I am about to (very tentatively) tackle probably the most downright bewildering parable that Jesus ever spoke: the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-13). For some (or perhaps many), the intended meaning of what Jesus was actually saying seems so mysterious and obscure that it is almost pointless to even try to understand the thing. But I don’t think this parable is hopeless territory! I want to share with people my way of coming to at least a tentative foundation for understanding this parable. I do think that by reading the Parable of the Shrewd Manager within the greater context of Jesus’ other parables, his ministry, his greater vision of what he was up to, and the interpretive structure of Luke’s gospel as a whole, we the readers can set up some basic foundation stones from which to build our understanding of this parable. No matter how shaky the timber of this ‘interpretive building’ might be, the foundation stones of understanding can, I believe, remain relatively secure.

I should say upfront what my basic interpretation of this parable is (since that’s how a classic thesis goes, right?). When I read the parable of the Shrewd Manager, I don’t primarily see it as simply a lesson about money. Instead, any message Jesus was teaching about money fits within a much bigger framework about the coming judgment of God on Jerusalem realized in AD 70. I believe the parable of the Shrewd Manager is, at its core, a prophetic warning directed towards the corrupt Jewish leadership in Palestine and Jerusalem, announcing to them (in a very unexpected way) that their time of power will soon be up—that God is going to come and dramatically turn the tables of power among his covenant people. If these Jewish leaders are wise, they should heed this warning and prepare for this immanent power change and their ‘dethronement.’

But I will walk you through how I come to that conclusion, since most might be confused about how I even got there.

First, I will cautiously set a few foundation stones with much labour.

Secondly, building upon those foundation stones, I will proceed to erect an ‘interpretive building’ and see if the structure can stand.

Before we go forward though, I encourage you to read the Parable of the Shrew Manager yourself. Do it! Right now! It’s found in Luke 16:1-13. It should only take a few minutes.

Did you do it? I hope so, because I’m going to go on ahead assuming you have!

Now, as I go forward, the major principle I am going to be using to interpret this parable is a classic one in biblical exegesis and interpretation: Let the clearer passages of Scripture shed light on the less clear ones. This is my whole strategy for this parable. So with that in mind, let us begin by establishing some foundation stones for understanding this parable.

FOUNDATION STONE #1:

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager must be understood within the same framework as similar parables about masters and managers. The most important (and most clear) of these parables is the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. This parable will therefore set the tone for interpreting all the rest.

While I do recognize that the Parable of the Shrewd Manager is a discussion about money in some sense, I would urge everyone not to see this parable as just some (rather bizarre) teaching on personal finances. I think the parable is to be primarily understood alongside other parables that have similar structures—those parables I will call ‘Manager-Master’ parables. These types of parables that Jesus told appear to have all had the same basic framework of a Master who is leaving and entrusts his Managers or Slaves to take care of his property. The Master then returns to his property and judges the corruption and wickedness of his Managers or Slaves. This next point is very important: I am working from the assumption (until persuasively proven otherwise) that all these ‘Manager-Master’ parables Jesus told refer to the same thing/event; they are just told in different ways.

There are number of these ‘Manager-Master’ parables in Luke’s gospel:

The Parable of the Faithful and Prudent Manager (Luke 12:41-48)

The Master seeks to establish a manager for his estate when he returns. The Master is delayed. When the Mater returns, The slaves that are hard at work when the Master returns are blessed (and promoted), while the slaves that are corrupt and unjust are cut off.

The Parable of the Ten Pounds (Luke 19:11-27)

A Nobleman is leaving the country and entrusts ten slaves with with ten pounds each. The Nobleman returns and promotes the slaves that used the pounds well, and punishes the one who squandered his pounds, killing those “who did not want [him] to be king over them.” (v. 27)

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Luke 20:9-19)

The Owner of the vineyard leases his vineyard to a series of tenants who act corruptly by beating the slaves and even killing the Son of the Master in order to gain the inheritance for themselves. The Tenants are judged by the Master and the vineyard is given to the charge of others.

