Lazarus & the Rich Man

**apostoli** · February 17th 2011, 07:02 AM

Many people's exclusive focus when reading scripture is to find some justification for a dogmatic belief. Which is a pity. Luke 16:19-31 are a case in point. People who focus on this passage to prove or disprove a fiery hell miss the whole point of the tale.

Lets put dogmatics aside for a time and discuss the context of vs19-31 and see how they fit into the scheme of things...to do this, I think it necessary to go back to the beginning of chapter 14 to get an idea of the continuum of Jesus' teaching...

For the sake of convenience I will use the ESV rendition of scripture and in this introduction to the topic will attempt to be brief...

______________

Before I begin: Some commentators point out that Luke's gospel needs to be read through the eyes of Theophilus to whom it was addressed. Some commentators hold that the gospel was addressed to the brother in law of Caiaphas = Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem (from 37 to 41CE), to mediate the Sadducees persecution of the Christians. If so, Luke chapters 14 to 16 take on a particular significance (particularly chapter 16)...

______________

At Luke 14:1 on a Sabbath we have Jesus dining at "the house of a ruler of the Pharisees" and we are told Jesus tells a couple of parables, one about not exalting yourself, but rather be humble and if deserving you will be exalted. In another he advises his host "when you give a feast" don't invite those who can repay you, rather invite those who have no chance of repaying you "For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just" (vs12-14). Contrast these advices with the actions of the rich man at Luke 16:19-20.

From Luke 14:25 we learn that "great crowds accompanied [Jesus]..." Being a Sabbath their movements would have been severely restricted. Presumably the crowds had waited outside during the dinner, in anycase Jesus turns to them and begins to preach to these about being his disciples. At vs43 he tells them "any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple". Consider this in the light of Luke 16:13-15.

In Luke 15:1-2 we read "Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying: This man receives sinners and eats with them." Presumably Jesus following his own advice had begun to share the dinner supplied by his host or the "tax collectors and sinners" may have brought something (pre-prepared) to share. In anycase, Jesus then gives several parables that teach about searching out the lost. These parables were obviously told to address the Pharisees & Scribes criticisms and to point out their inadequecy as religious leaders. The last parable in chapter 15 is about the prodigal son (the sinners) and the older son (the Pharisees and Scribes) who is too caught up in the ownership of his self righteousness to see the value in his brother's repentance and return.

The first parable in chapter 16 continues with this theme. The dishonest manager, self obsessed with his own needs squanders his masters assets eg: the Pharisees and Scribes were lazy and not doing their job of bringing people to God, but were more concerned with their own self interest and status by pandering to equally unscrupulous religionists (cp John 12:42).

Some commentators teach that the "rich man" in vs1 alludes to God, but then have trouble explaining why God "commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness" (vs8). Personally, I think the "rich man" at Lk 16:1 is a reference to the Roman appointed high priest Caiaphas, which accounts why this master "commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness" = the "manager" did nothing that the "rich man" wouldn't have done (didn't do) himself = always put your self interest first = thats how he got rich!

As a bit of background: Historically, the High Priest Annas and his family controlled the Sanhedrin and the Temple, and more notably ran the market in the temple court - which by existing defiled the temple (cp. Jn 2:13-16). According to Jewish testament Annas' family were widely despised by the Jews.

At Luke 16:13 Jesus says to his disciples "You cannot serve God and money" and the next verse tells us "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him". Keep this in mind, Jesus was being ridiculed and he firmly returns that ridicule...

Jesus then goes straight for their jugular vein!

In vs15 he accuses "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts". At vs18 he hammers his point home by refering to Moses' concession allowing divorce because of the hardness of men's heart, which was against the will of God (ie: a man idea, not God's). Some commentators point out that the religious leaders made money by selling divorce contracts. Jesus' says at vs18 anyone who is divorced and remarries commits adultery!

At Mt 15:6 Jesus accuses the religious leaders saying "So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God..." Just as another aside: under Sanhedrin law the high priest could divorce his wife and remarry, likewise the divorced wife could remarry. Whether Jesus had this in mind or just made a generality I'll let you decide but it does seem unusual he suddenly throws his observation into his teaching without giving it an obvious context (albeit the context may have been obvious to his listeners). In anycase, the religious leaders were notorious for over-riding God's law with their fabricated traditions - which brings us the tale at Luke 16:19-31...

Who/what is represented by the "rich man"?

