Make Friends for Yourselves with Dishonest Wealth

Jesus' parable in this Sunday’s Gospel (Luke 16:1-13), is very puzzling to the modern reader. Not just ordinary readers, modern biblical commentators also debate among themselves, with no clear consensus.

What puzzles us is that the steward is called dishonest by his master, but then commended for his prudence.

Normally if we think of someone who is clearly dishonest but demonstrates something that looks like prudence, we might say instead, that they are crafty, devious or cunning. We do not compliment them for acting prudently, or use them as an example of prudent behavior. Yet this seems to be what Jesus is implying.

The traditional understanding of the parable fully acknowledges the deceptive and dishonest behavior of the steward, but then understands that his behavior also conveys a practical lesson about the prudent use of money and worldly goods. So Jesus is not asking us to imitate the steward’s deception or dishonesty, but his subsequent prudence in trying to save himself from shame.

Now we can easily acknowledge that even very bad people, have some good in them. Surely we can recognize some good in everyone. Yet we must ask, are even the steward’s subsequent ‘prudent’ actions morally good?

This puzzle has led commentators to search for reasons that might clarify this behavior in a different light. There are four different approaches to explain the steward’s actions, in altering or lowering the debt owed by his debtors.

Lowering the Price

First the steward may have used his authority to simply lower the price owed on the goods. The new price would make him look good and make his master look bad for having the higher price to begin with. This behavior would be dishonest, but would in theory make his debtors like him. We are told however, that he specifically did this so that when he was removed from his stewardship, others would welcome him into their homes.

The debtors may indeed be happy with him, but what subsequent master would trust him after this behavior? In other words, does this truly look good on his resume? This seems problematic.

Giving back Unjust Interest

A second proposal is that the steward recognized that the interest rates being charged to his tenants were unjust according to the Jewish law (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:35–37; Deut. 15:7–8; 23:19–20. If this were true, then perhaps he is actually now acting righteously. Perhaps in modern terms he is a sort of whistleblower, who is rectifying his master’s sin of usury.

There are a number of problems with this. First the rate reductions do not seem to correspond to interest rates. First a 50% reduction then a 20 % reduction for different goods. Secondly, studies of ancient land owners suggest that they were not particularly ashamed of imposing high interest rates.

In a culture with a high regard for the principles of honor and shame, the central problem for the master would be recovering his honor when others reported that the steward was wasting his resources. Perhaps the honor of both the master and the steward are restored by these actions.

If most land owners practiced usury, however, and no one shamed masters for the practice of usury, then the steward’s resume still looks weak. In fact he would be unlikely to get a new master, since the new master would fear he would do the same thing to him. Again this is a problem for his resume.

Removing his Own Commission

A third solution is the proposal that the steward actually removed his own commission, sacrificing his own money. But again there are lots of problems. Would the steward really have charged a 50% commission on top of the debit? Of course, we actually do not even know that it was a loan, it could have been a sharecrop arrangement. The translation in the lectionary says promissory note, which would make us think of a loan, but the Greek is more general, meanings a written statement of financial accounts in general. It could refer to a contract to share the produce from a farm. The debit was also very large, around one thousand denarii, or over three year’s wages for an average laborer.

Most importantly, at the end of the parable the steward is still called the “unjust steward” (v. 8a) If the steward, by removing his commission, has done the right thing, then why is he still “unjust”? Furthermore this does not explain the later description of his behavior as “not trustworthy with what belongs to another.” If he gave back his commission, why did it belong to another? Note that he was originally reported to the master for squandering the master’s property.

Rent Remission (remissio mercedis)

A recent proposal has come to light that is intriguing. Studies of ancient sources on Roman farming practices indicate that occasionally a voluntary remission of debt could be made by the landlord. This would be considered a good business practice, for example in a year when the crops were poor. It was difficult to find new tenants, and the future hope of income in the contract, made this this temporary debt forgiveness a way to restore and maintain the future profitability of the farm. 

Perhaps the Steward employed this thinking. This might be considered by the Romans as a prudent business strategy for maintaining future profitability. Intriguing as this is, does this remove the final judgment of the steward as “unjust”?

While this seems the best solution to explain the steward’s actions, we still have the summary in “the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently” (16:8) and the original report of squandering the master’s property. The Greek implies this charge against him was correct.

There seems no way to avoid the traditional interpretation of the parable which fully acknowledges the unjust and dishonest behavior of the steward, but then understands that his behavior also conveys a practical lesson about the prudent use of money and worldly goods.

Jesus’s application observes,

“For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings” (16:7).

We are still talking about dishonest wealth made through disreputable practices that are not those of a faithful Jew or Christian.

St. Augustine explains,

This saying can also be interpreted like this: suppose the mammon of iniquity does mean money made dishonestly. Your father made his pile by usury. He made you rich. You don’t approve of your father’s usury. Don’t be the heir to his iniquity, just be the heir to the money from iniquity. Don’t you imitate your father by being a money lender at extortionate rates. But now there’s all that pile of money in your house. Use it to make friends with the mammon of iniquity; it’s not a question of your being dishonest and giving the proceeds in alms, but of using a pile already made dishonestly. If your father had learned how to rob, you must learn how to pay out. [1]

Clearly those who encounter Jesus may find themselves in possession of dishonest wealth. How can they now respond with prudence to this situation?

We are reminded of the righteous behavior of the rich chief tax collector Zacchaeus, following his conversion. Zacchaeus promises Jesus, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold” (Luke 19:8).

Again St. Augustine notes,

There are true riches, there are false riches. False riches are what iniquity calls riches, because the true riches are to be found with God. …As for the riches which we seem to have, we seek them as a kind of remedy for our infirmity. … That’s why he said, Make yourselves friends with the riches of iniquity, not meaning the riches which you acquire by iniquity, but the riches which iniquity calls riches, though they aren’t the true riches. [2]

St. Augustine seems to want his readers to understand that he is not endorsing a kind of Robinhood mentality. We are not endorsing any Christian to continue unjust practices in acquiring wealth. Yet, if we now find ourselves in possession of mammon or worldly wealth, we must use it wisely for the kingdom.

In our Gospel, Jesus notes,

“No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon” (16:13).

Each person enters the kingdom enmeshed so to speak, in the baggage of this world. Having experienced true conversion we must reorder our priorities. We must serve God first, but then make prudent use of mammon, or the riches of iniquity. The example of the steward points to the use of worldly goods for a worldly end, but as God’s faithful, we can apply a similar prudence to our lives in service of God's kingdom.

Our highest priority, and the action of true prudence with worldly wealth, is to seek to help everyone to be a friend of God. Making friends with others by means of dishonest wealth, enables us to introduce them to our greatest friend, Jesus Christ.

_____________


[1] Saint Augustine, Sermons 341–400 on Various Subjects, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 10, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1992), 264.

[2] Ibid, 262–263.