Sermon Tone Analysis

Introduction: as Being a Part of .

There are many parallels in the parable in and The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Parable of the Good Father and His Lost Sons) in .

(Dr.

Ken Bailey, Poet & Peasant, vol. 1, 109.)

4. Both the steward and the son betray a trust.101

1. does not tell us that a “parable” is about to be told.

To get the word “parable” we have to return to 15:3.

Thus Luke relates the two.; 2) In a son throws himself on the mercy of his father.

In a servant throws himself on the mercy of his master.

Though the setting differs, the message is strikingly consistent and similar to the three previous parables recorded in .

dmans Publishing Company, 1983), 109.

2. In a son throws himself on the mercy of his father.

In a servant throws himself on the mercy of his master.

Our text for this morning is from .

Though the chapter break is placed here instead of between verse 8 and 9, the first 8 verses of actually fit better with the parables of than they do with the verses that follow, which introduce a new literary unit.

As with the other parables we’ve examined, we will need to understand something of the culture of the Middle Eastern peasant to understand this parable rightly.

98 Not too much can be made of this, in that the same can be said for the parable of Dives and Lazarus.

Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, Combined Edition., vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 109.

This parable has often been regarded as the most difficult to interpret.

Part of this is because of its common association with the section that follows it about how one cannot serve both God and money.

And so that theme or topic of how one should regard wealth is read back into this parable and it makes things confused because they are actually addressing different topics or issues.

1. does not tell us that a “parable” is about to be told.

To get the word “parable” we have to return to 15:3.

Thus Luke relates the two.98

Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, Combined Edition., vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 109.

The other part of this parable that has created difficulty for readers and interpreters of Holy Scripture is that, at first blush, it appears that Jesus is commending the unrighteous steward in the parable for his deceptive actions.

As is usually the case, when we understand something of Middle Eastern peasant culture, these difficulties clear up quickly.

98 Not too much can be made of this, in that the same can be said for the parable of Dives and Lazarus.

Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, Combined Edition., vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 109.

First, though, before we get further, let’s hear Jesus’ parable concerning the unrighteous steward.

, says,

The setting is that of an agricultural society: a land owner who rents out his fields to be farmed by tenants.

The rent paid is an agreed upon portion of the produce of the field.

The steward is unrighteous, but the owner is a noble and righteous man who is well-respected in the community.

The owner is a generous and gracious and merciful man.

He doesn’t send the steward jail, as he rightly could have, but instead only fires him.

The steward, by his silence, admits his guilt.

Some observations that will help guide us in understanding this parable: 1) Though this parable has often been understood in banking and moneylending terms, it really should be understood in agricultural terms.

This makes sense of the parable.

The rich man is the owner of a large estate and tenant farmers rent his land and pay him a portion of the harvest each year.

The master of the estate also has in his employ, among other servants, his chief servant–the estate manager or steward.

This steward is in charge of the books and of collecting the rent owed in harvest time, among other things.

He acts on the authority of his master.

2) Though the estate manager or steward is described in this parable as unjust, there is no criticism of the owner of the estate.

We can infer this because Jesus says in introducing the story that “charges were brought to him...” concerning the actions of his steward.

If the estate owner was a corrupt man, no one would have cared if his steward was stealing from him.

But because he is a righteous and honorable member of the community, someone brings this report.

3) If a servant had brought the charges, there would have been an investigation by the owner, but because there is no investigation, this would suggest that the informant(s) are the well-respected members of the community, with whom the owner has a good relationship.

The source was absolutely trustworthy, and so there was no need for an investigation.

So the owner calls his steward to him and asks, “What is this that I hear about you?” Interestingly, the steward keeps silent.

He doesn’t make excuses.

By his silence, he admits his guilt.

And so the owner fires him on the spot.

He tells him to go get the books and turn them in.

The account books are the symbol of the steward’s authority.

If he doesn’t have the books, he doesn’t have the authority of the owner.

Once again, upon being fired, the steward doesn’t make excuses.

This is very odd behavior.

Normally in this situation, there would be all kinds of excuses made or blame-shifting or attempts at persuading the owner to change his mind.

But the steward engages in none of these.

He knows, apparently, that no excuse or persuasion will work.

His owner is a just man and will not stand for excuses or be influenced or bought off.

And the steward knows that his master is a generous and merciful man.

He knows this because his master could have had him jailed for his actions, but he doesn’t, he simply fires him.

The steward is fired on the spot–everything he does in “official” capacity after that is illegal.

The steward hatches a clever plan to endear himself to the community so that they will hire him to manage their houses.

This is what he means when he speaks to himself about being received into people’s houses–he wants another job instead of being forced to leave the community because no one will hire him.

The plot is born out of the knowledge he has just received that his master is a generous and merciful man.

The steward has to carry out his plan quickly because in short order the ruse will be up and it will be public knowledge that he was fired.

On his way to get the books to turn them in, the steward thinks through what to do now that he is about to lose his job.

Now, in one sense he already lost it–the owner has informed the steward that he is fired and so everything from here on out that the steward does is illegal.

But he still has to get the books and he has about an hour, maybe two before he has to get back to the owner with the books and then it will be public knowledge that he has been fired.

And so he thinks to himself about what he is going to do.

He says to himself, “I am not strong enough to dig.”

This means he is physically unable to work in the fields.

He also says, “I am ashamed to beg.”

So those two options are out.

But also, who would want to hire him after they find out he has been dishonest with his current master’s property?

So he hatches a clever plan.

He summons his master’s renters one by one.

We should take note that the steward is acting like he still has authority because it isn’t public knowledge yet.

And so the lesser servants still obey like the steward is still over them.

As soon as it’s known that the steward is fired, no one will cooperate.

So his plan depends upon getting things into place before the cat is out of the bag, as it were.

Now, it isn’t harvest time yet, and so when the owner’s tenants receive the summons from the steward, they think that he must have something special to communicate to them from the owner.

Again, if they know he’s fired they won’t cooperate.

And so the steward calls them in one at a time so they can’t talk amongst themselves and figure out what’s going on.

The steward asks the first one how much he owes his master come harvest time.

Notice he says, “my master.”

He is counting on the tenants’ assumption that he still has the authority of the owner.

The first tenant says he owes “a hundred measures of oil.”

The steward says, “Take your bill, sit down quickly and write fifty.”

To another he said, “How much to do you owe?” Answer: “A hundred measures of wheat.”

“Take your bill, and write eighty,” the steward says.

What’s going on here?

Well, the steward is having the tenants write down their bills in their own handwriting.

Now, if they knew that the steward was out of a job, they wouldn’t cooperate because that would make them complicit and they wouldn’t want to risk losing the land they are renting.

But since the steward is acting like he’s still the steward, they have plausible deniability–they don’t know what’s happening.

The renters think that the steward is acting on his master’s authority and that he somehow convinced his master to give the renters a cheaper rate…in essence they are getting an exceedingly generous price for rent.

Eventually it’s going to get out that the steward was fired and so the renters will not trust him, but they will employ him because better that he works for them than for someone else.