1

ON PREACHING “FICTIVE ARGUMENT”: A READER-RESPONSE LOOK AT A LUKAN PARABLE AND 3 SAYINGS ON DISCIPLESHIP

Robert Stephen Reid (rreid@dbq.edu) Published Restoration Quarterly, Spring 2001

In my recent study, Preaching Mark, I made use of a reader-response approach to analyze

the way Mark chiastically arranged the fictive argument of his narrative. My interest was to

discover how he used the story of Jesus to preach to his own community and to recover his

narrative voice. I argued that Mark’s voice is actually found in the reasons why he tells the various

stories in the order in which he tells them. This is one way to pay attention to the “intending” of the

language of the text. We do not know the intentions of the writer of Mark, but Mark was written

according to the rhetorical conventions of a strategy of discourse that allows us to discover the

intentions of its implied author. I have labeled this recovery of voice found in a gospel writer’s

strategy of composition the fictive argument embodied in the form of the gospel in order to

distinguish it from the one-thing-after-another argument of the story.1 Its recovery can be of

significant assistance for contemporary preachers who see their own interpretive and homiletic

task as attempting to perform intentions aligned with the argument strategies of a biblical text.

In this study I begin a similar exploration of the fictive argument embedded in the chiastic

construal of Luke’s Journey to Jerusalem Meta-narrative (9:51-19:48) by offering a new proposal

for the “literary” design of the central section that accounts for parallels for all of the journey

material. I employ the construal to examine the seemingly opaque sayings collection immediately

after Jesus turns his face to Jerusalem (Lk. 9: 57-62) in light of the equally problematic parable

uttered just before entering Jerusalem (Lk. 19:11-28). Since the effort to recover the voice of an

implied author also involves the recovery of the implied readers whom the author “creates,” this

kind of inquiry allows us to bring their voices and their possible “suspicians” in response to

2

reading the gospel to our own interpretive task.2 In light of this, I conclude by responding to the

questions, “How does one preach a fictive argument?” and “How can the preacher bring these

voices to the conversation implied by the sermon?”3

LUKE’S LITERARY JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM AS AN “ORDERLY ACCOUNT”

From the time that Luke’s Jesus decides to resolutely make for Jerusalem at 9:51 and his

final arrival which concludes at 19:48, the text takes him on a narrative journey that covers much

more interesting ground than Judean geography. If the collection is intended to represent a

journey, critics are well aware that the trip is taken over a geographically ambiguous route. Luke

has Jesus leave Galilee by way of Samaria, but arrives in Jerusalem by the long route around that

region which takes travelers through Jericho. He is found just outside of Jerusalem more than

once on the way (10:38-42, 13:31), then later back along the boarder of Samaria and Galilee

(17:11). Since the geography of the journey is so vague as to be nonexistent (Cf. 9: 52, 56, 10:1, 38,

11:1, 13:10, 22, 14:1, and 17:11-12), the reader is left with the overwhelming impression that

Luke’s journey has more to do with Jesus’ “setting his face for Jerusalem (9:51) than actually

attempting to make his way there. Schmidt has aptly noted that “One cannot avoid the fact that

although Jesus is traveling to Jerusalem all the time, he never really makes any progress.”4

Writing in 1938, McCown found the conclusion inescapable that Luke’s geography and

topography served as a literary device rather than a record of an actual journey.5

Critical efforts at explaining Luke’s journey began with suggestions that he was melding

material from sources describing several different journeys. When source and redaction criticism

became significant approaches to interpretation, the ambiguities of the journey were attributed to

Luke’s attempt to incorporate a proto-Luke source into the template provided by the Markan

3

journey narrative. Some critics view the extended narrative as a simple collection of detached

episodes organized around a travel-motif so that the stories would be told with Jerusalem and Jesus’

coming passion in view.6 Among those who believe the journey is more literary than literal, the

question became “How is it literary?” Two major theories have been offered to account for the

poetics of Luke’s emplotment.

Emplotted as a Christian Deuteronomy: In 1957 C. F. Evans argued that the trip was

actually a Christian Exodus, organized according to the sequential progression of the “Exodus

Journey” in Deuteronomy.7 James L. Resseguie observed that, “It is a tribute to Evan’s brilliantly

argued essay that very few criticisms have been made of the position.”8 However, lack of critique is

not always a measure of acceptance. In fact, Evans thesis was not taken very seriously until 1976,

when John Drury incorporated it into his own proposal that Luke’s central section is a conflation of

Matthean special material and Luke’s own material. Drury argued that the Journey to Jerusalem

narrative represents a handbook on Christian Living following the model of the Deuteronomic

journey to the “promised land” that already served as a guide to faithful living for the devout Jew.9

More recently David Moessner has argued that Luke cast Jesus as a new Moses taking his followers

on an exodus journey to the cross. For Moessner, the overlooked intertextuality of Jesus’ journey to

Jerusalem with the Deuteronomic journey is the key that unlocks the Lukan theology.10

Emplotted as a Chiastic Arrangement: M. D. Goulder was the first modern critic who

argued for a limited “chiastic” structure for the material between Luke 10:25-18:30.11

In the mid

70’s, Charles Talbert, Kenneth Bailey, and Gerhard Sellin all attempted to revise and expand

Goulder’s basic presentation of the inverted nature of this material, while Donald Miesner sought

to further refine the work of Talbert.12

More recently, Craig Blomberg (1983), Hobert K Farrell

4

(1986), and F. Ó. Fearghail (1991) have sought further clarification of these proposals.13

