The Parable of the Unjust Steward or the. Parable of the Prodigal Steward? Luke 16:1-8

Transcription

1 The Parable of the Unjust Steward or the Parable of the Prodigal Steward? Luke 16:1-8 New Testament 615: Exegesis of Luke Dr. Elizabeth Shively August 14, 2010 Brian Williams

2 Greek Text Luke 16:1 Elegen de«kai«pro\ß tou\ß maqhta ß: a nqrwpo/ß tiß h n plou/sioß o ß ei cen oi kono/mon, kai«ou toß dieblh/qh aujtwˆ wjß diaskorpi zwn ta» ujpa rconta aujtouv. 2 kai«fwnh/saß aujto\n ei pen aujtwˆ : ti touvto aókou/w peri«souv; aópo/doß to\n lo/gon thvß oi konomi aß sou, ouj ga»r du/nhø e ti oi konomei n. 3 ei pen de«eṅ eåutwˆ oj oi kono/moß: ti poih/sw, o ti oj ku/rio/ß mou aófairei tai th\n oi konomi an aópδ eṁouv; ska ptein oujk iṡcu/w, eṗaitei n aiṡcu/nomai. 4 e gnwn ti poih/sw, iºna o tan metastaqw e k thvß oi konomi aß de xwntai me ei ß tou\ß oi kouß aujtw n. 5 kai«proskalesa menoß eºna eºkaston tw n creofeiletw n touv kuri ou eåutouv e legen twˆ prw twˆ: po/son ojfei leiß twˆ kuri wˆ mou; 6 oj de«ei pen: e kato\n ba touß e lai ou. oj de«ei pen aujtwˆ : de xai sou ta» gra mmata kai«kaqi saß tace wß gra yon penth/konta. 7 e peita e te rwˆ ei pen: su\ de«po/son ojfei leiß; oj de«ei pen: e kato\n ko/rouß si tou. le gei aujtwˆ : de xai sou ta» gra mmata kai«gra yon ojgdoh/konta. 8 kai«eṗhø/nesen oj ku/rioß to\n oi kono/mon thvß aódiki aß o ti froni mwß eṗoi hsen: o ti oi ui oi«touv aiẇ noß tou/tou fronimw teroi ujpe«r tou\ß ui ou\ß touv fwto\ß ei ß th\n genea»n th\n eåutw n eiṡin. 9 Kai«eġw» ujmi n le gw, eåutoi ß poih/sate fi louß e k touv mamwna thvß aódiki aß, iºna o tan e kli phø de xwntai ujma ß ei ß ta»ß aiẇni ouß skhna ß. Author s Translation (1) And he also said to his disciples: a certain man was wealthy who had a manager, and a complaint was made about him that this man was wasting his possessions. (2) And after he called him he said to him: what is this I hear concerning you? Give an account to the matter of your stewardship, for you cannot still be manager. (3) So the manager said to himself: what will I do, for my lord is taking the management from me? To dig I am not strong, to beg I am ashamed. (4) I know what I will do, so that when I might be removed from management they will receive me into their houses. (5) And summoning each one of his master s debtors, he said to the first: how much do you owe my master? (6) Then the one said: A hundred measures of oil; [he said] take your bill and sit down quickly and write fifty. (7) After that he said to another: and how much do you owe? then the one said a hundred measures of wheat. He says to him Take your bill and write eighty. (8) And the master commended the unrighteous manger because he acted prudently; for the sons of this age are prudent above the sons of light in their own kind. (9) And I to you say: Make friends for yourselves from unrighteous wealth, so that whenever it fails they may receive you into eternal dwellings. Text Critical Issues The text of Luke 16:1-13 is overall quite stable. The manuscripts bearing witness to Luke include two primary Alexandrian papyri, Secondary Alexiandrian papyri, Western miniscules, and Byzantine miniscules. 1 There are several variants in the text, where the different text types 1 McKnight 59. 1

