I have blogged about this text before and as I read it again, many of the thoughts I have seem to be similar.
On first reading I always find this story strange and unsettling. Something about it just feels a little off. The parable focuses on a rich landowner and their manager. As was the custom of the day, the manager (or steward) stood between the landowners and the peasant farmers and tenants. The manager negotiated the sale of oil, wheat and other goods plus collected the rents. Mangers were in a privileged position.
Sadly, it was customary for the manager to add interest to each bill for personal gain. The custom of adding interest was commonplace although was spoken against in several places in the Jewish scriptures. For example, Leviticus 25: 36 where is says “Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you.” The landowners tended to ignore this practice so long as they continued to get wealthy.
Of course, in all these transactions the people who suffered were the exploited tenants and peasant farmers — they were voiceless and powerless.
The manager could also be in a precarious position — they depend completely on staying in favour with the landowner. Although managers enjoyed the benefits of additional finances it may not have felt a secure lifestyle.
I want to interject here with a comment which I have made many times before. I make no apology for repeating it as I feel it is important. When reading parables keep in mind that when interpreting, or trying to interpret, them don’t assign God as the principal character. Simply understand parables as little stories told as illustrations of a point albeit sometimes an obscure point. If one assigns roles, it often leads to complications when the leading character exhibits traits one would rather not associate with God. This parable is a wonderful example of that. If all parables are seen as veiled references to God, then right at the outset problems would occur in this one. If God is assumed to be the rich landowner, or even the manager, then God is getting wealthy by exploiting the poor tenants. Personally, if I wanted to assign roles, here I would prefer to subvert the parable and find God/Jesus in the peasant farmers and tenants who were powerless and voiceless.
Anyway, back to the story — the landowner told the manager that they was going to lose their position. There are no real details given as to what prompted this, the story simply tells us that the manager was “squandering the landowner’s property” (1)
The manager reflects that they are unfit for other means of subsistence — not strong enough to work the land and too proud to beg (3). So, the manager makes an alternate plan and immediately met with all the debtors and lowered their bills. This was a way to ensure a welcome in their homes with as their circumstances changed.
This is quite interesting, as the landowner is already starting to identify with and presume help from those previously exploited — the tenants and peasant farmers. Maybe showing the beginning of a change in the manager.
Rather than being annoyed by this action the rich landowner commended his manager for acting shrewdly thus ensuring that manager kept their position. It is a difficult story to understand, I doubt there is any one definitive understanding.
I think it is important to see the difference between shrewd and dishonest. Shrewd is defined as having or showing sharp powers of judgment, being astute or being marked by practical hardheaded intelligence. While dishonest is behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way.
The manager is called both — perhaps the reference is to dishonesty of some kind that had come to light which caused their dismissal or dishonesty referred to the way the peasant farmers were treated. Regardless, dishonesty is not seen in a good light while the shrewd behaviour which is lauded.
I am going to offer for perusal a couple of thoughts I had while reading the parable.
One thought I had was as the steward was being commended for being shrewd. His shrewdness focused on future planning and well-being. I think this is a point for all to heed. I have met people who believe that it is wrong to plan for their future, as it shows a lack of trust in a God who will provide all their needs. In the extreme, seeing any future planning as revealing a lack of faith. Of course, I respect their views. Yet this parable highly values responsible planning for future well-being. It is heralded as a good and positive thing. It is even rewarded. orth thinking about.
But perhaps my lingering thoughts are about the exploitation of the poor. However, it came the result was that the main beneficiaries in the parable are the poor who had their bills lowered. I think it is important that this point is not lost. Whatever the motives the poor benefitted.
In spite of a poor start, the manager also came out well, The lowering of the bills was presumably by removing the interest — the percentages given in the parable were the normal percentage added for oil and wheat. As the manager realized he could soon be one of “the poor” could the manager be showing a newfound compassion for the poor?
In turn, perhaps the manager’s behaviour challenged the landowner about their practices allowing interest to be added. Maybe the landowner’s conscience was pricked! Maybe manager’s behaviour served as a reminder of the law about interest which would leave no alternative but to commend the steward.
Interestingly, in the gospel of Luke this parable is grouped with those showing compassion for those who are poor and oppressed. Context is always important when trying to understand the parables. Parables should also speak a relevant application for contemporary times. If I view this parable as one showing compassion for the poor, it can offer a challenge, something to think through this week.
In what ways are the poor exploited?