In vs19 note the "rich man" is "clothed in purple and fine linen". Some commentators view this as alluding to the garb of the high priest. I don't think that is absolutely correct as the color/s should be blue, purple and scarlet (Ex 39:1). That said, imu, the color purple indicates someone not merely rich, but someone with imperial authority, and the fact that the "rich man" later calls to Abraham makes him a Jew, so the finger can be pointed at Caiaphas who the Romans, as a political appointee, appointed to the high priesthood.

The reference of the five brothers at vs27 and the request to "send [Lazarus] to my father's house" gives credence to this conclusion. Caiaphas was Annas' son in law, and Annas had five sons - the seven of them had been or would become high priest over the years and all of them were Sadducees - which shines a particular light on vs31 where Jesus has Abraham say "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

In anycase, it is well attested that the Sadducees are documented as being very political and represented the rich elite, and distanced themselves from the common people, so in all probability the "rich man" is a reference to a Sadducee.

As I'm sure you know, scripture says "the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all" (Acts 23:8). Imu, the Sadducees taught there was no afterlife in any shape or form, so in Jesus' parable there is a great amount of irony and ridicule that would have greatly amused the Pharisees listening to the tale ie: we have a Sadducee confronted with an afterlife, and worse still, for all his self righteousness he is deprived of the comfort of Abraham's bosom, and instead receives punishment.

Who/what is represented by Lazarus?

Some people put a lot of significance in the fact that apart from this tale Jesus never gives an identity to his characters.

On this basis niave eisegetes assume that Jesus is giving a literal account of what happened to two individuals. If so, then why didn't Jesus identify the "rich man"? (answer: he was still alive in the temporal realm!) Is simply being rich deserving of going to a fiery hades? Is simply being poor deserving of Abraham's bosom? According to the account (vs25) it would seems so - so all you affluent guys may as well live it up; eat, drink and be merry, the probability is you are definitely going to hell, unless you become like Lazarus ;-}

Lazarus is the gentile name for the Hebrew Eleazar. One of the famous Eleazars in the OT was the loyal Gentile servant of Abraham. Some eisegetes read into the tale an allusion to the Gentiles at the gate, those proselytes who were being neglected by the religious leaders - only receiving crumbs from the spiritual table, and being spiritually undernourished were plagued with spiritual disease. Nice thought but personally I cannot see a Gentile connection in the context of the parable. The two parables of Luke 16 definitely criticise the stewardship of the Jews religious leaders, but this criticism is in the context of the parables of Luke 15, all of which portray current possessions: search for a sheep lost from the flock and the shared and great joy when it is found; the seeking out and finding the lost coin and the shared and great joy when it is found; and finally the tale of the prodigal son. All contextual indications are that Jesus' criticism of the religious leaders was their failure to take care of their current Jewish flock and their habit of denigrating and alienating, those that need the most help...

"the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear [Jesus]. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying: This man receives sinners and eats with them." (Luke 15:1-2)

A thought to contemplate: one of the Eleazars mentioned in the OT was Aaron's son, through whom the birthright to the high priesthood was traced by the Jews. Imo, the tale of Lazarus and the Rich Man is telling us it is those that are truely spiritual grandchildren of Eleazar son of Aaron, guided by faith, that metaphorically are embraced by Abraham and therefore receive the promise, and become truely high priests (those that glorify God), whereas those appointed by men to a temporal office and who seek out temporal glory are distanced from Abraham and therefore lose the promise...

Imu, Eleazar (Lazarus) was a fairly common name before, during and after Jesus' time. Imo, what is of more importance than the name is the meaning of the name = "God is my help", and who in Jesus' context (chapter 15) needs the most help but the "tax collectors and sinners" drawing towards repentance...

At Luke 16:15 Jesus makes the point "You [the religious leaders] are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God." Imu, God knows the heart of every person, and it is the heart of the person (their motivation) that is judged...

Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcefully urged into it." (ESV alternative reading)

Luke 15:1 "Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear [Jesus]..."

______________

Your comments would be appreciated.

**Bernie** · February 20th 2011, 11:39 AM

I suspect you've way overthought this thing when you narrow down Jesus' teaching as directed to a single group. One reason I think the conception of Jesus as Diety is crucial in interpretation is that with this established, His words will necessarily transcend the meanings typically applied by mortal men. In other words, it would be typically human to form a critique aimed specifically at, and for the benefit of, an individual or particular group of individuals. One would expect God to not be limited to this kind of thinking; the purpose of His address would have at base universal meaning, beyond this perhaps layers of meaning including the arrangement of the parable in such a way that it shines new light on any number of individuals on a personal level.

