A Lulu From Luke: Dishonesty Commended? (Luke 16: 1-13)

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
paradox3

paradox3

Peanuts Fan
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
This parable is one head scratcher! A real lulu from Luke which doesn't appear in any other gospel.

Luke places it right after three better known parables: The Lost Sheep (also found in Matthew), The Lost Coin and The Prodigal Son.

Here is a link to the text
www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 16:1-13 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

The Parable of the Dishonest Manager - Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your...
www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com
 
A rich man had a manager who is charged with squandering the rich man's property. The rich man summons the manager and tells him he is fired from his position. At first the manager doesn't know what to do to support himself. He is not strong enough to dig and too proud to beg (v.3). But he decides on an action which will ensure people will welcome him into their homes.

He calls the rich man's debtors one by one. The first owes the man a hundred jugs of olive oil and the manager reduces the debt to fifty. The second owes the rich man one hundred containers of wheat. The manager makes it eighty.

The rich man commends the manager for his shrewd behavior.

Jesus explains that his disciples are to make friends for themselves by means of dishonest wealth. When the riches are gone, the friends will welcome them into eternal homes.

The passage concludes with three verses discussing faithfulness to God and wealth.

Reactions? I look forward to the discussion.
 
In my first reading of the NRSV version - I wondered if the manager had been illegally inflating the bills owed - and so was he adjusting the amount to reflect more accurately what was owed - at the same time creating sense of gratitude to him amongst the unsuspecting debtors. He seemed to recognize he was not in a state of grace with them & rectifying that might change his future life.

Or was he correcting for the greed shown by the rich man, taking into better consideration the debtor's ability to pay? Perhaps today's equivalent is going thru bill adjustments via credit counselling to avoid evictions etc? Some forgiveness of debt? Was that actually a 'right' thing to do?

It is the rich man who uses the word "shrewd" - as perhaps a rich person may value that shrewdness - but is this actually the basis of action by the manager & how the manager saw his own behaviour? Is shrewdness wrong? Might our own sense of privilege affect how we view this?

I like Eugene Petersen's take on it in The Message - Bible Gateway passage: Luke 16:1-13 - The Message
Petersen's interpretation -
"8-9 “Now here’s a surprise: The master praised the crooked manager! And why? Because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens. They are on constant alert, looking for angles, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way—but for what is right—using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so you’ll live, really live, and not complacently just get by on good behavior.”
 
And some people go overboard with the shrewdness to the n'th degree! The need for the second spirit ...
 
It does appear to be a difficult passage to understand.
We have understood Jesus to stand for a certain "altruism" of giving to us freely even with no expectations from us in anything we could do to earn it.
But this story tends to bring to mind the principal of reciprocity. There can be an altruistic reciprocity that gives with limited expectation or the expectation of future reward. Reciprocity makes it possible to build continuing exchanges and friendships and even allows for the poor to participate in giving.
Seneca who was a philosopher during Jesus time spoke about this also...could the writer of Luke and Jesus be familiar with this too?
Anyway, just a thought.
 
If being skinned and skimmed by wealthy powers ... what is an ethical and moral response when trying to survive on starvation conditions imposed to make the powers excessively wealthy? Obviously these people cannot be taxed according to their own rules ...

Are there alternate rules? Wouldn't that be the devil if there are two sets of books causing duality and de deuce ... deductions?

Recall that legitimately you have no recourse to the historical rules ... mind blowing? Thus the tempests ...

If indecently rich keep out of sight ... head down! Maybe a metaphorical vision ...
 
As the passage opens, we are told the manager was squandering the rich man's property. It is interesting that the theme of wastefulness continues from the parable of the prodigal son.

How was the manager squandering property? Padding his expense account? Overcharging interest? Something else?

We are not told. Nor are we told if the rich man was an honest or a dishonest character.

The parable makes me wonder if Jesus might have thought all worldly wealth was dishonest in one way or another.

We seem to have a very pragmatic Jesus here. He admires shrewdness and counsels using dishonest wealth wisely for future gain.
 
paradox3 said:
The parable makes me wonder if Jesus might have thought all worldly wealth was dishonest in one way or another.
Click to expand...
Given his spiritual focus and mystical leaning, this would be a distinct possibility though I don't recall him ever coming right out and saying it. If so, I disagree with him very much, but I can certainly see him thinking that. Many mystics and spiritual gurus do.

paradox3 said:
How was the manager squandering property? Padding his expense account? Overcharging interest? Something else?
Click to expand...
Giving how he handles trying to endear himself to his master's debtors, cooking the books for his own benefit or to hide his own mismanagement comes to mind.
 
Why is the first debtor's load reduced by 50% and the second debtor's by 20%?

Could the manager have been showing compassion based on their relative ability to pay?
 
The three "lost" parables in chapter 15 were addressed to the crowds. Tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear Jesus speak. The Pharisees and the experts in the law were complaining.

Our study passage begins, "Jesus also said to the disciples . . ."

Does Luke mean that Jesus is speaking only to the twelve? If so, is the meaning of the parable altered in any way?
 
paradox3 said:
Interesting points on privilege @Carolla and reciprocity @Waterfall

Does this passage have any relevance to charity nd outreach in our churches.today?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking it could, Jesus spoke about reciprocity many times:
"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"(Mathew);
"In the same way you judge others, you will be judged." (Mathew);
"Give and it will be given to you."; (Luke)
"One gives freely yet grows all the richer, another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want." (Proverbs)

If we reach out to others in our community will they in turn become contributors to others also?
To be honest I'm not sure if I'm reading this passage right... because the shrewd manager forgave debts that weren't his to forgive...he lost nothing but possibly gained from it. ( the gratitude from those who owed the loan).
 
Last edited:
Redbaron said:
Well, there is that line about the inability to serve both God and mammon...
Click to expand...
Coming right up at the end of this passage! When I first looked at the reading I wasn't even sure if v.13 was part of the parable.

Verses 10 through 13 talk about money.
 
It all depends ... particularly on your vision of the parable ... or to reword ... where you are watching from!

Rich and poorer visions are conflicting ...
 
The problem with these kinds of modes of thinking is that we are never always in possession of all of the facts, so we are left to fill in the gaps with our own gut feelings and instincts, but this could invariably lead to the wrong conclusions. It's a lesson in second guessing that may never reveal what is the truth.
 
Davyc said:
The problem with these kinds of modes of thinking is that we are never always in possession of all of the facts, so we are left to fill in the gaps with our own gut feelings and instincts, but this could invariably lead to the wrong conclusions. It's a lesson in second guessing that may never reveal what is the truth.
Click to expand...
So do you see any value in studying the Bible? What about this particular parable? Does it have anything to tell us or does it confound you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top