Bible Study series: Luke 16:1-13. Sometimes he is called the “dishonest manager.” What does this mean? Why would Jesus tell such a parable? It is becoming my favorite because of its moving parts and subtleties. It should be read in conjunction with the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:
In the next link to the original chapter, I comment more and offer the Greek text. At the bottom you will find a “Summary and Conclusion” section geared toward discipleship. Check it out!
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Luke 16:1-13
1 He proceeded to tell the disciples: “A rich man had a manager, and the manager was accused before the master of wasting his property. 2 And the master called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Render your account of your management, for you can’t manage my things any longer.’ 3 The manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, since my master is taking my management position from me? 4 I know what I’ll do, so that when I am dismissed from management, they will welcome me into their households!
5 He summoned each one of his master’s debtors and began to tell the first one, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 He said, ‘One hundred measures of olive oil.’ The manager said to him, ‘Take your bill and quickly sit down and write fifty.’ 7 Then to another one he said, ‘You owe how much?’ He said, ‘One hundred measures of wheat.’ He said, ‘Take your bill and write eighty.’
8 And the Lord praised the crooked manager because he acted prudently, because the children of this age are more prudent in their own generation than the children of light. 9 “And I tell you, ‘Make friends by means of worldly wealth so that when it is used up, they will welcome you into everlasting dwellings.’
10 ‘He who is faithful in little is faithful in much, and he who is dishonest in little is dishonest in much. 11 If therefore you are not faithful with worldly wealth, who will entrust you with true wealth? 12 And if you are not faithful with that which is another’s, who will give you your own? 13 No servant can serve two masters, for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and worldly wealth.’ (Luke 16:1-13)
Comments:
This pericope (pronounced puh-RIH-co-pea) or section or unit of Scripture has troubled many commentators, because it seems to draw positive conclusions about worldly things and dishonest actions. (Another title could read: Parable of the Dishonest Manager.) I have distilled some commentaries here, plus my own observations.
“disciples”:
Verse 8 is especially baffling. Who is talking? The master (boss / owner) or the Lord himself? The Greek indicates the Lord Jesus (no possessive pronoun, e.g. “my”). Either way, Luke seems to endorse the lesson drawn from the manager’s shrewd or wise or prudent strategy. No, the master or the Lord did not endorse everything the manager did, but the master or the Lord did draw attention to prudence and wisdom and shrewdness. Can the sons and daughters of light act with shrewdness, wisdom and prudence by means of worldly wealth? How are they to do this?
Here is my boiled-down opinion on the gist of this startling parable. It is an argument from the lesser (the prudent manager or employment in other wealthy household) to the greater (the children of light or disciples or eternal dwellings).
If the manager became generous by compulsion in a crisis (he was about to be fired), so that he would be welcome in his generation’s households, then how much more should Jesus’s disciples freely make friends (especially the poor) by being generous to them with worldly wealth, so that the disciples will be welcome into everlasting dwellings! It is shrewd and wise and prudent to consider how God looks with favor on generosity with worldly wealth. Are you wise and prudent and shrewd enough to see how the kingdom of God works?
The key for me is the word “prudent” (or “shrewd”). The unrighteous manager was shrewd in the ways of the world; now the kingdom citizens, the citizens of the light, must be shrewd in the things of the kingdom. But they must not be dishonest in the kingdom.
This parable should be read in conjunction with the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31) because the rich man did not show shrewdness and prudence with worldly wealth. Therefore, he is not in eternal dwellings, but in flames. He teaches us what not to do.
Now let’s look at each verse.
1:
Jesus has rounded a rhetorical corner, so to speak, and he is now talking to his disciples, but the Pharisees and teachers of the law are still listening (see v. 14), as they had been in Luke 15. But the main audience is now his disciples.
And so Jesus begins another parable.
The phrase “the master” was inserted in this verse to make things clear. By the way, it is the noun kurios (pronounced koo-ree-oss), and in the vast majority of times it refers to Jesus as Lord, but it can be expanded to include worldly bosses and owners or lords. Here it could be translated as “boss” or “owner” of the lending business. It is used five times in this section: vv. 3, 5 (twice), 8, 13. It is not used in v. 1; here I only introduce the concept.