3 disagree on specific words, however the Nestle Aland choice is clearly the best and most of the variant forms have no impact on the text. 2 It would be impossible to address all of these variants here. Introduction to the Analysis Widely known as the Parable of the Unjust Steward, Jesus parable in Luke 16:1-13 is arguably the most difficult to interpret among all of Jesus sayings. There are myriad interpretations available that have significant bearing on the reader s theology and practice. Despite all the attempts to interpret this passage, little has been done to consider it within the wider literary/narrative context of Luke-Acts. Specifically, the parable is rarely read with Luke 15 in mind, which is the parable s immediate co-text. Thus, it is important to offer an analysis of the passage that takes into consideration the immediate and larger contexts surrounding Luke 16. Though any interpretation of this parable must be held loosely, it will be seen that Luke 16:1-13 is critical in Luke s narrative within the theme of Jesus bringing the Kingdom to earth through the reversal of worldly values. Indeed, the parable of the unjust steward speaks of a person (the manager) who chooses to live by Kingdom values after accepting the pardon he doesn t deserve from his master. The master symbolizes God, and the change in behavior from the manager stems from the kindness showed to him by God. Thus, Jesus teaches about himself and the kingdom he has brought: God is forgiving, so we should also be the same way. Sin is forgiven in the kingdom, and possessions are to be given away without reciprocation. The parable, then, could potentially be called the prodigal steward because of the implications of this interpretation. 2 Nestle- Aland 2

4 Historical Context The author of the passage in question was Luke, who wrote a united work containing two parts, the first part being the gospel that bears his name and the second being Acts, which details the history of the early Church. Patristic fathers and other ancient manuscripts attest to Luke s authorship. Luke was likely a companion of Paul (mentioned in Philemon 24, Col 4:14). 3 There is some argument over who Luke was. Was he a Gentile? A Hellenistic Jew? A proselyte (non- Jewish Semite)? Colossians 4:10-11 suggests that Luke is a Gentile (though we can t be sure). The significance of this issue is that Luke would then be the only non-jewish author in the New Testament. 4 The fact that Luke does not mention any of Paul s writings (as opposed to say, Peter) supports a date of writing for Luke-Acts earlier than the publishing of Paul s letters. Furthermore, Luke s emphasis on the judgment of Jerusalem (Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD) might also suggest a date soon after 70 AD. It is surprising, however, that Luke doesn t discuss the death of James or Paul (both of which occurred in the 60s) in Acts. Thus, a tentative estimate places the date in the mid 60s. The direct recipient of Luke-Acts is mentioned immediately in the prologue to the Gospel of Luke. The recipient is referred to as Most excellent Theophilus (vs 3). The honorific title given to Theophilus could mean that he was Luke s benefactor in funding the writing project that resulted in Luke-Acts. Luke also makes very clear in his prologue why he is writing: he wants to arrange a narration concerning those things that have been fulfilled (vs 1 author s translation). Luke s narrative is both historical and theological; he is recounting what happened but weaving events together to create a narrative specifically about things that have been fulfilled. Thus, the 3 LT Johnson, 2. 4 Bock, 19. 3

5 nature of Luke s writing is theological history. Furthermore, Luke makes it clear that his writing will be narrative in style (i.e. a constructed story). Luke s purpose in writing about things that have been fulfilled indirectly hints at the meaning of Luke 16:1-13. Luke presents Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic prophecy of the everlasting king. In that role, Jesus ushers in a new Kingdom that is spiritual in nature and marked by spiritual values. Luke, more than the other gospel writers, focuses on this theme of the heavenly Kingdom and how life looks given the new reality that Jesus ushers in. Much of Jesus speech consists of painting a picture of the new values that define the Kingdom. The most important such speech is the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6. The ideas of blessing and woe from Luke 6 then take direct story form in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), which ironically comes right after the parable of the unjust steward. Literary Context Luke 16:1-13 comes immediately after the parable of the Prodigal Son and the other two lost and then found parables in Luke 15. Immediately after the parable of the unjust steward we find some inserted sayings from Jesus about the law and its application to marriage. This is followed by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in vv From a wider lens, Luke 16 occurs during Luke s travel narrative as Jesus is moving toward Jerusalem. Jesus is about to arrive in Jerusalem and receive the worship and praise that is due to him as the Messianic King. Tension between Jesus and the Pharisees continues to escalate. In Luke 13 Jesus heals a disabled woman in the synagogue and in Luke 15:2 the Pharisees are grumbling at how Jesus receives sinners. Jesus has also just given the hard call to discipleship in Luke 14:26-35, which may have caused some followers to already fall away. In terms of literary genre, Luke 16:1-13 is a parable, and so it must be interpreted as such. In Luke, unlike in Mark, parables function primarily as tools of teaching and exhortation. 4

