The "dishonest steward" -- Could Jesus be referring to Himself?

[Mystical_Seeker]

In the story of Luke 16, the dishonest servant, consider this. If it sounds too weird then I understand but I’ve been thinking this a long time so I might as well go for it.

Can we imagine that Jesus is talking about how the Pharisees who kept calling out Him and His friends for picking grain on the Sabbath, healing on the Sabbath, not washing the cups, etc? Letting the sinful woman touch Him? Talking to the woman at the well? Comparing the “unrighteous” favorably v. the “righteous” like the Pharisee and the tax collector?

Jesus learned “street smarts” by hanging around the people He did. That’s one of the reasons He understood the hearts of sinners; He hung around them.

So how about this – it isn’t perfect but a starting place because it’s really hard for me to describe this because I haven’t tried before.

What if God the Father is like the “rich man” who is told by the Pharisees that Jesus is breaking the rules? What were the results of Jesus breaking the rules? A man’s hand was healed. Hungry were fed. Jesus got prompted to give us speeches on the outside of the cup v. the inside. So these accusations against Jesus were an important part of many of the Gospels.

So on the surface, it looks like Jesus is condoning sin. But in fact, Jesus is operating on a higher level than the written law, as interpreted by the scribes and teachers of the law. So the the Pharisees, who think God is going to be upset because Jesus seemed to “reap where He did not sow” or “bend a few rules” are not expecting God to be pleased with Jesus. So with worldly minds, and according to the experts, we would want to stone Jesus for blasphemy, accuse him of all sorts of wrongdoing, and basically punish and get rid of Him like they thought God would have mandated because of Jesus’s behavior from their outward viewpoint judgment.

So to the worldly mind who can only see that the numbers don’t match, obviously the Steward did wrong – again according to outward appearances: the worldly treasure. It wouldn’t even occur to them to look beyond that to find out that good has been done despite what the numbers seem to show. We find out once again that “value” in the kingdom of heaven is not like the “value” of riches. The rich man sees that his money is squandered – but that greater good has come of it.

So to God, He is well pleased with His son, because He shows us that the law of God is greater than the laws of man. In this way he did not abolish the law, but fulfilled it by showing us how to apply it. With love always, over strict adherence to outwardly measurable behavior.

And in fact, this could be one reason why God condescended to become Man in the first place. So that He could show the difference between following the Jewish law, and the new law of love that is based on mercy, not sacrifice?

Does anybody other than me, see the value in considering the parable in this context?

Luke 16

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

So to the worldly mind who can only see that the numbers don’t match, obviously the Steward did wrong – again according to outward appearances: the worldly treasure. It wouldn’t even occur to them to look beyond that to find out that good has been done despite what the numbers seem to show. We find out once again that “value” in the kingdom of heaven is not like the “value” of riches. The rich man sees that his money is squandered – but that greater good has come of it.

Same situation when the woman poured the expensive oil on Jesus. What a worldly waste, according to the bean counters, but Jesus said it was an act of love.

 

[Nelka]

No you are completely wrong, Jesus is not the master in this parable.

The master praises the unjust steward not for his dishonesty but for his sagacity. Using the remaining time of his employment with cunning, he was able to provide for his future.

Jesus explained that the people of this world are able to provide for their own worldly futures but not for their afterlife.

To discover this parable’s meaning one can follow the advice of Tertullian who wrote that one will find no parable which was not either explained by Christ or illumined by a commentary of an evangelist. “For the children of this world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light” is a comment emphasizing the necessity of prudence. The unjust steward represents the “children of this world” because he lives his life estranged from God. He, however, acts more wisely to secure his temporal good in this passing world than do those enlightened by the truth of Christ to attain their eternal good. Since prudence is the virtue which directs man’s actions to their goal, Christ is exhorting His disciples not to be outdone by the cunning of the wicked but to pursue those virtuous acts which will lead to their everlasting happiness.

 

[afthomercy]

Mystical Seeker, your hypothesis is too hard to digest. There is a broad hint in the story that the master himself was unrighteous. He would have transacted with his debtors at unjust prices in order to accumulate the wealth of unrighteousness. This would explain the debtors willingness to collude with the dismissed manager to get back at him. Would Jesus ever paint his heavenly father in such a poor light?

It is said in verse 8 that “…his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.” Would Jesus ever apply the term “sons of this age” to himself /his father (in preference to “sons of light”)?

Apparently the master was praising his dishonest servant for his sagacity, yet I can’t make much sense of verse 9: “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.” (NASB)

Interestingly, in verse 11 it is said: “Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you?” It seems to say that even if we know that our employer has made his wealth dishonestly, we cannot be dishonest in its use vis-a-vis him.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Mystical Seeker, your hypothesis is too hard to digest. There is a broad hint in the story that the master himself was unrighteous. He would have transacted with his debtors at unjust prices in order to accumulate the wealth of unrighteousness. This would explain the debtors willingness to collude with the dismissed manager to get back at him. Would Jesus ever paint his heavenly father in such a poor light?

I acknowledge it may be hard to digest, because it is counter-intuitive and because I’ve never heard this interpretation from anybody but me. But then again all of Jesus’s parables about the kingdom are counter-intuitive. The greatest is the one who serves, the first is last, and basically all the rules we operate on as worldly being, don’t follow the same “logic” as in the kingdom.