For instance, at base even the casual reader will catch the distinction in the parable between 'good' and 'bad', the familiar roles of those who focus on wealth vs. the plight of the downtrodden, that justice is portrayed in the punishment of the rich man, etc. Some might go further and see that the materially poor man can as easily represent the poor in spirit and the rich man those who insulate themselves from proper morals and ethical principles to gain selfish ends. I agree that too much doctrine is forced on this story (and many others).

In short, it is a mistake for us to believe Jesus was actually singling out the religious leaders of His day to point out their moral deficiencies. They are merely paints on a canvas or players on a stage in Jesus' message to all humanity. You and I are the Saducee, we are all the Pharisee, their sin is ours and ours theirs, in this and all parables imo.

**apostoli** · February 20th 2011, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Bernie

I suspect you've way overthought this thing when you narrow down Jesus' teaching as directed to a single group. One reason I think the conception of Jesus as Diety is crucial in interpretation is that with this established, His words will necessarily transcend the meanings typically applied by mortal men. In other words, it would be typically human to form a critique aimed specifically at, and for the benefit of, an individual or particular group of individuals. One would expect God to not be limited to this kind of thinking; the purpose of His address would have at base universal meaning, beyond this perhaps layers of meaning including the arrangement of the parable in such a way that it shines new light on any number of individuals on a personal level.

For instance, at base even the casual reader will catch the distinction in the parable between 'good' and 'bad', the familiar roles of those who focus on wealth vs. the plight of the downtrodden, that justice is portrayed in the punishment of the rich man, etc. Some might go further and see that the materially poor man can as easily represent the poor in spirit and the rich man those who insulate themselves from proper morals and ethical principles to gain selfish ends. I agree that too much doctrine is forced on this story (and many others).

In short, it is a mistake for us to believe Jesus was actually singling out the religious leaders of His day to point out their moral deficiencies. They are merely paints on a canvas or players on a stage in Jesus' message to all humanity. You and I are the Saducee, we are all the Pharisee, their sin is ours and ours theirs, in this and all parables imo.

I'd agree that Jesus is not pointing out a single group - imo, he is criticising all the then current religionists, his audience were chiefly the Pharisees and Scribes, but from the evidence of vs 31 he is refering to a Saduducee as being the rich man. Which takes us back to his first parable in chapter 16, where we have the master of the dishonest servant complimenting the dishonest servant for his dishonesty...

**St Croix** · February 21st 2011, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by apostoli

Many people's exclusive focus when reading scripture is to find some justification for a dogmatic belief. Which is a pity. Luke 16:19-31 are a case in point. People who focus on this passage to prove or disprove a fiery hell miss the whole point of the tale.

Which is.

I appreciate you've written much, but too much. You need to make your points more concisely. I see it as about what it takes to convince someone that they need to repent. They need to listen first and foremost. If you don't listen to Moses or the Prophets, then even someone rising from the dead won't convnce you. So the moral of the tale, read your bible regularly and pay attention to it and not the semi-pagan heresies of your money loving and status obsessed compeers.

**Vivian** · February 22nd 2011, 04:01 AM

Hi Apostoli!

If we look at what Jesus says with spiritual eyes and ears, the parables make the utmost sense.

Luke 16

14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.
18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.

This is a very difficult lesson to understand when one's focus is on the world. It brings to mind many other parables like the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

I desire Mercy not Sacrifice.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

Do you get what Jesus is saying? With the coming of John the Baptist, everything has changed. A spiritual revolution began that continues today. The Law stills stands, for those who cannot hear - it will not pass away, yet we can enter into God's Mercy in the twinkling of an eye. If we just let go of this world, and Law that was established to sustain it.

What Jesus says next is very curious: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. I offer that Jesus wasn't changing the subject, with a random offering on divorce, but continuing with the lesson that he began with the parable. He is speaking of man's spiritual condition - not of actual divorce and adultery, but of our relationship with God under the Law. Under the Law, there is no mercy for adulterers. We are spiritual adulterers, under the Law, and we can stay under the Law if we chose, or we can join the revolution. As long as heaven and earth exist, the Law stands, but we no longer have to be subject to the cause and effect of the Law. God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

The steward was not shrewd financially, but spiritually, recognizing the merit of mercy and joining in the revolution of mercy.

Look again at everything that Jesus taught - the time has come, let go of the world of checks and balances, of reaping what we sow, of having to be world wise or even financially wise. Join the revolution of mercy - where there are no rules, only the state of our heart.

Shalom!

Viv

**apostoli** · February 22nd 2011, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by St Croix

Which is.

