A Conclusion and a Lesson

The conclusion and teaching portion of the parable of the Dishonest Steward uses parallel opposites – trustworthy/dishonest, dishonest wealth/true wealth, small/great, what belongs to another/what belongs to you. Verse 13 forms a conclusion to the parable formed by an:

  • An opening assertion – No servant can serve two masters
  • Two supporting observations – He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other
  • The conclusion – You cannot serve God and mammon  [see Note on Luke 16:9 below]

The word translated “serve” in this verse is not the usual word for serve (diakoneo), but douleuo, which more literally means, “be enslaved to” or “be controlled by.” The same word is used in 15:29 of the older son stating to his father: “Look, all these years I served you…” One cannot be controlled by God and mammon. We can have only one God – and it shouldn’t be wealth.

Continue reading

More Interpretations Considered

In yesterday’s post we looked at four interpretations offered by Brian Stoffregen who surveyed the scholarly works and offers several models of interpretation for this notoriously difficult parable: The Dishonest Steward

5. The parable can be about the right and wrong use of money. If the steward or the master were charging a high rate of interest, money may have been the most important thing in their lives. Jesus says to make friends with your money — use it rightly. Use it for human services. The steward gains friends by sharing his profits and helping out the poor debtors. He is our example. Our profits should be used in the service of love — helping to ease the plight of the poor. Otherwise, they can compete with God for our allegiance.  This understanding anticipates the parable (Lazarus and the Rich Man) which ends the chapter.

Continue reading

Interpreting a difficult parable

Brian Stoffregen has surveyed the scholarly works and offers several models of interpretation for this notoriously difficult parable: The Dishonest Steward

1. The point of the parable is not the servant’s dishonesty, but his wise decision-making in the time of crisis. As Tannehill (Luke) states: “…a distinction is drawn between his dishonesty, which is not being commended, and his shrewdness, which is” (p. 247). His whole future depended on quick thinking and immediate actions. So the servant is presented as an example of decisive thinking and acting to save himself. Thus when even dishonest worldly people know how and when to take decisive action, how much more should those who follow Jesus know and decide such things.  

2. The servant is a man of the world, who works and thinks with diligence to protect his interest. What if all people would have the same commitment to the kingdom as they do towards their work or hobbies? 

Continue reading

Using Wealth to Make Friends

The story begins when charges are brought to the rich man that the steward was squandering the rich man’s property.  Similar to the rich fool (12:17), the steward begins an internal dialogue: “What shall I do?” (See the “Note” on Luke 16:1 below) Clearly the steward does not like his options: I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg” (v.3).  He thus concocts a plan to be welcomed into another rich man’s home once he has been dismissed from his current position. As the parable unfolds we see that the steward quickly decides and acts and goes about reducing an established debt owed to his current employers.  The first debtor owes 900 gallons of oil; the second owes a huge amount of grain. These are well beyond household quantities and reflect a commercial operation.

Since the steward is technically still the rich man’s agent, the rich man is bound and will not be able to reverse the steward’s actions without a loss of face with the debtors.  Meanwhile the steward will have acquired a debt of honor and gratitude that hopefully will ensure goodwill toward the steward in the future.

That is the “who” and “what” of the story.  The difficulties about the “why” begin to come to the fore when the parable continues: “And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently” (v.8).  We’ll begin to explore that tomorrow – but in the meantime how many different interpretations of this parable can you imagine?


Parable of the Unjust Steward | A.N. Mironov | Wikimedia Commons | CC BY-SA 4.0

The Role of Stewards

Jesus returns to the theme of use of wealth; the chapter begins and ends with parables. The story of the scheming steward has been a problem for interpreters, hence its reputation as one of the most difficult parables to interpret. The root problem is the commendation (v.8) of the steward who is so plainly dishonest. 

The figure of the steward has some significance in Christian thinking regarding one’s relationship with God. In the OT, a steward  could be a chief slave/servant put in charge of a master’s household or property (Gen 43:16, 19; 44:1, 4; Is 22:15). Joseph was a steward in the house of the Pharaoh (Gen 39:4-5).  The earth is the Lord’s house (Ps 24) and Moses is his steward (Num 12:7; Heb 3:1-6).  In Jesus’ parables, stewards are expected to invest their talents and when fruitful are given even greater responsibilities (Lk 19:12-27).

