Luke

16:1-13

The teachings of Messiah, 9:51-19:44

4. Who enters the kingdom? 13:22-16:13

vi] Faithfulness - the parable of the shrewd manager

In this passage Luke records the parable of the shrewd manager, v1-8a, Jesus' application of the parable, v8b and three appended sayings: generosity with money, v9; faithfulness with money, v10-12; serving God rather than the things of this world, v13. The message is simple, "disciples who do not show faithfulness in this life cannot expect to enter the life of the age to come", Ellis.

The six episodes which make up the teaching unit, Who enters the kingdom?, 13:22-16:13, as with the next six episodes, 16:14-18:14, reveal the bad news and good news of the coming kingdom in Christ - the condemnation of the "righteous" under the law and the blessing of the humble (repentant) under grace. In the coming day, the first shall be last and the last first, 13:22-30. Religious Judaism will find itself "the last", for Israel is now a forsaken city, 13:31-35. Israel has failed to keep the law, and thus faces eternal loss; someone else will take her place at the heavenly feast, 14:1-24. The same demand for perfection applies also to those who would stand in for Israel; they must be totally dedicated to God, willing to "give up everything." The disciple who under-performs will be dumped like saltless salt, and be warned, we all under-perform, 14:25-35. Thankfully, there is a guaranteed way to be right with God, namely repentance, and let it be known, it is a joy to God when a sinner repents. Repentance prompts God's joyous mercy, his joyous grace, 15:1-32.

The sixth and last episode in this teaching unit, 16:1-13, is notoriously difficult to interpret. The opening parable has prompted numerous interpretations and so the interpretation offered here, namely that the children of light are anything but prudent, is but one among many, v1-8. The point made by the parable is supported by appended sayings on the proper handling of material possessions, v9-13. These sayings have also proved notoriously difficult to interpret since they are further examples of Jesus' utopian ethic. Obviously, allegorical interpretations of the parable itself can be abandoned, although most commentators stray a little in this direction, eg. Johnson: Like the manager's clever response, "the children of light should be discerning in their response to the 'visitation of their Lord'" and "as the manager used possessions to secure a place for himself, so should the disciples". Note also how Johnson, at this point, is dangling his toe into a salvation by works theology. Also Plummer: a believer should lay up "treasure in heaven" by using their "wealth to promote their welfare in the next world."

We are on fairly safe ground if we look for one central idea in the parable which is addressed by the following sayings. Interpretations vary greatly, but most focus on discipleship. Danker stands out from the crowd with his simple exposition; "in the everyday world of business, prudence is exercised to secure temporary advantage. God's people, who have higher goals and expectations, ought to display at least as much prudence in relation to God and their future hope. Yet, when it comes to material possessions, they often forget that the proper use of those possessions is an integral part of their total religious experience." cf. Bock who undertakes a detailed exposition of this passage.

The discipleship line of interpretation sits well with the previous episode, 15:1-32. Believers, who have reached a point of repentance and faith, are now called to service. Having placed ourselves under the grace of God we need to remember that "no person can serve two masters ... You cannot serve God and the things of this world." The dishonest steward wisely prepared for his judgment day (unemployment), similarly, the sons of light need to prepare for their judgment day (the great assize). So, let us wisely use our resources of time, talent and tinkle, all of which is on loan from the Creator, before it's too late. "One serves a master no matter what, so make sure that it is God", Bock.

Commentators tend to develop this general discipleship exhortation in different ways. For example, Fitzmyer suggests that Luke has actually provided 3 separate applications: i] A prudent use of material possessions, eg. almsgiving, 8b-9; ii] Day-to-day responsibility and fidelity, v10-12; iii] A warning - don't let wealth become the god we serve, v13.