I appreciate you've written much, but too much. You need to make your points more concisely. I see it as about what it takes to convince someone that they need to repent. They need to listen first and foremost. If you don't listen to Moses or the Prophets, then even someone rising from the dead won't convnce you. So the moral of the tale, read your bible regularly and pay attention to it and not the semi-pagan heresies of your money loving and status obsessed compeers.

In some respects I might actually agree with your general comment. The majority of commentators put Luke 16 in the distinct context of chapter 15, personally i think we need to go back to chapter 14.

Consider, on a particular sabbath, Jesus was having lunch/dinner with a particular affluent Pharasee, possibly one of his relatives...in due respect this fellow had invited a few of his fellow religiousness'. Jesus does the unmentionable and associates with whom they consider "sinners" (Luke 15:1)=hellenists, and therefore they perceive him as a sinner by association.

Have a read of Luke 14:1-16:18 and tell me what you hear...

**apostoli** · February 22nd 2011, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Vivian

Hi Apostoli!

If we look at what Jesus says with spiritual eyes and ears, the parables make the utmost sense.

Luke 16

14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.
18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.

This is a very difficult lesson to understand when one's focus is on the world. It brings to mind many other parables like the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

I desire Mercy not Sacrifice.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

Do you get what Jesus is saying? With the coming of John the Baptist, everything has changed. A spiritual revolution began that continues today. The Law stills stands, for those who cannot hear - it will not pass away, yet we can enter into God's Mercy in the twinkling of an eye. If we just let go of this world, and Law that was established to sustain it.

What Jesus says next is very curious: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. I offer that Jesus wasn't changing the subject, with a random offering on divorce, but continuing with the lesson that he began with the parable. He is speaking of man's spiritual condition - not of actual divorce and adultery, but of our relationship with God under the Law. Under the Law, there is no mercy for adulterers. We are spiritual adulterers, under the Law, and we can stay under the Law if we chose, or we can join the revolution. As long as heaven and earth exist, the Law stands, but we no longer have to be subject to the cause and effect of the Law. God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

The steward was not shrewd financially, but spiritually, recognizing the merit of mercy and joining in the revolution of mercy.

Look again at everything that Jesus taught - the time has come, let go of the world of checks and balances, of reaping what we sow, of having to be world wise or even financially wise. Join the revolution of mercy - where there are no rules, only the state of our heart.

Shalom!

Viv

Hi Vivian,

In some respects I agree with you, but I ask you to put yourself in Jesus' predicament. He was being ridiculed by the religionists for his teaching. Imo, Jesus didn't submit to their criticism by being benign but went straight for their jugular vien = their allegory of scripture and consequent iniquity...

In part I agree with you that Jesus wasn't talking about divorce per se. In my opinion he was directly ridiculing the religious leaders dependence on their own opinions, which imo, is the point of the Lazarus & the Rich Man Story - the religionists weren't concerned about truth only control.

On a pasrtoral note, I agree in principal with much of what you relate, but I don't think it has anything in relationship to the discussion that Jesus encountered - remember at the time he was being ridiculed, so to make his point home he needed to be forceful and not patsy around his objective...

One thing I disagree with in your comments is "The steward was not shrewd financially, but spiritually". The stewart was fully and totally corrupt just like his master! There is no virtue in corruption!!! The stewart ripped his master off completely, stole, defiled his masters assets etc this is in direct contrast to the good shepherd in chapter 15 and the forgiving father -= if you are lost and repent you are forgiven, whilst if you are in a position of religious responsibility and are found wanting into the darkness you will be thrust...

**St Croix** · February 22nd 2011, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by apostoli

In some respects I might actually agree with your general comment. The majority of commentators put Luke 16 in the distinct context of chapter 15, personally i think we need to go back to chapter 14.

Consider, on a particular sabbath, Jesus was having lunch/dinner with a particular affluent Pharasee, possibly one of his relatives...in due respect this fellow had invited a few of his fellow religiousness'. Jesus does the unmentionable and associates with whom they consider "sinners" (Luke 15:1)=hellenists, and therefore they perceive him as a sinner by association.

Have a read of Luke 14:1-16:18 and tell me what you hear...

I hear that in order to be able to listen properly, the traditions of men, the things of this world, the natural affections of family need to be put aside.

**Vivian** · February 22nd 2011, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by apostoli

Hi Vivian,

Hi Apostoli!

I think Jesus' point was made here:

You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

They were judging outward appearances, saying, I believe as you are, that the steward was just as corrupt as his master. I offer that to see the fruits of mercy, so that he might act in such a way to the debtors, his heart had to change.

Matthew 6 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

He certainly was setting himself up for forgiveness, or for partial forgiveness at least, by his actions.