The verb for “wasting” is the same as in the Parable of the Lost Son, when the son spent things recklessly (Luke 15:13). It means “scatter, disperse … waste, squander.”
2:
The owner-boss-lord-master calls the manager in and tells him he is fired. It looks like the manager kept a careful record, which could be used against him. The manager is now in crisis mode. What should he do?
3:
He poses his problem clearly enough to himself in inner dialogue. “What will I do when the boss removes me from my management position—when he takes my job away from me?” He’s too used to an office job to dig ditches, one of the lowliest jobs in an agrarian society. And he’s too proud to beg. Or more literally, he’s ashamed to beg, which was worse than ditch digging in his society. Such a demotion for a manager! It would be like a manager today having to work in a warehouse, loading trucks. Loading trucks per se is not a bad job, but he would have felt humiliated when people figured out his previous employment. How many stories have I heard about managers who get laid off, and they are devasted, as they look for any job they can get.
4:
He is lit up with an extra-clever idea. The Greek indicates a flash of an idea: “I know what I’ll do!” And some translations or paraphrases catch it well. NLT: “I know just the thing!” MSG: Ah! I’ve got a plan.”
His plan final goal is to get managerial employment in the household of others. It turns out in the next three verses that the debtors indicate that they are wealthy too. There was a real possibility that they would be rich enough to hire a manager.
This household notion is important because Jesus is about to say that disciples are supposed to use worldly wealth in such a way that it secures everlasting dwellings—heavenly households, so to speak.
5:
The plan: he summoned each of the debtors, one at a time. Clearly these two men represented many others, but Jesus could not extend the parable indefinitely. The listeners were supposed to assume many debtors.
6:
The amount of olive oil adds up to 875 gallons or 3000 liters, worth; 1000 denarii (and one denarius equaled a day’s wage for a farm laborer), so the amount was huge (NET). We are dealing with a rich businessman-farmer. “The second debtor owed 100 measures of wheat. One cor … was equal to 10 ephahs or 30 sewahs or in modern terms 10-12 bushels or nearly 400 liters … A cor cost about 25-30 denarii … So the debt was between 2,500 denarii and 3,000 denarii—or about 8-10 years’ salary for the average laborer” (Bock, p. 1331).
7:
And the next businessman-farmer owed one hundred measures of wheat, which amounts 10-12 bushels or 390 liters. This was another huge amount a yield coming from 100 acres, a bigger farm than usual. The wheat added up to 2500-3000 denarii (NET). Massive.
In the previous two verses, either one of these debtors had room for a manager, if they wanted to hire him in their household.
So how and why did the manager reduce the debt? Three possibilities: (1) he simply lowered the price based on criteria we don’t know about; (2) the manager removed (exorbitant) interest from the debts. Such interest was illegal to charge to one’s fellow Jews (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:35-37; Deut. 15:7-8; 23:19-20), so he was doing his owner-boss-lord-master a favor by going back to the law; (3) he removed his own commission, which would not have cost the owner-boss-lord-master anything when it was removed (NET). The latter two possibilities are the likeliest. You can decide.
8:
Who is “the kurios” in this verse (see v. 1 for a discussion of what this word means)? It says the “the kurios” without “my kurios,” as it did in vv. 3 and 5. And so often when Luke says “the Lord” he means Jesus (Luke 3:4; 7:13, 19; 10:1, 2, 39, 41; 11:39; 12:42; 13:15 and so on). Yet the flow of the story says that “the Lord” is probably the master-owner-boss. These translations say the owner-master-boss: KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NCV, CEV, MSG, NET, ESV, in other words, the major translations. Yet the rest of v. 8 slides into Jesus’s comment or Luke’s commentary.
Therefore, whoever the speaker is does not matter so much, because the rest of the verse endorses the manager’s shrewd or wise or prudent behavior, within limits.
“crooked”: this translates the adjective that could be translated as “crooked,” “dishonest,” “unjust,” “unfair,” or “unrighteous.”
