Meditative Hermeneutics on Luke 16:1-13
To get a better understanding of Luke 16:1-13, it’s important to start with a bird’s eye view of Luke as a whole. Luke is a gospel narrative, which means it is a historical narrative about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Luke is in fact written by Luke, who was a close friend and traveling companion of the apostle Paul. Although Luke did not have a first-hand account of Jesus, he notes that he compiled this narrative from the eyewitnesses and knowing how close Luke was to Paul, we can be sure that this narrative is accurate.
The main theme of Luke is to show how Jesus fulfills the promises of the scriptures and to show how Jesus is not only the Messiah of the Jews, but also the Gentiles. The structure of Luke is as follows;
1:1-3:22 describes the birth stories of Jesus, John the Baptist and culminates with the baptism of Jesus and his genealogy all the way back to Adam (represents all humanity, not just Jews).
3:23-9:56 describes the start of Jesus’ ministry and an emphasis on Jesus’ good news for the outcasts and poor. Jesus is seen calling the twelve disciples, performing miracles repeatedly, facing resistance from the Jewish leaders, and revealing his identity as “Christ of God” to his disciples. This section concludes with Jesus “setting his face to go to Jerusalem”(9:51)
9:57-19:27 is best described as Jesus’ road to Jerusalem. This section primarily consists of Jesus’ teachings and his continued mission to the outcasts and poor that we saw in the previous section. The audience for these teachings include the disciples, religious leaders, and also specific people he interacts with along his journey. There are twenty-four total parables that Jesus teaches in this section, our passage is one of these.
19:28-24:53 describes Jesus’ the last week of Jesus’ life and the following days after his resurrection. Jesus spends the first few days in Jerusalem teaching and foretelling the destruction of the temple, destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming of the “Son of Man” which leads the chief priests to put him to death. Jesus is arrested after being betrayed by Judas, goes to trial, and is delivered to be crucified because it was what the people demanded. Jesus is crucified on a cross, buried in a tomb, and then rises from the dead. Jesus’ resurrection is a fulfillment of his own words and appears to his disciples to reiterate how he is a fulfillment to the scriptures and commands them to stay in Jerusalem.
The conclusion of Luke is a bit of a cliff-hanger but it is expected because Luke authored a second volume which further explains what happens next in the book of Acts. In Jesus’ final words to his disciples, he reiterates the theme that is seen throughout Luke, that Jesus fulfills the promises of scripture and how he is not only the Messiah of the Jews but also the Gentiles.
Where does this passage fit?
Luke, as a whole, is a gospel narrative genre, however, our passage’s genre is a parable, which is a more specific and sub-genre of the gospels. As mentioned earlier, our passage is located in a section of Luke that is describing Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. It is one of twenty-four parables in this section. Preceding our passage, starting at 15:1, we see that the Pharisees were upset because Jesus “receives sinners and eats with them”(15:2). Immediately after the Pharisees were grumbling about Jesus’ association with sinners, Jesus goes on to tell them three parables; the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. These three parables immediately proceed 16:1-13, which means it is likely that our passage continues an idea from these parables or is related in theme. There is a shift in the audience to whom Jesus is addressing in 16:1, Jesus specifically addresses his disciples. However, we know that the Pharisees are a secondary audience because immediately following our passage, it says “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.”(16:14). So, although Jesus is speaking directly to his disciples, we can assume that Jesus knew the Pharisees were listening.
What is this passage all about?
As I learned from class, parables serve two primary purposes, to conceal the truth to those with hardened hearts, and to reveal the truth to those whose hearts are opened. Jesus tells this parable directly to His disciples so that its truth may be revealed to them, but it’s also told to conceal the truth from the Pharisees who were also listening in. Jesus is sort of answering an unasked question of “how do I use wealth for God?”
Our passage is separated into two distinct blocks. The first block is a parable of a dishonest manager who is wasting away his master’s possessions, he is fired due to his wastefulness, and then his response to his firing is praised by the master. The second block of this passage is Jesus’ explanation of the parable. At face value, these two blocks don’t seem to connect because the manager does not seem commendable, but, Jesus’ explanation should make us investigate how the manager’s actions are commendable. After going through verse by verse and understanding some of the cultural and historical contexts, the main point of this passage is that we must faithfully steward our material wealth and wisely use it as a means to bring others closer to God’s kingdom.