In principle, the law (here, the utopian [as opposed to utilitarian] ethic of Jesus) always serves as a guide to the Christian life and so there is little doubt that this passage reminds the believer to handle worldly wealth wisely. Yet, we need to consider the possibility that Luke is still with his great reversal / judgment theme. The primary purpose of the law is to expose our condition of loss, our state of sin. Ellis, in his uncompromising style, describes the discipleship demanded of us in this passage in rather dramatic terms - "disciples who do not show faithfulness in this life cannot expect to enter the life of the age to come." Well! of course, but here's the rub, can any believer claim to have faithfully used their resources wisely and well? Pharisaic reductionism (reducing the law's demand to the point where it can be obeyed) is oft suggested (eg. Jesus is only talking about alms-giving / the tithe), but it provides no protection in the day of judgment.

So then, we are bound to consider the possibility that this episode is not primarily about discipleship, but about judgment. Our passage for study reminds us that none of us are "faithful"; it serves again to expose our sinful state (here our attachment to the things of this world) and thus our eternal loss. When it comes to securing our eternal future, we "children of light" are fools, anything but "prudent". How do we know that this is the case? Because when it comes to the things of this world, things on loan to us by God, we serve them, always serve them, and we cannot serve God and at the same time the things of this world. Thus we stand condemned. How then shall we be saved?

The parable of The Shrewd Manager confronts us with the crisis caused by the coming kingdom, cf. Dodd. It serves as "a warning .... to take resolute and immediate action in the face of impending disaster", Caird. In the attached sayings, the "utopian" ethic of Jesus, again performs its prime function to expose sin and thus reinforce the disaster we face. By the placement of this episode in his gospel, Luke maintains his prime directive to reveal, in the presence of the coming kingdom, the condemnation of the "righteous" under the law, in contrast to the blessing of the humble (repentant) under grace.

The parable of the Shrewd Manager, v1-8a, teaches that in the face of disaster the worldly-wise use whatever opportunity they have to find a way out.

kai "-" - and. Here presumably a connective, although Jesus is now addressing his disciples, rather than the Pharisees. The Pharisees are certainly listening on, cf. v14, but Luke is making a point of identifying the disciples as "the children/sons of light", cf. v8, and therefore the ones who are imprudent when it comes to the things of this world.

plousioV adj. "rich" - The adjective is attributive, describing the man, he was rich, "a rich man", not predicative, "a certain man was rich."

oikonomon (oV) "manager" - steward. A trusted manager of a person's estate.

dieblhqh (diaballw) aor. pas. "accused" - [this person] being charged [to/against him]. Once only use in NT, possibly implying a false, but certainly aggressive accusation.

wJV + part. "-" - like [squandering his possessions]. Forming a substantival phrasae, "he was accused as one who squandered", cf. BD 425. Does this imply that the charge was false, "he was accused as if he had squandered"? Probably not.

diaskorpizwn (diaskorpizw) pres. part. "wasting" - squandering, scattering. Durative action, but we are not told in what way the manager was wasteful, neglectful, or careless.

fwnhsaV (fwnew) aor. part. "so he called" - having called. The participle is adverbial, probably consecutive, expressing result, "so, as a result, he called him", as NIV and the majority of translations.

ti "what" - Here obviously interrogatory, asking a question.

apodoV (apodidwmi) aor. imp. "give [an account]" - give back. "Render", "produce your accounts", REB.

ton logon "an account" - the word. Obviously the final accounts, not a record of accounts for consideration.

thV oikonomiaV (a) "management" - of stewardship, agency [of you]. "I want to see your books at once", Barclay.

gar "because" - for. Expressing reason. The master wanted to see the final audited accounts "because" he was going to fire him.

oikonomein (oikonomew) inf. "be manager" - to manage, administer. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the verb "able"; "you are no longer able = you do not have the abilityto administer". "You are no longer going to work for me", CEV.

eti "any longer" - still.

en eJautw "to himself" - in himself. He deliberated inwardly.

ti poihsw (poiew) subj. "what shall I do" - Deliberative subjunctive. Deliberating over his future, not the accounts.

oJti "-" - because. "Since /now that", TH.

oJ kurioV (oV) "[my] master" - lord. "Employer". The word is used here, in v5 and v8. Its use in v8 is problematical.