I believe someone else offered this already: the predicament that Jesus was in was used by God to reveal these higher truths of mercy to all of humanity. Yes, Jesus was speaking to them, but his feelings, and his response to them, was the response of God to all people. We are more related as a collective of humanity than some might think, and so this issue, or the problem with the hearts of the Sadducees and Pharisees, was an issue within the heart of humanity.

And yes, indeed. He was not being benign, but went straight for the jugular, theirs and that of all of humanity.

The point again is that what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God, and so man's rules, whether they be of judgment or mercy, or rules of belief, or behavior, or debate, or apologetics, are all abominations in the sight of God.

God desires mercy.

In my tradition, we speak of this teaching as letting go of our personal history, our name and form. Behold I make all things new! Right here, right now we can repent, no longer being bound by anything of our personal history, and find instead God's mercy and salvation. And so for the steward, because he acted in mercy, his personal history of being shrewd financially, or being a thief, or whatever, no longer exists in the eyes of God. That moment that he began to act with mercy towards the debtors, he was a new creation - the law no longer had any hold on him, no matter what he had done in the past.

This indeed is difficult for all of humanity to grasp.

Shalom!

Viv

**apostoli** · February 22nd 2011, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by St Croix

I hear that in order to be able to listen properly, the traditions of men, the things of this world, the natural affections of family need to be put aside.

So Luke 14:26 would have us understand...

**Vivian** · February 22nd 2011, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by apostoli

So Luke 14:26 would have us understand...

Indeed!

As our tradition says, it is our identification or attachment to name and form of the world of time and space that keeps us from entering into Eternity. Not that we aren't to love, but love with an Eternal perspective, remembering the truth - that this world is temporal, a temporary time of play - of growth and development, joy and sorrow - but we are to come out of her, out of our identification with a personal history, a being solely of time and space, and recognize our true self as an Eternal, Infinite being of Light - who just happens to be wearing presently a certain name and form.

**apostoli** · February 22nd 2011, 07:04 PM

Hi Vivian,

Though in principle I agree with you about the teaching of showing mercy in scripture, the first parable in Luke 16 is not speaking about mercy or forgiveness, it is more in line with Jesus' parables where the slothful and/or impious servant is chastised. For comparison see the outcomes at Mt 25:30 and Mt 18:34.

Originally posted by Vivian

I think Jesus' point was made here:

You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Verse 15 goes hand in hand with verse 13 "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 money." This is the teaching that appears to have riled the Pharisees (vs14) "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him."

Originally posted by Vivian

They were judging outward appearances, saying, I believe as you are, that the steward was just as corrupt as his master. I offer that to see the fruits of mercy, so that he might act in such a way to the debtors, his heart had to change.

I'd speculate the parable went completely over their heads, they didn't react until Jesus' teaching "You cannot serve God and money".

The Pharisees and scribes were prone to judging by external appearance (Luke 15:1-2) but this has nothing to do with the first parable in chapter 16. Luke 16:4 makes it evident the impious manager wasn't showing mercy but buying friends, in fact it says so "I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses". There was no change of heart on the part of the impious manager - he ramped up his squandering of his masters wealth seeking out his own welfare.

Notice vs9 "And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings." I understand Jesus here to be saying those who are friends of the world, will be befriended by the world and so will attract the enmity of God (see Luke 16:15. cp. Rom 8:7 "the carnal mind is enmity against God"; James 4:4 "whosoever is a friend of the world is the enemy of God')

Originally posted by Vivian

Matthew 6 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Notice Luke 16:8 "The master commended the impious manager for his shrewdness." Commend doesn't equal forgive, and mercy doesn't equal pandering to one's own self interest.

The text gives no indication that the master forgave the impious manager. Though we don't know the ultimate fate of the impious manager in all probability he suffered the same fate as the servant in Mt 18:34. In anycase, vs 10&11 indicate that the impious manager would have been unemployable once his indescretions were known.

Originally posted by Vivian

He certainly was setting himself up for forgiveness, or for partial forgiveness at least, by his actions.

It was the impious manager that was doing the forgiving, at his master's expense. Hardly something that would endear him to his master, and especially as his master was already intent on sacking him.

From Luke 16:1 we don't know if the impious manager was initially dishonest or not, all we know is that he was squandering his masters possessions and was about to be sacked (cp Mt 25:30) so embarked on a set of dishonest acts. He decides to fiddle the masters books and through a bit of criminal intrigue buy himself some friends. Fiddling the books of one's employer (defrauding him) is hardly going to attract forgiveness for one's past transgressions.

Verse 10 is very significant "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much." The guy was setting himself up for condemnation = the same fate of the rich man in the second tale.

