Pentecost 15 – 2022
Luke 16:1-13
Marian Free
In the name of God who asks us to attend to the future with as much care as we attend to the present. Amen.
Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. 2 So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ 3 Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ 5 So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ 7 Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’ 8 And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. 9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. (NRSV)
I think that it was six years ago that a friend and parishioner developed a drama based on the gospel of the shrewd manager and an article by a student Jeffrey Durkin . The drama made such good sense of what many find to be a difficult parable that there was an audible intake of breath from the congregation and a sermon on the topic was really unnecessary. For those who are interested I have reproduced the drama below.
Durkin’s article was so compelling that I am going to have another attempt to help you to make sense of a parable in which Jesus appears to be commending dishonest and which to be fair, most reasonable people take offense at – wondering what it is doing in scriptures.
Before we begin there are a number of important principles that we have to accept.
Jesus was speaking to a culture removed in time and place from our own. People in first century Palestine operated according to different values and their lives were seriously impacted by the fact that they had existed under foreign occupation. The rural economy in which land had passed from father to son for generations had been disrupted by Caesar’s practice of giving grants of land to returning soldiers. Not only were farmers displaced but the landowners rarely took up residence on their land, choosing to live somewhere more attractive and to appoint managers/stewards to administer their estates. Such managers (some of whom were slaves) acted on the owner’s behalf. A manager made decisions about the day-to-day running of the property and was able to make decisions about the expenditure of money and the offering loans as well as about the incurring and forgiveness of debts. Much as is the case in large landholdings today – the manager had the same authority as the owner.
A central cultural value of the time (and still in parts of the Middle East today) was that of honour/shame. A person’s honour determined their place in society, was easily lost and was more valuable than money, land or possessions. Unlike those who today have the luxury of planning for distant events, those in Jesus’ time were more likely to act out of current desires than in pursuit of a long-term goal.
Both of these issues come into play when trying to come to grips with today’s parable.
An understanding of biblical criticism is also essential in making sense of today’s parable. Jesus’ teachings circulated as oral tradition for some 40-50 years after Jesus’ death. During that time they were applied to new situations and retold from memory. The gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE at a time when first generation of Jesus’ followers had died and it was felt that it was important to record what he said before there was too much variation. The gospels that made it into what we know as the New Testament were not written dispassionately, with an emphasis on accuracy. They were written with a specific intent (which explains the differences between them). There is evidence of editorial content – especially when it comes to the arrangement of material.
It is important to take all these things into consideration particularly when we are trying to come to terms with teaching that doesn’t immediately make sense. It is also essential to let go of our preconceived ideas and our inherited ways of understanding so that we can see the scriptures with new eyes.
With regard to the parable of the Unjust Steward (only recorded by Luke) the first thing to do is to try to determine what might be original to Jesus and what might be attributed to the editor. Scholars agree that the parable proper consists of verses 1-8a and that v8b introduces a sermon on what might be an unrelated topic, “the sons of this world” and the “sons of light” . Furthermore, the relevance of verses 10-13 in relation to the parable is obscure at best. In considering the parable then, we will look only at 1-8a.
That is a lot of background but given the difficulty that most people have with this parable, it does give us some context against which to understand it.
In the first verse Jesus introduces the characters – a rich man and a steward. It is important to note that we are told nothing about the steward’s character or previous behaviour, only that a report has been brought to the landowner alleging that he is squandering his master’s property. A first century audience would immediately know that whether or not the steward was innocent the reputation (honour) of the landowner would have already been compromised – at least one person believed that he had allowed himself to be defrauded and may already have insinuated as much to other members of the community. They would also know that in that situation the steward would have no means of self-defence – no third party to make a decision on the matter.
Interestingly, though the landowner asks the steward for an accounting of his management, it appears that he fires him without any reference to the financial record. Also important is that though he fires the steward, he inflicts no punishment (something which may be intended to tell us something about the generosity of the landowner and which will make more sense of the conclusion).
