|
|
| home > hermeneutics > Luke 16:1-13 | |
 |
"IF I HAD A HAMMER ..." by Katie E. Peckham I. Introduction If I had a hammer … These are lyrics to a folk song made popular in 1962 by the group Peter, Paul & Mary. In an era of flower children and marching for peace, many people took up a “cause.” Typical of that, this song describes the singers’ desire to work out peace and harmony among people, and to lead them to realize the danger and horror of war and injustice. To express this desire, they use the imagery of a hammer, a bell, and even a song. Each of these objects serves a purpose in the meaning of this folk song: they are all tools put to work for the cause of justice and peace around the world. While there may be many uses for hammers, bells and songs, the passion of these musicians directs them to focus on the objects’ utility in achieving a goal higher than mere carpentry or aesthetic enjoyment: the goal of peace and harmony. Two of these three items are, of course, symbolic imagery. I doubt that any flower child ever dug out her rusty-handled hammer and pounded someone over the head with it in trying to settle an argument between friends. The third image, however – the song – is literally being used as a tool for the purpose of peace and justice, rather than for promoting war and hate. One thing this song conveys is the idea that it is up to us how we use the resources available to us. Its overall assumption is that we all have some kind of tool at our disposal, and we can use it for some cause or other. This idea is similar to one taken up by Jesus in the Gospel account in Luke 16:1-13. Jesus also discusses a material object that was familiar to his disciples and listeners, and instructs them to use it for a goal higher than what was common. However, in Luke’s Gospel, we find not the poetic imagery of bells or hammers, but the tangible tool of money. Whereas it is doubtful that Peter, Paul and Mary were actually hoping their listeners would really use hammers and bells for spreading harmony, it becomes quite clear that Jesus is trying to convince his listeners that money is indeed a tool they are already using to carry out the intentions of their hearts. In light of this, they should be careful planners of how they will use it for their benefit, and they also should give it away generously in service to God and others. II. Genre The Gospel of Luke, like all of the Gospels, is a narrative about the life of Jesus. One of the Gospels’ primary objectives is to show that Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the many Old Testament prophecies about the one who was to come bringing the kingdom of God. This particular passage falls amid the central section of Luke, which some scholars call, “The Jerusalem Journey” (9:51-19:44). Luke 9:51 marks the beginning of this period, when it says, “As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.” This is not just any old trip – Jesus had walked many miles before this. This would be his final journey – the journey to his death. Thus, this time of his ministry is marked with more intensity and concentrated passion than his previous ministry in Galilee. In Galilee, miracles were more numerous; but now Jesus “gets serious” and focuses on teaching, preparing His disciples for His departure; as well as making particularly clear the distinction between the spirituality of the Pharisees, and that of the Kingdom of God. III. Generic Conception (“Big Idea”) The generic conception of the entire surrounding passage, Luke 16:1-31, is that material wealth is not to be served as an end in itself, but is a “tool” of sorts, to be used for good. Money is a means, not something to be attained for its own sake. The use of it reveals the motives of one’s heart, and the correct use of it will bring blessing to a person, while the incorrect use of it will rain curses on him. Both of the parables in this passage demonstrate this principle. The first parable (that of the shrewd manager, in vv. 1-13) illustrates that money may be a blessing if given away generously and used to serve others. Meanwhile the second parable (of the rich man and Lazarus, in vv. 19-31, which we will not explore in depth here) depicts the ultimate misery and pain that comes from keeping money for selfish gain in this life. In the short discourse between the two parables (in vv. 14-18) Jesus explains that this, not the greed of the Pharisees (as indicated in v.14, “the Pharisees, who loved money … were sneering at Jesus”), is the correct understanding and fulfillment of the Old Testament Law. IV. Observations about the Passage. As mentioned in the generic concept of chapter sixteen, the parable of the shrewd manager illustrates one half of the principle that money may be used either for good or for evil. It is viewed by many as a great conundrum of a passage, since Jesus is using a man who has stolen from his boss and then reduced his boss’s forthcoming income (which appears to be stealing yet again) as a model for the disciples, or “children of light.” The main thrust of the parable, expressed by Jesus in vv. 8-9, seems to be clear: the importance of being generous and wise. Yet just how this parable and the manager portrayed in it demonstrate this can be tricky. Let’s attempt to unravel this parable. We are told in v. 1, right at the beginning of the story, that the manager in this parable is in trouble with his wealthy boss for wasting his boss’ possessions. He is called in to see the boss in v. 2, to give an account for his entire career of accounting, since he is now being fired and his time there is finished. In this crisis – which would alarm anyone – the manager begins to think of what he can do now to earn an income, since he has lost his job (v. 3). He begins to sift through his options and discovers that he is too old and weak to do manual labor and will not lower himself to the level of begging for money, so he must find some other, more creative way to support himself. In v. 4 it strikes him: he may do something with the time he still has as manager of a wealthy man’s money to set up something of a “life insurance policy” for his future. His brilliant solution is this: he will lower the debts owed to his master so that he will win the hearts of the debtors and will be welcomed into their homes in later times when he is hungry and jobless. Here is where it can get