Luke 16 brings together two parables, one is the story of a shrewd manager who is identified at first as dishonest but ends up commended. The second story tells us the fate of a rich man and the beggar who lived at his gate. Both parables are unique to Luke. Sandwiched between them is some teaching about what our attitude to wealth should be and this is linked with our attitude to the Law exemplified by the Law on adultery, divorce and remarriage. The point on material wealth, that you cannot serve two masters is made in Matthew as well as Luke at Matthew 6:24 where it forms part of the Sermon on the Mount. There it relates to Jesus’ exhortation to build up treasure, or grow your investment portfolio in Heaven not on earth. The parables make the same point in narrative form. The two parables therefore can be seen as shedding light on the instructions in between.
23.1 Read Luke 16:1-9
Jesus tells a parable about a steward, responsible for managing his master’s estate. He is accused of mismanagement. This is about wilful dishonesty rather than incompetence. His boss summons him in to give an account. It seems that he is given time to do this, however, he expects to be fired (v1-2).
The man realises that he is unlikely to find alternative work and so he sets about a plan. He calls in his master’s debtors and begins settling their accounts in their favour, changing the ledger so that they owe less. He reckons that when he is fired, they will be grateful and look after him. This may be seen as dishonest in terms of his relationship to his master, however it is also possible that he was correcting things by removing the interest from the charges which should not have been charged.[1] He is also taking a calculated risk because the reduced debt also means that his commission is reduced(v6-7).[2]
Exactly where the parable ends is disputed with some commentators ending it after verse 8a. On that reading, Jesus says that the master or Lord on finding this out, although no doubt angry at being defrauded again, actually commends the manager. He recognises his shrewdness and Jesus suggests that this kind of shrewd character is more typical of worldly people. They know how the world operates. God’s people (those of the light) often do not (v8). However, some people have taken the parable to end at verse 7 in which case, it is Jesus himself who comments and commends the manager.[3] My view is that it makes most sense for the parable to finish in v8 as the flow makes most sense with Jesus continuing to speak about the Lord in the parable.
Jesus’ advice, or application from the story, is that we too should be shrewd. The manager used the opportunities available to him to build friendships. We too should use our opportunities including money and possessions to build friendships that will last beyond life here and now and into eternity (v9).
23.2 Are dishonesty and materialism commended?
Does this mean that Jesus is commending the “shrewd steward”? This has led to discussion at times about how it might be possible to justify the man’s unethical behaviour. It is possible of course that the man’s dishonesty applies only to the point up until his dismissal. It may be argued that if he was removing the interest and ending an act of usury then he acted righteously. I’m not persuaded by this argument because it relies far too much on second guessing the intended meaning. Additionally, it begs the question as to why the man had not acted sooner. Why, if it was only his own impending destitution lead to his change of heart, would this be considered righteous?
I take the view that it is not Jesus who commends the man but the boss. The sense then is that he recognises that his employee has got one over him. Moreover, we need to determine what the actual lesson is that Jesus wants us to learn. The lesson that Jesus is drawing out is a simply one. We are not to learn from the manager’s business practices and ethics. Rather, we are simply to learn from the way in which he makes decisions whilst he has the opportunity with an eye on the long term future.
In the same way, Jesus is not commending the pursuit of wealth so much as saying that we should make the use of opportunities but see them from the perspective of eternal values and opportunities. In other words, we should look at the good things now and see how they can be used for the extension of God’s kingdom.
23.3 Read Luke 16:10-18
Jesus’s comments about being trusted with small things before greater things should be read in the light of his advice in verse 9. What does it mean to be trustworthy with worldly wealth? Surely it means using it for the benefit of God’s kingdom. (v10-11) There is practical advice here about showing yourself to be trustworthy. However, I don’t think we are meant to pick apart the meaning of being trusted with someone else’s property before being trusted with your own too much. Perhaps there is a sense in which in this life we are seen as looking after what is Christ’s and so in that sense on loan. However, we look forward to eternity when everything becomes permanent (v12).