Episcopoi are called stewards (Titus 1:5-9) and are expected to possess holy qualities as they manage the household of God. The apostle Paul also saw himself as a steward (1 Cor. 4:1-2) who would have to give an account of his stewardship (1 Cor. 4:3-4; cf. 2 Tim. 4:7-8) as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Eph. 3:2; Gal. 2:7-8; Rom. 1:5-6; 13-15). There is also a sense in which every Christian is a steward entrusted with a divine gift (1 Pet. 4:10).

These are just some of the images of stewards that part of the Christian imagination regarding the understanding of stewards.


Parable of the Unjust Steward | A.N. Mironov | Wikimedia Commons | CC BY-SA 4.0

There was a rich man

The gospel for this coming Sunday is from Luke 16 and begins: “A rich man had a steward who was reported to him for squandering his property.” Swirling in the milieu of our readings are themes of riches, reversals, and hospitality. Chapter 16 of Luke forms an interesting literary grouping. The chapter begins with a parable (the dishonest steward) and ends with a parable (Lazarus and the rich man). Each parable begins with “There was a rich man…”  Between the two parables is the identification of the audience, “the Pharisees, who loved money…” It’s easy to lose the manner in which Jesus has been warning against the lure of possessions:

  • renouncing the greed of the Pharisees and the challenge to give alms (11:39-41),
  • the rich fool who forfeited his soul for wealth (12:13-21),
  • the prudent servant who was praised (12:42-48),
  • the warnings of chapter 12 on how to prepare for the final accounting,
  • the outcasts called to the great banquet (14:15-42),
  • giving up all one’s possessions to be a disciple of Jesus (14:33),
  • the prodigal son (15:14-32), and
  • now the dishonest steward (16:1-13)
Continue reading

Something a little different

My usual Saturday 6 am post is a reflection on some aspect of the gospel reading after a week of posts and commentary on the reading itself. Since tomorrow’s Sunday celebration is the Exaltation of the Cross (instead of the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time), I thought I might do something a little and explore the question I have been asked over the years by folks: Why did Jesus have to die?

At one time or another I think every believing Christian has asked that question. It is a question that is central to Christian theology and  has been thought about since the earliest days of the Church. It has also been written about by the Church patriarchs who have offered a range of perspectives often overlapping but emphasizing different aspects. 

Continue reading

God so loved the world…

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. 

Verse 16 provides the link between the two parts of the discourse. It sums up vv. 14-15 by reiterating the salvific dimensions of Jesus’ death, but moves the argument forward with its reference to God’s love. God gave Jesus to the world because God loves the world.

The verb translated “give” (didōmi) is regularly used in the Fourth Gospel to describe God as the source of what Jesus offers the world (3:35; 5:22, 26, 36). John 3:16 is the only place in the Fourth Gospel that says God “gave” his Son to the world; the more common expression is that God “sent” Jesus, as in 3:17. (Two Greek verbs meaning “to send” [pempō and apostellō are used interchangeably see 3:17; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-37; 6:38.) “send” Jesus is more clearly associated with will for the world, whereas didōmi seems to be used in 3:16 to underscore that the incarnation derives from God’s love for the world as well as from God’s will.

Continue reading

Lifted up to Eternal Life 

This coming Sunday the celebration of the Exaltation of the Cross replaces the normally scheduled 25th Sunday of Ordinary Time. In yesterday’s post we considered the first reading, the bronze serpent episode from the Book of Numbers. In John’s Gospel, the sacred writer clearly echoes the scene from Numbers 21, our first reading. As mentioned, our gospel reading is taken from a larger passage (John 3:1-21). 

