Jesus told this story to His disciples:
“There was a certain rich man who had a manager handling his affairs. One day a report came that the manager was wasting his employer’s money. So the employer called him in and said, ‘What’s this I hear about you? Get your report in order, because you are going to be fired.’
The manager thought to himself, ‘Now what? My boss has fired me. I don’t have the strength to dig ditches, and I’m too proud to beg. Ah, I know how to ensure that I’ll have plenty of friends who will give me a home when I am fired.’
So he invited each person who owed money to his employer to come and discuss the situation. He asked the first one, ‘How much do you owe him?’ The man replied, ‘I owe him 800 gallons of olive oil.’ So the manager told him,’Take the bill and quickly change it to 400 gallons. ‘
‘And how much do you owe my employer?’ he asked the next man.
‘I owe him 1,000 bushels of wheat,’ was the reply. ‘
Here,’ the manager said, ‘take the bill and change it to 800 bushels.’
The rich man had to admire the dishonest rascal for being so shrewd. And it is true that the children of this world are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light. Here’s the lesson: Use your worldly resources to benefit others and make friends. Then, when your earthly possessions are gone, they will welcome you to an eternal home. If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities. And if you are untrustworthy about worldly wealth, who will trust you with the true riches of heaven? And if you are not faithful with other people’s things, why should you be trusted with things of your own? No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Luke 16:1-13
How on earth do we harmonize this parable with biblical teaching? No matter which way you look at it, this man was ripping off his boss. How is that acceptable and why on earth would Jesus commend him for it? Over the years, translators in particular, have sought to water down the offensive nature of this parable. No matter what way you try to soften the tone of the parable, the manager’s wrong doing is still evident.
- [diaskropidzo] waste, squander, dissipate, scatter, winnow
- [epaineo] – praise, commend
- [adikia] – dishonest, unjust, unrighteous, false, crooked
- [oikonomos] – steward, manager
- [phronimos] – shrew, prudent, wise, clever, cunning.
He has been called the wise steward, the prudent manager, the clever manager. No, don’t be duped by the words. Plain and simple, the man was stealing. He was robbing his boss behind his back. He was a thief. A rose by any other name . . . No, don’t cover up this man’s actions by using euphemistic words. Isn’t that what we do? We human beings have a tendency to name things in creative ways in order to justify things. If we are involved in office theft, of course we don’t call it that. I just borrowed the equipment or supplies to use at home, on an office task of course. No, I didn’t steal it, I just “appropriated” it. No, misappropriated it is the more correct term. “I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” Bill Clinton. Oh, some more creative use of words where “sexual relations” has been redefined to exclude “oral sex”.
Did Jesus praise him for his practice or did He commend him for his solution? Clearly, Jesus called him [adikia]. There is no mistaking this word. He was not just, he was unjust. He didn’t have righteousness, he was unrighteous. To be blunt, he was a dishonest, crook. But somehow, when we use that term “crook” it can have good connotations. Especially if the crook is an honest crook. Hang on, how can you have an honest crook? We humans manage to do that. We praise the inventive thief who is able to put one over on the establishment. Those rich people who have gained their wealth at the expense of the “poor” people. We applaud such creativity and guile. The guilier it is the better. The archetype of this would have to be Robin Hood, Robin of Locksley, who plagued the sheriff of Nottingham with his trickiness and who robbed the rich to give to the poor. For that, we immortalize him and believe it is alright. What about films such as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Tower Heist or Leverage, where to rob from the rich, or the rich who are thieves, is allowable. The bolder the scheme, the more we seem willing to applaud it and the perpetrators. It is the nature of human beings to want to see crooked, rich people taken down. Especially by ingenious crooks.
Did you take notice of the translation segments I included yesterday?
- Message: “Now here’s a surprise . . . ”
- “take advantage of his position by running up huge personal expenses . . .”
- “knew how to look after himself, on constant alert looking for angles.”
- CEV: “praised for looking out for himself so well.”