These

critics have all demonstrated that there are far too many parallels to dismiss the argument that

symmetry structures the organizational strategy of the central section. However, these proposals

have problems accounting for some of the material, largely because the critics have only considered

chiastic inversion as the compositional technique. One need only look at the proposals of Talbert of

Bailey to recognize there are gaps in their respective construals. In the proposal I offer here, I allow

for the use of step parallelism as an aesthetically acceptable alternative to inversion. This permits

the possibility of grouping materials in thematic sub-collections.14

Are the Deuteronomistic and the chiastic proposals mutually exclusive? Drury comments

that, “Anyone who reads Luke 9:51-18:14 with [Evan’s] table at his elbow will be struck by the

way in which Luke’s apparently wayward changes of subject are explained by it time and again.”15

Yet the same reader will also be struck by the fact that Evan’s table becomes less reliable once the

reader has “rounded” the central point of the narrative (Lk. 13:31-35). One solution may be that the

book of Deuteronomy itself was composed chiastically.16

If this assumption proves accurate, then

Luke’s chiastic composition would simply be an extended midrash on the original Deuteronomic

journey. One would not have to choose between the two theories that answer the question, “How is

it literary?” Taken together, these literary approaches suggest that the stories, sayings and parables

included in this section of Luke’s Gospel should be interpreted as teaching with an eye always fixed

on preparing people to enter the “land of promise,” always fixed on preparing disciples for the

coming crisis of Jerusalem and the cross.

Figure 1 is a fresh proposal for the “orderly account”(anataxasthai diêgêsin— Lk. 1:1) of

the Journey to Jerusalem Meta-narrative in the Gospel of Luke 9:51-19:48.17

5

I THE DECISION TO GO TO JERUSALEM Lk. 9:51-56

II 3 SAYINGS FOR WOULD-BE FOLLOWERS Lk. 9:57-62

First Saying (57-58)

Second Saying (59-60)

Third Saying (61-62)

III PEACE OR JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED

OVER HOUSES AND CITIES Lk. 10:1-20

Scene I: Seventy Disciples Sent Out 1-20)

Scene II: Two Pronouncements for the Journey (5-11)

Scene II’: Two Eschatological Pronouncements (12-17)

Scene I’: The Seventy Return (17-20)

IV THE HIDDEN, THE REVEALED Lk. 10:21-24

V ON INHERITING ETERNAL LIFE Lk. 10:25-42

Scene I: On Receiving Eternal Life (25-37)

Scene II: On Choosing the One Thing Over the Many Expectations (38-42)

VI TEACHING ON PRAYER Lk. 11:1-13

VII EVIDENCES OF THE KINGDOM AMONG YOU Lk. 11:14-36

Scene I: Argument Over Signs of the Kingdom (14-20)

Sayings Collection II: Four Sayings on the Need for Discernment (21-28))

Scene I’: Foreigners ill rise up to testify (29-32)

Additional Saying (II’) on Spiritual Insight as Sight (33-36)

VIII PRONOUNCEMENT OF WOE FOR THOSE WHOSE

TEACHING CAUSES OTHERS TO STUMBLE Lk. 11:37-54

Saying I— First Judgment Against Religious Hypocrisy (37-41)

Saying II— Second Judgment Against Religious Hypocrisy (42)

Saying II’— Third Judgment Against Religious Hypocrisy (43-44)

Saying I’— Fourth Judgment Against Religious Hypocrisy (45-54)

IX COLLECTED TEACHINGS FOR DISCIPLES AND Lk. 12:1-41

CROWDS INCLUDING THE “PARABLE OF THE RICH FOOL”

Scene I: Is This Teaching for Disciples Only or Crowds Also? (1)

Scene II: Possibly Speaks to the Crowds?— Eschatological Reversal Saying (2-3)

Scene III: Speaks to ”My Friends”— Two Sayings On What to Fear (4-5)

Scene IV: Speaks to Disciples— Three sayings for those who Confess Faith (6-12)

Scene V: Possibly Speaks to the Crowds?— Guard Against Greed (13-15)

Scene V’: Possibly Speaks to the Crowds?— Parable of the Rich Fool (16-21)

Scene IV’: Speaks to Disciples— Guard Against Greed (22-31)

Scene III’: Speaks to the “Little Flock”— On Appropriate Treasure (32-34)

Scene II’: Possibly Speaks to the Crowds?— Perseverance Rewarded (35-40)

Scene I’: Is This Teaching for Disciples Only or Crowds Also? (41)

X PARABLE OF THE PRUDENT MANAGER Lk. 12:42-48

XI ON COSTLY DISCIPLESHIP Lk. 12:49-53

XII ON THE NECESSITY OF REPENTENCE Lk. 12:54-13:9

Scene 1: Repent of Poor Judgment (54-46)

Scene II: The Necessity of Repentance (1-5)

Scene III: Judgment Creates the Urgency of Repentance (6-9)

XIII STORIES AND SAYINGS Lk. 13:10-30

OF ESCHATOLOGICAL REVERSAL

Episode A: Healing the Crippled Woman on the Sabbath (10-19)

Saying B: A Simile of the Kingdom (18-19)

Saying B’: A Simile of the Kingdom (20-21)

Episode A’: Eschatological Reversal in the Great Kingdom Banquet (22-30)

6

XIV POINT OF TURNING SECTION: Lk. 13:31-35

LAMENTING JERUSALEM

First Jerusalem Lamentation (31-33)

Second Jerusalem Lamentation (34-35)

XIII’ THE DINNER PARTY: STORIES OF Lk. 14:1-24

ESCHATOLOGICAL REVERSAL

First Dinner Party Episode: Healing the Crippled Man on the Sabbath (1-6)

Second Dinner Party Episode: First Eschatological Reversal Saying (7-11)

Third Dinner Party Episode: Second Eschatological Reversal Saying (12-14)

Fourth Dinner Party Episode:

Eschatological Reversal for the Great Kingdom Banquet (15-24)

XI’ ON THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP Lk. 14:25-35

XII’ ON THE NECESSITY OF REPENTENCE Lk. 15:1-32

Scene I: The Hostility of Pharisees to Jesus’ Acceptance of Sinners (1-2)

Scene II: Parable of the Hundred to One Odds of Redemption (3-7)

Scene III: Parable of the Ten to One Odds of Redemption? (8-10)

Scene IV’: Parable of the Two to One Odds of Redemption (In Two Parts) (11-32)

X’ PARABLE OF THE SHREWD MANAGER Lk. 16:1-15

Scene I: Parable of the Shrewd Manager (1-8)

Scene II: Implications for “Children of the Light” (9-13)

Scene III: Implications for “Children of this Age” (14-15)

IX’ COLLECTED TEACHINGS Lk. 16:16-31

FOR DISCIPLES AND CROWDS

Saying I: On Observing the Letter of the Law (16-17)

Saying II: On Observing the Letter of the Law (18)

Saying III: Parable on the Redemptive Adequacy

of the Law and the Prophets (19-31)

VIII’ OCCASIONS FOR STUMBLING VS.

OCCASIONS FOR FAITH Lk. 17:1-10

First Saying: Woe to Those Who Cause Stumbling (1-2)

Saying Two: Appropriate Responses to Stumblers (3-4)

Third Saying: Alternatives to Stumbling-- On Obedience as Faith (5-6)

Fourth Saying: Alternatives to Stumbling-- On Faith as Obedience (7-10)

VII’ EVIDENCES OF THE KINGDOM AMONG YOU Lk. 17:11-37

Scene I: Only the foreigner returns to testify (11-19)

Secen II: Pronouncement Concerning the Signs of the Kingdom (20-37)

VI’ TEACHING ON PRAYER Lk. 18:1-14

Scene I: An Encased Parable on Persistence (1-8)

Scene II: A Second Encased Parable on Prayer (9-14)

V’ ON INHERITING ETERNAL LIFE Lk. 18:15-30

Scene A: On Receiving the Kingdom Unhindered (15-17)

Scene B: On Wealth and Receiving Eternal Life (18-23)

Scene B’: On Wealth and Receiving Eternal Life? (24-27)

Scene A’: On Receiving Eternal Life (28-30)

IV’ THE HIDDEN, THE REVEALED AND THE ABILITY TO SEE IT Lk. 18:31-43

Scene I: Jesus Reveals the Passion (31-34)

Scene II: A Man Sees Through Faith (35-43)

III’ PEACE PRONOUNCED OVER THE HOUSE OF ZACHAEUS Lk. 19:1-10

II’ PARABLE OF THE THREE RETAINERS Lk. 19:11-27

I’ JESUS ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM Lk. 19:28-48

Scene I : Triumphal Entry (28-38)

Scene II: Challenge of the Pharisees (39-44)

Scene III: He Enters the Temple (45-48) FIG. 1: A CHIASTIC CONSTRUAL OF THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM META-NARRATIVE

7

ON FIGURING WHO IS FIT FOR THE KINGDOM— LK. 9:57-62 AND 19:11-27

The Following Sayings in Luke 9:57-62

As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” And

Jesus said to him “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to

lay his head.” To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”

But Jesus said to him “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom

of God.” Another said, “I will follow you Lord; but first let me say farewell to those at my home. Jesus

said to him, “No one, who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

(NRSV)

What are we to make of these strange sayings of Jesus in Lk. 9:57-62? In the first incident

a would-be disciple announces his desire to become a follower. Jesus responds by saying that even

animals and birds possess some tie to the physical world, but not him and, by implication, not his

followers. Whatever hope an individual may have of achieving “the good life” must be surrendered

if the choice is to follow Jesus. In the second sayings story Jesus invites someone to become a

follower and the individual accepts, asking only to have a chance to first go and bury his father who

had died. Jesus responds with the shocking words, “Let the dead bury their own dead.” Burial of

one’s parents was a moral necessity among the Hebrews (Gen. 50:5; Tob. 4:3) and to leave it

undone was scandalous. In any culture, burying one’s parents is a sacred social duty. You only

desert this obligation in the most impossible of circumstances. Yet Jesus says that it is a

requirement for people who want to join him in proclaiming the kingdom of God! In the third

sayings story a simple request to say good-bye is turned into an all-or-nothing decision about

whether a person is fit for the kingdom. Even the great disciple Elisha was permitted by the Prophet

Elijah to return to his home and say good-bye before leaving to follow his teacher (I Kings 19:20).

It is no coincidence that this same request is made to Jesus in this context. The message is clear—

even more is required to be a follower of Jesus.

By placing these three pronouncements back to back at this point, Luke has Jesus begin his

journey to Jerusalem announcing to any would-be disciple, that followers who are “fit for the

8

kingdom” (9:62) must be willing to surrender any hope of getting ahead in life, must disavow all

previous social obligations, and must sever all prior communal and familial ties. These

requirements are so stringent that by any cultural standard, then or now, they would be the

defining features of a cult. Compare them to Luke’s stated purpose in relating the Gospel

narrative to assist Theophilus, a patron who has completed catechumate training (katêxêthês),

from getting “tripped up” (asphaleian, 1:4) in his faith. There seems to be a significant difference

between Luke’s expectation of followers— however much it may be constrained by the generic

expectations of an historical preface— and the expectation he attributes to Jesus at this juncture

of his “orderly account.” Why?

