God, has peered into Jesus’ “ethos”, and has to ask himself questions about his relationship
to mammon and Jesus, the same way the dishonest steward had to, whether he is like the
forgiven disciple or the Pharisee, who does not listen to Moses and the prophets.
This situation shows us that the “post - Easter” Church assigns both Jews and gentiles
as ones heeding the message of the resurrected Jesus – Christ.

4.3 Grammar and Style – “Elocutio” of the Unit

The evaluation of Luke’s style cannot be all-inclusive from such a short body of text
as chapter 16 represents. Some comments on this subject have already been mentioned in
earlier parts of this essay. It could be said that Luke, as well as Paul, were able to write in
Attic Greek, but deliberately chose to use koine. All the same, his style is considered elegant
in the criteria of the New Testament and his high level of style helps his intention. Luke
shows the knowledge of classical rhetorical forms and pays considerable attention to textual
structure. The use of “prosopopoeiae” is evident in Luke’s gospel and he may even have
adjusted the settings based on specific principles making it more convenient for the reader.
Kennedy evaluates Luke as a “reasonably skilled writer of speeches”, who “has exercised
considerable restraint in literary elaboration of his speeches; those in the classical historians
are generally much longer” (this concerns mainly Acts)73.

Lexis and Synthesis

Luke does not prefer either archaisms, new, or foreign words. The only exception is
the use the Hebrew unit for the measure of capacity – βάτος and κόρος. It cannot be said that
he uses old words in a new manner. Exceptions are the phrases υjοί το™ αk§νος and υjοί το™
φωτός, which at the same time form a figure called “similitude” and are a part of the aphorism
in verse 8b, where the verse has a form of proclamation.
Nolland believes that Luke borrowed the beginning (Tνθρωπος τις ƒν πλούσιος) of the
parable in v. 1b from v. 19, to set a parallel that would link the two parables74. The use of the
verb διαβάλλειν indicates a type of juridical procedure75. Only Luke in the New Testament
uses the idiom Pκούειν τr περί τίνος (v. 2) and the words εqπεν δέ dν eαυτ² may be Lukan
diction76. The use of plural γράμματα is quit common in legal documents77. Scholars argue
about the important expression κύριος (v. 8a). Some say it indicates Jesus, others say that it is
only the master in the parable. The term “sons of this age” from v. 8b is also documented in
the Qumran document (CD 20.34), as does the expression “sons of the light” (for example
1QS 1.9, 2.16, 3.13, 24, 25). This Semite phraseology indicates that the verse originated in
Palestine78.

73
Kennedy, NT Interpretation, pp. 32, 97-98, 100, 114-115.
74
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm., p. 797.
75
Topel, On the Injustice, p. 217.
76
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm., p. 797.
77
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm., p. 799.
78
M.G. Steinhauser, Noah in his Generation: An Allusion in Luke 16.8b, “είς τήν γενεάν τήν έαυτών” (ZNW
79/1988), pp. 152-157. Bailey contemplates on the Greek origins the verse in Poet & Peasant, p. 109.
 16

Concerning the middle unit, it is important to mention the term μαμωνOς, which is the
Greek translation of the Hebraic ‫ ממון‬and the Aramaic ‫ממונא‬. It most likely has a neutral
meaning and does not necessarily have to have a negative coloration79. The genitive το™
μαμωνO τyς Pδικίας is also characterized as “Hebraic” and its use not only indicates its
origin, but also emphasizes the semantic force of the phrase80. The word βδέλυγμα (v. 15) is
interesting from the view of lexis; it adds an emotive dimension to it and also appears in LXX
in relation to what God considers absolutely outrageous81.
F. W. Danker thinks necessary for a proper understanding of vv. 16-18 the
comprehension of the function of the word πOς, which, as he belives, plays a crucial role. It is
placed into the mouths of the Pharisees in v. 16, while Jesus, as an “alarming echo”, uses it in
v. 18. Jesus uses it to taunt the Pharisees in terms of their own Law. πOς is then used to
emphasize sarcasm82 and helps the recognition of v. 17 as an ironic commentary regarding the
attitude of the Pharisees. The use of the “gnomic present” in v. 18, expressed with the aid of
πOς ¿ + pres.part. Pπολύων, points to a timeless fact, thus acquiring the value of general
maxima, which last for “all time”83.
Aside from the already mentioned beginning in v. 19, the term dνεδιδύσκετο πορφύρα
arises in the second parable, probably having been influenced by Mark’s language in Mark
15.1784. The depiction of the extravagance with which the rich man clothes himself prepares
the reader/listener from the beginning for a negative verdict befalling the rich man. The words
dπιθυμ§ν χορτασθyναι (v. 21) could be linked to Luke 15.16. Food also falls off the table of
the master in Matt 15.27 and little dogs (puppies) fed on them. This is a more positive picture
than in Luke. On the other hand, Luke’s rich man would have had no problem feeding the
beggar with the crumbs from his table, yet he does not do so. The dogs lick the beggar’s sores
instead of eating the crumbs.
The placement of Abraham in the story amplifies the blessings that Lazarus receives
after his death in contrast to the suffering of the rich man (vv. 23-25). Nolland believes that
much of the language used in this parable is truly Lukan85. The evidence for this, for example,
is the use of dγένετο δc + infinitive in v. 22. He also considers dρωτ§..., lνα (v. 27) to be a
Lukan diction86. “The Law and the prophets” (v. 16) is a testified Jewish idiom, while the
term “Moses and the prophets” is Luke’s variation on it (vv. 29-30). Lukan features can be
seen in the expressions οšχί...Pλλ´, πορευθ†, μετανοήσουσιν (v. 30), and in πεισθήσονται (v.
31)87.