When it comes to money and material wealth, the question is to do with mastery, do we steward/control it or does it own/steward/control us? Jesus insists that we cannot have two masters, it is either wealth or God. This should make it clear that materialism isn’t condoned here. Rather, the point is about how we live now showing who we serve now and the eternal implications (v13).
Jesus’ words expose the hearts of the Pharisees. They pretended to be pious but in fact loved money. The word used indicates fondness for silver but may have a wider meaning of greed.[4] We might say that they were doing the opposite of what Jesus says, using the eternal treasures of God’s Word and their relationship to God’s covenant people in order to build up their own material wealth. Their response, instead of being convicted is to sneer and try to dismiss Jesus’ words as silly (v14). Jesus’ response to them is that they may be desperate to justify themselves but God knows their hearts and it is his verdict that matters. What humans approve and honour, God rejects and sees as abominable (v15).
Crucial for the Pharisees are two things, first, they need to understand the times that they live in. The kingdom of God has arrived, its imminent arrival announced by John. The Law and Prophets were proclaimed until then. We are not meant to see this as a distinct era or dispensation as though the problem with the Pharisees was that their views belonged with the prior dispensation. It’s not that we have moved from the age of Law to the age of grace. Rather, the law and Prophets were proclaimed until John because they were pointing towards the good news of the kingdom and fulfilled in it. Now the kingdom has arrived and everyone is desperate to get in (v16). However, because the Law and Prophets were part of God’s redemptive purpose, pointing to the Gospel of the Kingdom, this means that Jesus fulfils rather than abolishes the Law. Or as Jesus puts it here, the world is more likely to end that one small bit of the Law to be erased out. A modern equivalent might be the phrase “hell will freeze over” (v17).
Jesus then offers an example of a Law that has not been erased, the command not to commit adultery. I think the reasonable inference here is that the Pharisees have been guilty of this. Jesus says that those who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery. They cannot break their marriage covenant because someone better seems to have come along (v18).
23.4 Divorce and Remarriage
Whilst Luke’s purpose for including Jesus’ comments about divorce here are not intended to set out extensive ethical teaching on that subject but rather illustrate his larger point about the Law, questions will no doubt arise about what the Biblical position is on divorce and re-marriage.
The issue is picked up throughout the Gospels. In Mark, Jesus responds to a question from the Pharisees on the subject.[5] His disciples quiz him further later. This is Mark’s summary of the conversation (Mark 10:10-12).
10 Later, when he was alone with his disciples in the house, they brought up the subject again. 11 He told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries someone else, she commits adultery.”
This is the logical conclusion to what Jesus has said about Divorce. His argument is that God is the one who has joined a husband and wife together as one. They therefore become one flesh and so, this is not something that can simply be set apart by humans. This means that powerful men should not simply treat women as chattels to be passed about. That’s why the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24, even as it makes an allowance for hard hearts in permitting divorce puts restrictions in place to control it.
But if divorce is not meant to happen, then this means that the divorce certificate is invalid before God. The couple are still married and so, they are committing adultery, being unfaithful to their original husband/wife if they remarry again.
That would put a very strict rule in place. However, Matthew’s account gives us a little bit more detail regarding Jesus’ position. Matthew’s report reads:
And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful
Mark is quite strict in his use of space, and so he doesn’t give us every detail. As I mentioned previously, I don’t think that his aim is to give us chapter and verse on divorce case law. Rather, he simply wants to draw the point that people who are legalistic end up putting up barriers to others even as they, themselves are breaking God’s Law.
Matthew has a bit more space and so introduces an exception clause where the wife has committed “porneia” -sexual immorality or unfaithfulness. It is worth observing further that the exception although focused on husbands here because they are the ones being addressed works two ways and applies to both wives and husbands.
Additionally, I believe that wrapped up in that concept of “unfaithfulness” are a number of ways in which it is possible to be unfaithful and so break the marriage covenant. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 talks about husbands who desert their wives and the OT Law also raises the possibility of neglect being covered. Unfaithfulness can include failure to maintain the covenant responsibilities in marriage and seeking pleasure and gratification through abuse of the relationship rather than through the appropriate means within the marriage covenant.
