1Īs a broader context for this, we might note that Luke often depicts how Jesus’ ministry and that of his followers is dependent on the hospitality of others (8:3 10:7). The Filipino concept of utang na loob, which literally translated means an “inner debt” or a “debt of inner gratitude,” perhaps captures something of what is being established here - a debt rooted in the shared reciprocity of friends. Instead of using “dishonest wealth” to exploit others (as the rich do), disciples are to use wealth to “make friends for themselves.” If friendships are based on reciprocal and egalitarian relationships, then releasing other people’s debts not only enriches them, but also establishes a new kind of reciprocity with them. Second, what they could learn from the “children of this age” has to do with “making friends for themselves” by means of “dishonest wealth” so that those new friends might “welcome them into the eternal homes” (16:9). In other words, Jesus’ disciples - often referred to as “children of light” (see John 12:36) - could learn something about acting prudently from the “children of this age.” First, “the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light” (16:8). The text itself provides four interpretations of the employer’s commendation. The word for “shrewd” here ( phronimos) can also be translated as “prudent” or “wise” (16:8). Yet others have suggested more generally that the employer is simply commending the manager for responding shrewdly to a difficult circumstance. But if it’s not ironic, then why is the manager being commended? Some commentators have suggested that the manager has reduced his own commission in the debts owed and that this is what is being commended. The powerful are brought down and the lowly lifted the hungry are filled and the rich are sent away empty (1:51-53 see also 6:24 16:25 18:25).īut why does the employer commend the dishonest manager for being shrewd? Of course, his commendation could be ironic. The proud are “scattered” (which translates the same word for “squandered”: dieskorpisen). In Luke, reversals of status are at the heart of what happens when Jesus and the kingdom of God appear. And, like the story that follows, this parable begins with the phrase, “There was a rich man” (16:1, 19).Īlthough our dishonest manager does not repent (like the prodigal) or act virtuously (like Lazarus), he nonetheless does something with the rich man’s wealth that reverses the existing order of things. Like the prodigal in the preceding story, our dishonest manager has “squandered” what was entrusted to him (15:13 16:1). To begin to answer these questions, we can note that this parable serves as a bridge between the stories of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32) and the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31). Why is he commended? And, why does Luke include this story in his Gospel? To our surprise, the employer commends the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. He does this so that they will be hospitable to him after he loses his job. Because he doesn’t want to do manual labor or receive charity, he goes around to all the people who owe his employer money and reduces their debts. A dishonest manager is about to lose his job because he has misspent his employer’s assets. The story itself sounds quite contemporary. Any commentator will tell you that this is a difficult text.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |