THE PARABLE OF THE SHREWD MANAGER (LUKE 16:1-13):

A N ESSAY IN INCULTURATION BIBLICAL HERMENEUTIC

Justin S. Ukpong
Catholic Institute of West Africa
Nigeria

ABSTRACT

This article reads the notorious parable of the shrewd manager from an in­
culturation biblical hermeneutic. The cultural context informing this biblical
interpretation is primarily that of exploited peasant farmers of West Africa as
well as the concerns of the international debt burden of the Two-Thirds
World. While most interpretations have read the parable from the perspec­
tive of the rich man's economic system, this article reads the story from the
perspective of the peasant farmers in the story. This reading proceeds by
situating the parable within the theological framework of Luke's critique of
the rich and riches and within the social-historical context of the parable.

INTRODUCTION

The parable of the shrewd or unjust/dishonest steward manager 1 has

been a crux interpretum for exegetes. According to Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
"There are few passages in the Synoptic Gospel more puzzling than the
well-known story about the dishonest manager (Unjust Stew­
ard).... whether a clear and definite explanation of this story will ever be
arrived at is hard to say" (Fitzmyer, 1974: 161). L. John Topel echoes
similar sentiments about the parable: "The literature dealing with the
parable of the unjust steward is staggering, and after all the effort ex­
pended its meaning still eludes us. Indeed more than any other parable, it
can be expected to keep its mystery for future generations of exegetes for
it bristles with difficulties" (216). The celebrated French exegete M. J. La­
grange is reported to have said of the same parable: "I admit that it is not
easy to preach on this subject because many people imagine that only an
edifying story can be told in church" (Fitzmyer, 1974:161). The parable is
puzzling, mystifying, and unedifying because the reader has been

1
The Greek word used is οικονόμος, which in its original sense has to do with
managing affairs. Since the person was in charge of an estate and not a household
steward, I prefer to call him the manager.

-189-
IO/) SEMEIA

conditioned to identify with the rich man in the parable, who is then con-
structed to stand for God, and from whose perspective the manager is
called unjust. But does the rich man in this parable represent God, and is
the manager unjust?
Read from the perspective of ordinary West African peasant farmers
who live by the world-view provided by their traditional cultures, and
who experience economic oppression at the hands of rich middle-men
produce traders, the parable evokes an interpretation which differs from
Western scholars. What they see is an economic relationship of unequal
partners—a rich man in a strong economic position and his employees,
peasant farmers, in a weak economic position. From their experience, they
know that such an economic relationship generates the exploitation of the
weak by the strong. Consequently, they admire the manager who used
his discretionary power to grant debt reduction to his customers. For
them, he is the hero of the story for granting such a debt reduction to the
farmers who needed it far more than the rich man needed the profit. He
acted on behalf of the exploited.
My purpose in this essay is not to offer the valid interpretation of this
parable. For one thing, the methodology which this volume follows es-
chews the idea of one universally valid interpretation of the biblical text.
Rather my purpose is to offer an understanding of the parable from an
alternative approach, that is, the inculturation hermeneutic.

DEFINING INCULTURATION BIBLICAL HERMENEUTIC

I have coined the term "inculturation biblical hermeneutic" to desig-

nate an interpretation derived from the methodology of inculturation
theology. The term "inculturation theology" does not refer to a specific
theological discipline. Rather, it refers to a hermeneutical process in the-
ologizing that cuts across all theological disciplines including biblical
exegesis. It is a new way of doing theology. "Inculturation biblical her-
meneutic" is its application to biblical interpretation.
Although the term is new, it designates aspects that are already fa-
miliar. One of these is the attempt to relate the Hebrew Bible's religious
culture and African religious culture, a perspective of biblical research
that was quite common up to a decade ago (Dickson and Ellingworth,
1969, Dickson, 1979:179-93; Mveng et al.; Ukpong, 1987). An inculturation
biblical hermeneutic is an approach that consciously and explicitly seeks
to interpret the biblical text from socio-cultural perspectives of different
people. This includes both their religious and secular culture as well as
their social and historical experiences. This does not mean reading con-
temporary contexts into the biblical text; rather it means consciously and
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 191