It would help if we knew what became of these requests. Matthew’s use of these stories

turns the first man into a scribe and makes the request to bury family dead come from someone

who was already a disciple (Mt. 8:19-22). In each case this information at least hints at possible

outcomes. We suspect that a scribe would not be willing to follow based on Jesus’ offensive

reply, but we don’t assume a disciple stopped being a follower of Jesus if he decided in favor of

burying his dead family member. Without the third “fitness” saying, Matthew’s collection seems

less harsh, less programatic. In Luke’s Gospel, the hints as to possible outcomes found in

Matthew are eliminated. Each of these incident ends ambiguously. In narrative terms, we might

say that the Luke sayings stories have no closure. We don’t know what happened. Luke does not

intervene to supply either an authorial approbation or reproach. The reader is forced to supply

whatever moralizing there is to be done.

As readers, when we confront what seems to be an opaque text, Hans-Georg Gadamer

maintains that we can understand only when we understand the question to which something is

9

an answer.18

So if we are to interpret the meaning of these sayings in a reasonable manner, we

must first understand the question to which the sayings are an answer. To discover that question

we must look to the fictive argument of Luke’s literary strategy of emplotment of the Meta-

narrative. According to the construal presented above, Lk. 9:57-62 is paralleled by the text at Lk.

19:11-27, a parable Jesus offers near the end of his literary journey to Jerusalem.

The Parable of the Timid Retainer in Luke 19:11-28

As Figure 2 demonstrates, this parable is a carefully organized inversion. The story is

framed by two segments, A and A’, which situate the parable in Jesus’ proximity to Jerusalem.

Segment B introduces the parable and places a nobleman in juxtaposition to those who oppose his

rule. It also introduces the theme of the retainers/slaves to whom the nobleman leaves money (a

sum equivalent to three months wages) to “do business.”19

The balancing segment, B’, resolves the

relationship of the nobleman to those who opposed him. The remainder of the parable is taken up

with the accounting of the retainer’s “business.” In Segment C, the nobleman who has received a

royal appointment demands a financial accounting from the retainers. It is balanced, in C’, with an

eschatological pronouncement about reward for those who engage in “business” in a productive

manner. The nobleman rewards a tenfold gain in segment D with the appointment to govern ten

cities in his newly appointed kingdom. In segment D’, the timid retainer’s money is given as an

additional reward to the retainer in segment D. Segment E recounts a fivefold gain by the second

retainer, rewarded with governance of five cities in the kingdom. This is balanced in segment E’

with a declaration that surely some trading could have increased the capital. In the center of the

parable, segment E, the timid retainer recounts his motives for hiding the money: “I was afraid of

10

you because you are a harsh man.” At the climactic point-of-turning in segment E’, the nobleman

offers a harsh

A As they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable,

because he was near Jerusalem, and JERUSALEM

because they supposed the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

B a So he said, “A nobleman went to a distant country NOBLEMAN

to get royal power for himself and then return. JOURNIES

b He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds, SUMMONS

b’ and said to them ‘Do business with these until I come back.’ INSTRUCTS

a’ But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him DELAGATION

saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’ JOURNEY

C When he returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves,

to whom he had given the money, to be summoned RETAINERS ARE

so that he might find out what they had gained by trading. JUDGED

D The first came forward and said, 1st RETAINER

‘Lord, your pound has made ten more pounds.’ He said to him, TEN POUNDS

‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy

in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.’ TEN CITIES

E Then the second came, saying, 2nd

RETAINER

‘Lord your pound has made five pounds.’ FIVE POUNDS

He said to him, ‘And you rule over five cities.’ FIVE CITIES

F Then the other came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound. 3rd

RETAINER

I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, for I was afraid of you, “HARSH JUDGE”

because you are a harsh man; you take what you do not deposit,

and reap what you did not sow.’

F’ He said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words,

you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, “HARSH JUDGE”

taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow?

E’ Why then did you not put my money in the bank? SOME RETURN?

Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest.’ SIMPLE INTEREST?

D’ He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him TAKE POUND

and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’ TEN POUNDS

(And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’)

C’ ‘I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; ALL SERVANTS

but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. ARE JUDGED

B’ But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-- DELEGATION

bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’” JUDGED

A’ After he had said this he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. JERUSALEM

Fig. 2: The Parable of the Timid Retainer

judgment, using the retainer’s own words to convict him of timidity. This construal of the parable

accounts for several otherwise strange turns within the story. The announcement concerning the

order to kill those who oppose the king is less abrupt in this reading, occurring precisely where a

first century reader would expect the resolution of that aspect of this story. This construal also

11

assists the reader, unaccustomed to reading stories emplotted in this fashion, in recognizing that the

climax of the parable is not in the death of the king’s opposition, but is expressed in the nobleman’s

response to the timid retainer.

The material at the beginning (19:14-15a) and end (19:27) of this parable make it difficult

to classify it as one of the basic kinds of parables (similitude, parable proper with one main point,

example story, and allegory).20

The portion of the parable involving household retainers required to

do business with the money they received is similar to the parable of the Talents at Mt. 25:14-30.

But the addition of judgment on the enemies of the man who would be king appears to be a veiled

allusion to the historical circumstances by which Herod’s eldest son Archelaus sought to be named

King in 4 BC.21

Jesus’ parable seems to play with this tradition, inviting his audience to imagine all

the political possibilities of a “what if” analogy.22

With the addition of this material, four classes of

people are depicted in the parable: a demanding nobleman, rewarded retainers, disenfranchised

retainer(s), and enemies.

