Sometimes it is best to regard Jesus’ parables in the Gospels rather like beads on a necklace. What at first appears to be a single bead is really a string of beads, connected by similarity of themes or other resemblances. And it may even be the case that some of the beads are older, some newer, as the early church put together in the Bible Jesus’ words and its interpretation of them.
Surely that is the case with today’s Gospel parable, sometimes called the parable of the dishonest manager. One generally reliable Catholic commentary [Jerome] suggests the passage we heard read consists of a parable and three moralizations of it, all tied together by the themes of money and faithfulness: one big bead, followed by three small ones. I have a slightly different interpretation, which I shall come to. No wonder this is one of the most confusing parables in the Bible. I am sure when Mary Goldsberry does her study on parables in the Tuesday morning Bible study, she’ll have some words to say about this parable.
So to start with the parable: Jesus is telling a story about a rich landowner, who himself may not be very honest. He wants big returns and has perhaps has trampled on many, including many of Jesus’ hearers, to get where he is. He is not someone Jesus’ hearers would be very enamoured of. He has entrusted at least a portion of his wealth to a manager, who is possibly a slave, under pressure to produce more wealth. But he is not very honest himself; he may well be overcharging his master’s business customers, charging a very high rate of interest, indebting them, and pocketing the difference. He is perhaps a “con man”, cheating both his master and his customers. But maybe the master deserves to be cheated. Finally, the manager gets caught; perhaps one of the unhappy customers has complained to the master about the high prices and the master asks to see the accounts and discovers they have been “cooked”. But the manager, very clever, has prepared for this eventuality. He quickly starts reducing his prices, perhaps down to their correct level, or even to a discount level. He knows he is going to be sacked by his master so he has nothing to lose. Indeed, perhaps he has now been forced into honesty, actually charging fair prices, though still not for very good motives. The master sees what has happened and, rather than being angry, is amazed at his manager’s cleverness and good sense. He too has been brought up short and his dishonesty challenged.
So if we stop the parable here, perhaps the message is “repent, be clever and honest, get back on the right track”. It turns out that the bargain-basement prices were a return to justice and a critique of both the master’s and the manager’s formerly selfish and greedy ways. But one needs a lot of context to come to that conclusion and by the time the parable was written up, that context may not have been so clear.
So we have three more beads, three moral explanations of the parable or moralizations.
The first: “the children of this age are shrewder in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light”. This explanation seems rather to come out of right field. Indeed, some have suggested that, because of the “children of light” reference, the origins of this saying are with the Qumran community with its very dualistic view of good and bad and its pessimism about the current age and the need to withdraw. But still there is the theme of cleverness and being clever for the sake of the Rule of God.
But then comes an even more difficult moralization: “make friends for yourself by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.”
Does this passage mean to go out and make friends with casino owners, pay-day loan operators, embezzlers and billionaire arms merchants? And why would they be the ones to “welcome [us] into the eternal homes”?
There are a couple of possibilities. One is that, along the lines of the parable, through our friendship with them, repentance takes place, and everyone’s wealth vanishes because it is now shared. Another more general possible explanation is simply to be wise with our money and share it in ways (perhaps even to the point that it runs out) that ensure an entrance “into the heavenly homes”. We do not know the end of the story of the parable. Did the manager find a new job where he as now honest? Or did he get rehired for his cleverness? Did the master and manager repent of their money-centred ways? We do not know. Perhaps not. But the parable is to be completed in our lives.
Then comes a third moralization: “Whoever is faithful in very little is faithful in much, and whoever is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.” The theme shifts to faithfulness in matters both big and small. If we lie in small things, we are apt to lie in big things. And if we tell the truth in small matters, we are apt to tell the truth in big matters. Be consistent: even cheating in the smallest way is a problem and may signal a much bigger problem. The parable is invoked again, with the manager chastised for not properly looking after dishonest wealth. This interpretation risks undercutting the parable; but an invocation of preparing for “true riches” (like preparing for “eternal homes” in the second moralization) brings the theme back to “use your wealth honestly and justly” for the sake of the Rule of God.
Then we come to what I would see as a fourth bead. The neckless, so far, looks rather like one big bead (the parable), three small beads (the moralizations) – but now comes another big bead, rather a different colour: “No slave can serve two masters, for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
The connection with the parable is thematic (both have to do with the use of money) but they are not really so connected. In the parable both the master and the slave-manager are devoted only to wealth. They have no other master. It is only when disaster comes upon them that they are forced to do justice – rather like the dishonest judge in another parable who is finally forced to exact justice only after the long and annoying pleading of the woman seeking justice.
Indeed, this fourth bead almost scuttles the parable: it seems to say, don’t be like either the master and manager. Choose God rather than selfish wealth.
Can one somehow see this necklace with two large beads at either end and three smaller beads in the middle as an integrated whole, as a single teaching about wealth and the Rule of God?
If we work from the end bead, “you cannot serve God and wealth”, backwards to the earlier beads, one comes up with a teaching that reads like this: always put God first; if there is wealth, do not let it take over; use it for God’s glory; wealth is given by God to share, that we might be welcomed with “true riches”, into “eternal homes”. As Pope Francis has said many times, “the shroud has no pockets”. Yes, be friendly with all, both rich and poor, but do not let wealth be the centre of friendship. Yet do not exclude wealth and sharing from friendship. The early Church shared wealth. Yet St. Paul gives us a model of one who did not want to burden the church with the expenses of his ministry; he worked to support himself in what we would call a non-stipendiary ministry.
These are only four beads of a much larger necklace that are the parables of Jesus and their interpretations, so perhaps we best stop here. We shall reflect more upon many other beads in the week ahead, and hear more teaching on this subject.
Let us pray:
God of love and justice, give us a right mind towards the material wealth that we possess or, indeed, do not possess. Help us to share wisely. Help us to put you at the centre of our possessions and wealth. We pray for those without material wealth and thank you for the many gifts they have to offer. And open our hands, blessed by you, to share with the heart of Christ: these things we pray through your Son Jesus Christ, our true riches, in the power of the Holy Spirit. AMEN.
No comments:
Post a Comment