skapein (skaptw) pres. inf. "[I'm not strong enough] to dig" - The infinitive is complementary / epexegetic, completing the sense of the verb "I am [not] strong [enough] / have [not] the strength (so also the following infinitive "to beg"). Obviously, "not strong enough for manuel labor." "I am too weak to dig (ditches), I am ashamed to beg", Moffatt.

egnwn (ginwskw) aor. "I know" - The action is punctiliar so possibly expressing "I've got it, I know what ..."; "Ah, I know what I'll do ...", Phillips.

iJna + subj. "so that" - that [... they may receive]. Introducing either a purpose or result clause, or better, intended result, "to make sure that", Barclay.

oJtan + subj. "when [I lose my job here]" - when [I am removed from the stewardship]. The construction forms an indefinite temporal clause. "When I'm turned out in the street", Peterson.

metastaqw (meqisthmi) aor. subj. "I lose my job here" - I am removed. "Summarily fired", Bock.

dexwntai (decomai) aor. subj. "people will welcome" - they may receive [me ..]. The unstated subject "they" is obviously the debtors. The play on words here, where the manager is out of his house/stewardship oikonomiaV and into their house oikouV, simply describes the manager's future advantage. Due to a mutually agreed embezzlement of the master's funds, the manager now has the capacity to draw on a "reciprocal benefit", Johnson, from his fellow conspirators, eg. future "employment", Bock. So, "welcome me into their houses" = "so that the master's debtors will help finance my forced retirement."

proskalesamenoV (proskaleomai) aor. part. "so he called in" - having called, summoned. The participle is adverbial, temporal, "after summoning each of the master's debtors", = "he called all of them one by one", TH. "Then he called his master's debtors", NJB.

Two examples are provided describing the nature of the embezzlement, v6-7.

kaqisaV (kaqizw) aor. part. "sit down" - sitting down. An attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "make (write)", "sit and write." Obviously describing the preparation of a new, but fraudulent, invoice.

We now come to a highly contentious verse. There are three basic ways to approach this verse: i] The verse is wholly part of the parable, where the narrator notes the master's/employers response and comments on it; ii] The verse is wholly part of Jesus' application of the parable, "The Lord (Jesus) commended the worldly manager ...."; iii] The first half of the verse is part of the parable and the second half is part of Jesus' application of the parable, or even an editorial comment by Luke rather than Jesus, so Nolland. The second option gets a run by many commentators, so Ellis, but Marshall, Lagrange, Nolland, Stein, Bock, Danker, disagree, adopting for the third option. Johnson suggests the first option.

oJ kurioV (oV) "the master" - Either, "the employer" or "Jesus", as above.

ephnesen (epainew) aor. "commended" - praised. The sense "to speak well of", cannot be ignored, although we should note that this is the only use of the word in Luke, so a sarcastic sense is possible, although unlikely. It is usually suggested that the master praised his employee because: i] the discounted invoice made the master look generous; ii] the manager had rewritten the invoice removing improperly added interest, interest applied in defiance of the Law; iii] the master admired the shrewdness of his employee. The third option seems best. "Now here's a surprise: The master praised the crooked manager! And why? Because he know how to look after himself", Peterson.

thV adikiaV (a) gen. "dishonest [manager]" - [the steward] of unrighteousness. The articular genitive noun here functions as an adjective (Hebraic genitive). Possibly not as strong as "wicked", so "the worldly manager", Nolland.

oJti "because" - because. Cause/reason, "because".

fronimwV adv. "shrewdly" - wisely. He had acted "cleverly", or "wisely / sensibly" from a worldly point of view.