8 Righteousness of the Kingdom
“this age”: the noun and adjective have versatile meanings, but it is clear that “eternal” is attached to God; apart from that modification it mostly means “a long time” or “an age.”
What Do Words ‘Eternity,’ ‘Eternal’ Fully Mean in the Bible?
“prudent”: it simply means “sensible, thoughtful, prudent, wise … shrewd.” So it is not necessarily a bad quality, yet the speaker called him a “manager of unrighteousness. He is a man of the world, who does not observe the law closely. He is an unrighteous but clever manager.
“Jesus also laments that the children of this world show more concern for their security of their earthly existence and act more decisively to guarantee it than the children of light do in securing their eternal existence” (Garland, p. 650)
So in prudence (practical wisdom), the children of this age are wiser or cleverer than the children of light. In which way specifically? The speaker tells us. In one way only: the manager acted cleverly, wisely, prudently, sensibly, and thoughtfully. His unrighteousness is not praised, but his thoughtful strategy is.
9:
Kingdom disciples are supposed to make friends by means of worldly wealth. Who are the friends (“they”)? It could be generic for anyone, but in Luke’s Gospel poor people or poverty are often contrasted with rich persons or wealth (Luke 6:20-26; 14:17-23; 16:19-31; 18:18-22; 19:8; 21:1-4). So the generosity is supposed to be directed towards the poor, not rich businessmen-farmers. Either way, children of the light are exhorted (strongly urged) to use the cleverness or prudence or wisdom found in the dishonest manager and make friends through money. But is money pure through and through? Apparently not in all cases, as seen here:
“worldly wealth”: it translates the noun mamōnas (pronounced ah-moh-nahs); it is an Aramaic term that was imported into Greek. It means “property” or “wealth.” It can be personified as Mammon (Luke 16:13 and Matt. 6:24). Here it could be translated as “wealth of unrighteousness” or “unrighteous wealth” because of the Greek phrase mamōnas of unrighteousness.
When worldly wealth runs out or is used up as it always happens, especially after one dies (!), a disciple’s generosity will secure for him everlasting “dwellings” or “homes” (literally “tents”).
Before looking at other applications in this pericope, let’s take stock.
The parable boils down to these elements, contrasting the children of this age with the children of light:
(1). The inner motivational strategy is the same: prudence or shrewdness;
(2). The underlying means are the same: worldly wealth;
(3). However, the goals are different: a worldly household vs. a heavenly household.
(4). Therefore, the argument goes from the lesser (worldly household) to the greater (heavenly household).
It’s the two goals (no. 3) that makes the decisive and clarifying difference between the children of this age and the children of light. Therefore, the first two elements (nos. 1 and 2), though similar on the surface, will have different directions: using prudence and money either for an earthbound goal or for a heavenly goal. When the manager reduces the bills of rich farmer-businessmen, he expresses a form of generosity, but it is different from the generosity that children of the light are called to implement. How so?
The two different goals (no. 3) supports the idea that children of the light are supposed to use worldly wealth to help the poor and to advance the kingdom. (Recall that wealthy women supported Jesus and his ministry in Luke 8:1-3.) And so children of the light are not to use money with shrewdness to help rich businessmen-farmers, as the manager did—a child of his age. The contrast between the children of this age and the children of light is stark. But how are children of the light supposed to use worldly, unrighteous money? That question is answered shortly.
10-13:
Jesus proceeds to speak four statements of opposites, two of which are rhetorical questions that demand one answer.
(1). In v. 10, Jesus pairs up two opposites.
Paraphrase: The faithful person in small things is faithful in big things vs. the dishonest person in small things is dishonest in big things.
The word faithful here means “trustworthy” and “reliable.”
Word Study on Faith and Faithfulness
(2). In v. 11, Jesus repeats the “unrighteous mammon” idea again (see v. 9 for more comments).
Paraphrase: If you are not faithful in worldly wealth, who will entrust you with true wealth?
So this rhetorical question does not need an opposite pair, because the question requires the answer: “no one will entrust you with money.” The last word wealth is inserted, because the Greek just says “the true.” Wealth is implied from the context (the previous clause in this verse).
