Act Three continued

This coming Sunday we continue in the Gospel of Luke with Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus. We are describing the parable as a drama told in three acts. We are in midst of Act 3.

 The Second Exchange. 27 He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’”

Here the rich man asks that Lazarus (again as servant) be sent back to warn the rich man’s surviving brothers. Seemingly accepting his fate, he at least gives evidence of thinking of another person. “But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them’” (v.29). Indeed, let us listen to them:

If one of your kinsmen in any community is in need in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor close your hand to him in his need. Instead, you shall open your hand to him and freely lend him enough to meet his need” (Dt 15:7-8)

Continue reading

Act 3 – Three Dialogues

This coming Sunday we continue in the Gospel of Luke with Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus. We are describing the parable as a drama told in three acts. This is Act 3. To a first century hearer of the parable, the fates of the two would have been surprising for it went against the grain of the common wisdom: blessings in this life were a sign of God’s favor while illness, poverty, and hardship were a sign of God’s curses. Yet the one well “blessed” in his lifetime is now tormented in the netherworld (see the Note on 16:23 below) where he can see Lazarus and Abraham across the great chasm that divides them (v.26).

The First Exchange. 24 And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’ 25 Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. 26 Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’

Continue reading

Act 2 – The Rich Become Poor and the Poor Become Rich

This coming Sunday we continue in the Gospel of Luke with Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus. We are describing the parable as a drama told in three acts. This is Act 2. The Act is briefly told and simply describes the fate of our two characters. “When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, where he was in torment…” (vv.22-23a). We are not told how Lazarus died. Was it starvation? Again we are reminded of Jesus’ admonition to the Pharisees. “Then he said to the host who invited him, “When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment. Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (14:12-14).  Was it exposure and hypothermia while the rich man slept nearby? Infected sores while the rich enjoyed baths and healing ointments? Perhaps weakened and unable to defend himself, the dogs took his life.

However his life ends, Lazarus is taken by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. Nothing is said of a burial which brings to mind the bodily translations of Enoch (Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Moses (Jewish legends) to their eternal rewards. Neglected by others, Lazarus is prized in the sight of God.

The rich man also died – again we are left to speculate by what cause – but notably, he is buried, perhaps “thrown” into his grave as was Lazarus at the gate. 


The Poor Lazarus at the Rich Man’s Door | James Tissot, 1886–1894 | Brooklyn Museum | PD-US

A Drama in Three Acts

This coming Sunday we continue in the Gospel of Luke with Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus. Culpepper well describes this parable as a drama in three acts (Luke, 316):

  • Act 1 – a tableau during which the characters are introduced and their way of life is described, but nothing happens
  • Act 2 – a reversal: the rich become poor and the poor become rich as each character has died and received their eternal reward
  • Act 3 – narration give way to dialogue, but between the rich man and Abraham, in three exchanges: about the finality of judgment, about the witness of Moses and the prophets, and about the blindness that prevents even the Resurrection from leading to conversion
Continue reading

Rich Men and Lovers of Money

This coming Sunday – the 26th Sunday, Year C – we continue in the Gospel of Luke with more of Jesus’ amazing parables. Recall that in successive weeks we have heard the parable of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32) followed by the story of the Dishonest Steward (16:1-13) – both stories featuring rich men and concern the handling of money (among other key topics). This week our reading again features a rich man but this time in contrast to the poor Lazarus (16:19-31).  The in-between verses, vv.14-18, begin with the phrase, “The Pharisees, who loved money.” Jesus describes these people as an “abomination” (bdelygma) before God (v.15). Johnson (Luke, Sacra Pagina, 255) writes about this word:

Its first and most obvious reference is to “idolatry” in the biblical tradition. But the term is also used in two other important connections in Torah, once in condemning financial misdealing (Dt 25:16), and once in condemning a divorced man cohabiting again with his former wife (Dt 24:4). Idolatry, money, and divorce are joined by the term bdelygma

Continue reading

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