Originally posted by Vivian

I believe someone else offered this already: the predicament that Jesus was in was used by God to reveal these higher truths of mercy to all of humanity. Yes, Jesus was speaking to them, but his feelings, and his response to them, was the response of God to all people. We are more related as a collective of humanity than some might think, and so this issue, or the problem with the hearts of the Sadducees and Pharisees, was an issue within the heart of humanity.

Undoubtedly Jesus' parables had a wider audience than just those to whom he directly addressed his condemnations. Notice vs11 "If then you have unfaithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?" Jesus regularly criticised the religious leaders for putting their traditions (unrighteous wealth) above the word of God (true riches), making the word of God of none effect (cp Mk 7:8-13)

Concerning the "heart of humanity", notice Luke 16:12 "if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?" In this I perceive the teaching "love your neighbour as yourself".

Originally posted by Vivian

yes, indeed. He was not being benign, but went straight for the jugular, theirs and that of all of humanity.

So vs15 would make evident (cp. Rom 8:7; James 4:4)

Originally posted by Vivian

The point again is that what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God, and so man's rules, whether they be of judgment or mercy, or rules of belief, or behavior, or debate, or apologetics, are all abominations in the sight of God.

God desires mercy.

So Jesus notes when he quoted the first clause of Hosea 6:6 "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (cp. Mt 9:13;12:7). It is interesting to note that the ESV translates the Hebrew as "steadfast love" while noting that from the Septuagint the text would render "mercy".

Originally posted by Vivian

In my tradition, we speak of this teaching as letting go of our personal history, our name and form. Behold I make all things new! Right here, right now we can repent, no longer being bound by anything of our personal history, and find instead God's mercy and salvation.

The interesting thing about the word "repent" (metanoeō) that is so flippantly thrown around by many, is it actually indicates a "change of mind" and I'd add heart. The mind thing can be easy, but imo, the heart thing is the biggest hurdle. I identify somewhat with A.Paul's words 'I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" (Rom 7:25). "For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" (Rom 7:15).

Originally posted by Vivian

And so for the steward, because he acted in mercy, his personal history of being shrewd financially, or being a thief, or whatever, no longer exists in the eyes of God.

As Luke 16:4 makes plainly obvious the steward did not act out of mercy but self interest. "I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses..." and Jesus makes the point at vs10 that people who are dishonest in a little are dishonest in much and (vs11) no one would entrust to them the true riches.

Originally posted by Vivian

That moment that he began to act with mercy towards the debtors, he was a new creation - the law no longer had any hold on him, no matter what he had done in the past.

As vs4 makes plainly obvious he didn't change, he continued to be motivated by self interest, and faked mercy to the rich man's debtors so he could buy himself some friends (as he himself intimates). Interestingly his associates are just as corrupt as he was - evidenced by the fact they went along with his scheme to defraud his master (a common scenario in the modern world).

Originally posted by Vivian

This indeed is difficult for all of humanity to grasp.

The idea of universal mercy, or as the ESV provides at Hosea 4:4 "steadfast love" is a hard thing to grasp for most people given our consumerist societies, and everybody's focus on self interest. I know a fellow that was doing relief work in Haiti and he told me they had to pay bribes to the police etc to get supplies to the people in need. Typical you might say of a third world nation, but consider the Medicare debate in the USA or the general welfare debates in other countries (plenty of "rich man" and Lazarus stories in the world). Self interest, imo, is what governs the realities of this world but as individuals we can do our bit even if it is just occasionally doing something nice for one person outside our immediate circle of family, friends & neighbours and not expect anything in return (cp. Luke 14:12-14). We may not be able to cure the biologically sick, but we sure can try to cure those sick at heart.

Peace

**Vivian** · February 23rd 2011, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by apostoli

Hi Vivian,

Hi apostoli!

I have not studied this parable before, so this is a new contemplation for me, thank you!

Though in principle I agree with you about the teaching of showing mercy in scripture, the first parable in Luke 16 is not speaking about mercy or forgiveness, it is more in line with Jesus' parables where the slothful and/or impious servant is chastised. For comparison see the outcomes at Mt 25:30 and Mt 18:34.

This parable of the shrewd steward sounds very much, to me, like the parable of the prodigal son:

13 And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living. 14 But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. 15 Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything.
17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, 19 and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.”’

Do you see the similarities? Wasting the father's/master's resources, taking quick action to make sure he is provided for...

Perhaps you are assuming that these parables are about money? The prodigal son shows us that making money is not the point. So I would say that the unprofitable servant is unprofitable not because he did not make any money, but because he was too feeble and fearful to take any action to bring benefit to anyone, unlike the prodigal son and the shrewd steward.

