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.’ 7Then 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)
“Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth.” Surely Jesus is not saying that the entrance into eternity is through making others indebted to us by the dishonest use of funds. This is one of, if not the most, difficult parables to understand. In order to begin to unpack it we have to understand both the context in which it was told and the editorial process that has brought it to us.
We are so familiar with the gospels and their use in our current context that we tend to forget that Jesus was speaking to a culture far removed in time and place from our own. Those who lived in first century Palestine were seriously impacted by the fact that they had existed under foreign occupation for generations. The rural economy in which land had passed from father to son for generations had been disrupted by the Emperors’ practice of giving grants of land to returning soldiers or to others whom they wanted to reward. The new landowners rarely took up residence on their land, choosing instead to live somewhere more attractive and to appoint managers or stewards to administer their estates. Such managers (many of whom were slaves) were empowered to act on the owner’s behalf. A manager would make decisions about the day-to-day running of the property and was able to make decisions about the expenditure of money, the offering loans and the incurring and forgiveness of debts. Much as is the case in large landholdings in Australia today – the manager had the same authority as the owner.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the principles of honour and shame were a central feature of the ordering of society and a guide to interpersonal relationships in the first century Mediterranean world. A person’s honour determined their place in society, was easily lost and was more valuable than money, land or possessions. Also, in a world where life was precarious, there was not the luxury of planning for distant events. People in Jesus’ time were more likely to act out of current desires than in pursuit of a long-term goal.
So, we need to grasp that most of the land was in the hands of managers on behalf of absentee owners, everyone knew their place in a culture governed by principles of honour and shame and the focus was on the present reality rather than an unimaginable, perhaps unrealisable future.
If we are to fully grasp the meaning of the parable we also have to have a basic understanding of biblical criticism. The gospels were not compiled until some 40-50 years after Jesus’ death, meaning they were not written by eyewitnesses. Until that time Jesus’ teachings had circulated as oral tradition. They were retold from memory and told in ways appropriate to the situation of those who are listening. Finally, when the gospels were written, the authors took the material available to them and shaped it in ways which suited their particular emphasis. In order for the sayings and parable to make sense, the editors would add linking sentences and even their own commentary.
It is also helpful to note that the divisions into chapters did not occur until the 13th century and the addition of verses in the 17th century. Our task is try to discern how the authors compiled the material and not to rely on arbitrary divisions.
All this brings us to the parable of the Unjust Steward (a parable recorded only by Luke).
Scholars agree that the parable proper consists of verses 1-8a and that v8b introduces a sermonising commentary – not the language of master to servant. This means that the parable proper ends with the master commending the steward for acting shrewdly. Shrewdness not dishonesty is the point.
The parable concerns a rich man and his steward. We are told nothing about the steward’s character or his 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 had already been compromised and his reputation damaged. They would also know that the steward would have had no means of self-defence – no external party to appeal to – his fate is sealed.
Interestingly, though the landowner asks the steward for an accounting of his management, he tells him he is fired without any reference to the financial record. Also important is that though he fires the steward, he doesn’t ask the steward to repay any debt, nor does he threaten to punish him by beating or imprisonment. (This tells us something about the generosity of the landowner which will make more sense of the conclusion).
In verses 2 and 3 we hear the steward’s internal dialogue as he considers what to do[1]. Once again honour (as well as age) is a contributing factor in his decision. Finally, 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)! This means that though the master (who is already rich) might lose some income, the master’s honour – the far more important commodity – will not only have been restored it will have been enhanced! The landowner commends the steward for his shrewdness because the steward’s actions have increased the landowner’s status in the eyes of the community thus ensuring that his honour has not been compromised and the steward has secured his own future. (Again we are surprised by the generosity of the landowner, who commends rather than condemns.)
Jeffrey Durkin whose article has informed my research, summarises the situation in this way: “a master has a steward who has wasted his possessions and dishonoured 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 to 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.” [2]
The parable then is not about management, honesty or dishonestly, rather it is about futureproofing, it is about living in the present while focussing firmly on the future – on eternity.
It begs the question – where does our focus lie. Are we shrewd enough to recognise that eternal life is not simply a matter of chance but might take some forward planning? If so how are we going about it?
[1] This is a characteristic of Luke’s writing – see Luke 12:13-21.
[2] “A Cultural Reading of Luke 16:1-9.” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa. January 1, 2007, 7-18.
Swallowsrest 