Luke Looks Back 20

Study 20 - Luke 16:1-31

The Problem of Riches

This chapter, which is difficult all the way through, gives us one of the most puzzling of all the parables, as, if it is misread, Jesus appears to commend dishonesty. The story is about a landlord’s estate-manager or steward who was sacked for inefficiency in an unusual way: there is no lengthy argument or plea for reinstatement as you would have expected in that culture; the steward ceases immediately to be the approved agent but the rent books are not taken from him. Please read Luke 16:1-8 The estate-manager was able to reduce the rents and get the tenants to note the changes (v 6b, 7b), probably with the promise to share the reductions with him quietly afterwards. Because of the tenants writing on the documents the landlord cannot reinstate the changes without losing face and honour. Clever! Right mouse click to save/download this as a MP3 audio file Of course the chapter division was not in the original documents so this story follows closely behind the one of the Prodigal Son (or whatever you decided to call it) and this story supports that one in some ways. Question 1: What are the parallels between this parable and that one? 2 noble fathers or masters; 2 ignoble dependents; 2 moments of truth regarding losses; 2 pleas for mercy; 2 problems of broken trust and its consequences. Question 2: What knowledge of the nature of the landowner did the estate-manager display by what he did? Think particularly of why the landlord dismissed him; why he didn’t imprison him; why did the landowner agreed to pay the price for the deception? What does this parable teach us about the nature of God? In that sort of culture there would very likely be a relationship several generations long between the families of master and steward. Honour has to be maintained on both sides so grace is necessary. Our God is a God of relationships not accounting practices. Our God is a forgiving God who, because of the sacrifice of Jesus is prepared to forgive the many things we have done which we should not have done, just as the master forgave the manager things he should not have done. We were careful to end the story at v8. Most Bibles paragraph this chapter in a way that suggests the next few verses are also part of that story. But that is unlikely because it would make v9 suggest we should be as dishonest as the manager and v11 and 12 sit very uncomfortably with the parable when they do make good sense in isolation. The next parable clearly starts at v19. In between is a collection of sayings, probably from some other occasions, linked by key words and ideas. Please read Luke 16: 9 – 18. Question 3: What does v9 mean if it is to be read separately, not relating it to the story before it. It teaches us that worldly wealth is not to be used solely for our own benefit. We are to use it for other people as well. It also reminds us that the day will come when our worldly wealth will be gone and we shall have to give account of ourselves before judge Jesus. One commentary labels most of these verses ‘Condemnations of the Corrupt at Heart’, which fits well. Verse 18 is the most terse and hard of all the NT statements about divorce and should not be read in isolation from the others in Matt 5: 31, 32; 1 Cor 7: 10, 11. Question 4: What are the barriers against which people are forcing their way into the Kingdom in your world (v 16)? Obviously you have to answer this one yourself. Please read Luke 16: 19 - 31 The difficulties continue! Lazarus is the only person in all the parables who is named (although one papyrus calls the rich man Neues). Purple clothing was strictly reserved for the elite of Roman society. Abraham’s side (literally bosom, that is Lazarus was reclining at the table beside Abraham) was thought to be the best place to be after death. The whole story, like the rest of the parables, is probably not meant to be understood as a real life episode. We should not draw any conclusions about the geography of heaven and hell from it. Question 5: What does the attitude of the dogs, (savage, guard?) dogs to Lazarus tell us about him? The dogs were expressing what the rich man should have done. Lazarus is clearly depicted as a nice guy, a likeable fellow. Question 6: What does the rich man’s attitude in the after life to Lazarus tell us about him? He thought of himself as a big man so Lazarus ought to act as his slave. He failed to realise that we are all equal in death, and indeed ought to consider others equal to ourselves in this life. Again the parable lacks an ending. The last statement has an element of wry humour about it. Jesus clearly realises that his death will not be the last event of his life. Right mouse click to save/download this as a MP3 audio file Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website iTunes