Some (Preliminary) Thoughts on the Parable of the Shrewd Manager
Please Note: The following thoughts are extremely preliminary and were in response to a question from an acquaintance about whether Luke 16:1-9 teaches that "the ends justifies the means" when it comes to potentially morally-evil acts.
Introductory Comment
The majority of this text only appears in Luke, with the exception of verse 13 (see below). This means we lack an alternate rendering in another Gospel with which to compare the text in order to figure out its possible meaning.
16:1-9 – The Parable of the Shrewd Manager
This text is a parable, meaning that it employs exaggerated & folkloric elements in order to communicate its given point. There is a good deal of debate concerning how best to interpret parables. The best resource I am familiar with is Stories with Intent by Klyne Snodgrass.
As a general rule, the interpretation provided after the parable is key to its meaning. Unless an interpretation is provided for a specific element/character, there is no guarantee that it has a real-world referent. In this particular parable I don’t think that we have enough warrant to suggest, for example, that the rich master is equivalent to God, as Jesus does not mention that in the interpretation which follows. Similarly there isn’t enough information to suggest that the manager/steward is equivalent to the reader. The olive oil, wheat, etc. likewise do not have an external referent, but merely exist as tropes for the sake of the story.
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 the parable is fairly straightforward, but there is a very neat parallel between verses 4 and 9.[1]
4 ἵνα ὅταν μετασταθῶ ἐκ τῆς οἰκονομίας δέξωνταί με εἰς τοὺς οἴκους ἑαυτῶν9 ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ δέξωνται ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς.4 So that, when I am released from my stewardship, they will welcome me into their own homes.9 So that, when it runs out, they will welcome you (plural) into the eternal dwellings.
That similar language both within the parable (verse 4) and in the interpretation (verse 9) suggests that this is a key portion of the text. Both verses allude to the reception of an individual into a social sphere following a change in status, with the implication that this was due to the prior establishing of favorable status with others. The former (4) has the steward hoping that his prudent conduct will earn him favor so that he will not be homeless after he is removed from his position. The latter (9) is the suggestion that when one runs out of “wealth” they will not be homeless (this verse is really ambiguous though – see below).
Comments:
It is not clear whether the manager/steward is actually commended by Jesus as a positive example. Verse 8 has the manager praised by his master within the parable, but again it must be stressed that the master is not a metaphor for God. Jesus states that the man was praised for his prudence (φρονίμως) and then says that the people “of this age” (viewed negatively as ‘wicked’) are more prudent (φρονιμώτεροι) than the people “of light” (viewed positively as ‘upright’). So it might even be the case that the parable is a negative example similar to Matthew 5:47. Prudence as a virtue is commended, but even the unrighteous can practice it – for those who hope to follow God, it must be practiced with the proper framework in mind.
Admittedly, verse 9 is really hard to understand what the point is. A few areas of ambiguity: who are the “friends” that this 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, such as 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 circulating teaching (possibly in a prior written document?)
Luke has placed this 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.
Final Comments: Is it okay to do something that is not morally good in pursuit of a moral good?
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 issues – this is (I believe) the crux of Jesus’s teaching on the sabbath laws in the OT (although, I also believe that such were abrogated for Christians). The “moral good” of sabbath observance for Jews of his day would become a “moral evil” if its observance led to the abandonment of another in need. God did not institute that practice so that people would be left to die outside while others sat 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 protection of another’s life is always a moral good
God expresses frequently 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, they are to be carried out.
There may be instances of dilemma, in which case the preservation of another’s life always takes precedence. However, these are probably far less frequent than we imagine in our thought experiments.
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 instances of clear 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 blindspots or subconscious motivations
[1] Translations mine.