Now, my foundation for understanding all of these similar parables is the most clear one: the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Luke 20:9-19). Since these are all ‘Master-Manager’ parables, I will proceed assuming (as mentioned above) that Jesus was consistent in his communication and intended them all to be talking about the same predicted event. Any differences they have are because Jesus was wanting to emphasis different points about the same general event at different times and to different people.

The basic interpretation and meaning of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is clear because the passage gives us the interpretation, and will therefore help shed light on the others:

1. The man who planted the vineyard = God 2. The vineyard/God’s property = Israel (cf. Isaiah 5).

3. The wicked Tenants = the scribes and chief priests (made clear in 20:19). 4. The Son = Jesus, the true Son/King and rejected cornerstone of the new temple. 5. Finally, based on these things, I tend to conclude that the three slaves who were sent and rejected by the Tenants before the arrival of the Son probably represent previous prophets and messengers (like John the Baptist) who were rejected by the Jewish leaders before Jesus.

So, I find it unarguable to conclude anything other than the fact that Jesus told the parable of the Wicked Tenants to confront the very present first-century Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and warn them of the very imminent destruction of their corrupt temple-based power (AD 70). Jesus was telling them that their time was up and their lease was over. They once had charge over God’s people but their corruption and wickedness have led to their judgment. The true King of Israel, the Son, the Heir, has arrived, and while they will reject him and have him crucified, he will become the foundation stone of God’s new Temple. God will then “destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others” (20:16). This parable was predicting both the death of Jesus but also the judgment that would come upon the Temple establishment in AD 70 by the Roman legions as a response to Jerusalem’s rejection of their king.

Therefore, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is clearly a prophetic parable about God coming to turn the tables on the Jerusalem elites in a dramatic act of divine judgment, not in some distant event, but in that very generation. This judgment looked like Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection and the fall of Jerusalem four decades later in AD 70.

Now, this is where a lot of people might disagree with me, which I understand. I tend to think that, since the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is about the four decades between AD 30-70, all other parables that take a similar shape (Manager-Master parables) should also be interpreted within that same framework. That means that the Parable of the Faithful and Prudent Manager and the Parable of the Ten Pounds, as crazy as it might seem to those who naturally associate these with the ‘second coming’ are actually cryptic ways of Jesus talking about his imminent journey to Jerusalem, his vindication in his resurrection and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

How is this possible? Well, that leads to my next point:

FOUNDATION STONE #2:

Stories about a Master going away, leasing his land to Managers/Tenants, and then returning to judge and set things in order is an Old Testament story about Yahweh leaving the Temple at the exile (586 BC) and promising to one day return to Zion, judge Israel’s wicked leaders/shepherds, and establish his kingdom in Jerusalem. Jesus told these stories to describe what was happening and going to happen at his first coming (or the same generation of his first coming), not what we would call his second coming.

I have to give credit where credit is due; the reality of what I just wrote above, while clearly found in the Old and New Testaments, has been made much more apparent and clear to me through the scholarly work of biblical scholar N.T. Wright. Essentially, the point I’m making is that when we think of someone leaving and then returning to set things right, we tend to automatically think of the second coming of Jesus (who left and will return). But, in reality, this type of hope was one the Jews of Jesus’ days were already expecting and awaiting a conclusion to long before Jesus ever arrived.

Yahweh’s glory and presence had left Jerusalem since the Babylonian Exile (see Ezekiel 10-11). Ever since the exile, the Jewish people were anticipating God’s glorious return. Isaiah wrote:

“beautiful are the feet of the messenger who announces: ‘Your God reigns’…for in plain sight they see the return of Yahweh to Zion!” (Is 52:7-8).

Ezekiel paints of vivid promise of the future where:

“the glory of the LORD [will] fill the temple” once again (Ezek 43:1-5).

And if that isn’t clear enough, Zechariah, in no uncertain terms says:

“I, the LORD, will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem” (Zech 8:3).

