Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

The shrewd manager in Luke 16 discounted the debts in order to win favor with the debtors. What hermeneutic principle should be used to determine if this was an evil act, or just good business?

share|improve this question
Referencing the closed topic "the shrewd manager in luke 16" this is an attempt at rewording the question, just for practice, to fit the format of the site. "This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion." – Bob Jones Oct 22 '11 at 18:32
If I am understanding things, doctrinal questions are off limits, but questions soliciting the hermeneutic used for a given exegesis or doctrine are well within the limits. – Bob Jones Oct 22 '11 at 18:33
Note that this parable has been discussed on the Christianity SE site. – Wikis Oct 23 '11 at 20:42
Yeah. Over there it was asked for an interpretation, and a bunch were given. This is an experiment to see if rewording it asking specifically for the hermeneutic to apply gives a different result. I suspect that most people cannot discern which principles are being applied when, so the question should eliminate casual conversation about it and focus it upon the methods used. I will make an attempt at it to see what comes up. – Bob Jones Oct 23 '11 at 21:57

2 Answers

up vote 0 down vote

Using Drash in Sensus Plenior:

  1. Scriptures from various sources are linked together by common theme, similar structure, or even as little as shared words and phrases.
  2. The various scriptures are taken as transparencies which overlay each other to produce one picture.
  3. The context of each overlay may be shared with another.
  4. The meaning of the compilation is discerned, using a Christological frame of reference.

Linked portions of scripture:

  1. The story of Jacob
  2. The prodigal son
  3. The shrewd manager

How they are linked:

  1. The actor takes what belongs to another.
  2. He spreads it around
  3. He is commended or rewarded.

Jacob took the inheritance and ran away. Upon his return he forfeits all by placing all his belongings ahead of him as gifts to dissipate Esau's anger before Jacob arrives. He is welcomed back.

The prodigal takes the inheritance before his father is dead. He spreads it all around until there is nothing. He is welcomed back and given more as a son.

The manager takes what belongs to his master, spreads it around, then is apparently commended for doing so by Jesus.

Interpretation by various voices of sensus plenior:

In the voice of the judge which asks for a moral determination:

All things that we have, no matter what the source, ultimately belong to God, and are not to enslave us in this world, but to be profligately spread around so that we return to the Father empty handed, as Christ gave all and was fully spent on the cross.

As such the merchant is not a human merchant who is being cheated, but represents God who owns all things. The shrewd merchant was freeing himself from the entrapment of the world system.

In the voice of the prophet which speaks of the life of Christ:

The Eternal Son of God left his high estate and emptied himself in the kenosis. He took his inheritance and "squandered it" dying alone on the cross. He was accepted back by the Father in resurrection.

share|improve this answer
This is sample of the kind of answer which can be systematically flushed out by discussion, by adding other linked portions, and discussing details of each as they overlay. – Bob Jones Oct 23 '11 at 22:28
My reading is that Jacob sent his belongings in front as a gift to turn away Esau's anger, and sent his family back over the stream to protect them. This is a 'shadow' of the propitiation on the cross if you like? – Jack Douglas♦ Oct 24 '11 at 8:07
That's cool. I have only done sod for the wrestling. The sketch was from memory. It almost looks like Esau brought them back. Ambiguity is the source of riddle. Esau and Jacob together are a picture of Christ the same as Cain and Abel. Cain and Esau represent Christ in the flesh before the cross, and Abel and Jacob - him after the cross being fruitful and multiplying. (Seth was a 'replacement' for Abel and takes his place in the story indicating the resurrection) It may be propitiation in the voice of the priest. If we do the word by word unpacking it should be clear. – Bob Jones Oct 24 '11 at 13:23
up vote 1 down vote

Abstract

The context of the passage shows that the manager's actions are both dishonest and shrewd. The literal meaning of the text is the primary meaning.

The parable calls the manager both shrewd and dishonest:

“The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. 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.

“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. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? 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.”—Luke 16:8-13 (ESV)

Certainly, reducing the debt owed to the manager's master was dishonest. (It's not dishonest because discounting of debt is and/or was wrong, but because discounting debt on behalf of another for personal gain is a white-collar crime.) However, even the manager can see that it was shrewd. From the manager's point of view, it was good business since he had nothing to lose—not his job and not the property that is owed. But the commendation is only for the shrewdness of the decision.

The main thrust of the parable is actually the contrast between "unrighteous wealth" and "true riches". Perhaps the most famous rewording of the parable is:

He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.—Jim Elliot (October 28, 1949 journal entry)

share|improve this answer
1  
Discounting is a business process that happens all the time, where one will take less money earlier so that he can have the cash on hand instead of getting it later. It's not a dishonest process, but one worked out between both parties for mutual benefit. – Lance Roberts Mar 2 '12 at 0:12
@Lance: Good point. I've clarified the answer to point out that the manager was essentially embezzling funds. – Jon Ericson♦ Mar 2 '12 at 0:52

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.