Jack Dean Kingsbury’s succinct summary serves as a representative interpretation of the

parable: “One reason Jesus tells the parable of the pounds (19:11-27) is to teach that the disciples’

first priority is not to look for the final manifestation of the kingdom but to be faithful in doing the

work with which Jesus has entrusted them.”23

The hero of this interpretation is the retainer who has

remained focused on task and more than fulfilled the expectations of the returning nobleman.

William Herzog II offers a radically different interpretation of the parable in which the “Timid

Retainer” is the hero for choosing to reveal the truth of the oppressive economic system where

retainers do the dirty work of exploiting the poor for a nobleman’s gain. In this interpretation, “The

aristocratic master’s address is not to be taken at face value, as so many commentators have done. It

12

is an attack on a whistle-blower. The servant has unmasked the ‘joy of the master’ for what it is, the

profits of exploitation squandered in wasteful excess, and he has demystified [the] ‘good’ and

‘trustworthy’ [descriptions of the complicit retainers] by exposing the merciless oppression they

define.”24

Jesus had just pronounced salvation on the house of Zacchaeus who, as a tax collector

functioning as a retainer for the Roman government, had just repudiated his complicity in

perpetuating that oppressive economic system. Part of Luke’s twofold set-up for the parable is to

note, first, that Jesus offered the parable to those who were “listening” (19:11) as he announced

“The Son of Man came to seek out and save the lost” and, second, “because he was near

Jerusalem.” If the preacher accepts Herzog’s interpretation, then it is assumed that Jesus told the

parable to teach disciple’s, who are amazed at the extravagance of Zacchaeus’ redistribution of

wealth, that saving “lost” people from their complicit involvement in a corrupt, oppressive system

should be a disciple’s first priority in the kingdom come. Otherwise they would enter Jerusalem

only to replace one oppressive system with another equally oppressive one.

Herzog’s reading is attractive, but is only intended to offer a possible interpretation of an

original parable of Jesus. It has two flaws that make it difficult to accept as a reading of Luke’s

version. First, it is weak in accounting for Luke’s throne-claimant material (vv. 14-15a, 27). Herzog

concludes that “The difference between the Lukan and the Matthean versions of the parable

culminates in the reckoning scene.... [in which] the third servant is revealed as a spokesman for

the citizens who oppose the ruler, and in his speech (Luke 19:20-21) he articulates their

discontent (v. 14) and shares their fate (v. 27).” 25

This would make the whistle-blower complicit

in the conspiratorial efforts of the enemies of the nobleman and, thus, complicit in plans to replace

one oppressive system with another that was merely a political reaction rather than a spiritual

13

alternative. Clearly Luke’s Jesus views complicity in the corrupt economic system as a false

kingdom in which people can become lost to God (cf. 19:1-10). To make the third servant a

whistle-blower giving voice to the nobleman’s political opposition, would have the interpretation of

the parable reinforce the disciples’ false Messianic hopes about the coming Messianic reign. The

second flaw is that Herzog is forced to argue that the concluding paraenesis offered at 19:26— “‘I

tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what

they have will be taken away”— has to be treated as a “free-floating proverb” redactively added to

the parable either by the church in the second stage of the tradition or by Matthew (Mt. 25:29) and

Luke for their own theological purposes.26

So, Herzog’s interpretation of the original parable Jesus

may have preached is provocative and insightful, but it does not illuminate Luke’s use of the

parable for his own fictive argument.27

Herzog’s interpretation speaks only of a possible meaning

for Jesus’ listener’s circa A.D. 33. It does not offer a possible meaning for Luke’s listeners circa A.D.

85.

In the story related immediately prior to the parable, Luke’s readers would likely have been

astounded at Zacchaeus’ extravagance. However, we must never forget that they would have been

equally impressed with Jesus’ extravagance in welcoming this most unsuitable man as fit for the

kingdom. If the anticipated response to this extravagance is accepted at this point as part of the

contextual provocation for telling this parable, then it is rightly viewed as a parable of

eschatological judgment. The reader is told that the wealth of a nobleman is divided among his

retainers while he is off to receive his kingdom. Upon his return they are required to give an

account of what business they conducted with the capital left in their possession. The eschatological

fates of the players in this parable become crucial. The zealous retainers, who took outrageous risks,

14

are rewarded outrageously. The politically motivated people, who opposed the nobleman’s rule, are

utterly cut off and put to death. Only the final fate of the timid retainer is left ambiguous. The

audience knows that this retainer has earned the reprobation of the king and is abruptly relieved of

his investment capital, which is given to another. Yet, unlike Matthew’s version of the parable in

which the timid retainer is cast into the “outer darkness” (Mt. 25:30), in Luke’s version the man is

simply stripped of any rank he may have gained in the household economy and shamefully

dismissed. Nothing more is said because he has become irrelevant. In effect, he is deemed unfit for

any further role in the business of the “king.”

I argued earlier in this essay, that if a story gives an answer, understanding can only really

come when we know the question to which the story is a response. At this point both the sayings

stories at 9:57-62 and the parable at 19:11-27 appear to be answering the question, “What is

required of a follower?” The parable suggests that a follower must be willing to exercise great risk

in the “business” at hand or be dismissed as unfit for service. Conservative measures are repudiated

as an unreasonable response to the urgent task of the kingdom. To the degree that ties to the

physical world, social obligations, and familial ties would lead a follower to a tentative or qualified

commitment, that commitment is dismissed as unacceptable in the sayings stories. But the severity

of this response is qualified somewhat by the parable, where at least the possibility of simple

accrued interest was offered as a tolerable if under-appreciated response (19:23). Actually, the king

does reward different measures of risk as acceptable fitness for the kingdom (19:16-19). Only

“playing it safe” is found wholly unacceptable. It seems that one cannot follow Jesus to Jerusalem

and also try to “play it safe.” Those who would be fit for the kingdom must be willing to risk losing

fortune, friends, and family or they risk becoming irrelevant.

