Parables: Luke 16:1-14--Part 2, Analysis of Text

Sunday, 19 April 2009

For the sake of a non-interpretive title, I am going to use the Rabbinic practice of using the opening line: "A certain rich man had a manager." It has often been called the "unjust steward" or "shrewd manager;" but just like the title "prodigal son" obscures the emphasis on the father and older brother, I feel that an interpretive title that focuses on the manager might cause us to miss something. In addition, I think it helpful to hear a title as a story beginning rather than an ending, something like the beginning of a joke "And so this rich man had a manager..."

The conclusion of the parable has been problematic. Does the story itself end with v. 7 or the first half of v. 8? The question centers around the use of the word, ho kyrios, "the master" or "the lord", which is used for the master in the parable but also is used by Luke for Jesus as Lord. Joachim Jeremias, and many others, have argued that v. 8a was refering to Jesus. The main reasoning for this was that it seemed unlikely that the master would have praised the manager for having his debtors pay him less than what was owed. For Jeremias, the entirety of v. 8 becomes Jesus' commentary on the parable, wherein he praises the craftiness of the manager and makes a comparative statement about "the sons of this age" and the "sons of light".

However, other interpreter's see v. 8a as the master of the story praising his manager for crafty response to his situation as the natural ending of the parable. In this case 8b ("Therefore the sons of this age . . . ") is the beginning of the commentary on the parable which follows. This would provide an unexpected ending to Jesus' parable narrative, which is often the case and is not based upon a presupposition of what is possible for the master in the story to have said.

For the sake of this study, I will accept that 8a is the end of the parable, and for now I'm only going to focus on the parable itself (vv. 1-8a), and not its interpretation (vv. 8b-13). Here's a brief analysis:

