Making friends with dishonest wealth. Really?

[Darryl_B]

I have read all the posts, understand the stewardship as BobCatholic nicely illustrates thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but from all that, what is the moral? I am struggling to find an application.

 

[BobCatholic]

I can see a slight problem with the commission cutting. If the steward did those deals, he would have known about the amount owing and the commissions he would have made. But he has to ask the debtors how much they owe which implies he is rather clueless about the state of affairs. How would he know how much of his commissions he could write down if he wasn’t up-to-date?

This is an ex-accountant talking.

However, there is a possible work-around to this. The steward could have originally done those deals with set commission % for various items. However, he might not be current on the outstanding as the debtors could have paid off some (Of course he should have known how much of that is outstanding if he has been doing his job. But he didn’t and perhaps that’s why he got the boot. Or perhaps he longer has access to his accounts anymore. Just guessing).

I’m sure they brought in their invoices/promissory notes to make the adjustments. He doesn’t have to memorize every account, it was all written down anyway (hi! accounting degree holder here). Whether there were 2 copies and he just adjusted his copy, or how exactly the adjustments were done, it is not exactly clear. One translation had them both doing the adjustments to the notes, others had him issuing new notes and taking the old notes and destroying them, another had him alone doing the adjustments. Could be any of the above.

 

[Wesrock]

I have read all the posts, understand the stewardship as BobCatholic nicely illustrates thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but from all that, what is the moral? I am struggling to find an application.

He is more interested in serving his master and staying in his master’s house than in his commissions/money. A man can only have one master.

 

[ericc]

I am rather contented with the explanation for the master commending his steward for his prudence. The steward was cutting deals for his future benefit even when he is on the way out. However, I seem to have a mental block on Lk 16:9 and Lk 16:11.

Lk 16:9. My guess is even with ill-gotten gains, one can still make good use of it. I am just not sure this is what it means. I am sure Jesus didn’t mean to encourage us to obtain unrighteous riches and make friends with that loot.

Lk 16:11. I have no clue “been faithful in the unrighteous mammon” what it means. Does it mean Robin Hood being faithful to his forest comrades even though they got their loot through unlawful means? In other words, honor among thieves/gangsters? Stories of mafia/secret societies members come to mind, those who stick with their clan members through thick and thin, respecting and trusting each other, even with their lives, although all were involved in obtaining unrighteous mammon. (I can’t think of a less glamorous story at the moment) I can imagine those on the dark side may still have some trustworthiness in them although they could be a nasty lot. And we do have stories of those who turn good and successful.

 

[Wesrock]

Per Haddock’s commentary on the first page, true wealth is spiritual wealth in God. Earthly money is “of iniquity” and, while technically it can be justly earned, is often earned unjustly or idolized and is therefore “dishonest” wealth. Another take would be to contrast it to wealth in God, which is the only true wealth in existence. While we call money wealth, it has no value to God, in that sense, earthly money is a tempting, pretty distraction that people put a lot of value in when in reality it has none, thus all earthly money is in that sense “dishonest.” It is good to give this “dishonest wealth” to the needy and poor.

Be a faithful steward with money, don’t idolize it or treat it as an end in itself. If you are a faithful steward with money on earth which is in reality of very little value, then you can be entrusted with great spiritual wealth in God. If you are not a faithful steward with money on Earth, who will entrust you with Good riches? (By this, we don’t mean being good accountants or keeping a balanced budget, but having our priorities straight and serving God first, not money).

The turn of phrase “dishonest wealth” can be misleading in modern language. He is not telling us to make illegal dealings or make friends with Robin Hoods.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Well, my personal take is that Luke 16:1-12 have been nefariously inserted. I don’t hear the True Jesus in this passage. Still others think this Jesus character is the ‘double’, that shows up other places as well.

Or, there’s:

Bullinger (The Companion Bible) says:

“v9. And=And, “Do I say unto you?” “Is this what I say to you?” In vv. 10-12, the Lord gives the reason why He does not say that; otherwise these verses are wholly inconsequent, instead of being the true application of vv. 1-8.”

The bottom line, to me, would be to recognize that, “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations,” is not a correct spiritual principle.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, my personal take is that Luke 16:1-12 have been nefariously inserted.

Wow. God must be a real wimp, if He allows His message in the Bible to be corrupted for the the vast majority of His people…

I don’t hear the True Jesus in this passage.

Erm… ummm… ok. Don’t know quite what that means…

Bullinger (The Companion Bible) says:

“v9. And=And, “Do I say unto you?” “Is this what I say to you?” In vv. 10-12, the Lord gives the reason why He does not say that; otherwise these verses are wholly inconsequent, instead of being the true application of vv. 1-8.”

The bottom line, to me, would be to recognize that, “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations,” is not a correct spiritual principle.

Don’t know who this Bullinger fellow is, or what his deal with a ‘condensed’ Bible is, but his take on the Greek is interesting. Since he claims the passage doesn’t make sense, he inserts a question mark in v.9 that isn’t there (he claims that it’s “do I say unto you?”, not, “and I say to you”). If this were what was going on, then the way we might expect them to express it in Koine Greek is to use a conditional statement. It’s a pretty neat way to express things: you make an “if-then” statement, and by the way you use the grammar, you indicate whether you’re saying that the “if” part is true or not. You wouldn’t just hang a (presumed) question out there and not answer it.

The KJV uses a variant of the translation here, too. Some manuscripts have the word ἐκλίπητε here (“when ya’ll might fail”), whereas others have ἐκλίπῃ (“when it might fail”). The variant form might suggest an interpretation that says “ya’ll go ahead and try to ‘make friends with unjust mammon’, so that when ya’ll fail to do so, you’ll go to heaven.” I’m with you – that doesn’t fit very well with the passage as a whole. The majority translation (“when it might fail”) fits better with the lesson of the parable.

 

[goout]

Well, my personal take is that Luke 16:1-12 have been nefariously inserted. I don’t hear the True Jesus in this passage. Still others think this Jesus character is the ‘double’, that shows up other places as well.

Perhaps you can see the problem here.

If the scriptures are corrupted, who has the authority to claim it?
If part of scripture is corrupted, how can you trust any of the rest of it?

Can you see that your objection leads directly to an appeal to authority?

 

[Darryl_B]

Perhaps you can see the problem here.

If the scriptures are corrupted, who has the authority to claim it?
If part of scripture is corrupted, how can you trust any of the rest of it?

Can you see that your objection leads directly to an appeal to authority?

It is a little unusual when ones Religion is defined as “Bible” but then to claim authority over the Bible.