Now the unforgiving servant, which category would we put him in? I say he is like the unprofitable servant, taking no action, too fearful, clinging to the way things are, clinging to the ways of the world, to earthly riches, afraid to let go, etc...clinging to name and form or personal history. Unlike the prodigal son and the shrewd servant who were not afraid, who stepped out into the unknown, yes, initially seeking for themselves, but ultimately it was not just themselves who benefited.

Verse 15 goes hand in hand with verse 13 "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 money." This is the teaching that appears to have riled the Pharisees (vs14) "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him."

Actually the word translated as money in some translations is better translated as mammon, and has a much broader meaning than money. Mammon means earthly riches or treasures. And methinks something is being twisted here. The shrewd servant, in writing off the debts which master is he serving? Is he serving mammon? I would say no! He suddenly realizes that there is no intrinsic value in earthly treasures - in Eternity they don't really exist, so why not forgive debts, the money isn't Real anyways.

I'd speculate the parable went completely over their heads, they didn't react until Jesus' teaching "You cannot serve God and money".

I think they got it! Imagine a servant forgiving the debts owed his master, and the master saying good job! That was unheard of in their world! Remember mammon is earthly riches, unrighteous riches, and so in and of itself has no Eternal value.

The Pharisees and scribes were prone to judging by external appearance (Luke 15:1-2) but this has nothing to do with the first parable in chapter 16. Luke 16:4 makes it evident the impious manager wasn't showing mercy but buying friends, in fact it says so "I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses". There was no change of heart on the part of the impious manager - he ramped up his squandering of his masters wealth seeking out his own welfare.

I believe that the shrewd steward did just as did the prodigal son. He went back to his father's house seeking a home and care and sustenance for himself. And how did his father respond?

Notice vs9 "And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings." I understand Jesus here to be saying those who are friends of the world, will be befriended by the world and so will attract the enmity of God (see Luke 16:15. cp. Rom 8:7 "the carnal mind is enmity against God"; James 4:4 "whosoever is a friend of the world is the enemy of God')

Let us look at what he says again...

And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth

Is he not instructing us to use our earthly riches to make friends? Earthly riches = unrighteous wealth

so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.

Earthly riches are going to fail anyway, you know rust and decay. But why not use them as a good steward, a profitable servant, to gain Eternal dwellings? Profitable use of our earthly treasures is seeking an Eternal reward, don't you think?

Notice Luke 16:8 "The master commended the impious manager for his shrewdness." Commend doesn't equal forgive, and mercy doesn't equal pandering to one's own self interest.

Perhaps it was not forgiveness per se that was being sought. I jumped the gun there. As you pointed out, Jesus was using it as a parable for seeking an Eternal dwelling.

And commend means well done good and faithful servant, don't you think?

The text gives no indication that the master forgave the impious manager. Though we don't know the ultimate fate of the impious manager in all probability he suffered the same fate as the servant in Mt 18:34. In anycase, vs 10&11 indicate that the impious manager would have been unemployable once his indescretions were known.

I think Jesus made it clear that the steward was right and good to use earthly treasure to seek an Eternal dwelling, so methinks he acquired what he was seeking. I know this is hard to accept - like the workers earning the same wages for an hour's work that others earned for a day's work. The things of God make no sense in this world. But when you understand that entering Eternity means leaving this world behind, then you realize that nothing of this world is of any importance except in how we use it. Do we use earthly riches to seek more earthly riches, or are we using them to seek heavenly treasure?

It was the impious manager that was doing the forgiving, at his master's expense. Hardly something that would endear him to his master, and especially as his master was already intent on sacking him.

Yes, the impious manager realized that there is no heavenly value in earthly treasure, except in how one uses it.

From Luke 16:1 we don't know if the impious manager was initially dishonest or not, all we know is that he was squandering his masters possessions and was about to be sacked (cp Mt 25:30) so embarked on a set of dishonest acts. He decides to fiddle the masters books and through a bit of criminal intrigue buy himself some friends. Fiddling the books of one's employer (defrauding him) is hardly going to attract forgiveness for one's past transgressions.

Verse 10 is very significant "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much." The guy was setting himself up for condemnation = the same fate of the rich man in the second tale.

