The Unfaithful Steward parable was a hard nut to crack for many biblical scholars until David Landry and Ben May published their article "Honor Restored: New Light on the parable of Prudent Steward (Luke 16:1-8a)" in the Journal of Biblical Literature #119 number 2. These two authors interpreted the steward's action as a win-win situation for all three parties: the master, the debtors and the steward himself. In 2007, I commented in my valedictory speech that had these scholars known some Chinese history, they would not have had to spend nearly 4 decades to solve the puzzle. Today, when I meditated on the parable again, I discovered more puzzles to play with.
Structurally speaking, the parable finishes at 16:8 and 16:9-13 is an interpretation of the parable. However, verses 9-13 seem to be an after thought, an uneasy appendix that tries to build up an argument through association.
"And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.
He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest (unrighteous) in a very little is dishonest (unrighteous) also in much.
If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches?
And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?
No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:9-13)
The word "mammon" is an inclusio device to bracket out the text. The word "dishonest" in verse 10 is actually not a good translation. The Greek original is "unrighteous". So, the word "unrighteous" runs through verses 9 to 11 and "(not) faithful" from verses 10 to 12. That is to say, verses 9 to 12 form a rather coherent unit which is inserted between the end of the parable and verse 13. That explains why verse 13 looks like an odd, out of place appendix rather unrelated to the preceding verses. In fact, as far as the interpretation of the parable is concerned, verse 9 alone is enough. Making good use of the (unrighteous) money you have to help the needy, then, when money is of no more use in your life, i.e. at your death, your charity would win you a seat in heaven. Developing from this interpretation, we may conclude that one may choose either to make use of money to serve God, or to ignore God and become a slave of money. In short, the parable together with its interpretation are coherent even if we remove verses 10 to 12. So, what purpose does the inclusion of verses 10 to 12 serve?
Verse 10 seems to comment on the behaviour of the steward. It seems obvious that if one is (not) trustworthy in small matters, people will (not) trust him in big matters. However, such a reasoning is flawed. First of all, being trustworthy in small matters does not guarantee the same outcome in big matters. The person might not be capable enough to accomplish big things. He might fail you.
Secondly, there are people who do not bother to put up enough efforts to accomplish small things because those things are trivial. Failure to deliver in trivial things is not evident enough that they would fail in big things.
Thirdly, there are people who are not given the opportunity to show their capability so that they cannot be shown to be trustworthy even in small matters.
Lastly, this reasoning suggests that one must undergo tests of faithfulness in a proving ground, like Abraham, before they can be rewarded with God's grace. This reasoning makes theologians feel uneasy because grace is not earned through one's efforts but is given away by God in his pleasure.
The "dishonest (unrighteous)" in verse 10 is narrowed down into "not faithful", the "very little" into "unrighteous mammon" and the "much" into "true riches" in verse 11. In this way, verse 10 is transformed into a religious statement. If you are not faithful in handling money in this life, say not helping the needy, you will not be rewarded eternal life in heaven. This seems to agree with the teaching of Matthew 25. But then, Luke will be contradicting himself in the story of repentant thief who acknowledged Jesus on the cross. As of this writing, I do not have a satisfactory solution to this puzzle.
Verse 12 is puzzling in itself. If something is "your own", why will it be given you? So, it is something not yet of "your own". It will be given later in the future. However, a string is attached. You have to demonstrate that you are faithful in "that which is another's" in order to earn it. The smell of Pelagianism is in the air and makes theologians uneasy. Verses 10 to 12 are a hard nut to crack. Any suggestion?
Sweet Jesus, You humiliate me to teach me humility. I know I am unworthy. May Your faithfulness prevail. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment