Parables VIII

The Dishonest Manager Luke 16:1-9

Some think this is one of the most difficult parables to interpret. Here is the basic story. A rich man hears information that his manager is up to something and calls him to account and orders him to turn over his books. Manager is losing his job. What is his plan now? He is too weak to work and too proud to beg. He better make friends with the people he has been cheating. So he calls them in separately and instructs them to mark down their accounts 50%.for the oil and 20% for the wheat.

Ambiguity of the Greek words.

Many Greek words can be translated in different ways, just as our words can have different meanings. Who is the master in Luke 18:8a? The Greek is KURIOS which can mean any of the following: lord, master or The Lord meaning Jesus or God. So who is doing the praising of this dishonest manager and why?

Questions about the story.

Why would the master praise his dishonest manager? If he knew he was being cheated, why not beat him and throw him in jail? Do not give him time to do further damage.

Maybe the owner isn’t really sure of his servant’s dishonesty but fires him anyway. “charges were brought to him” (diaballo Gk.) There is the suggestion of slander or rumor in the Greek here.

Where does the parable end and the comment by Jesus begin? In any case, why is this apparently dishonest manager praised? The sentence from 16:9b on seems like Jesus talking, ..”for the children of this age are more shrewd…than are children of light. Shrewd is the way the Greek is most often translated and the idea seem to be “careful for his own future” (Phillips} or “knew how to look after himself”. Jesus wants his followers to be as careful about our eternal future as the manager, maybe.

How has the manager solved his problem? The master will surely find out and punish him. He might have “friends” but who would hire such a dishonest person?

Who are the “children of light”? One possibility is that they were members of the Essene Community who withdrew from the world and lived ascetic lives studying the Torah. Is Jesus saying that we should not withdraw from the world, but use “mammon” wisely? We are to “make friends with dishonest wealth (mammon) so that when it is gone they will welcome you into their eternal homes. (NRSV). That sentence has many questions and seems clear as mud.

Some interpretations of the master and his servant.

A possible paraphrase from The Message.

8-9"Now here's a surprise: The master praised the crooked manager! And why, because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens. They are on constant alert, looking for angles, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way—but for what is right—using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so you'll live, really live, and not complacently just get by on good behavior."

Or based on an interpretation by Kenneth Bailey.

The manager was not so much dishonest as “shrewd”. He was not thrown in jail, but shown mercy. He decides to risk everything on that mercy. The debtors would assume that the reductions were made with the master’s approval. Everyone would praise the master for his generosity. What will the master do? His reputation has been enhanced. Everyone thinks he is a wonderful, generous man and his reputation is very important to him. Wouldn’t it be better to praise the “shewdness” of his manager.

With Bailley, the master represents the gracious forgiveness of God and makes this parable similar to the mercifull father in the parable of the prodigal.

A possible application for us is as follows. Recognize that God is merciful and generous. So we use our money (mannon) wisely by building community and being generous. Then we will be welcomed to our tents (homes) in the next age.

The Parable of the Sower

Matt:13:1-23, Mark 4:1-20, Luke 8:4-15

This parable is important enough to be all three of the synoptic gospels. In each case, it is coupled by an interpretation of the parable by Jesus and a cryptic quote from the Hebrew Scripture and like God does not want all to hear and understand. How do we understand this?

In most groups where we have looked at this parable, the questions we asked were these. What kind of soil am I and am I growing and bearing fruit? Good questions for individual reflection. But this parable is also about a Sower (God or those who preach or teach), who scatters seed generously everywhere. The seed will eventually bring in a great yield or harvest. In this case, the parable is a statement about the various responses to the message of the kingdom, and has the a promise of a great harvest.

Here is what I think. The followers of Jesus of every age need this prediction of reality coupled with the promise of a great eventual harvest, lest we “weary in well doing” and give up because the results do not seen enough. The quotation does not mean God is blinding some, but that’s just the way it is.

In Conclusion:

final suggestions on reading the Parables

• The simplest application to our day may not be the original interpretation
• Parables are often open ended and designed to stimulate thought.
• The main figure in the parable may not always be God.
• Parables encourage a new way to look at the world.
• Jesus may be describing something new and unique like the kingdom of God.
• It is helpful to compare the parables in different translation.
• In Matthew the kingdom of Heaven is not out of this world or future, but corresponds to Luke’s kingdom of God. Mathew, as a Jew, used heaven as a euphemism for the holy name of God.
• It is safe to assume that the parables originated with Jesus, but the gospel writers place them in their gospel story to fit their purposes.
• I want to thank, Tony, Linda and our WHH fellowship for stimulating my interest and study of the parables as never before. I feel blessed by the opportunity to study and grow with these people. The opportunity to summarize and add to our discussion has forced me to clarify and firm up my understanding. Thank you all. Jerry.

Parables VII

WHH Parable Study VII Oct. 21, 2011

The Prodigal Son and Elder Brother is one of the longest and best know of the Parables of Jesus. It appears only in Luke 15:11-32. It follows the parable of the Lost Sheep and The Lost Coin. If you consider the Prodigal lost, then this is the third of three parables demonstrating God’s concern for the lost.

A better name for the parable would be the parable of the Compassionate Father or, by normal worldly standards, the Crazy Father. When Jesus told this parable his hears would be shocked, just as we are, when we really think of the father’s actions.

He son insults his father by asking for his inheritance in advance.

That is kind of like saying, “I can’t wait until you are dead. Give me the money now.” In that culture where the father was an honored figured of authority, this was a serious insult. The ones who heard Jesus would have expected the insulted father to have the brat beaten and thrown out with nothing, but no. You know the story. When the prodigal “come to himself” because he is broke and starving, he decides to return home and see if his father will take him back as a hired hand. The amazing thing is that the father “saw him when he was far off and “ran and put his arms around him and kissed him.“ vs. 20. Those familiar with Middle Easter Culture say that the father running would have been undignified and socially shocking. The prodigal gets his father’s ring (our equivalent is credit card) and a garment signifying status and dad throws a big party. This is a story picture of the grace filled, compassionate love of God for all of us.

We are all prodigals in some way, but most church people fit the role of the good, hard working, elder brother. Perhaps he was trying to earn his father’s love, but he never asked for anything. Certainty he has a deep resentment of his brother, probably of long standing sibling rivalry The story ends with no real conclusion. We don’t know whether the elder brother ever joins the party. If he stays away, he insults his father, because, as the oldest son he had an obligation to be the host at the party. If he misses the party, it is his choice.

The next parable we discussed was the Rich Man and Lazarus.(Luke 16:19-30.) The context here is 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this and they ridiculed him.” Jesus has harsh words for them in vs.15. Then skip down to vs. 19 and Jesus tells this story. (Jesus doesn’t call it a parable)

A rich man (very rich, purple and fine linen sumptuous daily feasting) and a poor suffering, beggar named Lazarus. Both of them die. Lazarus is carried by angels to be with Abraham. The rich man is in Hades. The word is Hades not hell. Hades is the Greek word for Sheol, the place of the dead. The Hebrews did not have a word that expressed our concept of hell as a place of everlasting torture. Since the rich man is “being tormented” some translations use the word hell. (See KJV and The Message)

The rich man gives no indication of repentance and he wants Lazarus to wait on him and send a message to his brothers warning them of their fate. Abraham replies, If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from dead.(vs.31). This was a clear message to the Pharisees and how true it proved to be.

Notice that Abraham addresses the rich man as “Child” (v 25) There is no indication of judgment or condemnation, but there is a “division or a great chasm that has been fixed. (vs.26) It is the way things are and money is the issue. Fair warning. Jerry

Parables VI

The Parable of the Lost The Sheep

Matt. 18:10-14

Matthew chapter 18. Jesus is talking to the disciples about caring for “These little ones who believe in me.“ Whoever these “little ones” were they were not to be despised or cast out. Matthew seems to be concerned about keeping the community together. Jesus wants them all included, all are important. Therefore, the parable of the Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:10-14) fits in perfectly here. Who are the little ones or the lambs of our Christian communities? Maybe they are those we tend to exclude, ignore or think are not important.

Luke’s version

Luke 15:1-7

Luke chapter 15 Jesus is addressing not to his followers, but the Pharisees and Scribes who were grumbling against him saying, “He welcome sinners and eats with them.” Such behavior by Jesus was in direct violation of religious rules and social norms. The Abba of Jesus does not exclude but includes all. The Good Shepherd searches for those who are “lost”. The sheep are the people of Israel, Gods flock. The lamb represents those the Pharisees reject in order to maintain their religious purity.

Luke’s version of the Lost Shepherd is in a poetic style. It was probably closer to the original words of Jesus than the shorter form in Matthew. Those who heard the parable would think of a peasant village adjacent to pasture land. The flock would be the collective flock of the village under the care of more than one shepherd. The flock were led out to pasture during the day and returned to the village at night. When it was time to head home, the lambs would be counted. A shepherd would seek a missing lamb while the others were led home. The people of the village would be concerned for the safely of the shepherd and worried about the loss of a one of the lambs. Therefore, there would be a lot of rejoicing when the shepherd returned with the lost lamb on his shoulder. The shepherd rejoiced when he found the lamb, even though he would need to lug it home on his shoulders.

John 10 The Good Shepherd

There is no lost lamb story in John 10, but the narrative in chapter 9 shows Jesus as seeking the man cast out by the Pharisees. Jesus was a good shepherd who found and restored him.

Then in the tenth chapter there are several images or parables that describe the ministry of Jesus in terms of sheep and shepherds. He is “the gate” to the sheep fold(1-10) and also the “Good Shepherd. (11-18)

Perhaps the “hired hands”, “thieves” and “strangers”, represented the religious leaders who had not and were not caring for God people.

“I am the “good shepherd”. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”. (Jn 10:10,11)

The sheep recognize the voice of the good shepherd and follow him for the shepherd knows them each by name.

John 10:16 “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold”. Certainly, this suggests the universal extension of God’s inclusive love and the promise of the eventual unity of all in Christ. (See Phil. 2:9-11)

It is possible that the sheepfold Jesus meant was the large area with a gate where the sheep were kept prior to their sacrifice. In that case, Jesus (vs.2) is “the shepherd who enters by the gate.” He is then sacrificed, crucified, lays down his life for them and, when resurrected, leads them out into green pastures and the abundant life.

By the time John wrote this gospel, the temple had been totally destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. There would be no more sacrifice of lambs in the temple, but people and groups of people have continued to be sacrificed by many societies. Sometimes the sacrifices have been to maintain the purity of religion or race. Some are called to sacrifice for the purposes of governments. That is another story that has been well hidden according to Rene Girard. (For a history of sacrifice in America read, Pahl’s book, Empire of Sacrifice:the religious origins of American Violence. Some of my comments regarding the parables are based on Kenneth Baily’s, book, Through Peasant Eyes. Jerry

Parables V

The writers of the Gospels were all inspired to write the story of Jesus of Nazareth. The risen Lord had transformed lives. They wanted to pass on the “good news” and we are still learning just how good that news is.

In the telling of the story, they recorded the parables that Jesus told, but they did so in their own ways in order to fit the purpose and theme of their “gospels”.

Matthew collects the teaching of Jesus in chapters 5-7 in what we call the Sermon on the Mount.

Luke introduces the teachings of Jesus (chap. 7-19) as Jesus journeyed on the way to Jerusalem. Luke was writing as the “good news” was spreading into the Greco Roman world.

In Luke 10:25-29 the parable of the Good Samaritan is introduced by a question. A lawyer (The Message calls him a “religious scholar”) asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbor? This seems like a reasonable question. Don’t we all have circles that define those for whom we feel greater of less responsibility? In the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus deals with this problem by turning the question around.

Jesus asked, “Which of these was a neighbor to the man…”:Lk 10:36

The priest and the religious man probably had good reasons to pass by the wounded man. Contact with this wounded man might have made them ritually unclean and unable to perform their temple duties. Think of a priest, preacher or teacher who need to be about their work. We can always find good sounding religious reasons to avoid what we do not want to do.

The Samaritan was moved with pity (NRSV) or his heart went out him (TM) In Greek this is the word that is used of Jesus when it is said that he was “moved with compassion”. The Samaritan is acting like Jesus! There are no predefined limits to our neighborly compassion as followers of Jesus. Only the Holy Spirit defines for us our responses when faced with human need. There are no outcasts. (Sue Wright, another local Girardian theologian, has a website called No Outcasts. Check it out. You’ll like it.)

Jesus was always breaking down barriers and bringing unity to the divisions of the world. He broke the religious rules that separated people into categories of good and bad, clean and unclean. He subverted or upset the established order. He died to bring peace to a divided and violent world by revealing the innocence of the victim and by forgiving all of us.

We have been given a new start and here we are today, still learning what it means to be “in Christ”. As imperfect as we are, we are still those who are “trusted with the message of reconciliation”(2 Cor. 5:17-20) We are to love and forgive and speak of God’s marvelous, gracious love for all not just the few. 

Jerry

Parables IV

 I am so very grateful to Jerry Shave for doing these summaries of our Friday Bible Studies. As you will surely pick up he is no mean biblical scholar himself. Of course as the picky theologian that I am I will occasionally post a point in the comments, but you can certainly disregard them and be well served by Jerry alone! It's the grace of God that counts, and all here is grace! Tony Bartlett

The Sermon on the Mount Mt. 5-7 seems to be all about non-violence and trusting God. In Mt chap 25 there is a separation of sheep and goats in judgment with the goats suffering torture. Is there a way we can understand this in keeping with our understanding of the loving God (Abba) that Jesus reveals?

Matt. 7:21-27 Jesus warns his followers that prophesying, casting out demons and doing many deed of power does not mean that they will enter into the reign of God. Remember, Matthew’s kingdom of heaven is a kingdom or reign of God on earth and not some heavenly place after death. Jesus doesn’t punish them, but he says, “God away from me, you evil doers.” Our proposed interpretation is this. They may be doing these things, but their method is by power and not by the methods of peaceful transformation of Jesus. In other words, their actions may be effective but their methods wrong. Jesus does not want their methods associated with the new Way he is introducing.

Matt. 7:24-27 The house built on a rock stands; the one built on sand falls. The “house” would have been a recognizable metaphor that can stand for all human constructs, i.e. empires, nations, economic systems, institutions, churches and our lives. All will fall or collapse, if built on violence and power rather than love and forgiveness. When we look at the big picture, history seems to bear this out. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.” Psa, 121:1

The familiar parable of the vine and the branches is in John 15:1-7. If we consider, that vines have tendrils not branches, the union of believers and the Master seems even more intimate. The word for prunes also means cleans. To be thrown into the fire and burned need not be interpreted as thrown into a final “hell”. Hell was not a Hebrew idea and there is no word for hell in the Bible. Maybe, the idea is of a purifying burning. (See I Cor. 3:13ff. The Bible has a lot of references to fire used to cleanse or purify.)

In Matt:25-46 the “goats” “go away” which suggests a choice and as opposed to being sent. As we noted last week, “eternal” is not a timeless eternity, but a long, long time.

Matt 18:23-35 The unforgiving servant in vs. 26 is “handed over to the basanizo in Greek . “Torturer” seems like the accepted and

legitimate translation. But the verb root of basanizo is based on the noun basanos which is “primarily a touchstone, employed in testing metals” (W.E. Vine, Dictionary of N.T. Words.) That is where Tony gets the alternative reading or “the rubber” who tests by rubbing to clean up these goats who have chosen to go away. “God can’t kill anything” Nobody is lost.” (Tony)

This does not take away the seriousness of the call of Jesus and that there is and will be a time of “testing and cleaning” up that is necessary for all in the final Reign of God. Jerry

Parables III

Jesus used parable word pictures which have many layers of interpretation to describe the new reality he was introducing to the world. 

In Mark 3:20-22 we read that Jesus was being opposed by the religious establishment because he wasn’t playing by their rules. Here he is accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul aka Lord of Dung or Lord of the Flies (remember the book by William Golding?) 

In defending himself Jesus used the illustration (parable) that a “house divided cannot stand” (vs.25) and if Satan (the accuser) is casting himself out, then “his end has come”. (vs 26) That is quite logical. Why would Satan do that? This is the common understanding of this short parable. 

Now, from the perspective of Rene Girard, Jesus is, in fact, saying that Satan is finished because Jesus is revealing Satan’s real nature. Satan’s real nature is not a supernatural reality, but a very human construct at work in the world. This is not an easy concept to grasp. Girard believes Jesus is deconstructing the idea of Satan by describing Satan as the principle of imitative (mimetic) rivalry that is everywhere seen in the conflicts that divide nations, politics, churches, homes etc. It is everywhere where conflict divides. “I’m right; your wrong”. “I’m good: your bad”. Without an established hierarchy of social power this rivalry and conflict leads to an “all against all crisis" of increasing violence. This is the crisis that the world is in today, according to Girard. I think he is right. Violence seems to be increasing everywhere. Jesus is the only Way. We better stop imitating one another in the conflict of human desires and start imitating Jesus (God) in love, compassion and forgiveness. The Holy Spirit is the power that makes this possible. We are to be part of the new creation and this is the way to peace. We are all being changed. ( See Bartlett, Virtually Christian)

This a new way! In Mark 2:18-22 Jesus uses two examples of this newness when he is asked, “Why don’t your disciples fast like the disciples of John? (vs18) Jesus says, “We don’t fast because it is party time! We are celebrating the new thing I am doing. When I am gone, then the spiritual discipline of fasting will be more appropriate. (my paraphrase of the bridegroom being present at the wedding vs. 19-20) 

2

Then Jesus adds the fact that you do not sew new cloth on old cloth or put new wine in old wineskins. It will make matters worse. 

