12 May 2024
Bailey tells us that if the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-8) had been kept in the same chapter as the Prodigal Son, it would have changed how we read it. There are strong parallels: a noble lord, an ignoble son/servant, a moment of truth about what was lost, throwing themselves on the lord's mercy, broken trust and the consequences.
It's not about honesty with resources, but of sin, mercy and forgiveness. Most Christians have been puzzled by how Jesus seems to praise theft and deception.
The format is ABBCDDA:
A. The master and steward
B. Losses detected and review ordered
B. Steward realizes his situation
C. Solution is to create loyalty with others
D. Reduces debt of oil
D. Reduces debt of wheat
A. Master commended the steward
What would Jesus' listeners have made of this? While we don't know who blew the whistle, the master obviously found the accusation against his steward credible. The community is a an invisible persona in this story, obviously respecting the master enough to watch out for his interests.
The question the master asks is classical Ancient Near Eastern phrasing for such a confrontation: "What's this I hear about you?" He will offer no further information. If the steward panics, he will supply the details himself. If he holds his tongue, he's probably been in this situation before. In this case, it's the latter, so the master orders the steward to produce the accounting register. He is fired on the spot.
Thus, things enter into a gray area of law. On the one hand, the steward has no authority to act on his master's property in any way. On the other hand, the master has not yet seen the books. We are supposed to read into this that the master is too sharp for any number of delaying tactics or negotiation strategies. His silence and tacit admission are a surprise to the audience; no one acts that way. The steward will get the records and return. Instead of the common negotiation ploys with the master, he negotiates with the debtors.
In his internal soliloquy, the steward admits he has few redeeming qualities. His appraisal is realistic. Then he comes to a solution: He must get another job of the same type. He must curry favor to open the doors. He remains consistent in his low moral character and simply steals more.
The debtors are unaware that the steward has lost his authority. They are dependents; he summons them to private meetings -- no witnesses. Everything remains publicly proper, their honor intact. Otherwise, they would not cooperate. Having accepted the secret favor, they cannot afford to turncoat later.
The initial query of each debtor is not for information; the steward knows. He seeks confirmation that they are on the same sheet of music. This is how things go in a society where only a tiny handful are literate, and things must stand on oral traditions. It was important that the debtors do the writing, though, because the original IOUs were. This was part of the protocol of loans that the person signing is the same one writing up the whole contract, quite knowingly.
Minor point: The difference in the amounts probably represents a year's repayment for each. The wheat debtor had much longer term note. Both were saved a year's repayment. They would have gone back and celebrated their good fortune at the hands of a most generous and noble lord. The news would spread that they had been given a break for the year, and everyone would soon know about it.
What can the master now do? His reputation is on the line, as well. But it turns out he is a noble man, after all. He could have had the steward arrested in the first place, or sold into slavery, but didn't. He chose not to counter the false debt relief, either. The steward correctly predicted how it would turn out; he knew his master. He was condemned for his actions, but praised for his confidence in the nobility of this lord.
He is a crook and the community will know it, but they will also know he is very savvy. It's better to have him on their side than working against them. This is a peculiar Ancient Near Eastern way of looking it at, though some very wise men in western history recognized that raw ability had its value and tried to keep such talent on their side, even if they had to watch like a hawk.
Jesus praised the steward for knowing his master was gracious and noble. He wanted His followers to learn that the Father was like that. See the wider context: It's not that Jesus wants us to act like worldly stewards like this one. Rather, He wants to us to rise to a higher level of understanding. How many of us are able to be honest with ourselves, as the steward was with himself? How many of us can recognize our flaws and understand that only by the grace of God have we not been doomed already? The "sons of this age" were eastern men with a strong moral and political savvy. They knew genuine moral nobility when they saw it. Do we?
God is not our enemy.
Comments
Jay DiNitto
"though some very wise men in western history recognized that raw ability had its value and tried to keep such talent on their side, even if they had to watch like a hawk."
This reminds me of an episode of a series I used to watch. It was the origin story of how one character joined up with the main group. He was a hired gun on one side of a war, on the other side was the CO of the team. They were battling it out as the story progressed in a guerrilla conflict, and the CO recognized the hired gun's talent, as he nearly wiped out her whole team, including her. Instead of killing him, she manages to wound him and then makes him an offer to join her side. She was grossly aware of his situation and level of talent. It was an interesting twist, because not knowing anything else about the backstory, you would expect her to kill him.
This document is public domain; spread the message.