Jesus draws a sad observation from the parable, namely that the "righteous", unlike the worldly wise, faced with the inevitable day of judgment, don't use their resources to avert the coming doom.

oJti "for" - because. Possibly again expressing cause/reason, as NIV. Yet, for those who hold the third option, this conjunction is functioning here as either a connective, or serving to form a dependent statement, direct speech, so Marshall. "Commenting on the parable Jesus said, 'the people of this world .....'"

oiJ uiJoi tou aiwnoV toutou "the people of this world" - the sons of this age (as opposed to the "sons of light" = "the sons of the age to come"). Worldly people as opposed to religious people (theists). Similar language was used by the Qumran community and so is obviously a Palestinian descriptor for the secular / religious divide.

eiV thn enean thn eJautwn "in dealing with their own kind" - to/towards the generation of themselves / their own generation. The introductory preposition is possibly expressing relationship, so "in dealing with / relating with", so Fitzmyer, and "generation of themselves" possibly "their contemporaries", Barclay, or better, "their own time frame", but the meaning still remains illusive. The description applies both to the "children of this age" and the "children of the age to come", except that the "children of this age" are "more sensible" (comparative adjective) when it comes to "relating to their own time frame." The "children of this age" sensibly use the resources that come their way to secure their future in the here and now, whereas the "children of the age to come" do not sensibly use the resources that come their way to secure their future in the hereafter. Although a stretch, CEV surely hits the mark with "the people of this world look out for themselves better than ...."

Jesus now calls on "the children of light" "to act shrewdly to prepare for the great meeting", Stein. As noted above, the "utopian" ethic of Jesus serves primarily to expose sin and thus drive the repentant sinner to God for mercy. None-the-less, the ethic of Jesus is also "utilitarian", serving as a guide to the Christian life. See above.

poihsate (poiew) aor. imp. "use [worldly wealth] to gain [friends]" - [yourselves] make [friends from unrighteous mammon].

ek + gen. "-" - from, of, out of. Possibly "apart from", therefore "and not from worldly wealth", although unlikely, but rather "from/out of"; "[make friends] by means of the proper use of [worldly wealth]" seems best.

thV adikiaV (a) "worldly [wealth]" - unrighteous, dishonest [wealth, money, livelihood, possessions]. Mammon entails everything that makes up this world's resources upon which humans rely for their existence: time, energy, talents, possessions and specifically that which these generate, namely, "money". A general sense seems best, the stuff of life, "things", although the literal intention is "money". As for "mammon" being "unrighteous", the sense is possibly of "mammon" immorally acquired, or originating from an evil world, but better as a religious description of "that in which one puts one's trust", possibly tainted as it is", Phillips, but even better, just of this world, so "worldly", so, "use the things of this world."

filouV (oV) "friends" - [make] friends [from/out of ...]. There is much to support the view that the friends are "the poor" to whom alms must be given, cf. Marshall, Nolland. Thus the exhortation in this verse concerns the generous allocation of wealth for the poor, which kindness will be repaid in eternity. By giving alms, the poor become our friends, and since the poor, like Lazarus, are found in eternal dwellings, they will be there to welcome us when we are rewarded for our generosity. The salvation by works line in this interpretation is not necessarily a problem as long as we recognize that we can never be generous enough to earn our salvation (cf. The rich young ruler). The implication that "the poor", by being destitute, gain entry to heaven, is also not a problem, as long as we recognize that this serves as part of "the great reversal" image, the prophetic picture that, in the coming day of the kingdom, God's favor is toward "the poor = lost/sinner", rather than "the rich = righteous", ie. Jesus is referring to the theological poor. "Let me tell you this, the person who wins the eternal prize is not the person with the most number of toys when they die, but the person who has given them all away before they die."

eJautoiV "yourselves" - Emphatic position, so "I tell you, you yourselves, make friends..." "In your own interest make friends", Plummer.

iJna + subj. "so that [...... you will be welcomed]" - that [they may receive]. Forming a purpose clause, "in order that."

oJtan + subj. "when [it is gone]" - when [it fails]. The construction forms an indefinite temporal clause. The subject of "it is gone" is not identified but is probably "mammon", "when money is no more"; "when it comes to an end", Rieu. Not "when we run out of money/things", but "at the moment of death" when money is no longer of any use to us, so Nolland.

dexwntai (decomai) aor. mid. subj. "you will be welcomed" - they may welcome [you]. Possibly a hebraistic passive form with God as the agent so not "they will welcome you", NJB, but rather "you may be received", REB. Yet, it is more likely that "they will welcome you" is intended, the subject (the agent), the "they", being the "friends", ie. "the poor."

taV aiwniouV skhnaV "eternal dwellings" - the eternal tent, tabernacle.