15

PUTTING THE INTERPRETATION TO THE DEUTERONOMIC TEST

If we use Evan’s Deuteronomic table to test this interpretation, we note that he considers

Lk. 9:57-62 to be patterned after the content of Deut. 1:34-40 and that Lk. 19:11-28 to be patterned

after Deut. 31:1-13.28

Deuteronomy 1:34-40 contains the announcement to the generation of

Israelites who left Egyptian bondage, that, because of their reservations in trusting God, they were

not found worthy to enter into the “promised land.” Only Caleb (“because of his complete fidelity”)

and Joshua are promised that they will be able to enter the “promised land.” Moses announces that

even he will not be privileged to enter the land. The severity of this Mosaic injunction against the

hesitant Israelites fits the seeming severity of Jesus’ response to the willing, yet hesitant, followers

in Lk. 9:57-62. So, what is required of a follower? The seeming answer: unwavering commitment

and absolute fidelity. In Deut. 31:1-13 Moses announces once again that he will not be allowed to

enter the “promised land.” But now he speaks to the generation who will cross over and encourages

them to be “strong and bold: have no fear or dread . . . do not fear or be dismayed” (31:7-8). Joshua

is named again as the one who will lead them into the “promised land” at the end of this wilderness

journey and the promise is given that the Lord will go before them and destroy all his enemies.

Luke appears to have employed the Deuteronomic story to frame his own narrative in

contrasting boldness and fearfulness among followers, while also promising to destroy all his

enemies (Lk. 19:27). As in Luke, the later story affirms much greater latitude for the prospects of

those who can be accepted as followers than does the former story. What is required of a follower?

Boldness to believe God will reward those who have risked all to enter the “Promised

Land”/Kingdom.

16

The fact that Luke casts Jesus’ Journey to Jerusalem as a kind of extended midrash on a

new Deuteronomic journey to a Promised Land/Kingdom adds a means to clarify and even evaluate

the interpretation of Luke’s fictive argument embodied in the chiastic construal of the Jerusalem

journey. We can certainly grasp that Jesus’ call to discipleship draws on the Deuteronomic model:

just as Moses prepared followers for the hazards of the journey, pleading for unwavering loyalty to

God as a condition for entry into life in the promised land, Luke depicts Jesus as preparing his own

disciples for the requirement of unwavering loyalty as he turns his face to Jerusalem and the cross.

That’s an AD 33 reading of the theology of the journey. For an AD 85 reading we need to consider

what context Luke’s congregation might face that would require a greater degree of commitment

than that depicted in the Galilean Meta-narrative (4:15-9:50). In answer, consider a similar contrast

in the brief and post-apostolic Letter of Jude. This author distinguishes the reasonable practice of a

follower who desires to “build yourself up on your most holy faith” (vv. 20-23), with the urgent

need to avoid rebellion against God’s purposes (vv. 5-19). Much like Luke, he reminds his readers,

who might be willing to tolerate such rebellion rather than take a stand of loyalty, “that the Lord,

who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not

believe” (v. 5).

ON PREACHING FICTIVE ARGUMENT

When preaching a parable, a teaching, a pronouncement or a story from the life of Jesus, the

speaker can frame the vantage point from which the theology of a text is viewed in one of two

ways.29

The traditional way has been to accept the saying/story as presented in the life of Jesus and

explore the text’s implications in light of Jesus’ teaching concerning the subject at hand: i.e.,

judgment, the reign of God, grace, discipleship, etc. When preached in this fashion, a text opens up

17

the world of Jesus as experienced by people he encountered in the fourth decade of the first century.

This kind of preaching invites listeners to hear the Word of the Lord as dialogical word spoken in

conversation with another, as word spoken to a small group of followers, or as word preached to

crowds of people. This approach implicitly treats the gospels as biographies of Jesus that present a

record of his pronouncements as truisms offered in a variety of situations. When listening to this

kind of preaching, what we hear is “Jesus says . . .” References to the Gospel from which the text is

drawn in this kind of preaching are usually noted in order to provide the historical context for these

sayings. There is a good deal of preaching from this vantage point.

A second way that the preacher can frame the theology of the text when preaching a parable,

a teaching, a pronouncement or a story from the life of Jesus, is to consider the way in which the

text functions as part of the specific theology of a gospel as addressed to a particular community of

faith. When preached in this fashion, a gospel text is used to explore the concerns of judgment, the

reign of God, grace, and discipleship, etc., in the first century world of the gospel writer who used

the Jesus story to preach a particular Christian worldview to people living in the eighth, ninth, or

tenth decade of the first century. This kind of preaching invites listeners to hear the Word of the

Lord as part of a discourse that cannot be separated from its implications for the audience for whom

it was first crafted as a theological argument for Christian living. This approach implicitly treats the

gospels as histories of Christian beginnings in which the sayings and stories of Jesus were

rhetorically structured as an argument intended to thematize the essential “truth” of what happened

in an appropriate manner. In this mode of preaching, sayings and stories are presented as part of a

trajectory of meaning, inviting modern listeners to discover how one community of faith was

coming to terms with the implications of what Jesus said and what that may mean for how they will

18

come to terms with it as well. Word of Jesus is presented as a message already realized as a Word

of faith by a Christian community. When listening to this kind of preaching what we hear is “Jesus

says . . . ,” but we also hear what the particular gospel writer is ‘saying,” or “suggesting,” or

“arguing.” In addition we are able to reflect on how the receiving audience may have heard or

experienced this strategy of argument. References to the Gospel from which the text is drawn in this

kind of preaching are made in order to situate the theology of the story in the larger theological

argument of the author. There is not as much preaching from this vantage point.