6 However, given that the Pharisees were present to hear the parable of the unjust steward (Luke tells us, The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him (vs14)), this specific parable may have had judgment in mind. This becomes more likely considering that Jesus words immediately prior also condemned the Pharisees (the older son in the Prodigal Son story represented them in Luke 15). This marks yet another way in which the Prodigal Son story and the parable of the unjust steward are similar (the unjust steward parable also has multiple lessons). Luke 16:1-13 is a narrative parable since it tells a story. While Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Luke 15, in 16:1 he turns to speak to his disciples. However, the Pharisees can still hear what Jesus is saying and the parable s final statement in Luke 16:13 ( You cannot love God and money ) couldn t be applicable to the disciples because they had already given up all of their money and possessions. So, the audience of Luke 16 in many ways is similar to Luke 15, though the emphasis is more on the disciples in the latter parable. The parable of the unjust steward is also an important as part of Luke s literary theme concerning possessions. In some ways, this parable breaks with Jesus previous teaching on possessions (He usually recommends that people sell them) because here Jesus commends the possession and use of unrighteous wealth (vv 10 11). However, Jesus is still commanding that possessions be used for Kingdom purposes and he clarifies in vs 13 what is essentially the thesis statement of Luke s possession theme: You cannot serve God and money. Overall, the literary similarities between the parable of the unjust steward and the parable of the prodigal son add great credence to reading the latter parable in light of the former. For example, see comparative outlines between the two stories: 5

7 Luke 15:11-32 Luke 16: Son asks the father for inheritance 1. Charges brought against the manager 2. Son squanders possessions 2. Master calls the manager to give an 3. Son seeks work in order to eat account for losing his possessions 4. Son has internal monologue ( what will 3. Manager has internal monologue ( what I do? ) will I do? ) 5. Son takes action: returns to his father 4. Manager takes action: writes off the 6. Father blesses son and throws him a debts of his master s debtors party 5. Master commends the manager, manager finds refuge with debtors In a more generalized form, the prodigal son story and the unjust steward story each proceed thus: Problem Superior takes action (i.e. Father gives inheritance/master takes away management) Internal Character Crisis (monologue) Decision (i.e. Return to Father/Write off debts) Commendation/Blessing Reinstatement (Son re-accepted/manager commended). Though this will be explored more in depth in the exegetical section, it is important to highlight more similarities in these stories in light of the cultural setting of the time: The Prodigal Son chooses to return to his father, even though he has humiliated and dishonored him (by asking for his inheritance prematurely and squandering it). Clearly he believes his father will forgive him. The shrewd manager chooses to write off the debts of his master s debtors. Already under his master s scrutiny, why would the shrewd manager do this? Misusing his position would mean forced servitude or imprisonment (hence vs 3). However, the manager goes on to cheat his master again. Clearly, the manager also understands something about his master: his master will treat him with grace. The manager s gamble pays off: in the end his master commends him in spite of his dishonesty. Compare this to the Father s full reinstatement of his son back into the family. On a more literary point, there is at least one instance of direct language overlap between these two parables. In Luke 15:13, the prodigal son scatters his father s wealth 6

8 (diesko/rpisen). Similarly, the unjust steward is accused of diaskorpi zwn as well (vs 1). 5 It is also illuminating to directly compare the internal monologues from each passage: Luke 15:17-19 But when he came to himself, he said, How many of my father s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants. Luke 16:3-4 And the manager said to himself, What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses. The similarities between these two passages, their similar audiences, and their close proximity in Luke s narrative should not be ignored. The underlying structure and message of these stories may well be the same: A prodigal bets his life on the kindness of his father/master after a grave sin and is reinstated/commended. In these stories we see the grace that marks the introduction of the Kingdom. Exegesis (v1) Elegen de«kai«pro\ß tou\ß maqhta ß: a nqrwpo/ß tiß h n plou/sioß o ß ei cen oi kono/mon, kai«ou toß dieblh/qh aujtwˆ wjß diaskorpi zwn ta» ujpa rconta aujtouv. (And he also said to his disciples: a certain man was wealthy who had a manager, and a complaint was made about him that this man was wasting his possessions). The de«kai ( and also ) implies a continuation of the previous dialogue from Luke 15. The wealthy man was likely an absentee landlord, which was common in Galilee at the time. It is not necessary to take the wealthy man as being like other wealthy people in Luke s gospel (the owner of the abundant farm, the rich man and Lazarus, etc). At this point, we don t know what sort of man he is. This absentee landlord may be comparable to the absentee king in the parable of Luke 19: Manager ( oi kono/mon ) probably refers to a freedman or slave who had earned his way into becoming his master s primary financial agent, which afforded him 5 Bock

