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.
No comments:
Post a Comment