In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.
The parable of the shrewd steward is the most confronting of all of Jesus’ parables. This is primarily because Jesus appears to commend dishonesty (at worst) or self interest (at best) as a means to earn salvation. A number of factors contribute to this interpretation. The first is the ‘helpful’ but not original heading provided by most English translations – ‘The unjust (dishonest) steward’. This means that before we even begun to read the parable we have formed a view based on the title that it has been given. A second problem is that most readers are not equipped to discern where Jesus’ words end and the editor’s comments begin. As a consequence we tend to read the author’s comments as if they were a part of the parable rather than understanding that they were almost certainly added later. Equally problematic is the fact that very often the reader forgets that Jesus is telling a parable and instead reads or hears it as a story from life – that is, we hear it as if Jesus is commending an actual manager rather than using the parable to make a point.
In reality there are a number of curious aspects to this parable, a number of questions that we often fail to ask ourselves or points that we fail to notice. For example, we do not know that the steward has been squandering his master’s property – only that reports to this effect have reached the landowner. We don’t tend to ask ourselves how a person can ‘borrow’ oil or grain! We assume that the dishonest action relates to the reduction of the master’s debts whereas in fact this happens only after the steward has been accused. In reality we have no information about the steward prior to the incident that is recorded other than that a rumour about his behaviour has cost him his job. The steward has no opportunity to defend himself – the rumour alone is sufficient to besmirch the honour of the landowner, who in order to retain his place in the social order has to dismiss the steward.
The act of writing down the debts is almost certainly not what led to the steward’s dismissal. As is the case with managers of modern day sheep or cattle stations, the day-to-day running of a first-century land holding would have been entirely in the hands of the manager who would from time to time produce the books as a form of accountability. Landowners (then as now) would vary in their direct involvement. An absentee landowner might not even live in the country and would be satisfied with the management as long as the property seemed to be making the expected amount return. This, of course, makes a manager susceptible to gossip and slander and gives him (or her) the freedom to act dishonestly. It also means that it would have been entirely possible for the steward might let out some of the property or extend loans on which he would charge interest, some of which he would keep for himself. This being the case, when the steward writes down the debts he may not be defrauding the landowner but may in fact be reducing his own expected income. It is a wise activity because while it reduces the steward’s present income, it assures him of some sort of comfort in the future. Those whose debts are reduced could express their gratitude by welcoming him into their homes. According to this view, the manager is not commended for acting dishonestly but for behaving sensibly. That is, instead of holding on to his wealth, he sacrifices some in the present for the greater reward of a more comfortable future.
Most scholars argue that the parable proper ends at 8a (Jesus’ commending the manger for his shrewdness). 8b does not belong to the parable and could be Jesus’ words addressed to the disciples or a comment added by the author. The saying about making friends by means of dishonest wealth (v 9) does not belong to the parable or to Jesus. So the parable ends, ‘The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.’ He was less concerned with his present wealth and more concerned about his future existence. The challenge for Jesus’ disciples (a group that is almost certainly greater than the 12) is to be less concerned with their present comfort and to act in ways that will ensure their future security (a place in heaven).
As we have seen, during the journey to Jerusalem Jesus has made it abundantly clear that following him will not lead to a comfortable existence in the present – it will separate families and may lead to persecution. He suggests that there is no point starting the journey unless they are prepared to ‘take up their cross, to understand the consequences of discipleship and be prepared to see the journey through to its end. It may mean that there are sacrifices to be made in the present – letting the dead bury the dead and letting go of creature comforts, but the consequences of not letting go, and their rewards of trusting God are beyond compare.
The parable of the steward gives a sense of urgency to Jesus’ message. The landowner takes no time to think before he fires the steward and the steward barely hesitates before he writes down the debts of others.
There is no time like the present to act – to examine our lives and to consider whether or not our behaviour and attitudes in the present match the behaviour and attitudes that we associate with the kingdom of heaven. Are we complacent in the present and heedless of the future? Does our desire for stability and security in this world mean that we are not paying attention to the next? What does the shrewdness of the steward have to teach us?
Swallowsrest 