Original Meaning

THIS NEXT PART of Luke’s journey section (16:1–31) can be divided into three parts, each focusing on the need for disciples to be wise and generous with the resources God has given them. The parable of the unjust manager calls for faithfulness and wisdom in handling money, followed by a series of exhortations that develop points emerging from it (16:1–13). A shorter unit rebukes the attitude of the Pharisees and declares the arrival of a new era, which, though new, does not change the ethical standards God requires (16:14–18). Finally, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus emphasizes the ethical call God has made to be generous in meeting human needs (16:19–31). Christ’s followers, unlike the Pharisees, should not be lovers of money. Recognition of the accountability God holds his disciples to has ethical and lifestyle implications, even down to the use of resources.

Luke 16:1–8 contains probably the most difficult parable in Luke.1 It clearly teaches about the use of money and the responsibility attached to its presence, but how precisely is that point made? Two options stand out.2 (1) The manager was dishonest in reducing the bills of the master’s creditors but was thinking ahead; so Jesus commends his crafty, forward-looking use of resources. (2) The manager may have been dishonest earlier, but in reducing the bills, he is simply cutting out some of his own hefty commission in hope of goodwill later.3 If so, Jesus commends him for his creative use of foresight that provides for his care later.

The choice between the options is one of those cases where the interpretive decision is difficult. Either option can be correct. Jesus may be using a negative example of an unethical action to make the point about the use of resources in a negative way. But I prefer the option that argues the manager acted with foresight in this situation by cutting himself out of the bill short term, so that people he knows will have compassion on him later. Thus Jesus’ point is not built on an example of dishonesty. It illustrates precisely Jesus’ point, namely, to use the resources God gives us wisely and generously. My exposition takes this approach, but note that if the other option is adopted, the point made by the passage is fundamentally the same, though the route taken to get there is a little different.

The account begins with a rich man who has a manager in charge of administering his affairs. He apparently serves as a bill collector. Some bring charges against him that he has wasted the master’s resources. Interestingly, Luke uses the same term here as he did to describe the prodigal’s squandering in 15:13. The connection shows the negative emotive force of the term. The manager has not been an effective manager. The master apparently believes the charges and orders the manager to account for his stewardship in a type of audit. With the audit will come the loss of his position.

Facing a future on the streets, the fired manager contemplates his options. He does not want to work as a daily laborer, for he is not strong enough, and it will also be embarrassing for someone who used to collect the bills from such men to become their temporary hired hand. The alternative, begging, is not particularly attractive either. Contemplating his options, he develops a plan whose goal is simply to ingratiate himself to his master’s debtors so that they will help him. He is a prudent planner. Having lost the protection of his former master, he looks for help elsewhere.

The manager takes inventory, one at a time. In each case, he lowers the creditor’s bill. The parable gives two examples (both agricultural in character, fitting the Palestinian setting and economy). The first bill involves a hundred baths of olive oil (more than eight hundred gallons). The oil would have cost one thousand denarii, or a little over three years’ salary for an average wage earner. The man who has the debt is not an average wage earner, but the debt can still be appreciated as a significant one. By eliminating the manager’s commission, the debt is reduced by half. Needless to say, this deflationary trend would not have been resisted! The second example concerns a thousand bushels of wheat, representing the yield of about a hundred acres and costing 2,500–3,000 denarii, anywhere from just over eight to nine and a half years’ wage.4 This bill is reduced to slightly over eight hundred bushels. Again, the manager sacrifices his commission. The reduction is significant and would be met with much appreciation.

Jesus is ready to make the point. He notes that the master commends “the dishonest manager.” He has prepared the soil for his future care by what he has done. Such foresight is worthy of appreciation.5 The manager has acted in light of what the future may bring, and he is ready for it now.

In this first of several applications, Jesus notes that the “people of this world are more shrewd … than are the people of the light.” That is, people in the world give more thought to their physical well-being than the righteous do to their spiritual well-being. He develops the point by a specific example in verse 9. Wealth of this world should be used generously to gain friends, so that when the resources are gone, that disciple will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. Monetary resources, which possess a power to distort values, should be put to generous and serving use, so that heaven will be pleased to accept the one who has been generous. God honors those who are generous. When the end comes and no more money is available, the one who has seen into the future and acted prudently will have handled the resources and stewardship God has given wisely. Zacchaeus is a positive example of this (19:1–10).

In addition, those who can be trusted with little can also be trusted with much, just as those who are dishonest with little will be dishonest in much. Who can entrust people with significant things of real value if they cannot handle worldly wealth? The question probes values. Are our resources put to selfish or generous use? If one cannot manage what is given as part of a stewardship, who will give us what is truly our own? Jesus drives for a character in his disciples that reflects God’s integrity, generosity, and grace.

The decisive point is then made. A person in this world is faced with a fundamental choice of allegiance. No servant can serve two masters. The moment will come when the servant must choose which one gets the service. At that time one will be loved, the other hated; devotion will be offered to one, while the other will be despised. One cannot serve both God and Money. If the resources we receive are a stewardship from God to be used in service to him and to others, then to serve God is to give our resources to meet the needs of those around us. Some day God will evaluate our use of resources, whether we have handled them in a way that anticipates his desires and values; if we have, his commendation will follow. Just as the unrighteous manager was prudent in considering what the future required, so we must be prudent in considering how God desires us to handle his resources.

Bridging Contexts

THE PARABLE TREATS fundamental attitudes in how we handle resources. Jesus makes it clear here that money and the other material resources we possess are not ours, to be used in whatever we please. Rather, they have been placed into our care in order to meet the needs of those around us. What Jesus says here is similar to what Paul says in Ephesians 4:28: We earn resources in order to help the needy and to share with them.

