Sermon: A Puzzling Parable

Lectionary: Proper 20(C)

Text: Luke 16:1-13

Parable of the Unjust Steward (2012)
Mironov, Andreĭ (Andreĭ Nikolaevich), 1975-

“The parable of the dishonest steward poses significant theological challenges, not the least of which is the apparent injunction to imitate the unrighteous behavior of the main character (v. 9). Further, a cluster of exegetical problems complicates any plain sense reading of the text.”[1]

So begins one commentary on their discussion of today’s text. Another begins,

“None of the parables of Jesus has baffled interpreters quite like the story of the dishonest steward (or is he better labeled ‘the shrewd manager’ or ‘the prudent treasurer’?).”[2]

As you might surmise, interpretations of today’s reading are all over the place. Not only that, but it doesn’t help that today’s reading is an amalgamation of three (and perhaps four or five) separate sayings which originally were probably not heard together.

The parable itself ends after verse 7, maybe after the first half of verse 8, or goes all the way through verse 8, depending on the interpreter. A few include verse 9 as part of the parable. The second half of verse 8 is sometimes seen as suggested interpretation added by Luke. Verse 9 is seen both as continuing the suggested interpretation, or a separate saying that was appended.

This is followed by a saying about faithfulness. The final saying is the one about the inability of anyone to serve two masters.

The interpretation of the parable itself depends heavily on key assumptions made initially about the two characters. Is the rich man good or bad? Is the manager good or bad? Maybe neither are good people. How did the original audience perceive the characters? The rich man, especially in Luke, is often presented as an ethically ambiguous character at best, and frequently evil. The underdog is usually the hero, but his behavior in this parable appears compromised.

If we take the position that the parable ends after the first half of verse 8, which reads, “And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly,” then the manager is probably the “hero,” at least in the parable as it was originally heard. And that makes sense given that he is seen as fighting back against the landowner from whom all the debtors rent the land and to whom they owe significant amounts.

A more familiar example with similar actions by protagonist might be the tales of Robin Hood. Who is seen as the hero in this tale?

One traditional interpretation turns the landowner into an allegory of God, but this has its own problems and requires creative interpretive gymnastics to explain why he commends the dishonest manager and his activities after learning he is fired.

Another common interpretation leans heavily into the following commentary verses and sayings. This interpretation explains that the parable is not describing the dishonest manager as someone to emulate. Instead, it is an illustration of how people who are steeped in the ways of this world act shrewdly to maintain their own interests. If such is the nature of worldly affairs, according to this interpretation, then it is even more imperative that Christians conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of the kingdom of God.

What if both the landowner and his manager were selfish and greedy, each in their own way? How might the parable be heard?

The landowner had an established system of renting land and collecting proceeds from the tenant farmers. It didn’t matter if the weather cooperated or not. It didn’t matter if pests destroyed the crops. It didn’t matter if some other disaster struck. What was due at the end of the year was fixed, and he made sure he got his very generous portion. The renters made do with what was left. After a good year, they might have enough to live on. After a bad year, they didn’t have enough to pay even the rent. The landowner would put their debt on account, at exorbitant interest, making it impossible to ever repay. The renters could complain but it wouldn’t do any good. They might even get evicted and if they had any debts, they risked being sold into slavery.

One tenant farmer owed 900 gallons of olive oil, an equivalent of about three years’ wages. Another tenant farmer owed 1,000 bushels of wheat, an equivalent of about 8 years’ wages.

The manager was better off than the tenant farmers. He had no debt, but he was nowhere near the status of the landowner. He didn’t have to labor in the dirt. He had a nice, comfortable job, and he wanted to keep it that way. He cooked the books here and there and skimmed off a bit of the harvest, to get himself a little more security and luxury.

When he is fired for reports that he was embezzling, he scrambles to place himself in a situation where he doesn’t have to go back to manual labor or worse. His cunning mind hatches a plot. Before the news that he is fired gets out, he will call in each of the tenant farmers and slash debt equaling about 18 months of wages from each one and make it appear the this is a gift from the landowner. In this way, the tenant farmers will praise the landowner for his benevolence and generosity.

The landowner is stuck in a bind. He cannot reverse the “loan forgiveness” without losing honor. And how could he explain firing his manager now? He couldn’t let it out that he had been bested by an underling.