(3). In v. 12 the same idea is repeated from v. 11.
Paraphrase: If you are not faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you your own?
Translations insert the word wealth again, which is surely right, but the Greek is silent about that. It is more impersonal. So it is open-ended. What things are you appointed caretaker over? Is it your child? Your job?
In any case, the rhetorical question requires the answer: “no one will give you anything.”
(4). Now we return to an opposite pairing. No servant can serve two masters. Why not?
Paraphrase: Either he will hate one and love the other vs. he will be loyal to one and despise the other.
Who are the two masters? Jesus reveal them: God vs. Mammon. The Shorter Lexicon suggests that here Mammon should be personified or turned into a personal being of some kind, as if it is lurking to devour you. In Gen. 4:7 sin is depicted as crouching, lurking by the door, ready to attack Cain.
Then Jesus ends this section with a clear and forceful statement. You cannot—are unable—to serve God and Mammon.
The Greek word for serve is more closely related “to be a slave to.” Whose slave are you?
So in those four verses, we see this pattern:
Paring of Opposites
Rhetorical Question
Rhetorical Question
Pairing of Opposites
This brief structure is designed to emphasize the meaning. In the elliptical Gospels, including Matthew and Mark, we are required to focus on the meaning and content, and if a literary structure directs our attention to focus on what matters, then the authors will use it.
Finally, 1 Tim. 6:17-19 is relevant:
As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works and to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life (1 Tim. 6:17-19, ESV).
So the rich converts to Christianity are called to use their money generously, do good with it, and to be rich in good works, so they can store up for themselves treasures in heaven.
Be faithful with worldly wealth, but don’t serve it. Let it serve God, and you should serve God. And then you can stand on top of money, as you look up to God.
Garland seems on target: “Disciples should learn from the children of the world, who act boldly and decisively to ensure their earthly future, also to act boldly and decisively—but to ensure their eternal future. As this agent recognizes his crisis and moves shrewdly to hedge his security in this world, so disciples should shrewdly use their worldly possession, which are only on temporary loan from God, in deeds of mercy to store up treasures for themselves in heaven” (p. 638). I could add “deeds of financial generosity” to store up treasures in heaven.
Here are simple equations:
The children of light > The children of this generation (children of light are greater than the children of this generation)
Shrewdness / prudence in the kingdom of God > Shrewdness / prudence in the world’s system (kingdom shrewdness or prudence or savvy is greater than those things in the world)
Children of light using unrighteous mammon to make friends > The manager using unrighteous mammon to make friends (kingdom children use money more shrewdly than did the manager) Why? Because eternity is at stake. The manager was bogged down in self-interest without looking towards eternity.
Making friends to secure eternal dwellings > Making friends in the manager’s life to provide security in the world’s system (to secure eternal dwellings is better and greater than securing a place in this age that is doomed to pass away)
So how do the children of light one use worldly wealth or unrighteous mammon to make friends?
Do the opposite of what the rich man will do to Lazarus (vv. 19-31). If the rich man had used his money to help impoverished and abused Lazarus, he would have secured eternal dwellings in heaven. No, money does not buy access to Abraham’s bosom, but it does show the fruit of repentance and a maturity and growth in righteousness. “Faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:26).
Bottom line: be generous with worldly wealth, and God will notice. “And he [the angel] replied to him [Cornelius], ‘Your prayers and acts of generosity have gone up as a memorial, right in front of God’” (Acts 10:4).
GrowApp for Luke 16:1-13
1. Study 1 Tim. 6:10 and 17-19. How are rich Christians called to use worldly wealth to secure treasures in heaven?
2. We are supposed to see ourselves in parables. How do you prudently use worldly money, in order to secure heavenly dwellings?
3. Are you trustworthy or untrustworthy in handling worldly wealth to help the poor and advance the kingdom of God? Explain.
RELATED
11. Eyewitness Testimony in Luke’s Gospel
3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND MORE
To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom. You will also find a “Summary and Conclusion” for discipleship.
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 