§40 The Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1–13)
This section includes the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (vv. 1–8a) and various sayings of Jesus related to the parable or to the topic of money in general (vv. 8b–13). This material is for the most part unique to Luke (although Luke 16:13=Matt. 6:24) and contributes to the Lucan concern over proper use of wealth.
16:1–8a / Few of the parables of Jesus have puzzled readers of the Gospel more than the Parable of the Shrewd Manager. The main question has to do with why the rich man would commend his dishonest manager. A second question has to do with why Jesus cites the actions of the dishonest manager with approval, using him as an example for his disciples. The first question may be answered only when the actual action of the dishonest manager is fully understood. An old interpretation of this parable held that the rich man was impressed with the shrewdness of the manager because the latter, after being served notice of dismissal, dishonestly reduced the bills owed the rich man so as to ingratiate himself with these various clients and business associations. Although the rich man has been cheated yet again by the scoundrel, he is, nevertheless, impressed with his manager’s cleverness (see Tiede, pp. 282–83). Related to this interpretation is the suggestion that the manager has eliminated the interest part of the bill in conformity to the Old Testament’s law against usury (see Deut. 15:7–8; 23:20–21). Thus, the idea is that the dishonest manager has finally done a proper, biblical thing. This approach to the parable, however, is not satisfying. Why should the master praise the dishonest manager? Would he have anything good to say about someone who had not only wasted his money (v. 1), but then after being fired (v. 2) further cheated him? This seems highly unlikely. More plausible is the suggestion of J. Duncan M. Derrett (“Fresh Light on St Luke xvi: I. The Parable of the Unjust Steward,” NTS 7 [1961], pp. 198–219), followed by Fitzmyer (pp. 1097–98), that what the dishonest manager has done is to cancel out the profit that was due him (sort of a commission). By canceling the commissions, the debts were reduced, an action that would no doubt result in future kindness being shown the dishonest manager. Thus, the rich man has not at all been cheated by this final action of the fired manager. The master is still owed what is due him, while his former employee, by foregoing a few commissions, now has a brighter future. Having understood the parable thus, it is now much easier to understand why Jesus sees in the action of the dishonest manager a worthy example for his disciples. They, like the dishonest manager, should be able to recognize the advantage in giving up a little now so that some day in the future they may receive much more.
16:8b–13 / Several lessons are drawn from the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (16:1–8a). The implication is that the shrewd, but dishonest, manager is praiseworthy because of the shrewd steps taken to guarantee his future. Jesus’ disciples should learn a lesson from the manager’s cleverness. Verse 8b suggests that many people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. Therefore, “Christians can learn something from the prudence of such people” (Fitzmyer, p. 1106). One lesson from the parable is drawn from v. 9. Jesus’ disciples are enjoined to use worldly wealth to gain friends for themselves (lit. “make friends from the mammon of unrighteousness”). Jesus (or Luke) is not urging his disciples to acquire wealth dishonestly but to make good use of the resources (particularly financial resources) of this world (see note below). Jesus is not recommending compromise and he is certainly not recommending dishonesty, but he is urging his followers not to overlook opportunities and resources that will sustain his people and advance the Christian mission. By using the resources of this world wisely, Christians can be assured that when it is gone (the Vulgate reads: “when you give out” [i.e., die]) they will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. While Jesus’ followers are on earth they should make use of the world’s available resources in order to maintain themselves and the work of the church. When, however, these resources are exhausted and life’s work is finished, the followers of Christ can look forward to entering a home that is eternal, not temporary, a home whose resources will never give out.
In vv. 10–12 a second lesson is drawn from the Parable of the Shrewd Manager. The principle of v. 10 is that by the way a person handles himself with very little it is evident how such a person handles himself with much. We come to what for Luke is probably the heart of the matter in v. 11. If the followers of Jesus cannot properly handle worldly wealth, then they cannot expect to be trusted with true riches. That is, if Christians cannot manage their money, property, and other possessions properly (such as supporting the poor and the ministry), they cannot expect to be entrusted with the rewards and wealth that last forever (cf. Matt. 6:25–34). Implicitly, one’s stewardship in this life will form the basis for future reward and responsibility in heaven (see Matt. 25:14–30). Verse 12 adds a new thought to this second lesson: if Jesus’ disciples have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property (i.e., God’s “property”), who (God) will give them property (rewards) of their own?