sticky for interpreters. Is the manager stealing from his boss again by reducing the money that the debtors owed to him? Or is the manager simply returning the size of the debts to what they originally had been before he greedily added interest payments of his own that the boss actually did not authorize? The problem this creates for the interpreter is: if the first interpretation is correct, and the manager is indirectly stealing from his master once again by using his last moments of authority to decrease the amounts that debtors will legally owe the master, then Jesus’ intention in using him as a model for his disciples is entirely perplexing to say the least. Is the conclusion that disciples too should find moments to steal when it is convenient and profitable to themselves? That hardly seems to align with the rest of Jesus’ teaching on loving one’s neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:39), or giving one’s last penny away to God (Mark 12:41-44). However, a simple resolution seems readily available in allowing for a second possibility, though nothing can be conclusively proven about this case. It was a common practice in those days for financial managers to skirt the Mosaic Law that forbade the charging of interest to fellow Jews (NIV 1569). This means that it is likely that the wasteful behavior for which this manager was originally fired (v. 1) may have included his overcharging of debtors to his own monetary benefit – adding interest to the amount owed to the master, and pocketing that interest for his own personal gain (four hundred of the eight hundred gallons of olive oil owed in v. 6, and two hundred of the thousand bushels of wheat in v. 7). This would allow us to understand that in his final accounting of vv. 5-7, when he reduces their debts, he is simply foregoing his own greedy cut, which he should not rightfully have charged them in the first place. This would not affect the master at all, since the money deducted would not have gone to him in the first place, and the payments he expected he will still receive (four hundred gallons of olive oil in v. 6, and eight hundred bushels of wheat in v. 7). Meanwhile the debtors are happy that the manager was generous enough to let go of the extra cash he would have pocketed to their disadvantage. Thus the manager has won their hearts and done no harm to his former master, by making a personal sacrifice of the monetary benefits he could have taken in the final precious moments of his career, for the sake of providing for himself in the future – a sacrifice that was wise and would prove fruitful. If we look at the parable from this perspective, Jesus’ use of the shrewd manager as a model for his disciples seems to make more sense. For one thing, it seems to fit more cleanly with the praise given by the master in v. 8 – since it is more plausible that the master would praise the manager for this kind of responsible and sacrificial behavior, than that he would commend him for stealing from him. Some consider that this praise may be referring to the ‘shrewd behavior’ of v. 1, but this makes no sense at all, since that is the very reason the master is firing the manager to begin with. As one commentator points out, “If the reductions are dishonest price cuts, they constitute further injustice against the master beyond the steward's earlier squandering. If so, the master now has two charges against the steward: ineptitude followed by dishonesty” (IVP, par. 17). However, seeing the behavior in vv. 5-7 instead as a generous act on the manager’s part, allows for the more likely event that he has learned his lesson and thus receives approval from his master. Secondly, this interpretation seems to coalesce more fully with the rest of Jesus’ teaching as seen in the Gospels. The manager demonstrated the virtue of using money as a tool, rather than serving it as a god. Its primary value is in helping him plan for his future well being, not as a prize to be hoarded. It apparently took him most of his career to learn this lesson, yet he shows by his actions that he has finally learned it in the end. He has been given a position of authority as manager of a rich man’s funds, and he finally learns that sharing the financial benefits of this position, rather than taking as much of it as he can for his own greedy gain, will bring more fulfillment in the end. If we assume that the cut that the manager is making is one that is disadvantageous only to himself in the present moment, and not harming his boss, then we resolve the problematic issue of his stealing (and his greedy heart) while still being aware of his shrewdness, which is actually the element of the story that Jesus explicitly commends in v. 9 anyhow. The manager has used his money correctly as the tool that it is – in giving it away rather than keeping it to himself, he gains for himself happiness in the long run. Jesus indicates that in using a secular man as a model, his disciples will learn to think more carefully about how they use their resources for long-term benefits – something which “the people of this world” are better at than are “the people of the light,” even if the worldly misuse their resources, they at least think about how they will use them (v. 8). On top of this lesson, Jesus adds a few more points in vv. 9-12. First of all, not only should the disciples consider how they will use their resources, but they should give them away generously. It can seem a bit confusing to hear the words, “Use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourself,” when Jesus also says immediately afterwards in v. 15 that, “What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight,” and rebukes the Pharisees for their efforts to please men rather than please God. It may appear that in the first case, the disciples should try to please men, while in the second case, they shouldn’t. However, the pleasing of men by the use of money mentioned in the first part of v. 9 must also please God, for Jesus says that such actions will cause the disciples to “be welcomed into eternal dwellings” in the second half of the same verse. No human is entrusted with determining another’s eternal destiny – that is for God alone. God has no need of our money; therefore it seems that he is pleased by the tangible articulation of his kingdom principles among his children – giving away possessions