Yahweh had left Zion. Israel was expecting his return.

But here is the part that is crucial to understanding the Parable of the Shrewd Manager: this moment meant a deep refining of Israel. As the prophet Malachi wrote:

“[God will come] like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap…he will purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver.” (Mal 3:3).

When God comes to restore his people, the wicked and corrupt shepherds of Israel will be judged and the true Shepherd (God) will come to take his throne. As God says through the prophet Ezekiel:

“Because the shepherds have fed themselves and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD…I am against the shepherds…I will put a stop to their feeding the sheep…I myself will rescue my sheep from their mouths, so that they may not be food for them.” (Ezek 34:7-10).

That is why, when Jesus tells these stories of a Master coming to judge the wicked managers over his property (Israel), there is always a message of judgment against these corrupt leaders at the end of each parable story. Simply put, these parables always end in judgement. It is a central part of the story, if not the main point. Take a look:

The Slave who beats the other slaves because the Master is delayed is cut off (12:46)

The Slave who did not use his Pound looses his Pound (19:24) and those who didn’t want the Master to be king are slaughtered in his presence (19:27)

The Wicked Tenants are destroyed and the vineyard entrusted to others (20:16)

The Jerusalem/Jewish leaders had been ‘leased’ God’s property (his covenant people) and they had squandered their responsibility in corruption and misguidance. In the promise of God’s return to Jerusalem (beheld in Jesus and the Holy Spirit), they are judged and ‘dethroned’ from their positions of leadership, seen most publicly in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. These ‘Manager-Master’ parables are Jesus’ way of communicating this prophetic dimension of his ministry, and how he, as the true anointed King, fits within that larger Old Testament prediction.

TENTATIVE TIMBER: INTERPRETATION

So, let’s review quickly the basic points I laid out above:

Stone #1) I believe it makes most sense to see Manager-Master Parables as referring to the same events but just in different ways. It would take more evidence for me to conclude that such similar parables are talking about radically different things (e.g. first coming with Parable of the Wicked Tenants and second coming with the rest). The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is the bedrock for my understanding of all these Manager-Master parables.

Stone #2) The Manager-Master Parables speak about the well-known Old Testament story of God leaving Zion and promising to return to restore and judge the corrupt leaders. Jesus told these stories to communicate the prophetic meaning of his journey to Jerusalem and the fall of Jerusalem 40 years later.

Phew, we’re almost there. All this leads me to conclude the following: the Parable of the Shrewd Manager is, by my judgment, most likely about the events surrounding Jesus’ death/resurrection and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The parable, while certainly being about greed and the love of money, primarily served as a prophetic warning from Jesus about God coming to turn the tables on the Jewish leadership in Palestine. In response to that warning, Jesus gives advice about how the corrupt leaders, such as the money-loving Pharisees, should prepare for their immanent ‘dethronement’ from power.

So how does this all work?

Luke makes it clear that, while Jesus was talking to his disciples (Lk 16:1), the Pharisees, “who were lovers of money” were listening (v. 14). While the disciples are the direct listeners of the parable, the corrupt Pharisees were the ones offended and denounced in the telling of it. Luke seems to intentionally want to make this clear.

Here is my rough breakdown of the parable.

(16:1-2) Charges Brought against the Manager

(1) “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. (2) So [the Master] summoned [the Manager] and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give an accounting for your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer”

Interpretation: Unless there is some extremely good reason for me to be convinced otherwise, I cannot interpret these sentences in any other way than that they were Jesus’ way of talking about God returning to Zion to judge the corrupt leaders in Israel. Any time Jesus talks about Masters bringing Managers to account, this is what he seems to be talking about. To interpret this passage differently would require much more weight of evidence than I see available, in my opinion. Therefore, the basic framework of the parable is about how the corrupt Jewish leaders have been found wanting and, just as Ezekiel and Malachi said, these leaders would soon be deposed because of their wickedness and greed. This dethronement of the corrupt leaders over God’s people happened both in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and in AD 70 at the fall of the Temple.

