Jesus said to his disciples, “A rich man had a steward who was reported to him for squandering his property. He summoned him and said, ‘What is this I hear about you? Prepare a full account of your stewardship, because you can no longer be my steward.’ The steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do, now that my master is taking the position of steward away from me? I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg. I know what I shall do so that, when I am removed from the stewardship, they may welcome me into their homes.’ He called in his master’s debtors one by one. To the first he said, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ He replied, ‘One hundred measures of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Here is your promissory note. Sit down and quickly write one for fifty.’ Then to another the steward said, ‘And you, how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘One hundred kors of wheat.’ The steward said to him, ‘Here is your promissory note; write one for eighty.’ And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.
“For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones. If, therefore, you are not trustworthy with dishonest wealth, who will trust you with true wealth? If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours? No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.”
Gospel Trivia:
This is the most difficult parable to interpret in the New Testament; it is sometimes referred to as the embarrassment of preachers. How can the master praise the steward after he caught him squandering his property, and then catching him again adjusting the accounts without the master's authorization?
It is important therefore to understand the culture at that time to appreciate the parable. Let’s consider the following:
- first, the position of steward is a trusted position. He becomes the manager of the master’s estate, which can be very large, so there must have been a long period of friendship and trust that precedes any appointment of a steward.
- this long relationship probably explains why, firstly, the steward did not anymore bother to deny or appeal the decision of the master to dismiss him (which is unlikely in the culture); and secondly, why the master did not sue him which could have likely landed him in jail. The relationship was still worth something, and the steward therefore felt that his master was generous to him to the very end, despite of his fault.
- secondly, it would be helpful if we knew exactly what is the scheme that the steward try to pull off in order to be ingratiated to the tenants later on? Did he overprice the rental initially and simply brought it back to the original amount? This is unlikely since the rent was generally known to everyone and it would be easy to discover if one has been overcharged, and tenants could even go straight to the master to appeal the rates. It seems that the what the steward planned to do was to simply reduce the amount of rent that he would turn over to the master. This he can do by citing many reasons such as bad weather, crop disease, drought, and others.
- Thus, the steward already reduced the anticipated rental payment, and therefore perceived as an act of generosity by the steward; and, obviously, of the master as well.
- This act of the steward therefore served two purposes: it ingratiated him to the tenants (which he would now need that he is fired), and it also projected the master as generous and understanding.
The master compliments the steward not only for being sly and scheming, but also in recognizing his generosity and projecting such generosity to the tenants.
This interpretation make sense when we notice that while this parable was being told to the disciples, it also says that the Pharisees were part of the audience and could hear what he was saying.
The Pharisees firmly believed that obeying the law was the way to righteousness. They looked at God as a judge who kept a record of wrongs. Jesus had another message: God is Father! A father is not legalistic, but merciful and generous, to the extent of complimenting a sinner who recognizes such characteristics of our Father.
When we look at God as an accountant who keeps a record of our rights and wrongs, then we overlook his mercy and generosity. God is not fair. God is love.
Reference:
Nil Guillemette, SJ, Parables for Today (Makati: St. Paul Publications, 1987), pp. 252-257.
Nil Guillemette, SJ, Parables for Today (Makati: St. Paul Publications, 1987), pp. 252-257.
No comments:
Post a Comment