The verse always seemed a little odd--don't you generally earn the wealth, whether unrighteous wealth or other? We went over the section this week, and a couple of more or less ordinary examples came to mind. In Luke this comes after the parable of the prodigal son--aha. A son who isn't trustworthy with a little won't be given a lot, and a son or daughter fills the bill for someone to whom "wealth" (relative to the parent's means) is given.
Another is dating. The woman might ask of the prospect "Is this guy faithful in the little things, or does he trade on his money/good looks/audacity? Is he worthy of the gift of me? (Do I want the gift of him?)"
Or promotions. Or. The "true riches" are responsibilities, not merely resources.
I don't know how I missed that. Maybe the contrast with the parable of the unjust steward overshadowed it.
With the sole exception of the "ironic" interpretation of the Unjust Steward, I have never seen an interpretation of that parable that made any sense at all. I think there is something screwy about the way the text has been translated and handed down.
ReplyDeleteThe note at your link reveals that the word used for wealth is personified "Mammon." The phrase Unrighteous Mammon might have just been an automatic one, contrasting the world to the things of the kingdom. We might use a phrase like "red-hot" passion, or wayfaring stranger that has settled down as a pair in our language. In that case it might have been more the surprise if Jesus had left the word "unrighteous" out. It is one of the inadequacies of language in general, but especially a dead language, that we can't get behind such meanings anymore and can only take the superficial meaning. There might have been a touch of amusement in Jesus's voice when he used the phrase that the audience picked up and readers of the time may have sensed that is gone to us now. Or there could have been an extra sternness in his tone - or a local joke, or a meaningful reference to something he had said two minutes earlier.
ReplyDeleteI always think it is helpful to imagine what such things could be, to flesh out the scriptures and make them real, but to hold such guesses likely, as we may be far off the mark.
Poulin: Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes had a plausible take on that one.
ReplyDeleteThe debtors do not know that the steward is acting on his own. They think that the decreases are thanks to the benevolence of his master. The master's social credit is going to go through the roof now and his neighbors will sing his praises. He cannot disavow his servant's actions without losing face, and will even look odd if he fires the servant for his earlier faults. The fact that the servant appears to be the one entrusted by the master to represent him in his benevolent work tells the debtors that this is a man to value, and if he becomes available...
Yes, James, that is certainly plausible. The problem is that the master, rather than silently acknowledging that he has been outfoxed, actually commends the steward for his underhanded actions. The master's social credit may have gone up, but his bank account is still way down. Keep in mind that in this parable (as in others) the master probably represents God himself. The unjust steward probably represents the Pharisees. Hard to imagine God commending such servants, after they have shortchanged him in order to make themselves popular with the debtors. The ironic interpretation still seems like the best of a set of poor choices.
ReplyDeleteI agree that imagining God commending dishonesty is hard. I'm not sure the unjust steward represents any particular group we have names for--nothing seems to quite fit.
ReplyDeleteA commentary I have suggests something like this: Just like the sons of this world are crafty in using money to make friends in this world, we should use money to make friends in the next. The implication is, we do that by giving to the poor, who will then welcome us when we get to Heaven. Giving to the poor, taking care of the widow and orphan, is how we are faithful with mammon, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteMaybe (my thought here) it echoes being crafty as serpents and innocent as doves.
As to earning, we are just stewards. The Christian recognizes that it all belongs to God, whether we have worked for it or not. If we are just enjoying our worldly goods, aren't we bad stewards?
Then, soon after this is the story of the rich man and poor Lazarus, which again suggests not giving to the poor puts one in a bad place.