Ordinary Time Week 18

Psalm: Psalm 79:1-9 or Psalm 113
Old Testament: Jeremiah 8:18-9:1
  or Amos 8:4-7
Gospel: Luke 16:1-13
Epistle: 1 Timothy 2:1-7

This week I will admit that I am not really inspired or coming up with any great insights in terms of the Scriptures this week. Sometimes that just happens. I have said before that often during Ordinary Time the Scripture readings seem to each go in a different direction and that is definitely true this week. So it will be a short post this week and I am just going to mention the Gospel reading, but definitely read all four passages if you have time.

In Luke we have a rather strange parable which one biblical commentary says "has caused difficulty to Bible students, because it seems to involve an approval of dis-honesty." (The Abingdon Bible Commentary, pg. 1049) It goes on to say that in fact Jesus never condoned the dishonest activity, but is using a common social structure to make a point. Not to critique the commentary too much, but after saying Jesus did not condemn the dishonesty, it goes on to say that in fact the steward wasn't dishonest at all, rather he was "shrewd." In the Ancient Near East at this time, managers, tax collectors, and agents of this type worked on commission. They earned what they were able to skim off the top of what they had to pay their bosses. The shrewd steward in this case, didn't cheat his master rather he removed his portion of the bill. Thus, by reducing his portion of the bill, the debtors would have positive thoughts towards him when he was in need. 

I am not sure I am persuaded by the commentary's reasoning since a 50% reduction in the bill seems very steep for the stewards cut, but maybe that was the going rate in these cases. I am not an expert in Ancient Neat East business practices. In addition, twice the biblical text calls the manager unrighteous. (vs. 8, 9) If indeed the man was just removing his portion of the bill, then that would not be be considered unrighteous. So in contrast to the the Abingdon Commentary, I would have to say that in some way the steward did cheat his master, and was unrighteous, but clearly also shrewd.

So what is the point that this story is making using this strange social structure? The most basic meaning of the parable is that friends and relationships will get one farther in life than money can and will even last "into the eternal dwellings." (vs. 9) The steward set himself up for future prosperity and relationship by giving away his final means of income. The hope was that after he was fired, his new friends would take care of him until he could find a new job.

I will admit that verses 10-13 seem only tangentially related to the parable. Sure they have a similar theme, but they can exist outside of the parable. The parable does nothing to bring these verses clarity or poignancy. The reason perhaps is because these verses don't need a parable to be understandable. No one can serve two masters, especially God and wealth. That statement makes perfect sense. To serve wealth means to put our hope, security, and identity in all the things that money can buy. There is no room for God because we perceive ourselves to be entirely self-sufficient. God however wants to be our only source of identity, security, and hope.

Placing these two things together, we see that God and relationships are both more important than money. Money and wealth can't bring us things of real importance and are fading. It is not easy however to choose God at all times because we are always tempted to try and control our lives and be self-sufficient. Wealth represents all the things most dear to us: our future, our security, our status, other people's perception of us, and even how we view ourselves. But through the Holy Spirit we are invited to give that all to God and let God be the one who defines who we are. May we be open to this call and allow God to transform us into the image of his Son, through his Spirit.

Grace and Peace.