Verse 13 provides a third lesson drawn from the Parable of the Shrewd Manager. In Matthew this verse occurs in a much fuller context (6:24) concerning the need to be loyal to God over against the things of the world. Here in Luke the saying brings out one more truth with respect to wealth that every follower of Jesus should know, a truth that has been presupposed in vv. 9–12. Christians owe their total allegiance to God and not to Money (lit. “mammon”; see note below). This saying thus prevents one from misunderstanding vv. 8b–9 above. Whereas Christians are to put wealth to good purposes, they are not to become enslaved to it. Herein lies a grave danger for many Christians. What often passes for “good stewardship” or “God’s blessing” is really nothing short of greed and materialism.
Throughout his Gospel Luke reveals concern over the attitude toward and the use of possessions. Luke 16 probably represents the high point for this theme. The basic issue on which the passage closes is that whereas every Christian is to be concerned about wealth and how it is utilized, it is never to become a god in itself.
16:1 / told his disciples: The audience has now shifted from the muttering “Pharisees and teachers of the law” in 15:2 to the disciples of Jesus. In Luke 15 the Pharisees were taught about God’s attitude toward the lost, while in Luke 16 the disciples are taught about God’s attitude toward wealth.
manager: Fitzmyer (p. 1099) remarks that the Greek word for manager (or “steward”) often refers to a slave born in the household of his master. The Hebrew equivalent translates literally “a son of the house” (see Gen. 15:3). It is not clear in the parable that the manager was necessarily a slave; but slave or free, his mishandling of his master’s property would have been viewed as a serious breach of loyalty. In light of his dismissal, the dishonest manager’s chances of securing new employment would be very slight (as implied in v. 3). Evans (p. 48) sees a possible parallel to Deut. 23:15–16, where instructions regarding household slaves are given.
wasting his possessions: Lit. “scattering his master’s property.” The Lost Son had also “wasted his money” (15:13).
16:2 / By receiving an account of the manager’s management the rich man will learn the extent of the waste and theft, while at the same time a new manager will more easily be able to take over the task of management.
16:3–4 / If the dishonest manager can no longer be a manager, he is left with two basic options: physical labor or begging. Neither occupation, however, would be acceptable, so the shrewd manager contrives a scheme that will permit him to continue in the capacity of manager, although for another employer. This is what is meant by the expression, people will welcome me into their houses. The manager hopes to win over someone among his master’s debtors who, in gratitude, will hire him.
16:6 / Eight hundred gallons: Lit. “one hundred baths.” The NIV translators apparently understand one “bath” as equivalent to eight gallons. Fitzmyer (p. 1100), however, suggests that it was closer to nine gallons.
16:7 / A thousand bushels of wheat: Lit. “one hundred kors of grain.” It is uncertain how many bushels a single kor represents, but the NIV’s “thousand bushels” is probably close enough.
16:8 / people of the light: Lit. “sons of the light.” See the similar expressions in John 12:36; 1 Thess. 5:5; Eph. 5:8. Members of the wilderness community of Qumran referred to themselves as sons of light (1QS 1.9; 2.16; 3.13; 1QM 1.3, 9, 11, 13).
16:9, 11, 13 / worldly wealth: Lit. “mammon.” The word comes from either Hebrew māmôn or Aramaic māmônā’ (Fitzmyer, p. 1109). Although not found in the Old Testament, the word occurs in a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Aramaic paraphrase of the Old Testament, known as the Targum. Fitzmyer (p. 1109) suspects that the best explanation for the meaning of the word is that it is from the root which means “firm” or “certain” (from which “amen” is derived). Therefore, mammon is “that in which one puts trust,” which could be money, property, wealth (so also Marshall, p. 621).
16:10 / trusted with very little: This lesson does not fit the context of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager very well, since the manager, as it turned out, could not be trusted with anything. Therefore, this saying probably originated in a separate context (Leaney, p. 223).