(16:3-7) The Manager acts Shrewdly

(3) “Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. (4) I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ (5) So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ (6) He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ (7) Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’

Interpretation: This is a warning for all in Israel (hence why it was spoken to the disciples), but really only those who had corrupt riches and power (like the Pharisees, the “lovers of money” and by extension the scribes and Sadducees at the Temple) needed to heed it. Jesus is predicting judgment that would come against the ‘squandering managers’ over his property in Palestine, a judgment realized in AD 70. Those wielding this corrupt power should heed these warnings of Jesus about this judgment and use the time they have left to utilize their power (and money) to make friends, because soon their power will be stripped away.

This parable is both a warning about coming judgment as well as a cryptic way of telling those in charge to get their act together and prepare for it.

NOTE: All my interpretations from this point onwards are more tentative, so I could easily be wrong in what follows. I base them off of what has come before and the foundation I have sought to build.

(16:8a)

(8) “the Master commended the dishonest (unrighteous) manager because he acted shrewdly…”

Interpretation: Now, I don’t think the message of the parable is that God likes shrewd people who do dishonest things. I think the message of the parable is a warning about the impending ‘dethronement’ of the corrupt leaders in Israel and Jesus’ warning to those in power to prepare for such a ‘dethronement’ (or an ‘accounting’ as the parable puts it). So here, my best guess is that Jesus is essentially saying “it will be wise for you to take this time before full judgment comes (AD 70) to start using the very unrighteousness you profited from in your reign to prepare for your own downfall. You still have the position of manager, although your time is soon up, use that position to set things in order. If you do this, you will be commended by not being caught up in the tragic downfall of others”

(16:8b-9)

(8) “…for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. (9) And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into their eternal home”

Interpretation: The contrast between children of this age and the children of light appears to be a classic Jewish way of talking about those people living in the present evil age (cf. Gal 1:4) vs. those in the future who will live in the age to come (for shinning like light, cf. Dan 12:3; Phil 2:15). This fits in with what has been said before since, in Jewish thinking, the coming of the true King and the dethronement of Israel’s corrupt leaders at God’s return to Zion is a marker of the transition from the Present Evil Age into God’s promised Age to Come! While my understanding of this statement is still unclear, I think it might be Jesus’ way of denouncing the corrupt, greedy Jewish leaders as ‘the children of this age’ who are naturally shrewd. The children of light (those of the age to come) are different.

He then proceeds to give advice to his hearers (who really are the Pharisees in the background; v. 14), that they should start using their ‘soon-to-expire’ power to make friends so that they might have eternal homes—probably language indicating the eternal dwellings of the Age to Come, which belongs to Jesus and his kingdom. The leadership’s power base is short-lived, but eternal dwelling places are a possibility only if they heed the warning and act in preparation. This invitation to secure ‘eternal homes’ essentially becomes a way to calling the leaders to get on board with the Kingdom that Jesus is inaugurating. It is, in the simplest terms, a call to follow him and his movement.

(16:10-13)

(10) “Whoever is faithful in very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. (11) If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust you the true wishes? (12) And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own? (13) No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

Interpretation: This section is also tricky. There clearly is the ultimate teaching about the love of money, to which the Pharisees were offended by. But before that final point, it says that those who are unfaithful with little will not be entrusted with more. Someone who is unfaithful with ‘dishonest wealth’ will not be entrusted with true riches (v. 11). Someone who is unfaithful with what belongs to another will not be given their own (v. 12). The final one of these conditional clauses (v. 12) is the easiest to fit in with the overall parable. The leaders among the Jews in Palestine were found to be unfaithful managers—unfaithful with overseeing the flock of Israel, the property of Yahweh. They were unfaithful with what belonged to another (the Master, Yahweh, the one who entrusted them with the property of Israel). Because this is true, they will not inherit the promised restoration Yahweh had for them; they will not “be given their own,” which I think is language for the promised inheritance of God’s people (Age to Come language, realized in Jesus). The previous conditional statement (v. 11) probably fits into that general scheme, saying that the Jewish leaders who do not take advantage during this period of warning before judgment and therefore do not act wisely with their ‘dishonest wealth’ to prepare for the predicted judgment (AD 70), will not inherit the true riches God’s kingdom has to offer them. The passage ends with a general teaching about love of money vs. love of God, which is immediately applicable to the corrupt leaders who need to respond to this warning and advice.