Two further sayings on the proper use of resources ("the things of this world"), v10-12 and v13, serve as a call to properly use worldly mammon for an eternal end. By quoting these two sayings Jesus reinforces the point of the parable, namely that the "children of the age to come" are anything but sensible when it comes to using "mammon" wisely. "The wise stewardship of possessions", Stein, is not something we do well. We have not wisely used the resources on loan to us from God, we "have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth" for we "serve both God and money", and therefore we have no hope of being "welcomed into eternal dwellings." We face disaster; who then will save us?

oJ pistoV "whoever can be trusted" - the faithful. "The man who is reliable", Barclay.

en "with [very little]" - Here "with" = "with regard to", so "in the use of", TH.

elacistow/ adj. "very little" - least. Superlative adjective.

adikoV adj. "dishonest" - It would be right to assume that the word here is intended as the opposite of "faithful/reliable", so "unreliable". A person who is unreliable with small responsibilities can't be trusted with big responsibilities.

ei + ind. "if" - Conditional sentence, 1st class, where the condition is assumed to be a reality, "if, as is the case, .... then ...."

ouk egenesqe (ginomai) aor. "you have not been" - were not. "You have proved not to be", cf. Plummer.

pistoi adj. "trustworthy" - faithful, reliable. It is an interesting idea that we are mere custodians, rather than owners, of earthly resources, such that we are to faithfully use them for a higher purpose, rather than just possess them. The idea is repeated in v12.

to alhqinon adj. "true riches" - the genuine, real thing. The articular adjective "the real", functioning as a substantive, is opposite to "unrighteous mammon". Assuming that "unrighteous mammon" = "the things / resources of this world", then "the real/true thing" is "the thing(s)/resource(s) of the age to come" = "all the riches of heaven." "If you have proved that you can't be trusted (are unreliable) with the riches of this world, how can you be trusted with all the riches of heaven?"

Note the allusion again to the parable. Were these sayings always linked to the parable? Note again the negative slant, "if you have not proved to be." "If you cannot be faithful in caring for someone else's things, who will give you responsibility for your own things?" Bock.

tw/ allotriw/ adj. "someone else's property" - the belonging to another. Reinforcing the idea that the things of this world, life and all that, do not belong to us, but are on loan from the Creator.

tiV "who" - Obviously referring to God.

to uJmeteron adj. "property of your own" - [who will give to you] that which is yours / belongs to you. What a fascinating idea! What we have here, life and all that, is on loan, but what we will have there, in eternity (if we are "trustworthy"!!!), is ours to keep. So, "all the riches of heaven" are an eternal possession.

douleuein (douleuw) pres. inf. "[can] serve" - to serve. Complementary infinitive completing the sense of the verb "is able."

mishsei (misew) fut. "will hate" - The string of future tenses indicating "what may be naturally expected", TH. The "hate /love" dichotomy is typical of Jesus' colorful language. Here "love" is probably something like "affection / devotion." The CEV "you will like one more than the other" heads in the right direction, but is too soft. The CEV also dilutes the either/or dichotomy ("the contrasting alternatives", Nolland) to a greater than. See below. The sense is, "you will be devoted to one and not to the other."

anqexetai (antecomai) fut. "he will be devoted to" - he will cling to, hold fast to. Probably in the sense of "be committed to / loyal to."

katafronhsei (katafronew) fut. "despise" - he will despise, disdain, hold in little respect. Again, the CEV "be more loyal to one than to the other" is on the mark with "loyal", but off the mark with "more loyal." In ancient society a slave can indeed serve two masters, but the nature of the beast is such that, in the face of divided loyalties, we will come to "be devoted" to one, "be committed" to one, rather than the other. The lesson from Israel's past is that syncretism, the merging of Baal with Yahweh, is an anathema with our God.

Luke Introduction

lectionarystudies.com