Grammar Bites: Some (Preliminary) Thoughts on the Parable of the Shrewd Manager
Revisiting one of the more confusing parables of Jesus...
One of the many joys of my work is the opportunity to respond to questions about the Greek New Testament from students, pastors, and layfolk. The entries in this series come from questions that I have been asked over the years. My intent is to provide a basic response with reference to the Greek New Testament. These entries will include some technical terms from Greek grammar, but my intent is to provide clarifying remarks for those who are not familiar with those materials. I’ve taken to calling this series Grammar Bites because the entries are focused on smaller bits of text - and because grammar is often frustrating (it “bites” in the slang sense).
The topic of today’s entry comes from a question I received from a family member’s co-worker about the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-13). This individual asked whether the text teaches that “the ends justifies the means” when it comes to morally ambiguous situations.
Admittedly, this parable has always baffled me. It has little in the way of clarifying context1 and the imagery Jesus uses is of a character who lies about debts. I have long read it and shrugged in confusion over what it could possibly mean. It is one of the few parables that I would not like to preach a sermon on. And so, of course, it would be one that someone asks me to comment on.
It is worth noting that this parable appears only in Luke. It is not present in the other “Synoptic” Gospels: Matthew and Mark. In fact, several of the verses that follow the story portion (which usually provide clarifying comments about a parable) also only appear in Luke. Only the comment in verse 13 about serving two masters appears elsewhere. This all is significant because it means that we lack other versions of the story to compare this one to and possibly clarify its meaning.
A Word About Parables
Some of the confusion about Jesus’s teaching comes from a confusion about the nature of parables. There is much to discuss on this matter (in fact, one of my friends is writing a dissertation on the topic), but at the most basic level I think we can state that parables are stories, or, as an excellent resource on this topic by theologian Klyne Snodgrass is titled: Stories with Intent.
Parables make use of exaggerated and folkloric images in order to communicate their meaning. They do not include real persons or experiences (although they may make use of cliche images from first-century life). To our knowledge, there is no historical “Good Samaritan,” only the call by Jesus to act like one. Many of the details are simply there to make an entertaining tale, rather than to act as code-words for theological ideas. The fatted calf slaughtered for the prodigal son is not a reference to the death of Jesus - it is in that story because the father character needed to be extravagant for the story to make its point.
As a general rule, parables have one overarching point to them, and the key to their meanings are disclosed by interpreting comments provided after the story has ended.
In the case of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager, it might be tempting to view the rich master as a stand-in for God, but Jesus does not tell us that in his interpretation at the end of the story. And this is comforting because the master in this story commends a dishonest action - an approach that is at odds with the picture that Jesus paints of God the Father elsewhere. Similarly, the manager is not an equivalent to the reader, and the oil/wheat/etc. do not refer to spiritual attributes. All of these details exist as visuals for the sake of the story that Jesus is trying to tell.
But what is the point of this story? For that, let’s turn to the Greek text…
The Greek Text of Luke 16:1–13
Key Terms:
v. 1 οἰκονόμον = steward, manager
v. 3 δέξωνταί = to receive, welcome
v. 8: φρονιμώτεροι = sensible, prudent, [see Luke 12:42]
v. 9: φίλους = a dear one, friend
μαμωνᾶ = wealth [only in this context in Luke]
ἀδικίας = injustice, wrongdoing
Structure:
The structure of this parable is fairly straightforward. Jesus tells a story to his disciples in verses 1–8 and follows that story with clarifying remarks in verses 9–13. Afterward he is rebuked by some Pharisees who hear the parable, and then he proceeds to introduce other teachings.
What is most fascinating is the parallel between verse 4 (within the story) and verse 9 (in the interpretation):
I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ (Luke 16:4, NRSVue)
And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone they may welcome you into the eternal homes. (Luke 16:9, NRSVue)
This repeating imagery, coupled with the recognition that it occurs in Jesus’s interpretation of the parable, indicates that this is a key part of the story’s intended meaning. Both verses reference a change in status followed by one’s reception into a social sphere. The shrewd manager hedges his situation on the hypothetical that, should he be dismissed from his position, he would be welcomed into the homes of those that he provided favorable deals to. Jesus tells his followers that “dishonest wealth” is temporary, but that when it is gone, there remains the potential to be welcomed into “eternal homes”. Both within the story and in the interpretation there exists an assumption that one’s conduct can ensure that their social (or spiritual) safety net will not leave them to become homeless.
Comments:
It is not at all clear whether the manager is commended by Jesus as a positive example. In verse 8 the manager is indeed praised by his master, but both are characters within the parable itself, and there is no indication that the master is a metaphorical stand-in for Jesus or God the Father. The manager was praised for his prudence (φρονίμως). Jesus concludes the parable by stating that the people “of this age” (viewed negatively as ‘wicked’) are more prudent (φρονιμώτεροι) than the people “of light” (viewed positively as ‘upright’). And so we may be dealing with a negative example designed to spur disciples on to righteous action. If even wicked folk are capable of acting shrewdly, then those who follow God should be able to do so too. In this regard, the parable is not too dissimilar to Matthew 5:47, where Jesus states that even the pagans greet their friends, and so doing likewise as a disciple is the bare minimum.
Admittedly, verse 9 is really hard to understand. A few areas of ambiguity: who are the “friends” that the verse refers to (people, supernatural entities)? What is the use of the particle εκ in this context? What type of genitive construction exists with του μαμωνα της αδικιας (does this mean that the wealth is unrighteously acquired, that wealth is generally unrighteous, etc.)? What does the ‘eternal dwellings’ refer to?
