A bible study on the proper attitude and use of material
possessions at Second Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga, TN 37405, September 15,
2016
Last
week we talked a little about the nature of parables. They are obvious but
opaque. They typically challenge the obvious meaning by something underneath
the words. The original context is extremely important to understand a parable,
but once we get to that point, we generally find a teaching we can use broadly.
This parable is one that
has perpetually perplexed readers because it seems to juxtapose dishonesty with
Christian action.
Here are some on the problems
with it that we face:
1. What is the meaning of this parable?
2. What verses contain the parable and what
verses are “appened?” Four options have been proposed:
a.
Verses 1-9 hold the story and
its real world application.
b.
Verses 1-7 is the actual
parable, but this leaves us wondering what is the reaction of rich man to the manager’s
actions.
c.
Verses 1- 8a, or 8b is the
parable and then use some of the (appended?) sayings making them part of the
parable. This leaves us to wonder who is
the manager in v8, Jesus or the rich man of v1, and what is being approved?
The three options, 2a-c, require us to conclude the lesson
from manager’s evil behavior was falsifying the master’s accounts and somehow
derive a positive application to “proper Christian behavior” described in verse 9, perhaps by irony or
contrast to the manager’s behavior. These don’t seem too satisfying.
3.
The
fourth alternative is to end the parable at 8a and takes the remaining verses as
amplification. If so, what of the manager’s actions does the master approve? To
resolve that question, we must be able to answer the question, what does this
parable mean?
We know from verse
1 the manager has been squandering the master’s property but not how he has
actually done so. What he has done is moot because the manager admits his dishonesty
by his reaction and actions to the master’s allegation. The manager admits to
being a “dishonest” at the outset of the parable, before he undertakes any of
the subsequent actions to deal with his new circumstance.
Now
we must ask if there is anything about the economic circumstances of ancient
Palestine/Jewish business that helps us understand the story? A careful reading
of Luke shows unavoidably that Jesus is all about economy, the poor, the effect
of money, as well as outcasts. (We just need to read 4:16-21 and many of the
other parables.) But let’s not let that shade our search for meaning here.
As
Amos describes the oppressive
situation in Israel and Judah, very few persons owned the land and used what we
would call sharecroppers and managers to run the operation, and abused the
needy. (A master may not be expected to abuse his workers since the effective operation of his agricultural business depends on the goodwill of the employees.) Even in the Roman times in Galilee it would be typical that the rich man
is an absentee landlord. He entrusts the entire operation of the estate business
to the manager. The manager would be trained, trusted and act with the power of
the master as his agent.
According
to Joseph Fitzmyer in
his commentary on Luke, a widely accepted practice of agents of the time in
the Eastern Mediterranean was to lend the master’s property out on a commission
basis, i.e., with interest. Some evidence shows it continued into the early 20th
Century in India. Some Hebrew writings discuss it for the point of rationalizing
it against the OT prohibition of usury (charging interest). We can presume this
manager engages this practice with the knowledge of the master. The mismanagement
of the manager must be separate from this practice. While the text does not explicitly describe this kind of
dealing, it strongly implies it as does the historical context.
What
is the master praising the manager for doing? Certainly not for mismanaging his
estate such as “cooking the books” as we tend to assume with this subsequent
bargaining. Rather, it appears the
manager has negotiated away part or all of his commission to settle debts in a
way that curries favor and future goodwill of these clients after the manager
is fired, giving him some hope to recover.
The
Greek words may help. They do not say “canceled the debt,” but that he ordered
the receipt crossed out, by writing a new receipt without the demand for his
fee. So the dishonest manager appears to be foregoing some or all of his fees
in order to promote goodwill towards himself, a behavior (taking care of his
future security) the master might well recognize as astute. These actions of
cancelling his fee, in this interpretation, are not dishonest acts but prudent
ones. Rather than his dishonesty, isn’t taking care of one’s future by the
prudence to use the assets under his influence a model for Christian behavior?
The
“dishonest” manager, an outcast on several levels (he works for the rich man,
he has wealth, he charges interest) might be an outcast, but he brings a positive
message to the Christian who is facing a crisis in being true to the kingdom of
Heaven and Jesus’ teaching:” How to use the assets under your control for the wellbeing
of the kingdom?” The appended sayings, and the impending parable about the rich
man and Lazarus, suggest that the sayings in the remaining verses (verses
10-13) stand on their own, become reinforcement of the challenge of responsible
use of material possessions.
Reflection
One
of the problems we inherit with this parable is that it is labeled the “dishonest”
manager, yet the first line does not use that word, rather it says he
squandered the master’s property that might mean anything for stealing to
mismanagement. A second problem is Luke has already told us many times that money
seduces and therefore technically can be considered “dishonest wealth.” (Dishonest
is used in verse 8.)
Yet,
here, even a dishonest manager who has failed to manage his master’s property
responsibly finds favor in the eyes of his master by showing that he has the
prudence to use the wealth at his disposal to improve his situation. As Christians
our “superficial” reaction is to think negatively about the message of
dishonesty in this parable. If we look deeper into its context we see the
message is about the obligation to use our resources for good will of God’s
(our master’s) kingdom since actions promoting such goodwill speak to where the
heart is.
The
sayings at the end are simply a kind of “I told you so” comments. If you can’t
be trusted to manage your fiscal wealth (that by Luke’s definition is dishonest
or the source of evil), how can you be trusted to manage your true wealth? If
you can’t manage a little very well, how can you be expected to manage a lot of
wealth well? Even if you are a “child of light” you should learn from the
people of the world how to do good things with what assets you have to promote the Kingdom of God. (Does this
harken to Luke 4:16-21
where Jesus sets out his purpose?)
Being
shrewd and clever is not always self-serving. See Matthew 10:16. In spite of the
challenge, a Christian can if so motivated and righteous, use material goods in
ways appropriate to the life in the Kingdom. As Fred
Craddock says, on most days we do not stop wars, christen a ship, write a
book, win an election or be burned at the stake. We may be faced with taking
the time to tell a story to a crying child to cheer them up, finding some money
and time to help a hungry homeless person, having a chance to vote for a good
person running for office, or going to choir practice. If you do it right in
small things, you may find it enables you to do it large things. If you try to
be ruled by both mammon (your possessions) and Master, you will find you can
only love one.
It seems the parable
requires us acknowledge the manager is a dishonest person, and accept this
ancient practice of “loaning” the estate provisions. What the parable shows is
that even a dishonest person has the capacity to decide to act prudently to
safeguard his future. Shouldn’t a Christian who has the promise of the greatest
gift in the future do likewise?
Amen
