First Page
Previous Page
Posted 07/11/2021 04:17 am
thq You say in part:
I certainly hope that you do not see that such an action in anyway justifies taking advantage of the dealer? Two wrongs never make a right.
In any event, your reading of the parable may seem to be the literal (face value) meaning of the story but as in most instances the parable contains a moral story that actually is a denunciation of dishonesty. Remember parables also reveal a truth that may not be obvious to the casual listener.
The setting of this parable is critical here. The preceding parables were clearly addressed to the Pharisees who were in attendance.
The steward is called dishonest as he is. He is a lawbreaker. The commendation is for his shrewdness not for his act of dishonesty. The master in this case, who is about to fire the steward is not a representation of a positive individual like in most parables where God is implied, but rather he is a wealthy man who is not about to give money away. He is just the type of person that is seen as a lover of his money. Jesus is addressing a mixed audience of believers (disciples) and Pharisees who he is lambasting for their love of money.
You need to view the context of the statement not just the statement in isolation. The ultimate point of the story is the Love of money is the root of evil not that the money itself is evil, but that it is better to give money away than to gain money in an unjust manner.
The second part of the quote contains the real condemnation because in it is a comparison between the "sons of this world" (evil people, non-believers, Pharasees) and the "sons of light" (followers of the way, the believers). So placing the dishonest steward in the ranks of the sons of this world condemns him while the less shrewd sons of light are actually being commended. Shrewdness in dealings is a sign of the love of money beyond our fellow man.
The third sentence is the most difficult to understand on an isolated literal level, but in context it is apparent that Jesus now addresses his followers as well as the Pharisees using a comparative analysis of the situation. He draws out the comparison of the intent of the steward who is attempting to curry favor with people in this world versus the disciples who he indicates in many places should give away their wealth now, so that they can spend eternity with the people they have helped.
There is an equally plausible interpretation that the concluding statement could be taken as a sarcastic view of where the steward will end up - sharing the homes of the unjust in their eternal destination of hades. I personally do not prefer that meaning but I can see it is possible.
The explanation that the steward was simply unburdening the debtors of usury that had been demanded by his equally guilty master (and that he did it as a way of punishing his master) is not actually in the story but is a later interpretation used by some more fundamentalist leaning authors to attempt to explain the literal word by word meaning without resorting to a text critical approach which they frown upon. An example of such a reading would be the NASB revised edition where an explanation similar to yours is mentioned.
As I said above, I zealously choose to defend my worldview against the views of this secular world that believe reaping an unwarranted gain is acceptable in business. I believe such money is an unjust gain and as my grandfather was also quick to say "Unjust gains never bring any good to anyone."
Your examples of dealer Overstock are entirely correct as long as you discovered that was the actual motivation of the dealer. Some dealers do that intentionally. However, by asking him if he made an error, I would suggest that it justifies the purchase at a lower price. A failure to ask and to confirm his intent leaves the possibility that it was an error on his part and that renders the gain unjust. I value absolute honesty far more than money.
Quote:
It would be analogous to a store employee intentionally dropping a gold coin into the junk box.
It would be analogous to a store employee intentionally dropping a gold coin into the junk box.
I certainly hope that you do not see that such an action in anyway justifies taking advantage of the dealer? Two wrongs never make a right.
In any event, your reading of the parable may seem to be the literal (face value) meaning of the story but as in most instances the parable contains a moral story that actually is a denunciation of dishonesty. Remember parables also reveal a truth that may not be obvious to the casual listener.
The setting of this parable is critical here. The preceding parables were clearly addressed to the Pharisees who were in attendance.
The steward is called dishonest as he is. He is a lawbreaker. The commendation is for his shrewdness not for his act of dishonesty. The master in this case, who is about to fire the steward is not a representation of a positive individual like in most parables where God is implied, but rather he is a wealthy man who is not about to give money away. He is just the type of person that is seen as a lover of his money. Jesus is addressing a mixed audience of believers (disciples) and Pharisees who he is lambasting for their love of money.
You need to view the context of the statement not just the statement in isolation. The ultimate point of the story is the Love of money is the root of evil not that the money itself is evil, but that it is better to give money away than to gain money in an unjust manner.
The second part of the quote contains the real condemnation because in it is a comparison between the "sons of this world" (evil people, non-believers, Pharasees) and the "sons of light" (followers of the way, the believers). So placing the dishonest steward in the ranks of the sons of this world condemns him while the less shrewd sons of light are actually being commended. Shrewdness in dealings is a sign of the love of money beyond our fellow man.
The third sentence is the most difficult to understand on an isolated literal level, but in context it is apparent that Jesus now addresses his followers as well as the Pharisees using a comparative analysis of the situation. He draws out the comparison of the intent of the steward who is attempting to curry favor with people in this world versus the disciples who he indicates in many places should give away their wealth now, so that they can spend eternity with the people they have helped.
There is an equally plausible interpretation that the concluding statement could be taken as a sarcastic view of where the steward will end up - sharing the homes of the unjust in their eternal destination of hades. I personally do not prefer that meaning but I can see it is possible.
The explanation that the steward was simply unburdening the debtors of usury that had been demanded by his equally guilty master (and that he did it as a way of punishing his master) is not actually in the story but is a later interpretation used by some more fundamentalist leaning authors to attempt to explain the literal word by word meaning without resorting to a text critical approach which they frown upon. An example of such a reading would be the NASB revised edition where an explanation similar to yours is mentioned.
As I said above, I zealously choose to defend my worldview against the views of this secular world that believe reaping an unwarranted gain is acceptable in business. I believe such money is an unjust gain and as my grandfather was also quick to say "Unjust gains never bring any good to anyone."
Your examples of dealer Overstock are entirely correct as long as you discovered that was the actual motivation of the dealer. Some dealers do that intentionally. However, by asking him if he made an error, I would suggest that it justifies the purchase at a lower price. A failure to ask and to confirm his intent leaves the possibility that it was an error on his part and that renders the gain unjust. I value absolute honesty far more than money.