So, whilst, [6]there are different views among Christians about if and when divorce and remarriage are permissible, my understanding of Scripture is that divorce should be rare. However, there are specific situations where a husband or wife may be set free to divorce and remarry again.
I think the reasoning can be summed up as follows. First, that the one who causes the divorce is guilty of breaking the marriage covenant. Even if they are not the one who takes legal action to formalise the divorce, they have in effect done so in practice. Secondly, that the purpose of divorce is to set the person completely free. It is reasonable then that the innocent party should be completely free to move on with their life. Thirdly, that the proper consequence for breaking the OT Law had been the death penalty. We might conclude, in line with Romans 7, that the one guilty of unfaithfulness is in a technical sense, legally dead with regards to the marriage and therefore has no claim on the relationship. The innocent party is truly free to begin again without guilt, shame or fear.
24.5 Read Luke 16:19-31
Jesus tells a parable about two people. There’s an unnamed, wealthy man and a beggar named Lazarus who sits at his gate. One gets the impression that the rich man shows little interest in or concern for Lazarus. The beggar is in a pitiful state. Echoing the description of the lost son in Luke 15, he is described as “longing to eat” but this time it is the rich man’s food (v19-20).
The two men die and the rich man finds himself in Hades. He is in torment. He looks and sees Abraham, a long way off. Lazarus is with him. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus over to bring him comfort. Abraham says that this is not possible. First, Lazarus had suffered in life and so was now receiving comfort. The rich man had enjoyed life and received his reward and comfort there. Secondly, it isn’t practically possible because there is an uncrossable chasm that has been placed between them.
Failing in his first request, the rich man now asks if Lazarus can go and warn his family of the eternal judgement awaiting them. This too is turned down by Abraham. Sufficient warning has been given them in the Law and Prophets. The rich man argues that someone coming back from the dead might make a difference but Abraham insists that if the man’s brothers won’t listen to God’s Word in the Law and Prophets then they are unlikely to believe in the sign of one returning from the dead.
24.6. Hell, hades and Gehenna
We are perhaps not meant to think in terms of “Heaven and Hell” in the kind of way that these have been envisaged through much of church history. It’s important of course to distinguish the wider doctrinal teaching of Scripture on those topics from how Jesus might employ terms and images in a way that his immediate audience would understand them. However, the primary purpose of these verses is not to introduce us to the topic of Hell.
The rich man is in torment. The Greek Word Hades tends to be used to describe what Jews would have referred to Sheol. It’s the place of the dead, generally regardless of the life they have lived and their final destination. In that sense I think it is reasonable to assume that Lazarus, Abraham and the rich man are all pictured in Sheol/Hades. However, the chasm between the righteous and unrighteous demonstrates that there is a difference between them. Lazarus is experiencing comfort and blessing. He is with Abraham indicating vindication or justification, he is part of God’s covenant people. the rich man is excluded from Abraham’s presence and so banished from God’s covenant people after death. Notice that this develops Jesus’ earlier point, he has failed to use his worldy wealth to cultivate eternal friendships. He now experiences curse and judgement through torment and he must face this alone without comfort. Although the word is not used here, the concept of a pace of specific torment was present in Jewish thought and the word Gehenna used to refer to it.
24.7 There must be more than this
The two stories that top and tail Luke 16 offer a stark contrast. The steward is aware that a day of reckoning is coming and he risks exile, isolation and destitution. He invests the wealth and powerat his disposal now for long term benefit. The rich man fails to do this, he enjoys the material goods of life selfishly with no thought to others and no thought about his longer term, in fact his eternal destiny.
These two parables inform the teaching in the middle of the chapter. How are we to live life now? We are to live wisely. True wisdom means being alert to the bigger picture of eternity. This will affect how we use the good things given to us. Will we steward them will in the light of God’s Word?
[1] Morris, Luke, 263-264.
[2] Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1341.
[3] Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1340.
[4] BDAG, 1056.
[5] Mark 10:1-9.
[6] Matthew 19:9.
Faithroots 