When I read the second paragraph of this NY Post story about Lee Zeldin's claim about where $20B designated for climate issues went, I was reminded of the Parable of the Unjust Steward
Luke 16: He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was [a]wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’
3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’
5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred [b]measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred [c]measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.
6 comments:
That parable came up recently at church. It really makes no sense, as we have received it. The steward is doing nothing that deserves commendation; he is merely trying to curry favor with the debtors. So I think that the so-called "ironic interpretation" of the parable must be correct, even though it can't be proven. In it, Jesus' words in several verses (Beginning at verse 8) are to be read as questions rather than as declarative sentences. For instance, not "The master commended the unjust steward", but rather "Did the master commend the unjust steward?" --- with the expected response being "No, of course not." The parable as a whole, then, would be a mockery of the Pharisees, who are the "unjust stewards" who shortchange God in order to make themselves popular.
I agree with your interpretation. However in this modern case, I am betting that the master did commend the steward. And even in the biblical story, it may be that these were debts the master was having a hard time collecting, or was just looking to cash out as well as he could.
Parables are messy like that.
There's also the point that the steward recognized he was doing wrong and did something about it rather than self-righteously proclaiming to his master that he was innocent, which would align with the 'sons of light' being less shrewd.
One interpretation I ran across is that the steward's actions, since they were assumed to be on behalf of his master, gave his master a reputation for generosity--gaining face. His master's standing in his community was now much better, and he couldn't repudiate the actions without losing face. "Very clever" seems like the right response.
I taught a lesson on this in Sunday school several years ago. Another interpretation I came across was that the money the steward was taking off the top was what he was entitled to being the debt collector. So, he was sacrificing his own portion to increase favor with the master as the master gets his money quicker. I'm not positive about that interpretation, but I thought it worth mentioning.
I like James interpretation, and I do wonder if "commend" is just an awkward translation. On the other hand, I've heard other interpretations of this type of, shall we say, behavioral jiujitsu in the Bible that I don't think pan out. For example, "turn the other cheek" is really an invitation for your attacker to get himself in trouble with the law. That is a tempting way to look at it, because who wants to be at the mercy of an unjust attacker? Better to trick him into putting himself crossways with the law.
Then again, submission to the abuse is a far more radical act in a way. It says, "You can do what you want to me in this life, but I have the promise of a better one that you have no power over." Such an interpretation really nips at my pride (I don't want to invite abuse on myself), but that makes me wonder if that's the point.
I suspect that the steward was pretending to still be working for the master, and then kept what he collected for himself. Master got nothing. His motivation wasn't to make amends with the master; it was to avoid having to work for a living and to make himself popular with the debtors. He was both a bad steward and a dishonest man.
The basic problem with the conventional interpretations is that they are trying to find something commendable in the stewards actions, when there wasn't any. If we posit that the steward represents the Pharisees, then it seems unlikely that Jesus would be praising them for their cleverness. More likely that he was mocking them for their double-dealing; hence the likelihood of the "ironic interpretation".
Post a Comment