I think Jesus is talking about His own relationship to the Jewish rulers. Sanhedrin. Pharisees. I am not saying that Jesus was a bad manager that isn't the point. The point is that Jesus wasn't promoting their authority and Jesus didn't teach all the traditions that they held to. Jesus very ministry of healing people and not strictly following Sabbath laws made the Jewish rulers system less valuable to the people. The people owed great spiritual debts (and some physical debts) to the Pharisees/Sadduccees. Jesus was forgiving the people their debts. That is why He was well received by the people. That is why the gospel message is so impactful. The fact that the master praises the manager in the parable doesn't have to have a parallel. This goes back to the fact that parables teach one over arching message and not being an allegory.
The commands Jesus gives to the listeners is simply that we should use our wealth wisely. The manager used his position and access to the financial dealings of his master to his own advantage. He was shrewd. The lesson to us isn't to steal from our masters but to likewise act shrewdly and wisely in this world to build relationships with other people that ultimately build a place for you in God's kingdom.
This is a very difficult parable to be sure. But emphasize the words used and think about Jesus own situation at the time, and we can get as close to understanding as possible.
Let me ask: could you see the master as God the Father? His riches are incomprehensible, as is our debt to Him (both offered in the parable). Jesus, the steward, has dealt with this debt burden for us, and for this the master (God) commended the steward (Jesus)?
I am just spitballing, so don't be shy in response.
If God is the master, then the unjust steward has to be us, since we misused His goods (the life & gifts He gave us).
But then we have to shoehorn this into the big discount sale...
Not to sound like a broken record, but this sort of fits the benefit of the doubt principle in my previous comment. The debts we are keeping track of are other people's sins, and we think we see what is going on & what basty nastards they all are, but that is delusion - we know almost nothing.
I think your statements about God the Father and Son are correct, but I don't think it fits the parable since the manager (Jesus) does not have a good relationship with the master (Father). He also subverts the master's finances which I don't think fits. Jesus didn't merely reduce the amount of debt we owe the father. He paid in our behalf in full.
I read an explanation for this in, of all places, "A New Model of the Universe" by the Russian occultist P. D. Ouspensky.
His explanation was straightforward; this is not about money, it's about forgiveness of sins.
NOW it fits!
This is based, I think, on a principle we see throughout scripture, that of the benefit of the doubt. In the Law, for instance, if a man has sex w/ a young woman who is betrothed to another, they are both stoned if it was in the town, but if it was out in the field, the woman is innocent, "...for the damsel screamed, but there was none to help."
Wait, how do we know that? Because we don't know that she didn't.
There is a cliche in the Church that Jesus taught more about money than anything; this is obviously counted as such. The parable of the man who owed his lord 100 talents is better known and Jesus explicitly tells us that it is about forgiveness.
But I think that if we count up all the verses, we will find that our Lord taught most about food production. :D
I think Jesus is talking about His own relationship to the Jewish rulers. Sanhedrin. Pharisees. I am not saying that Jesus was a bad manager that isn't the point. The point is that Jesus wasn't promoting their authority and Jesus didn't teach all the traditions that they held to. Jesus very ministry of healing people and not strictly following Sabbath laws made the Jewish rulers system less valuable to the people. The people owed great spiritual debts (and some physical debts) to the Pharisees/Sadduccees. Jesus was forgiving the people their debts. That is why He was well received by the people. That is why the gospel message is so impactful. The fact that the master praises the manager in the parable doesn't have to have a parallel. This goes back to the fact that parables teach one over arching message and not being an allegory.
The commands Jesus gives to the listeners is simply that we should use our wealth wisely. The manager used his position and access to the financial dealings of his master to his own advantage. He was shrewd. The lesson to us isn't to steal from our masters but to likewise act shrewdly and wisely in this world to build relationships with other people that ultimately build a place for you in God's kingdom.
This is a very difficult parable to be sure. But emphasize the words used and think about Jesus own situation at the time, and we can get as close to understanding as possible.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
That is a very good perspective.
Let me ask: could you see the master as God the Father? His riches are incomprehensible, as is our debt to Him (both offered in the parable). Jesus, the steward, has dealt with this debt burden for us, and for this the master (God) commended the steward (Jesus)?
I am just spitballing, so don't be shy in response.
If God is the master, then the unjust steward has to be us, since we misused His goods (the life & gifts He gave us).
But then we have to shoehorn this into the big discount sale...
Not to sound like a broken record, but this sort of fits the benefit of the doubt principle in my previous comment. The debts we are keeping track of are other people's sins, and we think we see what is going on & what basty nastards they all are, but that is delusion - we know almost nothing.
I think your statements about God the Father and Son are correct, but I don't think it fits the parable since the manager (Jesus) does not have a good relationship with the master (Father). He also subverts the master's finances which I don't think fits. Jesus didn't merely reduce the amount of debt we owe the father. He paid in our behalf in full.
Yes, all true and good points. Thank you.
I read an explanation for this in, of all places, "A New Model of the Universe" by the Russian occultist P. D. Ouspensky.
His explanation was straightforward; this is not about money, it's about forgiveness of sins.
NOW it fits!
This is based, I think, on a principle we see throughout scripture, that of the benefit of the doubt. In the Law, for instance, if a man has sex w/ a young woman who is betrothed to another, they are both stoned if it was in the town, but if it was out in the field, the woman is innocent, "...for the damsel screamed, but there was none to help."
Wait, how do we know that? Because we don't know that she didn't.
There is a cliche in the Church that Jesus taught more about money than anything; this is obviously counted as such. The parable of the man who owed his lord 100 talents is better known and Jesus explicitly tells us that it is about forgiveness.
But I think that if we count up all the verses, we will find that our Lord taught most about food production. :D
What he was really teaching about was Himself.
"...it's about forgiveness of sins."
I like that angle, and can see it as another way to consider the parable.