Undoubtedly Jesus' parables had a wider audience than just those to whom he directly addressed his condemnations. Notice vs11 "If then you have unfaithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?" Jesus regularly criticised the religious leaders for putting their traditions (unrighteous wealth) above the word of God (true riches), making the word of God of none effect (cp Mk 7:8-13)

Since Jesus is talking about two masters and one being mammon, I think he is speaking of earthly riches as unrighteous wealth. Certainly we can say that man's traditions might be considered earthly riches, but mammon includes much more - all the treasure of this world. And in these parables he is using money as representative of earthly treasure - or what those with an earthly focus seek as a means to provide for themselves. But does not Jesus say - don't worry about what you will eat or what you will wear? The ways of God confound earthly wisdom!

Concerning the "heart of humanity", notice Luke 16:12 "if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?" In this I perceive the teaching "love your neighbour as yourself".

Indeed. Which is just what the shrewd servant was doing when he forgave debts - his strong and fearless actions made everyone's life better - all benefited, his master thus saying well done good and faithful servant.

So vs15 would make evident (cp. Rom 8:7; James 4:4)

So Jesus notes when he quoted the first clause of Hosea 6:6 "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (cp. Mt 9:13;12:7). It is interesting to note that the ESV translates the Hebrew as "steadfast love" while noting that from the Septuagint the text would render "mercy".

Interesting.

eleos : 1) mercy: kindness or good will towards the miserable and the afflicted, joined with a desire to help them.

The Hebrew word is chesed which I often call lovingkindness. Not sure what point you are trying to make. What is being kind? Having a desire to help? So we could say, I desire to be kind to you, to help you, not have you make sacrifices to me? Again, not sure what point you are making?

The interesting thing about the word "repent" (metanoeō) that is so flippantly thrown around by many, is it actually indicates a "change of mind" and I'd add heart. The mind thing can be easy, but imo, the heart thing is the biggest hurdle. I identify somewhat with A.Paul's words 'I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" (Rom 7:25). "For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" (Rom 7:15).

I would say that repent means to turn, to return. And so if we are missing the mark and repent, we have turned so that now our aim is accurate.

As Luke 16:4 makes plainly obvious the steward did not act out of mercy but self interest. "I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses..." and Jesus makes the point at vs10 that people who are dishonest in a little are dishonest in much and (vs11) no one would entrust to them the true riches.

He acted out of lovingkindness, yes in hopes that he in turn would receive loving kindness. Love others as though they are yourself. Is this not what he was doing?

As vs4 makes plainly obvious he didn't change, he continued to be motivated by self interest, and faked mercy to the rich man's debtors so he could buy himself some friends (as he himself intimates). Interestingly his associates are just as corrupt as he was - evidenced by the fact they went along with his scheme to defraud his master (a common scenario in the modern world).

Jesus never instructed us to not be motivated by self interest. He actually taught us to expand our sense of self to include others. Treat others just as we would ourselves. Treat all as though they are one. And so the shrewd servant did do just as commanded. He acted as though he and the debtors were the same, treating them with loving kindness, seeking loving kindness for himself. Was not the prodigal son who squandered his father's riches seeking lovingkindness for himself as well?

The idea of universal mercy, or as the ESV provides at Hosea 4:4 "steadfast love" is a hard thing to grasp for most people given our consumerist societies, and everybody's focus on self interest. I know a fellow that was doing relief work in Haiti and he told me they had to pay bribes to the police etc to get supplies to the people in need. Typical you might say of a third world nation, but consider the Medicare debate in the USA or the general welfare debates in other countries (plenty of "rich man" and Lazarus stories in the world). Self interest, imo, is what governs the realities of this world but as individuals we can do our bit even if it is just occasionally doing something nice for one person outside our immediate circle of family, friends & neighbours and not expect anything in return (cp. Luke 14:12-14). We may not be able to cure the biologically sick, but we sure can try to cure those sick at heart.

Peace

Again, self interest is not the problem. The problem is our definition of self. It ought to, as Jesus taught, include our neighbors. A disciple of Christ seeks the good of all.

There is a hindu story told. A Teacher asked a student what he would do if he, while eating out of bowl, was approached by a beggar asking him for food. The student spoke out, 'I would give him my bowl of food!'. The Teacher then said, what if at the next meal, the same thing happened? The student replied, 'I would give the second beggar my bowl of food!" The Teacher then asked, 'What if each time you began to eat, a beggar approached for food? Would you each time give your bowl of food away? The student replied, 'Yes I would!' The Teacher said, then you would starve to death!

You get the point, yes? If we always acted selflessly, we would cease to exist, and what good would we be to God then?

And you remember this?

6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”
10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always.

Jesus does not call us to act selflessly, but to act in a way that will bring the greatest benefit to the whole of humanity - which includes us!

Shalom!

Viv

**Vivian** · February 23rd 2011, 01:39 AM