This is one of Jesus’ parables that I don’t remember hearing much (if at all) when I was growing up in Sunday school. I thought it would be an interesting topic of debate.
The gist of what I’m getting is that we have what might be akin in modern times to a CEO and his accountant/financial planner, who wasn’t performing up to par and about to be canned.
Rather than accept this at face value, the guy about to be canned calls in a bunch of people that owe money to his boss, and allowed them to alter their contracts to decrease their debts.
The thing that I totally don’t understand is the latter part, where the boss ends up praising the guy for this. If I run a business, and have a contract where someone is supposed to pay me a thousand bucks for something, I’m going to be pretty pissed if someone under my authority, representing my business, alters that price to five hundred bucks. This guy’s reaction appears to be the opposite, what gives?
The other thing is that Jesus appears to be condoning the actions of the servant. It’s alright to use the money that doesn’t belong to you for your own gain?
Just a few paragraphs down, you have the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, where Lazarus ends up in Paradise because he suffered on earth, and the rich man ends up in Hell because he prospered on earth.
Is Jesus saying that someone’s being rich is justification for doing wrong to them?
I don’t think that’s the message - it’s not consistent with the rest of the Gospels - but I will admit that I’ve always found this parable enigmatic. There are numerous commentaries and attempted explanations, but my personal belief is that this is a parable that has not translated very well to modern telling. I can only assume it made more sense to a first-century audience.
Perhaps the Rich Man did not know how much in debt each of the debtors was. When the manager had them alter the records it appeared that the manager had squandered less of the money. So, instead of having squandered 200 oil+wheat, it looked like 130, so the manager wasn’t as bad as the Rich Man thought.
The phrase: 8 And his [f]master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; means that the manager had acted shrewdly (to hide his misdeeds) and ended up getting praised instead of fired.
I had to take a phone call and mised the edit window, so sorry for teh double post:
This phrase: for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own [g]kind than the sons of light. I take to mean that it takes a crook to fool a crook. “Sons of Light”, or the righteous ones, have less in common with the wealthy, than these wealthy, unrighteous folks have with each other.
I’m still lost on the last phrase though.
Looking at it some more- is there a connection between the managers dealings with the debtors and his plan to make friends with the debtors (people)?** I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.’ ** Maybe he was just making a counter deal so they will be nice to him later?
The straightforward interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is that the rich man was cruel, selfish, and indifferent to the needy, and was punished as a result.
Concerning the parable of the owner and the manager, one interpretation I’ve heard is that within this story, everyone is corrupt: the owner, the manager, and the debtors who happily take the opportunity to under pay the owner. Hence it’s a reflection of the narrative that sees all human financial dealings as tainted by corruption. Whenever we take part in the financial system, we benefit indirectly from a system that exploits the poor and otherwise inflicts harm. Jesus advises us to use the chances we have within the system to benefit as many people as possible, rather than trying to destroy the system.
Of course the owner does not respond the way that a capitalist would. That’s part of the point. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard also demonstrates the difference between God’s perspective and a capitalist perspective.
I remember that tax collectors seemed to be one of Jesus’ target audiences. Maybe this was meant as a coded message to them? That is, “you Jews who are working to enrich the Roman treasury, you can get some favorable testimony before God if you abuse your office to go easy on the taxpayers and stick it to the Man.” Not the thing one could safely state in explicit, non-parable terms.
I’ve always understood this parable as Jesus describing a ridiculous situation, somewhat in line with what IvoryTowerDenizen is saying. The manager was a bad man, but he cooked the books to make himself look better, which in turn fooled his master–but even if the master hadn’t been fooled, the manager had made enough friends among the debtors that he would land on his feet nonetheless. So the manager was indeed shrewed.
It was only the last bit explicitly–making friends among the poor–that Jesus was praising at the expense of a story that makes businessmen (the master in particular, but also the manager) look ridiculous for acting out of love of money. It is interesting that Jesus follows up this parable with the advice that “no man can serve two masters”, i.e. the needs of God are eternally in conflict with the dictates of worldly affairs.
