Luke 16:1-13

 

Possessions – Seeking Solidarity

The previous stories explored the heart of God and the constant wonder of God’s forgiveness. Forgiveness was a call to trust God. The following stories would all deal with attitudes to wealth and the disciples’ use of it. They would also deal with matters of trust.

The following story initially makes little sense to a modern audience. It may also have been equally puzzling to Luke’s community - which would explain the stream of “conclusions” that Luke would add at the end of the story.

Luke 16:1-13  -  Parable – A Shrewd Manager

1 Jesus told the disciples,
"A wealthy man had a manager
who was accused for wasting his property.

In the honour-based society of the time rich people usually wanted to be seen as gracious and generous patrons, and to receive the praise of those of lower social class. Generally they employed managers to conduct business with their clients and to do the “dirty work”. For this they often gave them considerable responsibility, though they ultimately required that they be accountable. Managers would customarily feather their own nests in the process within certain undefined limits. This manager had apparently crossed the line. 

2 He summoned him and said,
'What is this I hear about you?
Hand over your management account.  
You can no longer continue being manager."

The rich man was not asking for the manager’s view of things. He was convinced enough of his dishonesty. What he wanted were the actual accounts and records, so that they could be handed over to his successor.

The accounts in question were amounts calculated by both manager and client in the light of probable harvest outcomes.  They could be revised at times in the light of actual results: it often served the interests of both that clients not go bankrupt.

3 The manager then said to himself, '
What shall I do,
now that the master has relieved me of the management?
I am not strong enough to dig;
I am ashamed of begging …
4 I know what I will do,
so that when I am removed from the management,
they will welcome me into their homes'

The manager was desperate, and the desperate situation called for desperate action. 

5 He called each of his master's debtors.  
He said to the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'
6 He answered, 'One hundred barrels of oil.'
He then said to him,
'Here, take your contract; quick, sit down and write fifty'.
7 To another he said, 'And you, how much do you owe?'
He said, 'A hundred measures of grain'.
He said to him, 'Take your contract, and write eighty'.

Speed was of the essence of the operation. The manager needed to act before the fact of his dismissal became public knowledge, otherwise the clients would not have cooperated with him and in the process risk the reprisals of the rich man.

His tactic therefore was to make his employer look particularly generous. The clients would have had no way of knowing differently.  They would have assumed that the rich man’s generosity was due to the manager’s concern for them and their well-being. Assuming the consent of the rich man, the clients would not have hesitated to put their signatures to the revised accounts.

8 The master commended the dishonest steward
because he had acted smartly."

The manager had in fact put his master “over a barrel”. The word would have spread quickly through the district about the rich man’s generosity. His “honour” would have grown considerably in the sight not only of his clients but of the townspeople generally – and in the culture such an outcome was highly valued. So too would have grown the “honour” of the manager. For the rich man to arrest the manager and to renegotiate the accounts would have led to great “loss of face”. The alternative was to let the manager get away with it.

The smartness of the manager showed in his readiness to take a risk on his employer’s goodness. The employer had not had him arrested immediately after his initial murky administration, as he could well have done. Instead, he was prepared simply to dismiss him. The manager took the risk that perhaps he would show something of that same goodness again and keep the deception hidden. The outcome of the whole operation was that the manager left with the gratitude of the clients. The rich man had the praise of the town and his honour was confirmed, even if at some cost to himself. 

In unwillingly commending the manager, no doubt under his breath, the master was not admiring his dishonesty but had to admit his smartness. He certainly had acted shrewdly.

Having told the story, Luke then added a number of conclusions, in some way relating to each other though not obviously relating really to the story. No doubt they reflected sayings of Jesus, which probably were not connected to this story originally.

First conclusion:

Those who follow worldly ways are smarter than their contemporaries who follow the light.

In the secular world people (who follow worldly ways ) are prepared to take risks and to act urgently to secure their own interests. Jesus was disappointed that, when faced with the issues that really mattered, e.g. the advent of the year of the Lord’s favour, disciples (who follow the light) showed little of the same determination and urgency. 

Second conclusion:

9 "I say, 'Use wealth, tainted as it is, to make friends for yourselves,
so that, when it runs out,
they will welcome you into the tents of eternity.'

Earlier in the Gospel Luke had indicated his distrust of wealth. It is little wonder that he referred to it here as tainted. The whole comment touched on what was important for Luke. The friends to whom Jesus was referring were obviously the poor. They were the ones with prior occupancy of the tents of eternity.  They were the ones with the discretion to welcome others or to refuse entry. The future destiny of those with means would be determined by their care and concern for the poor. For the wealthier to see this they needed a revolution of mindset. It called indeed for their ‘second conversion’.

Third conclusion:

10 'Those who are reliable in the least things
are reliable in the greater ones.  
Those who are dishonest in the least things
are dishonest in the greater.
11 So if you cannot be relied on with tainted wealth,
who will entrust to you what is truly valuable?

The meaning of this comment is not so clear. Luke may have wished to tease out further the thought of faithful use of wealth. What would faith-enlightened use entail?

Financial generosity (the the least things of the comment) to the poor can proceed from a variety of dishonest motives, and be expressed in a variety of different non-faithful ways. To be generous for the sake of ultimate self-interest, typical in the honour-based culture of the day, is not the genuine response required of disciples. To be generous in a patronising manner is also unworthy of disciples. Self-interest and self-importance are not freeing. They reveal an inability and even unwillingness to die to surface needs and desires. They inhibit genuine life. Only generosity flowing from recognition of authentic solidarity with the poor expresses true human growth and maturity. Such recognition reveals real enlightenment – based on faith – and is the gift of God.

Fourth conclusion:

12 And if you cannot be reliable with what is not your own,
who will give you what is yours?"

The ancient Hebrew tradition believed that the land of Israel belonged to God and was given equally to all Israelites for their use. Though no practical ways were ever found to translate successfully into practice this sense of God’s ownership and of the people’s sharing in it, the general feeling remained, however, that wealth was to be shared. When solidarity with others was ignored or refused, people’s truest depths remained undeveloped and unintegrated.

Fifth conclusion:

13 "No servants can serve two masters.  
Either they will hate one and love the other;
or they will be attached to one and look down on the other.  
You cannot serve both God and wealth."

Whatever about the example, the conclusion was clear. The distinction was drawn above between “possessing” and “making use of”. A similar distinction can be made with this comment. There is a difference between serving and “using”. Jesus ruled out serving wealth. The difficulty remains that wealth has the propensity to become addictive. Jesus wanted his disciples to find freedom.

Next >> Luke 16:14-18