Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Shrewd Manager - Chapter 1

Well, we were talking about this parable of the Shrewd Manager on Sunday... if you missed it, you can listen and check out the message notes here. The parable is found in Luke 16:1-15, which you can read here.

Now this is a tough parable and I want to work out some of the details in an online discussion this week...so feel free to jump on in to the conversation. Today, I want to offer three possible explanations for the "shrewd" managers actions. The problem with this is it seems that Jesus is holding this man up as an example. We'll decide that at another time. First, let's delve into why this manager may have done what he did...

Possible explanation #1: The manager cheated his boss! He knew he was going to lose his job so he figured he could end his last day at work by making friends with his debtors. He chose to reduce their bill so that they would be happy with him. The problem with this theory is that he reduced the debts, but did not forgive them. If he was really trying to win friends, he could have simply erased the debt.

Possible explanation #2: The manager reduced the payback amount to equal the actual value without interest. In other words, he may have been only charging the debtors the amount they actually borrowed, the principal. Asking his clients to pay back only the principal wasn't really cheating his boss and was helping him to gain favor with his debtors...a sort of win-win proposition.

Possible explanation #3: The manager was foregoing his "cut" of the deal. In other words, he may have been paid whatever amount he tacked on to the original debt. So the 400 gallons of olive oil was what the debtor actually owed the boss. But the manager was charging an extra 400 gallons for himself as payment for services rendered. If he didn't accept any payment, his boss's debts would be satisfied and the debtor would be off the hook for his share of the interest and would be pleased.

OK, there are the three possible explanations we came up with. What do YOU think? Let us know!!!!

1 comment:

Keith H. McIlwain said...

I think your first theory is most likely. The other two are reading too much into the text...too much eisegesis, rather than exegesis. Too much "guessing" rather than allowing an uncomfortable, confusing text to remain uncomfortable and confusing. Just my two cents.