I assume that “friends” refers to other human beings. Εκ likely indicates the “means,” so it should be rendered “by”. The genitive construction του μαμωνα της αδικιας could be genitive of description rather than one of origin, in which case it would not be wealth acquired unjustly, but a statement that wealth is not a moral good in itself – although there is great ambiguity here. I think that “eternal dwellings” likely refers to the afterlife, although again there is ambiguity here. Does this text suggest that one’s use of money plays a role in where they end up postmortem?
My initial guess is that this text is an odd way of teaching the “treasures in heaven” concept found elsewhere in Jesus’s teachings: money is not inherently a good or evil thing (human responses to it constitute the good/evil), but should be used properly as a source of blessing for others, which is something that lasts beyond this life.
The frequent use of stewardship language points in this direction as well, as that draws upon the known image of an ancient household manager, who was responsible for the maintenance of another’s possessions.
16:10-12 – Possible Extended Teaching
The parable itself ends in verse 9 with the phrase “I tell you” indicating that Jesus has concluded the story itself and is offering a brief teaching on it. Verses 10-12 seem to clearly have the parable’s message in mind though – “being trusted with much” seems to be related to “be welcomed into eternal dwellings” in verse 9.
Jesus seems to be suggesting that certain material possessions in this life are insignificant in comparison to the afterlife, but that our conduct in reference to them suggests our underlying faithfulness or lack thereof. The content of “true riches” is a bit unclear, but I would be inclined to believe it refers to the afterlife as a whole. Point being: it is important to be trustworthy and honest in this life.
16:13-15 – Two Masters Chreia & Narrative Post-script
Verse 13 is pivotal for understanding the whole section. In ancient rhetoric, this sort of remark was known as a chreia - a famous (often short) saying of a teacher that could circulate on its own – hence its appearance in a totally different context in Matthew 6:24. The Greek is identical in Matthew and Luke, which further points towards this being a circulated teaching (possibly in a prior written document?)
Luke has placed this saying into its current setting to reinforce a point made in the narrative frame. In this case, it appears that the chreia is designed as a capstone on what precedes, perhaps framing the whole issue of money within a context that emphasizes the priority of obedience to God. It thereby “interprets” the material in verses 10-12 as God being the one who has “true riches” and who requires trustworthiness in the use of earthly riches – this meaning that wealth is not the object of one’s worship.
The remark in verse 14 that the Pharisees heard “all these things” ties together the parable and the teachings into a single unit in the narrative. Luke mentions that the Pharisees were avaricious and therefore ridiculed Jesus. They appear to be one target of the teaching in verse 13, as Luke emphasizes their love of money and throughout the book they are portrayed as mainly antagonistic to Jesus. Jesus condemns them, suggesting that their self-exaltation is an abomination in God’s sight.
Is it okay to do something that is not morally good in pursuit of a morally good goal?
On the surface, I would be inclined to say no. The means do not justify the ends.
However, I think that this might be different for cases involving potential loss of life. To save a life takes precedence over other ethical issues – this is (I believe) the crux of Jesus’s teaching on the sabbath laws from the Old Testament. The “moral good” of sabbath observance for Jews of his day could become a “moral evil” if its observance led to the abandonment of another person in need. God clearly did not institute the practice of sabbath observance so that some people would be left to die while others sat at home and prayed.
I recall reading an example of this dilemma from WWII in which a family living in Switzerland was housing Jewish refugees from Germany. The Gestapo showed up asking whether they had seen any of them and the family said no. Technically this was a lie. In ordinary circumstances, truthfulness is the preferable choice – it honors others and avoids creating issues for ourselves. But in this circumstance, it was a lie told in order to save lives. The lie was not a moral good, but it was done in pursuit of a noble aim: the preservation of others.
I do not think that this (or any other) text offers a comprehensive rule for this question. Such must be discerned in individual circumstances because as human beings we have a tendency to rationalize our own actions even when they are not good. Instead, I would propose that we need to develop a holistic approach to moral decisions based on a multitude of biblical texts. So, the following general principles are what I would keep in mind:
Human lives are inherently valuable to God.
The preservation of another’s life is always a moral good.
God frequently expresses our need to defend those who are socially vulnerable. In the ancient context it was widows and orphans (and in the NT, social outcasts due to disease and other ailments). These may differ in our contexts, but the core principle applies: the vulnerable are to be given special attention in our efforts to protect and preserve lives.
Other teachings exist about what can be considered “morally good”. Under the vast majority of circumstances, obedience to those teachings is assumed.
There may be instances of dilemma between multiple commandments, in which case the preservation of another’s life always takes precedence. However, these situations are probably far less frequent than most folks imagine in their thought experiments.2
Extreme cases such as the taking of a life in order to preserve life (“Just War” theory; self-defense) are not to be taken lightly, even in thought experiments. This question must be addressed from a holistic approach to Jesus’s teachings.
What I do not think is permissible are actions that are clearly evil under the assumption that they will produce a good benefit. It is not okay to commit tax fraud in order to have more money on hand to donate to a charity. Human judgment is susceptible to error, and even our good intentions can lead us astray due to blind-spots or subconscious motivations
The lack of a clarifying context is a problem with many of the parables in Luke, as Luke has arranged his Gospel in such a manner that Jesus’s parable teachings are essentially dumped in a huge chunk in the middle of the story. Thankfully, many of the parables are themselves straightforward, while others have parallels in the other Synoptic Gospels that sometimes clarify their meaning.
I find it telling that much of the discussion surrounding Jesus’s call to non-retaliation is framed around pictures of self-defense during a home invasion, or the “what about Hitler?” question. Instead, discussions about Jesus’s teachings should be framed around lived experiences: how do I respond to the violence around me? How can I love my present enemies?, etc.