This understanding of resources runs counter to the values of our culture, which instills in us the idea that what we have earned is ours and that we can use it as we want. Jesus makes the point that what we have is entrusted to us, and God watches how we use it. This perspective transcends the ideological debates about which economic system is endorsed by Scripture. It asks us to reflect on what God does when he gives us our resources and encourages us to consider how to direct their use.

The timeless value Jesus wishes for his disciples has to do with service, generosity, and people. Resources ought not be counted and hoarded but planted for a harvest of generosity that serves others and meets their real needs. The stewardship of money is not an end but a means, where others can see acts of caring from those who say God cares. Since greed and selfishness have a deep home in the human heart, the message of this text not only bridges the contexts, it explodes in them.

A good example is the declaration in verse 13 that one cannot have two masters. Do we serve God or our resources and the pursuit of them? For many, this is the most fundamental question in life. The pursuit of wealth can cause us to ignore God, undervalue family, walk over people, use them, act unethically, and engage a host of other destructive actions. This is why some biblical texts call greed idolatry (Eph. 5:3). To pursue wealth and the status that often comes with it means to worship creation, not the Creator. This is why Jesus says a person must know who he or she will serve, for when a choice has to be made, a person cannot serve both. Everything here calls on us to choose God.

Contemporary Significance

LUKE HIGHLIGHTS THE role of money throughout his Gospel. This parable, especially the applications at the end, argues that the use of resources is a litmus test of spiritual stewardship. This is a dangerous area to discuss. On the one hand, the church has to be careful in handling money (and in asking for it), so that it does not succumb to the seductive power of money to distort our values. God wants us to make our decisions for the right reasons and not to make culturally popular choices just so that resources and big givers may be retained. In addition, the church must be careful not to talk about money so much that what it preaches on this issue seems as if it is the topic that determines spiritual success. Perhaps the most obvious example of excess here is the way some television ministries function with an omnipresent request for funds. Watching these programs sometimes leaves the impression that spirituality is defined by what someone gives to the church. That error is as old as indulgences and the other excesses that helped to produce the Reformation.

It might seem odd to highlight an application that starts with how the church appeals for money, since the exhortation of the passage is an appeal to individuals. But how can individuals learn to use resources and give wisely if the church is guilty of exploitation in how it obtains what God makes available? Modeling of values in the use of resources should be most evident in the body Christ formed to serve those who need to know God, his grace, and his love. The stewardship responsibility of church leaders is an important aspect of modeling spirituality.

Another tragedy in the area of giving is that the use of resources in meeting needs has almost become ideologically identified with something foreign to church values. In condemning programs that do not help people get off of welfare, we have thrown out the baby with the bath water. We should support programs that help people care for themselves, but too many people see giving to those who suffer in our society as evidence of a commitment to some distorted social agenda. Yet centuries ago, pious Christians were the ones committed to a witness reflective of biblical values, leading efforts to meet the needs of widows, orphans, and the other poor who needed evidence that God cared about them.

The Old and New Testament have much to say about how people in need should be seen and cared for (see Matt. 25:31–46; James 2:14–16). The point is significant, because one of the ways we evidence God’s care is by concretely showing our love through the use of resources. Consider how quickly we give to relief and aid to a natural disaster overseas through a missionary’s appeal, yet how quickly a similar and equally valid appeal from neighbors within our own cities may get rebuffed because it is viewed as politically motivated.

If the call of Jesus is to be generous with resources, we should be on the lookout for opportunities to give. Most Westerners are wealthy and blessed by the world’s standards. So many of our resources are poured out in all kinds of endeavors that feed ourselves in one way or another. This text challenges us to ask how can we give generously to meet needs around us. How conscious are we that what we own is not really owned by us but has been loaned from the Lord, who wishes to see how faithfully we handle his resources to serve those in need? Jesus will soon reinforce such questions in 16:19–31, where he raises the question of how a poor, needy man, Lazarus, was treated by a rich man.

Opportunities to honor faithfully the call of this passage exist everywhere. One cannot meet every good cause in the world, nor can one fund every valid ministry. God’s call to be generous means that one will be on watch for valid ministries and needs. Some of that giving may be directed to local churches and ministries. But just giving to the local church may narrow our vision too much. We should also contribute to the work of agencies by laboring in areas of need, whether it be feeding the poor, working with agencies that promote education in areas where family support for education is not present, or dealing with unwed mothers in need or the elderly.

Other opportunities may be to underwrite institutions that educate our church leaders. Churches that do not support the seminaries that supply their pulpits should consider their stewardship of the ministry God has made available to them. Parachurch organizations engage in the crucial work of evangelism in corners of our culture that the local church does not touch. Missionary needs are also great, especially those where men and women from foreign countries need support to conduct their ministries effectively in their own country. Sometimes it is financially more efficient to give to nationals to train for ministry in their own culture than to underwrite the cultural transfer of an American into a foreign land. Nationals can usually serve in the same ministry for substantially less than the Americans who are sent over. The variety of options is almost overwhelming, but a text like this calls us to use our resources in ways that contribute to effective ministry. We must say to a needy world, “We care for you, and so does our God.”

The question also presses at the level of values. Do I work to obtain a certain salary? Or do I serve because of the call and merits of the ministry God gives to me, whether they be in professional ministry or in a secular pursuit? Is the key issue in my work how much I make or how I can serve and do so faithfully? Subtly even those who do not make megamillions can be distracted from serving because of preoccupation with how much they bring in. We must be responsible with how much we make in order to care for those we are responsible for, but how often are our choices dictated by wants rather than by needs? The treasures we most need to pursue are those that cause God to be pleased.