Skip to main content

Luke 16: Ethics of a Dishonest Manager, a Rich Man and Lazareth.

The parable of the shrewd (dishonest) manager (Luke 16:1-8) is at first a difficult one to understand. Initially it seems to almost exalt the manager’s dishonesty in obtaining favour that was lost. However, the parable is really addressing the concept of prolepsis and that the future has arrived (in this case the man’s unemployment) and he must act accordingly before it is fully realized. The manager, recognizing that he is rightfully out of work, shows mercy to the master’s tenants, hoping to gain their favour and mercy when his unemployment is fully realized. Ethically this is how we should respond. As our life (employment) here is ending and could conclude anytime, we should show mercy and make preparations for the coming (post-employment) era. “Through this parable Jesus admonishes his hearers to cast caution aside, seize the moment of opportunity and make provision for their future before God. The Kingdom of God is at hand.”[8]

What about other ethical sub-themes? What about the dishonesty? Does Jesus here condone the manager’s dishonesty? No, he does not. Verse eight draws the distinction between ‘the children of this age’ and the shrewdness of ‘the children of the light.’ He then makes it clear that dishonesty is not being upheld as a value, for "whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much (v.10).” What about the pursuit of wealth or financial security? Is Jesus applauding that in this parable? No. He states quite firmly to the contrary that, “You cannot serve God and wealth (v.13).” and that “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God (v.15).”

Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus builds nicely on the groundwork laid in the previous verses. Some people have suggested that the rich man in this parable suffered his consequences as a result of serving money rather than serving God. This, however, is never stated. The only things that are explicitly mentioned about the rich man are those that serve to indicate his wealth: “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day (v.19).”

And,as Jesus states through the character of Abraham in this parable, “Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony (v.25).” There is no explicit parallel drawn between his present circumstances and how the rich man obtained his earthly wealth.

Is Jesus saying then that a rich man will not enter heaven (cf. Luke 6:20-26, 18:18- 30)? It is significant that in this particular parable the man is addressed by Abraham. Abraham is not only the recipient of the promise and the father of the chosen people, he was also a rich man and he is represented as being on the good side of the ‘great chasm.’

What then is the main point of Jesus’ telling of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? I submit that it is this: riches are no guarantee of heavenly security. Today, in North America, there seems to be a growing appreciation for or even outright acceptance of the prosperity gospel: ‘Divine favour is represented by wealth.’ This and its converse – that disadvantage is a result of sin or Divine displeasure (cf. John 9:1-5) – was evidently common in Jesus’ time.[9] I submit that Jesus is working to dispel this myth by representing in the parable that wealth is not an indicator of God’s favour.

How then should this affect our ethics as the Kingdom of God is arriving? We should not concern ourselves with obtaining wealth. Possibly a better expression of loyalty to the Kingdom would be to extend mercy to the poor men who lay at our gates and long to satisfy their hunger with even our scraps.
More daily blogs at
More articles, sermons, and papers at

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hosanna! The Triumphal Entry into Holy Week (Matthew 21:1-11)

Today  is Palm Sunday. Palm Sunday is when we commemorate the Sunday before Jesus’ death. Jerusalem was occupied then, like it is now; now it is occupied by the Israelis, then it was occupied by the Romans. The Judeans in the first century didn’t like being occupied then any more than the Palestinians like it today. The Romans were harsh, not nearly as brutal as modern Israel, but harsh enough that the first century had their version of … (Remember the suicide bombers of the ‘70s and ‘80s?) …suicide bombers: the Sicarii (zealots), Judean terrorists / revolutionaries would walk into crowds with daggers looking for Romans to kill –. One of Jesus’ followers, Simon, was arguably a Sicarii or zealot.   Passover is the commemoration of ancient Israel’s birth as a nation. The Angel of Death passed over Egypt and the nations of Isreal and Judah were created through the Exodus. Passover, in the Roman period, was a time when many people of Judean descent descended upon Jerusalem. I ...

Lanterns (Matthew 25:1-13, Psalm 146)

  The topics I chose from our Lenten list for today are “God has rescued us from the Dominion of Darkness”; “He has Freed Us from the Power of Sin”; the Kingdom of God is at hand. Do we believe that? Do we live that?   In theology we use the term ‘prolepsis’ to refer to the time when the Kingdom of God begins, which is now, the time between the resurrection of Christ and His return at the eschaton. This is the time in which we are living and as Christians it is our responsibility to be willing instruments of God to display what it means that He has rescued us from the Dominion of Darkness; He has Freed Us from the Power of Sin, that the Kingdom of God is at hand. But do we even actually believe that He has already done this? And if He has why does it not seem that the Sin and Darkness still reign?   We know the parable of the bridesmaids (holy ones) in the Bible who needed to keep their lanterns lit – because lit lanterns were to be there when the Bridegroom Jesus returns...

Bah Ram You Shaggy Goat (Daniel 8)

This book is written in a couple of different languages as we  have it  tod ay. Ch apter 7  that Susan looked at with us  is the last Aramaic chapter - if that is on purpose then chapter 7  probably concludes  the first  section  of Daniel  rather than  beginning  the  next  section   but Ch apter 8  that we are looking at today  (and everything flowing from it)  is obviously connected to  Chapter 7  as Da n iel  refers to the first dream when relaying the second one.   Chronologically speaking,  Chapter 8 and  Chapter 7 take place before  C hapters 5 and 6.  In Chapter 5, Babylon falls, Belshazzar is killed and  the Persians take over. None of that has happened in Chapter 8 which we are about to read .   Verses 1-4   8 In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. 2 In my ...