It would seem that the master did not view the steward’s actions as an act of defiance at all, but as an act of self-preservation. And to a rich man, this act was not immediately apparent as an option because the rich man had never been in this situation. The steward acted prudently, even though by some measures it looks like the steward had added more theft.

Notice that the “rich man” ended up pleased with the steward’s actions, and held them up as a model for Good Behavior! I assume that the rich man has authority to judge the steward, and does not have to accept the accusations of, for example God does not judge the same was as the teachers and experts in the law.

And yes there is more than a hint, but a direct assertion that the master was not righteous – when judged by worldly standards.

But that’s the rub. According to the books, the steward act wrongly. According to the man who actually lost the money, that man said the steward’s actions were prudent.

So in this model, the owner is happy. Jesus tells many parables where the punch line completely reverses what seem to be the obvious conclusion from the story. Here we see what the steward is doing and immediately judge “oh this steward is bad; the Rich Man will be angry” and they are wrong.

So the assertion that the steward did wrong, is by inferior standards compared to the one the rich man used to judge.

I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth,[f] so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

So please tell me what this means, if it does not mean that the rich man, once having see how the steward operates “in the trenches,” considers the steward’s actions prudent more than criminal, then please help me understand.

It is said in verse 8 that “…his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.” Would Jesus ever apply the term “sons of this age” to himself /his father (in preference to “sons of light”)?

This is interesting; I haven’t asked myself that before. If I think about the Church, as opposed to Jesus, doing “what needs to be done” in the interest of prudence, this doesn’t have the same impact.

There are a couple other places I see this issue of Jesus compares himself to the group. For one we have the bit about “we played a song for you but we did not dance,” when referring to “this generation.” But then also when they were about to stone Jesus for blasphemy because He said “the Father and I are one” in John 10:30, that He considered Himself within the group who have received the word. So in one case he laments the group, and in the other He asks why He should be considered excluded from it?

Anyway I’ll give that some more thought; thank you for asking.

Apparently the master was praising his dishonest servant for his sagacity, yet I can’t make much sense of verse 9: “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.” (NASB)

Interestingly, in verse 11 it is said: “Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you?” It seems to say that even if we know that our employer has made his wealth dishonestly, we cannot be dishonest in its use vis-a-vis him.

That’s an interesting point, too, and it goes back also to the story about the man who hid the talent becuase he knew the master “reaped where he did not sow.” I had taken that before to mean kind of like Rom 8:28 where God takes everything and makes it good.

But considering your comment in light of my proposed thought model, it almost seems like you have to break the “worldly” rules in order to know the “real” rules about the kingdom. Places where we are given treasure for the price of a field – but we have to find that field and make the investment.

Anyway I’m running out of analogies. Thank you for sincerely considering my ideas and helping me look at them. I’ve actually feared saying anything about this, but I’m starting to realize it can be productive to voice my ideas; wrong or right, the discussion will bring more viewpoints to light.

I did send this to my pastor just now to get his reaction, because I like to run my “heresies” by him – I may be wrong but I always learn and he loves to encourage me when I have a good point, and correct me when I’m wrong. If/when I get comments from him, I’ll bring them to the thread.

MS

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

The master praises the unjust steward not for his dishonesty but for his sagacity. Using the remaining time of his employment with cunning, he was able to provide for his future.

Exactly. The sagacity was impressive to the rich man, and so much so that the master ended up holding the steward’s actions – even though illegal – as good and prudent ways. So this behavior may have created a greater good.

But then again one could also use this as “ends justifying the means” which seems bad and why we’re so surprised in the first place that the master overlooks anger and “criminal justice” to look from a higher level than even what his own worldly wealth can buy…

Jesus explained that the people of this world are able to provide for their own worldly futures but not for their afterlife.

That’s interesting because I was looking at it the other way. By worldly standards the steward has committed a wrongful act. By the standards of the master, it was one that causes greater good – like using the gifts of God to help each other, gifts (like out time, talent, and treasure) we did not pay for but are only stewards.

Thanks for taking on my ideas and giving me your views.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I do want to mention that I’m not claiming these ideas are in line with expert theologians.

It’s just something that came to me during Lectio Divina once, but at the time I was pretty self-conscious, plus I didn’t know how to try to explain it, so I never mentioned it.

Lectio Divina, for me, is different than interpreting the Gospels theologically. It’s more based on how the scripture impacts me and the others in the prayer group as we let the Word act on us, and only if we want to share after the prayer. So three people may have three completely different interpretations of any given passage, but all have meaning to the one who received that word. It’s more of a “personal encounter” with Christ, or as Teresa is quoted in the CCC contemplation (part of Lectio) as stating: “Contemplative prayer [oracion mental] in my opinion is nothing else than a close sharing between friends; it means taking time frequently to be alone with him who we know loves us.” So it’s a personal reaction, more than a scholarly interpretation.

So to me, Lectio’s kind of like planting seeds without trying to analyze what kind they are or what they will look like. Just being the fertile ground and see what comes up. This came up for me once, and I appreciate those who are taking their time to even consider my views. To me it has a possible lesson that is Christian, but not intuitive from a worldly sense. So whether my “model” represents reality, I like where it has taken me to think about it, and now that others are joining in it helps me see other aspects. I may abandon this at some time or not; right now I’m just kicking it around and agree or not, everything others have to add, expands my own encounter into the “Cloud of the Unknowing.”

MS