9 significant legal powers (i.e. ability to sign on behalf of his master). 6 dieblh/qh means charges with hostile intent but does not imply that the charge is malicious. 7 (v2). kai«fwnh/saß aujto\n ei pen aujtwˆ : ti touvto aókou/w peri«souv; aópo/doß to\n lo/gon thvß oi konomi aß sou, ouj ga»r du/nhø e ti oi konomei n. (And after he called him he said to him: what is this I hear concerning you? Give an account to the matter of your stewardship, for you cannot still be manager). The aorist participle fwnh/saß combined with ei pen is likely temporal. Based on the accusation, the master takes action and asks the manager to audit the books, though interestingly, even before the manager can give account he is already dismissed. In vs 3, however, the manager already knows he is being dismissed. Thus, the giving account in vs 2 is likely to prepare the books for the manager s successor. 8 Landry and May argue that the manager s biggest affront to his master is likely the fact that his action detracts from the master s honor among his peers. 9 (v3) ei pen de«eṅ eåutwˆ oj oi kono/moß: ti poih/sw, o ti oj ku/rio/ß mou aófairei tai th\n oi konomi an aópδ eṁouv; ska ptein oujk iṡcu/w, eṗaitei n aiṡcu/nomai. (So the manager said to himself: what will I do, for my lord is taking the management from me? To dig I am not strong, to beg I am ashamed ). The manager enters an internal monologue in his moment of crisis. Internal monologue is not unusual in Luke: we have already compared this soliloquy to the one in the parable of the prodigal son. Even after vs 3 we still do not know if the manager is a slave or freedman, but this does not affect the interpretation: as the ranking member in his master s household, he can lose his managership either way and be relegated to slavery or a worse form of slavery. Either way, in light of cultural factors and the attitude of the master toward the manager so far, it seems strange that the manager still thinks he has a choice in his fate (i.e. that he can avoid the legal penalties 6 Marshall, BDAG 8 LT Johnson, Landry,

10 associated with his crime). 10 This may again reflect something that the manager understands about his master, just like what the prodigal son implicitly believed about his father. (v4) e gnwn ti poih/sw, iºna o tan metastaqw e k thvß oi konomi aß de xwntai me ei ß tou\ß oi kouß aujtw n. (I know what I will do, so that when I might be removed from management they will receive me into their houses). There is much debate over the sense of e gnwn. However, Marshall rightly concludes that the meaning is coming to know in a moment s time. 11 The use of o tan and the subjunctive metastaqw brings a sense of conditionality to this situation: the manager is taking a risk. But why bet his whole economic life on whether others will receive him? iºna introduces a purpose clause: the overt purpose of the manager s decision is to be received by others. The manager s purpose must still be considered in light of the gamble he is taking. If he stands already accused of mismanagement and then takes another management gamble, it is unlikely that others will receive him into their homes: Roman law would confine him to slavery and strip him of status (his master would convict him). 12 Thus, we can again infer that he believes something about his master that will enable him to take this risk. (v5) kai«proskalesa menoß eºna eºkaston tw n creofeiletw n touv kuri ou eåutouv e legen twˆ prw twˆ: po/son ojfei leiß twˆ kuri wˆ mou; (And summoning each one of his master s debtors, he said to the first: how much do you owe my master? ) Now the manager begins to un-hatch his plan for preserving his economic life even after management is taken from him. His master s debtors may refer to tenants living on the estate who paid their rents via commodities, or it may be merchants who purchased goods from the 10 Ferguson, 11 Marshall 12 Ferguson 9

11 master based on credit. 13 Johnson warns against basing interpretations of this parable on Jewish law regarding usury because it is unclear whether this is a business or renter transaction. 14 (v6) oj de«ei pen: e kato\n ba touß e lai ou. oj de«ei pen aujtwˆ : de xai sou ta» gra mmata kai«kaqi saß tace wß gra yon penth/konta. (Then the one said: A hundred measures of oil; [he said] take your bill and sit down quickly and write fifty.) The inclusion of the adverb tace wß is significant in understanding the context of this transaction: if it had to be done quickly then we have a sense that it was surreptitious. But was it surreptitious because the manager did not want his master to find out, or because he was manipulating Jewish usury laws? We do not know yet. Different opinions exist on what fraction of the payment the manager was marking off the bill in order to reduce it by 50%. If the manager is directly reducing the principle amount owed to his master, then it seems even more unlikely for the master to praise the manager at the end. This has led some, including Darrel Bock, to conclude that the manager is writing off the commission he is owed on the bill. 15 The issue is further complicated when Jewish usury laws are taken into consideration. It was unlawful for Jews to charge interest to other Jews (Deut 23:19). Yet, the Pharisees devised ways of charging interest that would contain the interest in the principle payment. 16 However, it is unlikely that the interest itself was 50% of the transaction. The best answer is that the manager chose to act on the kindness showed to him by his master: since he will be spared from hard labor and begging, he chooses to change his ways and no longer charge people an exorbitant commission. This fits the overall sense of the parable, and it should not surprise us that a Lukan character would repair his ways concerning money: Zacchaeus stops taking commission in Luke 19. In Luke 3, John the Baptist tells tax collectors not to collect anymore than they are due. 13 Marshall 14 Johnson 15 Bock, Marshall,