out of concern for others. Thus, Jesus seems to be commending his disciples to use possessions for the purpose of building relationships with other people because this sort of love is something that pleases God. Secondly, Jesus calls money “unrighteous.” The way it can be unrighteous is when it brings out the corrupt attitudes of a person’s heart. Some Christians seem to have derived from this passage that money is inherently wicked and should be shunned altogether, yet this cannot be true, since Jesus commends Zaccheus for the generous use of his money in Luke 19:1-10, telling him that in giving it away Zaccheus has shown himself to be a “son of Abraham,” and thus salvation has come to his house. Zaccheus too learned the righteous and God-pleasing use of the tool money. Since the highest commands in the kingdom of God are to love God and others, money is wicked insofar as it holds people back from loving God and others before anything else. When money leads people like the manager in the parable to take advantage of others and treat them like objects, it becomes an abominable thing. But when it is given away freely to others and to God, it becomes a tool that indicates righteousness. Choosing money for its own sake means rejecting God. This seems to be God’s definition of “love” and “hate,” as he points out in v. 13 when he says, “Either [a servant] will hate one master and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” This is also indicated as well in Luke 14:26 when Jesus says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.” It is an ordering of priorities. Our use of money is “an expression of the measure of our relationship with God in Christ” (Baumann). V. Interpretation of the Passage. The manager in the parable showed that he considered carefully the use of money as a resource. He knew that it was valuable, and charily contemplated the best use of it, rather than tossing it around lightly. This is an admirable quality, and something to be attained to by followers of Christ. Our use of money is little more than a “practice-run” or a “rehearsal” for our use of greater spiritual responsibilities in the kingdom of God; as such, it is something to be treated with mindful prudence. Jesus also teaches that as we consider the use of our money, we should view it in light of its function as a tool for higher purposes and not as a god to be served. This is the mindset of one who truly loves God, using money to serve God and others rather than squirreling it away for one’s own selfish satisfaction. Finally, Jesus teaches that we are to give that money away freely, not hoarding it to ourselves. One of God’s kingdom principles is that we are to give away our possessions for the purpose of loving others and helping others. In this way, all people are cared for. VI. Application. Meditating on this passage brought the power of its central principle into a very clear focus in my own life. I began to consider the way my husband and I use our money. I’ve never considered us to be careless with our money – we make it a priority to stay out of debt and buy something only when we’ve saved for it and can pay up front. However, we enjoy traveling quite a bit, and much of the money we don’t spend on things like clothes, cars, or other toys, we do spend on travel. We have been on various trips overseas. This has been of concern for me, and came up as I considered our use of money in light of this passage. Are we spending our money selfishly? Are we being poor stewards? However, a few things became clearer to me. For one thing, spending some budgeted amounts of money on oneself is not a bad thing in and of itself. Jesus makes it clear that “mammon” is unrighteous if it gets in the way of loving God and others. He desires us to have rest, to take breaks once in awhile, and also to invest in our marriage. Traveling is one thing that my husband and I both enjoy, something that draws us together. Often, time spent traveling is a good time of togetherness. Secondly, while we do enjoy traveling, none of our big vacations have been solely for the sake of taking a “getaway” by ourselves. We have family living overseas and the only way for us to see each other is to pay for an expensive plane ride, one way or the other. Combined with email, these international visits are the best way for us to maintain those very important relationships. In addition, having grown up overseas, my husband has many close friends who live in other countries. To the contrary of the voice of nagging guilt, traveling actually seems like it can be investing our finances for the purpose of loving others and maintaining relationships. However, another area of my personal financial
life is not so defensible. While my husband and I split responsibilities
around the house, I generally buy the groceries. It’s something
I enjoy very much, and while we make a list, I’m of the mind that
if I get there and see something on the shelf that would be nice, but
it wasn’t on the list, well, we’ll just get it anyway. I’ve
come to realize that this isn’t very wise stewardship of our money
when the bill adds up. It does not seem like stealing, and surely budgeting
an amount for treats or the like is not wrong. Yet … it takes away
from what we could have to use for others, to give away, to save
for a later day. So I have started a worksheet of groceries we commonly
need so I can track expenses better, and I’ve also made a commitment
to stick more firmly to a list made at home when looking at the real
needs of the cupboard, as opposed to buying whatever looks good at the
store. I want to be trustworthy with little, not rebuked for squandering
– even though it doesn’t seem like much.
It was encouraging to read this chapter and be reminded by Jesus that
there is much more to life than money. The investment of time and energy
we make at this new job will last longer than the money we could earn
at the old job. I was thankful for this reminder and encouraged to pursue
the decision with a cheerful heart, and to give ourselves fully to the
sacrifice and prioritization of the kingdom of God. Sources Baumann, David. Sermon. The Episcopal Church of the Blessed Sacrament, 17 Nov. 2002. “IVP New Testament Commentaries: LUKE.” BibleGateway.com.
Gospel Communications NIV Study Bible, Study Notes. Ed. Kenneth Barker. Grand
Rapid
|
|
home > hermeneutics > Luke 16:1-13 |