5. Conclusion

The previous analysis shows us that rhetoric critique in collaboration with other
synchronous methods of interpretation is an effective tool of exegesis, being able to
supplement novel ideas into diachronic research, in this case it ensures the perception of the
text as a “unit” with strong inner bonds.
The earlier presented structure of the unit is a cogent part of the argument. The
revelation of the relationship between the two parables and the understanding of the function
of the middle unit between them uncovers the depth and tactic of Jesus’ speech, passed on to

79
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm., p. 805-806.
80
D. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1996), pp. 86-88.
81
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm., p. 810.
82
Danker, Luke 16.16, pp. 237-238.
83
Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 523.
84
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm., p. 827.
85
Nolland, The Word.Bib.Comm., p. 830.
86
Nolland, The Word.Bib.Comm., pp. 829-830.
87
Nolland, The Word Bib.Comm., pp. 830-831.
 17

us in Luke’s qualified writings, which make Luke 16 an original compact unit. The unraveling
of this structure helps us to understand the “second plan”, which Jesus and Luke prepared for
the reader/listener.
The devised names of the parables (“The parable of the merciful rich man” and “The
parable of the unmerciful rich man”) are a result originating in their symmetry and
juxtaposition. The division of the chapter into three basic functional parts (vv. 1-8, 9-18, 19-
31), that mutually communicate, facilitates orientation to the reader and conveys an
appropriate transition to the commentary. Perceiving the text as a “speech” and discerning the
bonds that have a binding effect impede an often unnecessary atomizing of the whole. This
awareness can lead to the finding of the structure created by the author and contribute to that
structure’s exegetical usage.

This unit is thematically separate from the previous rhetorical unit, chapter 15, and is
introduced by a new speech in v. 16.1a. Chapter 17 begins similarly. Nevertheless, chapter 16
has many similar traits with chapter 15: they are both monothematic and are made up of
parables, which end in essential statements with God’s claim and an analogous speech about
God. The second plan is distinctive in both parables, giving us insight into the Jewish –
Christian relationship, reflected in the observation of Luke’s time. But while chapter 15
gradates at its end (v. 32) and its two smaller parables are a preparation for the third main
parable, the 16th chapter has two parables that are equivalent in importance and gradates in its
middle, in the last part of v. 13. The important thing to note is that in a certain sense, chapter
16 is a continuation of chapter 15, for the problem of “the older son” is firstly mammon
(15,29-30) and chapter 16 solves (among other things) the right attitude towards it.
The accomplished research of the 16th chapter lets us state that Luke the evangelist
used many rhetorical practices in his work, which emphasize the presented argument. A well
thought out composition ensures the continuality of the material that is very appealing to the
reader.

ABSTRACT

The point of study is to present Luke’s 16th chapter as continuous speech, which
forms a “compact rhetorical unit”. The structure (disposition) of this unit is based on two
parables (Luke 16.1-8 and Luke 16.19-31), which are in an antithetic relation. The middle
part (Luke 16,9-18) acts as an expository thesis to both parables, indicates to whom the
parables are intended, and forms a “time” bond between the parables.
The first parable is directed at the disciples, even though the Pharisees hear it as
well (v. 14). It ends surprisingly well, while the second parable, intended for the Pharisees,
ends badly (v. 31). The disciples, the Pharisees, and the reader/listener hear both parables,
know how they end, and thus can choose for themselves.
Both parables begin with Tνθρωπος (δέ) τις ƒν πλούσιος..., which is typical for
comparison using contradiction. The antithetic relation of these parables enables us to
name them “The parable of the merciful rich man” and “The parable of the unmerciful
rich man”. While the first rich man is the “master”, the other becomes a tormented poor
man. The first has no problem abandoning his belongings, the second one cannot, etc…
Verse 13 plays an important part in the rhetorical unit. It closes the cluster of
aphorisms (vv. 9b-13) and is the key to the understanding of both parables.
Rhetorical criticism allows us to combine the texts shattered by a series of titles in
different translations and commentaries and to give more consideration to the position of
the reader/listener of Jesus’ (Luke’s) speech, who perceives the inner logic of the unit. The
 18

16th chapter thus takes on the form of an episode, in which Jesus speaks to the disciples and
the Pharisees on his journey to Jerusalem.