12 (v7) e peita e te rwˆ ei pen: su\ de«po/son ojfei leiß; oj de«ei pen: e kato\n ko/rouß si tou. le gei aujtwˆ : de xai sou ta» gra mmata kai«gra yon ojgdoh/konta. (After that he said to another: and how much do you owe? then the one said a hundred measures of wheat. He says to him Take your bill and write eighty ). Some commentators feel that this mark down of 25% off of the original amount is further evidence that the manager was simply declining to take the commission he was owed. However, both situations would have to be true for this interpretation to be relevant. The 25% markdown in this case is more in line with historical evidence of what a normal interest charge might be at that time. 17 However, there would have to be different interest rates for different products bought on credit for both cases to be true. The commission theory is still better, especially in light of the master commending the manager at the end and the fact that we don t know if these are renters are if it is a business transaction. (v8) kai«eṗhø/nesen oj ku/rioß to\n oi kono/mon thvß aódiki aß o ti froni mwß eṗoi hsen: o ti oi ui oi«touv aiẇ noß tou/tou fronimw teroi ujpe«r tou\ß ui ou\ß touv fwto\ß ei ß th\n genea»n th\n eåutw n eiṡin. (And the master commended the unrighteous manger because he acted prudently; for the sons of this age are prudent above the sons of light in their own kind). Some commentators feel this parable ends with verse 8a (up until the semicolon). 18 This is true, because vv 8b-13 are Jesus commentary on the verse. Evaluating where the parable begins and where Jesus takes over, and how that transition is made requires a sentence diagram (see Appendix A). The sentence diagram reveals how 8a is connected to 8b: via a o ti clause indicating reason. 19 Why was the manager commended (explicitly)? Because his kind is more prudent than the people of light. As we see in this sentence, the master has returned in this final verse. We must decide now whether oj ku/rioß (literally the lord ) refers to Jesus, someone else, or if it has no symbolic meaning. Given Jesus own rejoinder in vs 8b in praise of the unrighteous manager, it 17 Marshall, Landry, 1 19 Black,

13 is likely that oj ku/rioß refers to Jesus. If we remember that the manager has declined the commission he took on his master s transactions, it makes sense why the master would now commend the unrighteous manager. Furthermore, the master showed grace to the manager by not punishing him more than just taking away his managerial responsibilities. This is exactly the character of Jesus. The unrighteous manager responds in kind and changes his ways. He is a prodigal. The language of vs 8 is more Semitic in nature than the rest of this parable. The phrases sons of the age and sons of light are Semitisms. These expressions classify each group as a separate kind or group of people. 20 (9) Kai«eġw» ujmi n le gw, eåutoi ß poih/sate fi louß e k touv mamwna thvß aódiki aß, iºna o tan e kli phø de xwntai ujma ß ei ß ta»ß aiẇni ouß skhna ß. (And I to you say: Make friends for yourselves from unrighteous wealth, so that whenever it fails they may receive you into eternal dwellings ). The eåutoi ß stands out at the beginning of the exhortation from Jesus. The emphasis is on the application of this parable to real life. mamwna is an Aramaic word meaning that in which one puts trust and does not necessarily have a negative connotation., though some commentators have taken it to mean that all money is tainted. 21 The fact that Jesus takes pains to add thvß aódiki aß afterward indicates that the word itself is not necessarily negative. 22 Because vs 8 ends as a distinct proposition from vs 9, and because vs 9 is a less direct commentary on the parable than 8b, we can conclude that vs 9 is not directly part of the parable. 23 In fact vs 9 is rather clumsily appended to vs 8. Furthermore, because of vs 9 s focus on only one theme within the parable, it is possible that Luke added this verse later. Indeed, it is more likely that the parable originally stood alone like the prodigal son parable (without indirect commentary). Yet, 20 Marshall, Caird Marshall Marshall,