There is a radical newness about the Jesus Way. It can’t just be tacked on to the old way of religious practice.

Now, regarding how Jesus cast out demons. He did not destroy them. He bound them by revealing the mimetic conflict and restored the possessed one to inner peace by the power of his loving, accepting presence. (See Mk 5:15 Gerasene Demoniac)

Matthew chapter 25 deserves special attention because it is often interpreted as a final end time Judgment (Son of Man comes) and the king in the parable separates the sheep from the goats with the goats going away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life. (vs. 46) This seems like another case of the writer adapting what may have been a parable of Jesus, but putting a new spin on it to move the division and the judgment to the end time in order to preserve the unity of the fellowship. I think Jesus wants us to give food, drink and clothing. He wants us to care for the sick and those who are in prison. Such caring is like doing those things to Jesus. Don’t we need to look for Jesus in everyone? (Note that neither the sheep or the goats recognized Jesus (See vs 37 & 44) Maybe, “the least of these who are members of my family” ( alternative reading my brothers) vs 40 and also “one of the least of these (vs,45) are both referring to followers of Jesus. See “one of these little ones who believe in me” in Matthew in Matt. 18:6. In that section, Matthew has Jesus talking to his disciples. Considering that Matthew was writing at a time when many Christian believers were suffering in just such conditions as described in Matthew 25, it is possible that Matt. 25 was addressed to situations in the community. However we interpret “least of these”, it is good for us to care for others and to see Jesus in all persons. 

In Matthew 25:46 the goats “go away” they are not sent or cast out. And, we already have talked about eternal (Gk aion) which does not mean an endless, static, timeless condition as in Greek philosophy. It means an age or duration as “ a long, long time”. 

Many of the parables in Matthew end with dire threats of judgment. It is not surprising that some Christian groups prefer Matthew’s gospel because the threats work better to exert control. 

Where both Mark and Luke refer to the kingdom of God, Matthew always substitutes kingdom of heaven. This has led some people, myself included, to think that Jesus was talking about a heavenly, other- worldly realm and minimize the emphasis Jesus placed on the kingdom here on earth. Now, I think, Matthew, because of his Jewish background, was just being a good Jew and used heaven as a euphemism to avoid using the holy name of God. 

“Your Kingdom come.” The Lord’s prayer in Luke 11:5 (NRSV) 

Peace, Jerry

Parables II

The study of the parables continues. Last week’s parable of the growing seed (Mark 4:26-29) was contrasted with the “Wheat and the Tares” (Matthew 13:34-43) Matthew has lumped a number of parables all together in this 13^th chapter and thus separated them from the original narrative context. Now there are weeds (tarno) growing with the wheat and slaves ask the Master, “What shall we do about these weeds?” (Whoever heard of weeds being sown?) The solution is to do nothing. It will be sorted out at the end (eschatology) with some burning (gehenna) of the weeds. 

Matthew seems to be using this modified theme of seeds and growth from Mark to deal with a current problem. There is no established hierarchy to set the boundaries of this free-wheeling early community. Who are the true believers and who are the bad guys (children of the devil). Some of these early Christians want to purify the community by some proper sorting out and casting out. Matthew has this parable (Jesus as adapted) saying, “No, don’t do that.” Does this apply today as denominations try to purify the church? Earl mentioned that the Presbyterian Church in Mexico has recently broken relationships with the Presbyterian Church (USA) over the ordination of gays and lesbians. Matthew is trying to keep the flock together and eliminate the violence of a split in the community. Note that there is still some “burning at the end times, but that is an idea that is hard to eliminate. We will deal with that more when we look at Matthew chapter 25 with the sheep and the goats. 

Then we looked at Matthew 18:6-9. This is one of these “hard sayings” of Jesus about the “stumbling blocks”, scandals, temptations to sin. The Greek word is skandelizo to give offense or cause to stumble. It is translated different ways and can mean cause to sin.. Matthew uses it 14 times is used frequently in the NT and is very important. Jesus seems to take it very seriously. As a concept it was not discussed in theological studies until fairly recently, but is prominent in the work of theologians who are influenced by Rene Girard. The concept introduces a concept of sin as something that happens between people and not something that offends God because of broken rules. It is especially important for those theologians who are developing Biblical understand based on the works of Rene Girard. Undoubtedly, we will be talking more about this because it prompted a lively discussion. 

Jerry