Of course, many who preach from the first vantage point make a concerted effort to remain

true to the theology of a particular Gospel. They consider the theology of a Gospel writer as part of

their own reflection as they think their way into the sermon. In this way, many preachers seek to

blend these two vantage points, at a minimum, letting the latter inform the former. But I also think

it fair to say that it is still unusual to hear sermons in which the argument “Jesus said” is balanced

by references to gospel writer’s strategy of argument; e.g., “By placing these three parables side by

side in Chapter 15, Luke invites us to compare how Jesus celebrated the reasonableness of

searching for a lost sheep when the odds were a hundred-to-one, celebrated the reasonableness of

searching for a lost coin when the odds were ten-to-one, and challenged the absurd attitude of the

Pharisees and the scribes who couldn’t rejoice at two-to-one odds even when the bet was split

between rejoicing over a lost son saved or agreeing with the grumblings of an embittered son

slighted.” Similarly, it is equally unusual to hear references crediting the response of the first

listening audience; e.g. “When we hear the story of Legion most of us tend to think about how it

isn’t fair to the pigs or to the local Association of Pork Purveyors. But the people who first heard

19

this story didn’t worry all that much about pigs or pig property rights. They were simply

astounded: ‘That much evil!’”30

I suspect that one of the reasons we don’t hear these voices included, that we don’t hear as

many sermons that assume at the outset the vantage point of the Gospel writer and the response of

his audience, is that for too long the content of this kind of assessment seemed to be the stuff of

scholarly introductions and academic debates. Couched as rationalist argument, much of this kind

of inquiry does not seem appropriate for sermons. When it has been offered up in a seminary

preaching practicum, too often it is the banal indicator of a student who has proved incapable of

moving beyond the authoritative voices of the scholars to find her or his own voice. But some of the

newer critical methodologies like reader-response criticism, narrative criticism, and rhetorical

criticism have yielded insights that can offer fresh appeal to contemporary preachers who want to

explore ways to discover the argument strategies implicit in the design of the text— the fictive

argument of the author.

Rev. Dr. Robert Stephen Reid is Adjunct Associate Professor of Communication for Fuller Theological Seminary in

Seattle, Lecturer in Rhetoric at the University of Washington and at St. Martin’s College, and Scholar-in-Residence

at University Place Presbyterian Church in Tacoma Washington. An earlier version of this essay was included in

the Papers of the Annual meeting of the American Academy of Homiletics, 1999.

Notes: 1 See Robert Stephen Reid. Preaching Mark. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999. On my use of the term fictive argument see

the Introduction to Preaching Mark and “The Power of Preaching Fictive Argument: Rhetorical Criticism and Gospel

Narratives.” Papers of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Homiletics, 1995. Pp. 102-111.

2 On voice, implied authors, and implied readers see the classic study by Wayne Booth. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Second

Edition. Chicago: U. of Chicago P. 1983. Pp. 395-98. On the relationship between the implied author’s voice and the

author’s “strategy of persuasion” see Paul Ricoeur. Time and Narrative: Volume 3. Kathleen Blamey and David

Pellauer, trans. Chicago: U. of Chicago P., 1988. Pp. 160-66.

3 My effort to identify the fictive argument of an implied author does not claim a univocal status of meaning for a text as

if we could reduce what Luke “meant to say” to a single intention. Rather, by suggesting that a preacher can bring a

“hermeneutic of suspicion” to a text beginning with its implied listeners, I am arguing that there is an inevitable

20

plurivocity in the text itself. This plurivocity is implicit in the trajectory of any writer’s strategy of persuasion for a

community, since a strategy of persuasion implies the hesitancies, concerns, and resistance of the readers whom a writer

conceives while formulating the fictive argument of the text. A model of this approach to the text can be found in André

LaCocque and Paul Ricoeur. Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies. David Pellauer, trans.

Chicago: U. of Chicago P., 1998. LaCocque and Ricoeur invite preachers and other interpreters of biblical texts to

embrace this plurivocity of a text as a trajectory of voices responding to scripture as sacred word: “The founding text

teaches— this is what torah means. And the community receives instruction. Even when this relation surpasses that

between authority and obedience to become one of love, the difference in altitude between the word that teaches with

authority and the one that responds with acknowledgment cannot be abolished. In this regard, faith is nothing other than

the confession of this asymmetry between the word of the teacher and that of the disciple, and between the writings in

which these two types of words are inscribed” Pp. xvii.

4 Cited by Hans Conzelmann. The Theology of St. Luke. G. Buswell, trans. New York: Harpers, 1960. P. 61

5 C. C. McCown. “The Geography of Luke’s Central Section.” The Journal of Biblical Literature 57 (1938): p. 58.

6 Moessner summarizes four different approaches to conceiving a unified purpose for the central section of Luke’s

Gospel after the 1950’s and 1960’s recognition that the material exhibited significant “dissonance of form from

content.” He divides the approaches into those which view the explore the unifying purpose as an expression of (1)

Theological-Christological concerns, (2) Ecclesiastical-Functional concerns, (3) Literary-Aesthetical concerns, and (4)

Traditional-logical concerns. He finds that only the 3rd approach has promise for further inquiry. David P. Moessner.

Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1989. Pp. 23-33.

7 Evans offers a comparative chart of the progression of Deuteronomy with that of Luke. C. F. Evans. “The Central

Section of St. Luke’s Gospel.” Studies in the Gospels. D. E. Nineham, ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957. Pp. 42-50.

8 J. L. Resseguie. “Interpretation of Luke’s Central Section (Luke 9:54-19:48) Since 1856.” Studia Biblica et Theologica

5 (1975): p. 13.

9 John Drury. Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography. Philadelphia: John

Knox: 1977. P. 140.

10 Moessner, 82-85.

11 M. D. Goulder, “The Chiastic Structure of the Lucan Journey.” Studia Evangelica, Papers Presented to the Second

International Congress on New Testament Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1961. Vol. 2. F. L. Cross, ed. (Berlin:

Akademie-Verlag, 1964) 195-202. Pp. 196-197.

12 C. H. Talbert. Literary Patterns and Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. SBL Monograph Series, 20.

Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1974. Pp. 51-56; cf. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological

Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1982. K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural

Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1976. Pp. 79-85; Gerhard Sellin. “Komposition,

Quellen und Funktion des lukanischen Reiseberichtes (Luke 9:51-19:28)” NT 20 (1978): pp. 100-35. Donald R.

21

Miesner, “The Missionary Journeys Narrative: Patterns and Implications.” Perspectives on Luke-Acts, Charles Talbert,

Ed. Danville, VA.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Press, 1978. Pp. 199-214. For the objection to

accepting a chiastic construal of the central section see I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the

Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Pp. 402.

13 Blomberg, Craig L. “Midrash, Chiasmus, and the Outline of Luke’s central Section.” Gospel Perspectives: Studies in

Midrash and Historiography. R. T. France and David Wenham, eds. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Pp. 217-61; Hobert

K. Farrell. “The Structure and Theology of Luke’s Central Section” Trinity Journal 7 (fall 1986): pp. 33-54; and

Fearghus Ó. Fearghail. The Introduction to Luke-Acts: A Study in the Role of Lk 1, 1-4, in the Composition of Luke’s

Two-Volume Work. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991.

14 For similar technique see the numerous examples in all 19 narrative complexes in Preaching Mark. Only the order of

section XII’ (Lk. 14:25-35) and section XIII’ (Lk. 15:1-32) break the symmetry of the inversion in this proposal.

15 Drury, 140.

16 Deuteronomy begins with an extended address to the people by Moses (1:6-4:40) and concludes with another such

address (29-34). At the center of this book (16) is a call to locate worship on one central place (16:6)— a reference that

the readers of Deuteronomy would surely understand to be Jerusalem. On the possibility that Deuteronomy is chiastic in

design see Duane Christensen, “The Pentateuchal Principle within the Canonical Process,” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 39 (1996): pp. 537-48. For alternatives to this analysis see the brief discussion of chiasmus and

Deuteronomy (pp. 86-87) in Yehuda T. Radday, “Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative,” [Chiasmus in Antiquity,

John W. Welch, ed. Provo: Reseach Press, 1981. Pp. 50-117] and David Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old

Testament; A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999. Pp. 86-90.

17 On the rhetorical use of taxis and its attenuated forms as a Greek rhetorical term that implies the possibility of this

kind of finished narrative design see Robert S. Reid, “Hermagoras’ Theory of Prose Oikonomia in Dionysius of

Halicarnassus.” Advances in the History of Rhetoric: Disputed & Neglected Texts in the History of Rhetoric. 1 (1997):

pp. 9-24.

18 Hans-Georg Gadamer. Truth and Method. Second Revised Edition. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G Marshall, trans.

New York: Crossroad, 1991. Pp. 330-41.

19 On “slaves” as a general term to describe retainers in the household of the elite, see William Herzog II, Parables as

Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville: Westminister/John Knox, 1994. Pp. 156-57.

20 See David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1987. P. 51.

21 On the death of his father Herod, Archelaus made his way to Rome in order to get confirmation of the kingship

bestowed on him in his father’s will. But a deputation of Jewish leaders who strongly resisted his appointment followed

him to Rome. Because of this (and other mediating factors) Caesar Augustus gave Archelaus a little more than half of his

father’s kingdom and only the status of an ethnarch.

22 For an overview of the various approaches to the interpretation of this parable see Herzog, pp. 150-55.

22

23

Jack Dean Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991. Pp. 125.

24 Herzog, p. 165.

25 Ibid., p. 162.

26 Ibid., pp. 151-52. On “concluding paraenesis as a rhetorical form see the excellent discussion in Aune, Literary

Environment, p. 191.

27 Herzog prefers to discuss the implications of the Matthean parable since it is more limited scope. In addition, he is

more interested in recovering the sense of Jesus’ original parable than understanding how the parable may have

functioned as part of Luke’s fictive argument.

28 Evans, pp. 42-50.

29 One could argue for a third vantage point from which the theology of a text is viewed in light of what Jesus actually

said instead of what we have reported as his sayings in the gospels. Here one would be preaching the person of Jesus

envisioned by the Jesus Seminar or by the kind of exegesis offered by Herzog. This approach would treat gospels as

mythic extrapolations of a factual core of material. In preaching, layers of the gospel material are peeled away in an

attempt to hear an original voice which is deemed to be the authoritative rather than the voices of the church or the

gospel writers. This kind of preaching does occur, but individuals engaged in it would likely be uninterested in the

argument of this essay. They would view the accretions of a gospel’s fictive argument the material that must be stripped

away for good preaching.

30 Reid, “Hope at the Center,” a sermon included in Preaching Mark, p. 65.