In v1 we are introduced to two characters and the conflict between them. There is a rich man and he has a manager who is accused of “wasting his (rich man) possessions”. In v2 we see that the rich man fires his manager for wasting away his possessions and we are never told exactly how the manager was wasting the master's possession. In v3 the manager is now contemplating what he should do now that his job is being taken away from him. He is either too old or too weak to earn his wages by manual labor, and he is too ashamed to beg. Being a beggar was an extremely low place in society and he couldn’t stomach the shame that came with it. In v4 the manager comes to a conclusion that while he still can, he will allow his master's debtors to pay a lower price than they owed. He does this in hopes that he will win over the hearts of the debtors and that “people may receive me into their houses.” So in v5-7, he summons his master’s debtors and he allows the debtors to each pay a lower price than what they owed.
At face value and with culturally western glasses on, it seems as if the manager is stealing from his master once again by taking less than the debtors owed. This is an interesting interpretive question because if he is wasting his master's possessions again, it doesn’t make sense that his master would commend him and it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would endorse such a parable. However, it is possible that the manager was charging too much interest and was being wasteful by demanding far more than the original debt. This was actually a common thing to do in that culture, in Exodus 22:25 we see that charging interest was against the law, however, it did not stop people from charging interest and taking advantage of people. In Luke 6:34-36, Jesus spoke about lending and expecting nothing in return which gives an indication that it was common practice to not follow the law for lending. Bridgeway Bible Dictionary also points out that “dishonest debtors were a problem.” Stein, in The New American Commentary, points out that it’s possible that the “wasting” in verse 1 and “dishonest” in verse 8 are unrelated and that the actions in verses 5-7 are seen as dishonest. I have a hard time separating these two words because if the manager is wasting possessions and the master does not know, this is also an act of dishonesty. I think it is easier to see that the manager dishonest is a descriptor for his previous wastefulness. Henry’s commentary also seems to agree with the notion that the dishonesty of the manager was due to his wasting. Bock, in The IVP New Testament Commentary, also agrees with my view, “because I find it hardly credible for the master to commend a steward who has just cheated him.”
This explanation of how the manager was wasting the master's possessions also helps to clarify v8 and why the master commends him for his wise actions. The master was pleased because he was witnessing a re-prioritization of “masters” in the manager's life. He was prioritizing his relationships by allowing a lower debt. The manager won the hearts of both the debtors and his master because his master received full payment, and the debtors were able to afford off their debts. Jesus further reinforces this point in v9, speaking directly to his disciples, he says “make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings”. By this, Jesus is proclaiming the idea that the manager used material wealth to win the hearts of the debtors and his master. Jesus is encouraging his disciples to use wealth and material possessions as a means of winning others over in hopes that they can win them over so that they might become sons of light and partake in “the eternal dwellings”, which is pointing towards God’s eternal kingdom.
Further cementing this point of stewardship and using material goods for the sake of God’s kingdom, Jesus continues in v10-12 that if the disciples are able to be faithful in using their material wealth for God then they will be entrusted with “true riches”. These riches are pointing towards the riches of heaven. If the disciples cannot be trusted with material goods, they cannot be trusted with the eternal riches of heaven. Finally, concluding in v13, Jesus gives a statement about not being able to serve two masters and is implying that if the disciples are not faithful with their material wealth, they are serving that wealth as a master and therefore cannot serve God. If they wish to serve God, they must make choose him first.
In conclusion, the parable and Jesus’ explanation go hand in hand. The manager initially serves money as his master because he has been dishonest with his manager by inflating the debt owed. When the manager is found out, he has a re-prioritization and desires to make right in his relationships by lowering the debts and removing his own cut of the money. By doing this, he wins over the hearts of both his master and the debtors. As Jesus explains, the manager could not serve both his master and money. If the manager was faithful in the little, he would have expressed a faithfulness to his master over money.