Which Master? Whose Steward? Metalepsis and Lordship in the Parable of the Prudent Steward (Lk. 16.1-13)*

Abstract

The debate regarding the identity of the κύ ριoς at the conclusion of the parable of the Prudent Steward (Lk 16.8a) has not been satisfactorily resolved. Gérard Genette's study of narrative level, which helpfully illuminates the relationship between parables and their embedding narratives, provides a fresh perspective. Luke frequently employs a narrative trope that Genette calls metalepsis: the transgression of the boundary between narrative levels. An understanding of the puzzling denouement of the parable, as well as the morals appended to it (vv. 9-13), emerges from an appreciation of Luke's employment of metalepsis, which effects a collision between the cultural mores of stewardship that are operative within the parable and the very different understanding of faithful stewardship promoted on Luke's primary narrative level. The surprising intrusion into this parable of a κύ ριoς who approves of debt relief compels the parable's audience to reconsider their own loyalties and vindicates the debt relief scheme of a prudent steward.

An Understanding of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16: 1-13)

“…This understanding of the steward"s actions as debt reduction is further elucidated by Schellenberg when he opines that the debt relief action of the steward coincides with the objective of Jesus" earthly ministry and it is on the this basis that the commendation was deserved [9]. Schellenberg speaks further:…”

“…The master"s praise, then, represents the intrusive judgment of the diegetic κύριος concerning the steward"s otherwise scandalous debt relief scheme [9].…”

“…The problem this would now raise is the resolution of the fcat that the steward is explicitly called "unjust," and this is effectively handled in the exposition of Luke"s use of a literary device called metalepsis [9]. In this line, Schellenberg concludes that: the "unrighteousness" of our steward thus consists not in his willingness to use his master"s resources against his metadiegetic master"s economic interests; on the contrary, this decision was praised as "wise" … the steward is said to be ηῆς ἀδικίας because his plan is calculated to elicit reciprocation from his newly generated clients [9].…”

“…In this line, Schellenberg concludes that: the "unrighteousness" of our steward thus consists not in his willingness to use his master"s resources against his metadiegetic master"s economic interests; on the contrary, this decision was praised as "wise" … the steward is said to be ηῆς ἀδικίας because his plan is calculated to elicit reciprocation from his newly generated clients [9].…”

“…This position is also recognized by Schellenberg as he states that if the parable is seen as a single level of discourse, then verses 8b to 13 are indeed not appropriate. However, with the new insight into the steward"s actions and the use of metalepsis by Luke, the verses "does not represent an attempt to interpret the parable of the Prudent Steward per se; instead these verses guide the hearers through the lively interplay between the parable and its embedding narrative" [9]. The verses should then be seen as follows: 8b-9: 8b for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.…”