¹And he said also to the apprentices: [There was] a certain man who was rich who had a manager And this one was accused to him, that he was wasting his possessions.	"apprentices", μαθητάς "a certain man", this is the same manner that Jesus' introduces the parable of the "Prodigal Son/Dishonorable Father". This is one of several grammatical connections between the two parables. "rich", πλούσιος, having an abundance of earthly possessions that exceeds normal experience, rich, wealthy [BDAG ]. "manager", οἰκονόμον, manager of a household or estate [BDAG ] "accused to him", οὗτος διεβλήθη αὐτῷ, Interestingly, the "unjust steward" in this story is only accused of being such by anonymous persons in the story. The verb dieblethe his associated with diablo, and can mean "bring charges with hostile intent." (Scott 1989 quoting Bauer, 261) His later having debtors pay less, as we will see, may or may not have been dishonest. "wasting his possessions", διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ, 1) 1. scatter, disperse or 2. waste, squander [BDAG ] The same verb, διασκορπίζω, is used of the "prodigal son" in Luke 15:13.
²And he shouted at him, saying to him: What is this I hear concerning you? Give an accounting of your management, for you cannot still manage.	"shouted at him", φωνήσας αὐτὸν, 1) to produce a voiced sound/tone, freq. w. ref. to intensity of tone, or call/cry out, speak loudly, say with emphasis, 3) to call to oneself, summon. This could simply be a summons, that the master called the manager to him. Luke uses φωνέω in a variety of ways: Luke 8:8; 8:54; 14:12; 16:2; 16:24; 19:15; 22:34; 22:60; 23:46. "give an accounting", ἀπόδος τὸν λόγον
3And he said in himself, the manager, What might I do, when my master forces away the managment from me? To dig, I am not strong enough, to beg, I am ashamed.	"he said in himself, the manager", εἶπεν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ οἰκονόμος "forces away", ἀφαιρεῖται, to detach someth. by force, take away, remove, cut off. This denotes aggressive action in which the manager would likely have been shamed. "to dig, I am not strong enough", σκάπτειν οὐκ ἰσχύω "to beg, I am ashamed", ἐπαιτεῖν αἰσχύνομαι
⁴I know what I might do, in order that when I might be removed from the management they will receive me into their houses.	ἔγνων τί ποιήσω, ἵνα ὅταν μετασταθῶ ἐκ τῆς οἰκονομίας δέξωνταί με εἰς τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν
⁵And calling one each, the debtors of his own master, he said to the first, “how much are you indebted to my master?”	"calling one each, the debtors...", προσκαλεσάμενος ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν χρεοφειλετῶν τοῦ κυρίου "obligated", ὀφείλεις, 1) to be indebted to someone in a financial sense, owe someth. to someone, be indebted to, 2) to be under obligation to meet certain social or moral expectations, 3) to be constrained by circumstance, (best rendered by an auxiliary verb) have to, ought
⁶And he said, 100 measures of olive oil. And he said to him, Take your bills, and sit down quickly begin to write 50.	"100 measures", ἑκατὸν βάτους, 100 baths--a bath being a Hebrew liquid measure, jug. According to BDAG a bath was 34 liters (about 9 gallons). So the amount would be 3400 liters or 900 gallons. "bills", γράμματα, writings or notes
⁷Then to another he said, And you, how much do you owe? And he said, 100 cor of grain. He spoke to him, take your writing and write 80.	"100 cor of grain", ἑκατὸν κόρους σίτου, a kor is measure of capacity for grain, flour, etc.; according to Josephus, Ant. 15, 314=ten Attic medimni, hence about 393 liters=about 4 hectoliters, or betw. ten and twelve bushels [BDAG , 560]. So the amount would be about 1000-1200 bushels of grain or wheat [BDAG , 925].
⁸And the master praised the manager of injustice since he acted shrewdly. Therefore the sons of this age are more shrewd than the sons of light in their own generation.	"praised", ἐπῄνεσε, o express one’s admiration for or approval of a pers., object, or event, praise [BDAG , 357] "manager of injustice", τὸν οἰκονόμον τῆς ἀδικίας, 1) an act that violates standards of right conduct, wrongdoing, 2) the quality of injustice, unrighteousness, wickedness, injustice. This phrase is genitive rather than simply adjectival (not "unjust manager but manager of injustice/wrongdoing") "acted shrewdly", φρονίμως ἐποίησεν, adverb of 1) the faculty of thoughtful planning, way of thinking, (frame of) mind, 2) the ability to understand, understanding, insight, intelligence. It wasn't that he acted dishonestly, he was sly.

The Historical Context of Masters, Managers, and Debtors

In the patron-client society of first century Palestine, a manager (or steward) who was placed over a wealthy patron's holdings (land, produce, slaves, share-croppers) had the authority to make contractual agreements in the patron/master's name. In most cases the manager would not be paid a wage, but would be expected (and allowed) to generate his own income by taking a "cut" from the debts owed by his master's clients. As long as it did not interefere with the due income and profit margin of the patron, this situation was acceptable. The debtors, while being fully aware and at the mercy(?) this patron-client arrangement, probably did not know how much of the debt was to the master and how much went to the manager. However, if the debtors were share-cropping peasants (which is not to be assumed), there would have been no love lost between the manager and the debtors. From perspective of the Palestinian peasant culture, both the manager and the master (who may have been an absentee landlord over share-cropping farmers) would both initially be considered negatively by the audience. Maybe one of the ways this would have been heard was: "there was a wealthy plantation owner who hired a boss-man . . ."

In terms of the debts themselves, among the Jews giving loans at interest was considered to be against the Torah. In order to circumscribe such laws, the debts were usually officially in the form of some commodity rather than money.

In this context it is not clear from the parable that the manager was portrayed as subverting his master's own profit for his own best interest, or if the manager was simply removing his own "cut" from the debtors. His act of "mercy" would have had serious impact upon his honor and his master's honor in the eyes of the debtors. Either they would have seen the manager himself as merciful (or positively subversive against the master to the benefit of the debtors), or possibly shrewdness of the manager may have actually strengthened his master's honor in the eyes of the debtor, creating a situation in which the master is obligated to return an honoring favor even though material profits have been lost--in effect, playing the master against himself.

Comments

Add New

RSS