It’s a parable. The master is God. The manager is a Pharisee (i.e., a proto-rabbi). Jesus was arguably a kind of Pharisee himself (knew the Scripture like one and could make proto-Talmudic arguments like one). He accepted that the Pharisees really were more righteous and godly and Torah-observant than the average Jew – and boy, did they know it. And they tended to preen and pride themselves on it and judge sinners harshly, at least in Jesus’ view. He’s saying, be less judgmental; reduce your account of the sinnners’ sins. It will win you favor in their eyes and God’s. Many of Jesus’ parables have similar messages – the prodigal son, the toilers in the vinyard, etc.
The backdrop to any mention of the tax collectors is that the Jews were ruled by the Romans and deeply resented the fact. Most accepted that there was no possibility of military revolt against Roman rule, but anyone who actively cooperated and worked for the Roman occupiers was despised. Tax collecting was the main means by which Roman rule pushed into the daily lives of ordinary Jews, so those Jews who agreed to do such work were viewed as traitors and thoroughly loathed.
The Gospels mention Jesus hanging out with tax collectors along with other groups such as prostitutes; this is to emphasize that his followers included social outcasts of all types. For a story written today, one might get a similar effect by having a preacher associate with drug dealers.
I don’t think he’s praising the steward, really, which is why he warns, “If you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property…”
But it seems to me that, in the parable, God is the master, and we’re the unjust steward. The master takes the steward to account because the steward is using his money poorly, “squandering his possessions.” So, the steward responds by using his master’s money to forgive his master’s debtors their debts to help him after he gets fired.
So, if the steward is wise in this, because he cares more about his physical future than the money he has now, shouldn’t we, Jesus says, care more about our spiritual future than our money?
Well, for argument’s sake, what the Gospels say for the purposes of the story they’re telling, may differ from Jesus’ actual motivations for seeking out some groups. If Jesus were a crypto-zealot–which the later Christians would be at extreme pains to deny–it would make sense for him to seek out the tax collectors as anti-Roman fifth columnists.
The line “for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own [g]kind than the sons of light” looks like a later interpolation, people trying to make sense out of a difficult saying.
Without it, I wouldn’t be surprised if a story like this does trace back to Jesus in some form, because it’s in keeping with the difficult antinomian and antiauthoritarian thrust we find in the earliest layers of Christian teaching.
If that’s right, the point of the story would be, God’s rule is practically impossible to live up to, but the way out of that problem is forgiveness and reconciliation. And hint hint secret secret, it turns out that’s what God wanted all along.
I always got from the story that it’s about ensuring you have a place in the Heavenly Kingdom when you die. In this analysis, God is represented by the debtors who get the books cooked in their favor.
All right, the shrewd quality of the manager being praised by the master was the manager’s ability to scrutinize his own situation and then take prompt action to his own benefit.
The manager knows he is going to be terminated. The master has indicated to the manager he is to be terminated. So, the manager, desperate because he has few skills to do anything else as a means of employment, begins to wonder how he can essentially protect himself from being homeless, hungry, and destitute. The manager says:
I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.’
The manager’s plan is to engage in some conduct to facilitate “people will welcome me into their homes.” So how does he achieve the goal of inducing people to welcome him into their homes? He begins to offer them debt relief!
And he summoned each one of his [c]master’s debtors, and he began saying to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred [d]measures of oil.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’
7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ And he said, ‘A hundred [e]measures of wheat.’ He *said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’
Of course, the debtors will be excited to learn they have just been provided some reprieve from the total debt owed to the master. They will, presumably, look favorably upon the manager. The manager is thinking such action will have the debtors feel obliged to assist him in the future.
The master applaudes such action because of its “shrewdness”. Shrewd being defined as “marked by clever discerning awareness, having or showing sharp powers of judgment.” Merriam and Oxford dictionaries. The master is applauding the manager’s ability to analyze his own situation, discern he has to make arrangements to assist himself when he is unemployed, and take decisive action.
Now, Jesus’ comment is a reflection upon his parable.
And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the [h]wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.
Well, “it” is wealth. So, Jesus is saying when the “wealth” of the unrighteousness fails, “they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.” Jesus is advocating they engage in a course of conduct resulting in making “friends” by means of the “wealth of unrighteousness” so they will be there to assist you when the wealth fails.