The shrewd and scheming manager brought honor to his master as well as possibly saving his job. And even if not, he would be seen as a hero by the tenants for going against the master and providing them with relief from a tyrant landowner. It didn’t matter that the manager was doing this all out of self-interest and not out of any kind of altruism or goodness. The canceling of debt, even partially, would feel to the tenants as a gift and a miracle.

The landowner, the boss, has no choice but to commend his weasely manager.

The manager is accidentally welcomed into community.

And as the parable ends, we want a nice moral to the story. We want a good allegory that keeps everything inside a box. The early Christians wanted fixed conclusions, and the gospel writers insert conclusions and commentaries.

But that isn’t what Jesus offers in his parables. He stops and leaves the conclusions as an exercise for the listener. He confounds, challenges, and discomforts. He tells parables to cause his listeners and wrestle with questions that have no “correct” answers.

So, in the spirit of the purpose of parables, instead of answers I leave you with challenges to work out on your own meditations and together in faithful community.

What is justice in an unjust system?

How do we act justly toward others within an unjust system?

How are we benefiting from and complicit with unjust systems?

Can someone “accidentally” stumble onto and into the kingdom of God?

What if the prayer “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” literally meant forgiving and canceling debts here and now?

How do we break free from the unjust systems of this world and enter the kingdom of God?

Who are the present-day victims of unjust and dehumanizing systems, laws and policies?

How can we be heroes to these victims?

If the gospel we proclaim and live does not protect the marginalized and oppressed, if it does not improve the lives of real people here and now, is it really the gospel?

What do we mean when we pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done one earth as it is in heaven?”

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who saves,

And in the name of God who challenges, Amen.

References

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 4. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Henson, D. (2022, September 25). The Parable of the Dishonest Steward, by The Rev. David Henson. Retrieved from St. James Episcopal Church: https://stjamesepiscopal.com/9-25-2022-the-rev-david-henson/

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 2 (Chapter 12-24). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Talbert, C. H. (2012). Reading the New Testament: Reading Luke. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] (Bartlett & Brown Taylor, 2010)

[2] Ibid.

Sermon: Found and Restored

Lectionary: Proper 19(C)
Text: Luke 15:1-10

Lost Coin, 1864

Losing something is an experience we have all gone through. Whether through forgetfulness or carelessness, we lose track of things (and sometimes people). When we realize we’ve lost something, we often (but not always) search for it. Depending on the value (monetary, functional, or sentimental) of the thing lost, we might make a cursory search, search frantically, or not bother to search at all.  And once again, depending on value, we experience varying degrees of relief and joy. But rarely would we, in this time and place, invite our neighbors to join in a celebratory feast.

Another area where the idea of discovering something is lost and then searching to find the thing lost occurs in many retail environments. Periodically, the store’s inventory is counted to determine its value. In the process, it is not unusual to discover that there are missing items. It might be due to theft, but (at least in my case) often it is because things have been shuffled around in storage and placed where they have been overlooked and forgotten. Again, depending on the value of the item, the person counting might go to great lengths to try to find it, or write it off as an acceptable loss. A loss of a few five-dollar magnets is far less concerning than a missing $1000 bracelet. (And frequently during future inventory counts items previously thought “lost” are discovered!)

Our reading today from Luke 15, has two parables about losing and finding. There is another immediately following that completes a trilogy of parables. This third is commonly known as the parable of the prodigal son. Luke places these three parables together for his literary and thematic purposes.

When reading and attempting to interpret parables found in the gospels, there are several layers of reading and interpretation to consider. All writing, reading, and interpreting are done through filters and colored by them. It is helpful to recognize and point them out so that we know how our reading and interpretation might be affected. What briefly follows is a primer (or review) on reading scripture more responsibly.

The first layer and the most obvious is our present-day layer. Our social, cultural, economic, religious, and political contexts color what we read and see in the text.

The next layer is history and tradition. Two millennia of Christian interpretation color how these parables are interpreted. There are denominational differences in interpretation and what might be emphasized. From the early apostles to now, interpretation have changed and what was considered a good interpretation a thousand years ago might now be seen as inappropriate and replaced by something else.

The third layer I bring up today is the literary context. This includes how the gospel writer (or redactor) arranged and edited the parables, placing them into a narrative context, and adding his own interpretation to speak to his audience with their immediate contexts.

The final layer is the parable itself and its original audience. Luke’s parable of the lost sheep finds a very similar one in Matthew 18, but with differences. The literary context of Matthew’s placement is quite different from the one in Luke. The parable is also found in The Gospel of Thomas with significant differences in editing and emphasis. From this, scholars conclude that the original parable was appropriated by each writer/redactor, changed and arranged to make their own points. But there is agreement that the core parable can be traced back to a single source. And that core is what Jesus’ original audience heard.