Picking up the dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus in John 3, we hear

11 Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. 12 If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”


The significance of the ascension of the Son of Man is elaborated through an OT example (Num 21:8-9). The key to interpreting this analogy between Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness and the ascension of the Son of Man is the verb (hypsoō), meaning both “lift up” and “exalt.” (The Hebrew verb nāsā’ has a similar double meaning; see the pun based on this verb in Gen 40:9-23.) Once again the Fourth Evangelist asks the reader to hold two meanings together simultaneously. As the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up on the cross. The double meaning of hypsoō implies, however, that the physical act of lifting up is also a moment of exaltation. That is, it is in the crucifixion that Jesus is exalted. John 3:14 is one of three statements about the “lifting up” of the Son of Man in John (see also 8:28; 12:32-34). These three sayings are the Johannine analogue to the three passion predictions in the synoptic Gospels (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33.34; and parallels).

The overlap of crucifixion and exaltation conveyed by v. 14 is crucial to Johannine understanding of salvation, because the Fourth Evangelist understands Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension as one continuous event. Verse 14 also contains a key to the theological grounding of the Evangelist’s attraction to irony; the cross as humiliation is actually exaltation. This will become especially clear in the crucifixion narrative of John 18-19. The Fourth Gospel is often criticized for having an inadequate theology of the cross, but such criticism misconstrues the Johannine treatment of the crucifixion. As v. 14 makes clear, there is no exaltation apart from the crucifixion for John.

The overlap of crucifixion/exaltation also provides the context for interpreting the role of the ascent/descent language in v. 13 (and 1:51) and the Fourth Evangelist’s use of the title “Son of Man.” The Fourth Evangelist appropriates the traditional apocalyptic figure of the Son of Man (cf. Dan. 7:13) and invests it with his christological perspective. Ascent/descent language thus speaks of Jesus’ relationship to God and to the world. The Son of Man’s ascent to heaven is salvific, because he is the one who has descended from heaven, the very one whom the Prologue celebrates.

John 3:15 makes explicit the salvific dimension of the crucifixion. Jesus’ offer of his life through being lifted up on the cross makes “eternal life” (zōēn aiōnion) possible for those who believe. “Eternal life” is one of the dominant metaphors in the Fourth Gospel to describe the change in human existence wrought by faith in Jesus (e.g., 3:36; 4:14; 5:24; 6:27; 17:4). To have eternal life is to live life no longer defined by blood or by the will of the flesh or by human will, but by God (cf. 1:13). “Eternal” does not mean mere endless duration of human existence, but is a way of describing life as lived in the unending presence of God. To have eternal life is to be given life as a child of God. To speak of the newness available to the believer as “eternal life” shifts eschatological expectations to the present. Eternal life is not something held in abeyance until the believer’s future, but begins in the believer’s present. The focus on the crucifixion in 3:13-15 provides the key to interpreting Jesus’ earlier metaphors of new birth and the kingdom of God. The offer of new life, “to be born anal-hen,” has only one source—Jesus’ offer of his own life. The cross thus makes sense of the double meaning of anōthen: To be born from above is to be born again through the lifting up of Jesus on the cross.


Image credit: Moses and the Brazen Serpent | Esteban March (1610-1668) | Banco Santander Collection, Madrid |  PD-US

Raising the Bronze Serpent

This coming Sunday the celebration of the Exaltation of the Cross replaces the normally scheduled 25th Sunday of Ordinary Time. The first reading for the celebration is from the Book of Numbers 21:4-9:

With their patience worn out by the journey, the people complained against God and Moses, “Why have you brought us up from Egypt to die in this desert, where there is no food or water? We are disgusted with this wretched food!” In punishment the LORD sent among the people saraph serpents, which bit the people so that many of them died. Then the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned in complaining against the LORD and you. Pray the LORD to take the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people, and the LORD said to Moses, “Make a saraph and mount it on a pole, and if any who have been bitten look at it, they will live.” Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he lived. (Nb 21:4-9)

The Book of Numbers is the title of the book in English, but the Hebrew title is, more commonly, bemiḏbar, “in the wilderness [of]”). “In the wilderness” describes the contents of the book much better than “numbers,” which is derived from the censuses described in later chapters. Our passage occurs after God has assigned them to wander in the desert for a generation because of their rebellion against the leadership of God. They seem to have to fight their way through the wilderness. 

Continue reading