critically allowing different contemporary contexts to inform the inter-

pretation positively and to influence the type of questions put to the text
in the process of interpretation.
Theologians and biblical scholars are increasingly aware that all
theological and biblical interpretations are culturally, historically, and so-
cially conditioned (Schreiter: 3-4; Jeffre: 47). It is now acknowledged that
the current exegetical methodologies have been developed from perspec-
tives that are specifically Western; that they do not reflect the perspectives
and concerns of other cultures; and that each culture has something to
contribute to the understanding of the Christian message. As an approach
to biblical interpretation, the inculturation hermeneutic seeks to promote
the employment of different cultural perspectives in biblical interpreta-
tion, and to bring the contribution of various cultural resources to our
reading of the Bible. In other words, it seeks to make the different socio-
cultural contexts the subject of interpretation. It eschews the hitherto
dominant classicist approach, which supposes the biblical text to have
only one universally valid interpretation, and which assumes that only
approaches shaped by the dominant cultures are seen to be valid.
The inculturation biblical hermeneutic supposes that the biblical text
is plurivalent and can be validly understood differently according to dif-
ferent contexts and perspectives. But this does not mean that the biblical
text can mean anything. Instead it recognizes that there are dynamics
built into a text for guiding interpretation, and that these dynamics can
function in different contexts to produce different but valid interpreta-
tions. Therefore, it advocates a multi-cultural approach to interpreting
biblical texts whereby the biblical message becomes available to people of
different cultures according to their various contexts. It is a holistic ap-
proach to exegesis (McDonald: 547-49).
Interpretation is done within the canon, and comparison with other
relevant texts is done in the process of interpretation. The Bible is looked
upon as a sacred classic—a book containing norms for Christian living as
well as an ancient literary text. Historical critical tools and others are used
precisely as tools to aid interpretation and not as ends in themselves
(Stuhlmacher, 1979:85-90). With insights from the historical analysis of
the text, the text is reread dynamically against the background of a con-
temporary context. This dynamic rereading of the text involves entering
into the text conscious of the present context, with critical awareness, and
allowing it to evoke in us responses, reactions, and commitment appro-
priate to its message and our context. The objective of interpretation is the
actualization of the text within today's context.
This is to say that our context as well as that of the text have an im-
portant part to play in the process of assigning meaning to the relation-
192 SEMEIA

ship and the interaction of the actors in the text, and in the appropriation
of the message. With inculturation hermeneutics there is no question of
treating a text merely as an object of analysis. The involvement of the in-
terpreter in the dynamics of the text is demanded.
Inculturation biblical hermeneutics, as used here, is developed from
the popular approaches to the Bible, and it is reinforced with Western
critical insights of reading. With this brief discussion of inculturation bib-
lical hermeneutics, I now return to Luke 16:1-13.
My interpretation of this parable includes the following assumptions:

1) Parables are plurivalent, hence a parable may have different appli-

cations in different contexts. The presence in the gospels of multi-
ple applications of a parable, as in the case of the parable under
consideration, attests to this (Croatto: 37).
2) Parables have meaning on at least two levels. One is the histori-
cal/social level whereby it expresses what ought to be the proper
human relationships in society, or is a critique of societal and indi-
vidual attitudes and practices in the light of the values of the king-
dom. The other is the eschatological level, whereby the eschato-
logical implication of our actions, that is, the God-human relation-
ship at the end time, is expressed.
3) Parables are an invitation to decision and commitment about con-
temporary situations. Hence they are to be interpreted dynamically
in the present context.
Based on these assumptions, I shall interpret the parable of the shrewd
manager against a particular context, and I shall seek to identify the social
and eschatological messages in the parable and the commitment it evokes
in a contemporary context.