In our search for the core of the parable, let’s touch on a few common interpretations. As we do so we will peel away some of the layers that have been added over the course of Christian history.

One of the most common interpretations treats the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin as allegories, where the shepherd and the woman represent God, who goes to search for the lost sheep and lost coin. The sheep and coin, within this interpretation, represent those who have gone astray from God. God offers gracious forgiveness and reconciliation as they are found and brought back. This is indeed good news and a description of God, but it does not challenge or provoke. Parables are supposed to be challenging and provocative.

The writer/redactor of Luke, himself, adds a layer of allegory by placing an interpretive commentary at the end of each of the parables.

“In the same way, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who changes both heart and life than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to change their hearts and lives.” (Luke 15:7 CEB)

“In the same way, I tell you, joy breaks out in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who changes both heart and life.” (Luke 15:10 CEB)

By adding these verses, Luke attempts to fit the parables to his narrative setting. The setting is that the Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus of welcoming and hosting sinners at his table. In this narrative context the parables are Jesus’ response to their criticism of him. And Luke constrains the interpretation to fit into the narrative by making them about repentance and returning to God. It describes God’s desire. It might even be a critique of religious leadership. But it does little to challenge or provoke.

There is too, a problem of assigning to God the allegorical roles of the shepherd and the woman. In the first parable, the shepherd loses one of his sheep. In the second, the woman loses one of her coins. They each bear responsibility for their loss. If they represent God, then we have a problem of God losing things. In fact, in the second parable, the woman admits she lost the coin.

What about the parable of the sheep? We often end up conflating multiple similar stories and assume things about them. In the Matthew version of the parable, the sheep is said to have “gone astray.” While ambiguous, some interpreters have suggested that this is an allegorical image of people voluntarily straying. The parable of the Good Shepherd in John is also often read into the parable of the ninety-nine and one sheep. But when we take what is found in Luke, and especially when read alongside the parable of the lost coin, the audience is expected to understand that the shepherd was perhaps careless and lost a sheep.

Another problem regards the repenting commentary inserted by Luke. Neither sheep nor coin can repent. It takes a bit of interpretive creativity beyond what is in the text to allow sheep and coins to repent.

When the parable of the prodigal is also considered, it might seem that the younger son repents and returns home. We don’t have time today to consider this parable in detail, but there is a strong case to be made that the idea of repentance is absent from that parable also.

If these parables initially weren’t about God’s search for sinners or repentant Christians, what were they about?

In each parable, the owner loses something of value. They recognize the loss. Something that was whole and complete is now incomplete. The owner makes great effort to find and recover what was lost. When they do, what had become incomplete is restored to completeness. They admit responsibility for their part in causing the loss to occur. And there is joy, and the community is invited to participate in the rejoicing.

These parables challenge and provoke us in several ways. First, are we even aware that our community is incomplete? Are we aware of who or what is missing, who might have been driven out, and who might have drifted away? Have we made any efforts to search for them and bring them back into community? Have we examined ourselves and our community to understand why some may have left or wandered away? Do we bear responsibility for any of the losses? Can we admit them? And do we genuinely want the messiness of a diverse community with different viewpoints, approaches, and experiences?

The main characters in each parable simply bring what was lost back into fellowship with others of its kind. There are no sermons. There are no altar calls. There are no confessions made. They are simply returned to community. This too, is a provocation and a challenge. The community that Jesus founded is larger than any human made boundaries. Can we appreciate and imitate Jesus’ inclusiveness?

I conclude with words by Amy-Jill Levine from her discussion of these parables,

Recognize that the one you have lost may be right in your own household. Do whatever it takes to find the lost and then celebrate with others, both so that you can share the joy and so that the others will help prevent the recovered from ever being lost again. Don’t wait until you receive an apology; you may never get one. Don’t wait until you can muster the ability to forgive; you may never find it. Don’t stew in your sense of being ignored, for there is nothing that can be done to retrieve the past.

Instead, go have lunch. Go celebrate, and invite others to join you. If the repenting and the forgiving come later, so much the better. And if not, you still will have done what is necessary. You will have begun a process that might lead to reconciliation. You will have opened a second chance for wholeness. Take advantage of resurrection—it is unlikely to happen twice.

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who reconciles,

And in the name of God who challenges us to be reconcilers, Amen.

Bibliography

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.