14 the connection to the parable is clear: followers of Jesus should be prudent with their money in order to gain access to eternal friends just as the manager s earthly prudence will bring him earthly friends. They near the end of the verse is likely a divine circumlocution: Jesus is referring to God, but doing so in a plural, roundabout sense (the name of God could not be mentioned by a Jew). 24 In the context of Luke s entire narrative, we must understand that when Jesus says to make prudent use of wealth, he must mean giving alms. 25 Whenever Luke speaks of using possessions wisely, it is in the context of giving unreciprocated amounts to the poor because God will reward those in heaven who are not rewarded on earth (c.f. Luke 6:20). Luke Timothy Johnson also highlights that, as a whole, this is a crisis parable, and Jesus command in vs 9 may be in light of the coming Kingdom of God in which people must make difficult decision with their wealth and even their lives. Johnson also highlights the connection between vs 4 and vs 9: vs 4 is likely the inflection point that Jesus is highlighting. Conclusion As seen from the preceding evidence, the parable of the unjust steward has close parallels to the parable of the prodigal son while the message of the parable itself affirms the same themes of forgiveness and Kingdom values that the prodigal son presents. In fact, the main point of the unjust steward is that God s forgiveness should lead us to respond in kind by being merciful to others. In addition, the parable ties into Luke s theme of possessions being representative of spiritual acumen: dealing dishonestly with wealth is a sign of spiritual drift, but when a person gives up what is due to them (or ceases taking unlawfully), then surely the Kingdom of God has come upon them (vv 1-2 and vv 6-7 respectively). Both of these themes are significant in Luke s 24 Caird, L.T. Johnson,

15 gospel, and this is the only parable where we see them come together so closely. This confluence highlights the overall importance of the parable within the composition as a whole. As we have seen, there are important arguments against this interpretation of the parable of the unjust steward. Firstly, Luke Timothy Johnson claims the parable is primarily about how believers should act during times of crisis, especially given the crises of persecution to come after Jesus passes away. This interpretation rides partly on how we understand tace wß from vs 6. This adverb, meaning quickly, should be understood as having a surreptitious meaning in addition to meaning quickly. Furthermore, given the whole nature of the parable, Johnson s interpretation is unlikely to be the primary meaning. Jesus tells us precisely what the manager is doing with each of the debtors (i.e. how much money is marked off, etc), which gives significance to the hidden meaning there. Finally, Jesus commends the manager s action with or without a crisis in vs 8. Darrel Bock s interpretation is the most compelling. Having ascertained that the manager gave up his commission to decrease the bill amounts for the two debtors of the master, Bock concludes that the meaning of the parable is that people should give up worldly wealth in order to gain eternal wealth. 26 This is certainly true in part, but it misses two bigger themes. First of all, Jesus does not highlight giving alms initially, he highlights gaining wealth so that it can be used later for Kingdom purposes (vs 9). Furthermore, Bock has missed the reason why the manager would decide to opt out of his normal commission in the first place: his master showed him grace. Thus, Bock s interpretation is the closest to the full meaning but still falls short. This is an extremely important parable among all Jesus sayings: its depth of meaning is unparalleled in terms of complexity and overall character development. Its themes are manifold and significant to Jesus core teachings about who God is and how people should respond. 26 Bock,

16 Bibliography Black, David Alan. It s Still Greek to Me. Grand Rapids: Baker, Bock, Darrel L. Luke. Downer s Grove: InterVaristy Press, Caird, GB. Saint Luke. The Pelican New Testament Commentaries. Edit. D. E. Nineham. Middlesex: Penguin Books, Ferguson, Everett. Background of Early Christianity. 3 rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina. Daniel J. Harrington, editor. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. SBL Dissertation Series Number 39 Missoula: Scholars Press, Landry, David and Ben May. Honor Restored: New Light on the Parable of the Prudent Steward (Luke 16:1-8a). Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 119, No. 2 (Summer, 2000). pp Accessed: 20/08/2010. Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

17 Appendix A: Luke 16:8 Sentence Diagram ku/rioß oj kai«eṗhø /nesen o ti oi kono/mon to\n thvß aódiki aß eṗoi hsen froni mwß o ti ui oi«oi touv ai w!noß tou/tou fronimw teroi ujpe«r ui ou\ß tou\ß touv fwto\ß ei ß genea»n th\n eiṡin eåutw!n th\n 16