What follows (v2,3) is an interior dialogue as the steward considers what to do . Once again honour (as well as age) is a contributing factor in his decision. Then the manager announces that he has made a decision – he will place other people in his debt by reducing the value of their debts (v4, which he does in verses 5-7)! Though his master (who is already rich) might lose some income, his honour – the far more important commodity – will not only have been restored it will have been enhanced! So, we see that it is for this reason that the landowner commends the steward for his shrewdness – the steward’s actions have increased the landowner’s status in the eyes of the community. At this point the generous and forgiving nature of the landowner are called to mind – the steward is not reinstated but is praised for taking action to secure his future (contrary to the cultural norm of being concerned only with the present.)
Durkin summarises the situation in this way: “a master has a steward who has wasted his possessions and dishonored him. The master dismisses the steward, creating a crisis for the steward, but he does not punish him. The steward hatches a risky plan to take advantage of his master’s forgiving nature and to secure his own future. By reducing the amounts of the debts owed his master, he creates goodwill in the community for both himself and his master. The master praises the steward for his purposeful action in the securing of his own future.”
Jesus tells parables to upend our way of thinking and to challenge well-held views. Of all the parables this is perhaps the most confronting, which means that if it does its job, it shakes us into reconsidering our lives. The parable is not about management, honesty dishonestly, rather it is about futureproofing.
We are challenged to consider whether we spend so much time securing our comfort in this life that we pay no attention to preparing for the next? Are we so concerned with the present that we have taken our eyes off the future, or like the steward, are we shrewd enough to recognise that securing our comfort for eternity might take some forward planning?
Drama for Luke 16 by Juliet Quinlan
The characters: Mr/Mrs Rich (R), owner of a chain of stores; (K) Kath/Kevin, supervisor of one of R’s stores.
Part 1
R: Good morning K. Please sit down.
K: Good morning.
(Both sit down – two chairs facing each other.)
R: I’ll get straight to the point, K. This is the third time in three months I’ve had to call you in to my office to tell you that your performance isn’t what I’d expect from one of my store supervisors. There have been complaints from customers that you’re offhand with them, you’ve closed early on several occasions, the takings from your store are down…
K: (Shrugs) I’m sorry, I promise I’ll do better.
R: No, K, that’s not good enough. I’m very reluctant to do this, but I’m going to have to let you go. I’m losing money, and even worse, my reputation is being squandered. I’m willing to give you a month’s notice, but please try to leave the store in good shape. (Both stand up. R shakes K’s hand, looks sympathetic).
(K and R both exit.)
Part two
(K sits alone OR addresses the congregation.)
K: What am I going to do? I know I haven’t been efficient like I used to be. I’ve just got so bored with this place, that’s the problem. My heart hasn’t been in it. But how can I live now? I don’t want to be on the dole for the rest of my life. I need some inspiration…(Frowns, shakes head, looks anguished. Then straightens up, eyes wide open): OK, I’m beginning to get an idea…
Part three
(R beckons K into the office again. They remain standing.)
R: So this is your last day, K. I wonder why you’re looking so happy.
K: Oh well…
R: I think I know why you’re pleased with yourself. The accountant picked up an anomaly for this store. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you?
(K shrugs shoulders)
R: For the last month the cash you’ve banked has been around half the amount the cash register says it should be. Can you explain how this could have happened?
K: I took the money.
R: So you thought it’d be smart to give yourself a bonus, did you?
K: No, I gave it all to charity.
R: Why? What was the point of that?
K: I told the Coordinator of my favourite charity that you wanted to make a large donation, and made an appointment to hand it over. We got talking and I told her how I’d love to help, and some ideas I have, and now they’ve agreed for me to work for them as a volunteer. Perhaps I might get paid work there eventually. And it’s something I’ll really like doing, something fulfilling for the rest of my life…
R: But it was my money.
K: Well you’ve sometimes said money isn’t everything, that your main goal is to make your customers happy. I know how concerned you are about the company’s public image and I’ve heard you give quite a lot away yourself.
R (stops, thinks, then starts to laugh): Well, I must say I’m amazed. You’ve been really clever. You’ve made me look good in the eyes of your charity, and made a positive plan for your future. Good luck to you! (Smiles, claps K on the shoulder, shakes hands). Off you go. And I hope the future gives you all that you hope for.
(Both exit)
Swallowsrest 