But this doesn’t seem appropriate when we consider it in the light of the verses from Proverbs which I included yesterday. Notice some things about the parable. Only the manager is labelled as dishonest, not the owner. Someone told the owner what was going on. It seems he knew nothing of it before he was told. Once he had heard, he confronts the dishonest manager immediately. There is no hint that the owner and manager are colluding on this matter. They are not partners in crime. Notice when the owner confronts the man, he is silent. He gives no verbal explanation. He has been caught red-handed and there is nothing he can say to justify what he has done. There are times when it is best to keep your mouth shut. Besides, the manager has been asked to turn over the books, hand them in for inspection, not to balance the books for the end of the month. It will soon be apparent what he has been doing. He could have said, “I have been in your employment as your manager for X number of years. This job has been in my family for three generations. My father served your father and my grandfather served your grandfather. Please, you cannot fire me.” He could have given a string of excuses as to why this happened. He could have accused the people who accused him, and asked to confront them and have it out. But he does none of that. His silence is a confession of his guilt.
Although the manager has effectively been fired, the books are still in his possession. He has just a few hours to hand them over. Hence he asks the debtors to quickly change the paper work and sign it. He still has the authority of his role until he hands the books over. Once he gives the books to the owner he is powerless. So he seizes on a bold scheme. As the manager, he is the representative of the owner. He can act on the owners behalf. He takes a risk that the owner is a good and just man. The owner is just and righteous and generous it seems, in complete contrast to the manager, who places his trust in the character of the owner. Note that the devious manager talks to the debtors one by one. He doesn’t talk to them as a group. He talks to them one by one on their own. It would not have worked if it had been a group meeting. For sure, word would have got back to the owner prematurely. Especially so when one guy gets a 50% reduction and the other gets a 20% reduction. Jealousies would have arisen when one saw he got a worse deal than another. Human avarice would have risen to the fore. Notice he gets each debtor to sign off on the agreement, assumedly on the books themselves – initial or sign for the reduction, to make it official.
Having signed for it on the books this makes the offer in the name of the owner. Given the owner’s generous character, his representative has backed him into a corner. Can you imagine the rejoicing in the village with the news that this generous land owner has had his representative calling in the debtors and writing off significant percentages of their debt? The townsfolk are ready to party. We are not told if it was backdated or not. Is it clear from the books that this happened after the owner called for the accounts or not? We don’t know. But given the situation, the owner has two options. He can either accept the reduction made in his name and with his authority, or he can stand up publicly and announce his manager’s deceit. This is further proof that the owner is a good and righteous man. He takes the loss himself. If he were to make a big issue of it, then given the fact that the manager was his appointed representative, the owner would also cop some of the fallout from what has happened. On the other hand, the owner can cut his losses in monitory terms and accept the praise and adulation for being a good and generous man. His good name will be preserved and that is exactly what the deceitful manager has bargained on. The manager has used the good name of the owner and counted on his graciousness and generosity, to get himself out of trouble.
It is clear that he has lost his job, but this ruse has been solely so that he can get a job in the town in the future. He confesses he can’t dig. He can’t do manual labour. He is not a labourer, he is a bookkeeper, and so he can’t survive working as a labourer. He wants to ingratiate himself into the townspeople’s homes so he can get a job in the town after this has blown over. Yes, he is a dirty rotten scoundrel, but he knows what to do to set it right. What he has done is fraud, pure and simple. It is bold and blatant fraud. Instead of covering up what he has stolen before, he steals more, but this time in the owners name and gives the owner the glory and the credit for it. He appeals to the owner’s good nature and generosity!
Does this all sound familiar? Note the similarities to the parable before this. The one that took us a month to unravel. In each case, we are talking about the misappropriation of funds and in the end the story comes down to the grace or benevolence of the owner / father. Interesting parallels.
But there is another angle on it. The manager was on the alert looking for angles. I will highlight the other angle in the next Gem.
Courage is never to let your actions be influenced by your fears!
Rick Godwin
Desires dictate our priorities, priorities shape our choices, and choices determine our actions!
Rick Godwin
Respect is not something you can ask for, buy or borrow. Respect is what you earn!
Anon
The reward for trying to be like everyone else is that everyone will like you; but you won’t like yourself.
Sidney Mohede
Talent can take you to heights where only character can sustain you.
A R Bernard