CONCLUSION: DOES THE STRUCTURE STAND?

So, that’s about as good as I can do with this parable. For some people, perhaps this interpretation is still too ‘out-there’ for you. I mean, I haven’t really heard this sort of interpretation of this parable that much, so I might be completely wrong. But it’s okay if you don’t agree. I mean, we are talking about one of the most confusing parables in the gospels that people seldom agree upon. People are bound to encounter ideas about it that they never thought of before and that they find weird. You might disagree with me completely, and that is okay.

But ultimately, I hope I’ve done what I set out to do: share with people how I go about understanding this parable. I might be wrong in some of my final conclusions, but I have sought to do the best I could in using what is clear in scripture to illuminate what is unclear. I have started with similar ‘Manager-Merchant’ parables and interpreted them in light of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (a conclusion others might already not agree with because it means me interpreting things people often think talk about the second coming to be, in fact, talking about the first). Nonetheless, within this context I sought to situate the Parable of the Shrewd Manager and work from what is clear to what is less clear.

The final outcome is a parable that Jesus told which spoke of his approaching journey to Jerusalem and its connection to the looming judgment that would come for Jerusalem in AD 70. This future event would be a judgment on the Jewish leaders and the corrupt Jerusalem establishment that rejected Jesus. The parable, while critiquing love for money and corrupt, greedy power, is primarily a prophetic warning about judgment against those greedy Jewish leaders (such as the Pharisees listening in) and Jesus’ advice for them to take heed to the judgment he was announcing by taking precautions before their ‘dethronement’ would occur. (You see a similar type of judgment on the scribes and Pharisees in Lk 11:37-54).

I should say, there is one final piece of evidence that I think might support my interpretation: simply put, this interpretation fits brilliantly, I think, with who Jesus in the gospels was! This parable fits like a glove with how Jesus talked and what he did. This is the Jesus who, during his final journey to Jerusalem repeatedly warned of the impending judgment on Jerusalem (cf. Lk 11:45-52; 13:1-5; 19:45-46; 20:9-19; 21:5-24). This is the Jesus who saw his crucifixion and resurrection as a challenge to Jerusalem’s corrupt leaders (Mrk 14:58-62). It is a Jesus who saw his journey to Jerusalem as the long awaited ‘visitation of Yahweh to Zion,’ and therefore saw Jerusalem’s rejection of this ‘visitation’ as a seal upon their judgment at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 (Lk 19:41-44).

Jesus was brining the kingdom as the true king and shepherd and therefore all other greedy and corrupt shepherds that had feasted on the flock would be judged (Ezekiel 34; John 10:7-18). The corrupt leaders of Israel, who were the thieves ‘that came to steal and kill and destroy’ were going to be deposed by the true king—the true shepherd. In Jesus’ ministry and the following work of the early church, God was brining his corrupt Jerusalem managers to account.

The parable of the Shrewd Manager, while certainly critiquing greed and love of money, is primarily a parable about power, stating that God has enthroned his true Anointed One, Jesus, and therefore, ipso facto, has caused all the corrupt and selfish leaders of Israel to be dethroned. Yes, the parable of the Shrewd Manager is deeply tied to the first century context of Jesus, with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as its immediate reference point, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t speak powerfully to the church today. For God has deposed the wicked and greedy managers. Their time of power over God’s flock was up a couple millennia ago. There is now one true King who is enthroned over the people of God, and his reign challenges every corrupt, money-loving, power system that seeks to feast upon the flock of God.

And I should say, that message is much more exciting than some obscure teaching about shrewd managing anyways.