CONTEXT OF INTERPRETATION

I shall reread the parable of the shrewd manager against the back-
ground of rural West Africa, specifically that of the palm producers and
cocoa farmers. Most ordinary West Africans are peasant farmers engaged
in the cultivation of various crops, including the oil palm, from which
they obtain palm oil and kernel. They live by the world-view provided by
their traditional cultures. According to this world view, there should be
no exploitation of fellow human beings. Material wealth is regarded as
God's gift to the whole community. Hoarding and profiteering at the ex-
pense of others are to be abhorred.
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 193

With the coming of Western civilization at the beginning of this cen-

tury things have changed. A money-oriented economy replaced a barter
economy. With this change, new avenues of trade and new means of get-
ting rich quickly developed. For example there arose a crop of rich mid-
dle-men produce traders who became rich by buying palm and cocoa
produce from farmers at very low prizes and selling them to exporters at
very high prizes. This was exploitation since they did not allow the pro-
ducers of these commodities to get the real values of their produce. They
had trading posts at various places run by managers w h o transacted
business for them.
Any peasant farmer in need of agricultural loans went to these man-
agers, who had the power and means to grant such loans. In addition, one
could acquire loans for medical expenses and children's school fees.
However, all loans were refundable with interests rates ranging from 50-
100%. The system operated as follows: for a loan $20.00 a farmer may be
required to pledge 8-10 tins (a four-gallon measure) of palm oil, which at
the time of the loan may cost $20.00 per tin. The amount of palm oil
pledged depended on the leniency of the trader. At harvest time, if oil
prices go up, this is not taken into consideration. If, however, the prices of
oil go down, the farmer must make u p for the difference. This was an-
other form of exploitation, which was very common in the South Eastern
Nigeria, Ghana, and other parts of West Africa.

SOME INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PARABLE

Interpretations of the parable of the shrewd manager generally have

focused on the manager's actions of reducing the debts of his customers.
Invariably, the manager of the parable is presumed to stand for God;
thus, the manager's action is explained in relation to God's benevolence
and generosity. I will identify three mainline interpretations.
One line of interpretation sees the manager as fraudulent but clever.
Reported to his master for his fraudulent dealings and about to be dis-
missed, he engages in a further act of fraud by falsifying the promissory
notes of his master's debtors. He is praised, however, not for this act of
dishonesty but for his cleverness in taking such a decisive action to avert
a future disaster. According to T. W. Manson, with reference to v.8a of the
parable: "Whether it is the employer or Jesus that speaks, we must take
the purport of the speech to be: 'This is a fraud; but it is a most ingenious
fraud. The steward is a rascal; but he is a wonderfully clever rascal'"
(292). Thus it is not the manager's fraudulent behavior that is held u p for
emulation but his prudence.
194 SEMEIA

For those who see the parables as ending at v. 7, prudence consists in

general acuteness in taking decisive action in the face of crisis. Hence for
J. Jeremías, the manager is a criminal who, threatened with expulsion,
adopts unscrupulous but resolute measures to ensure his future security.
This clever, resolute behavior in the face of crisis is the moral of the par-
able. Christians must be aware that they are facing the crisis of the
eschaton and must act resolutely (Jeremías: 46-48).
For those who see the parable as ending at v. 8-9, prudence in the use
of money is the lesson of the parable. Luke teaches that the Christian can
learn from the unjust person that giving material help to the poor can
gain one favor in God's sight. Thus the parable teaches the necessity of
sharing material goods with the poor in order to be received into eternal
life (Hiers: 34; Williams, 1964:294).
This line of interpretation unconsciously identifies with the rich man
in the parable. Because its perspective is that of a rich man, the manager is
called unscrupulous, fraudulent, criminal—terms which are altogether
absent from the text, but which approximate the rich man's assessment of
the manager's "unjustness." Because the manager is considered from this
perspective, all that can be leant from him is his God-given ingenuity of
taking decisive action and giving material goods to the poor, even though
this is done in a fraudulent way and for selfish motive. The economic
system within which he operates is not critiqued, because to do so would
mean critiquing the social and economic foundation of the rich man. The
rich m a n himself is not critiqued because the analysis is done from his
perspective. No doubt, the Christian must learn from the manager about
taking decisive action at the moment of crisis, and no doubt we must
share material with the poor, but why are the poor poor in the first place?
Another line of interpretation seeks to understand the practice of the
manager against Near Eastern customs. It is supposed that the manager,
according to custom, received no salary but could charge his customers
fees. He could keep some or all of these fees, a Hellenistic practice con-
trary to Jewish law. Therefore, when he was given notice he simply set-
tled with his master's debtors without taking his own fees. This was a
prudent way of acting, which the master approved of. The manager used
his material wealth in a way that would ensure his future in view of the
impending crisis. The crisis requires taking such a decisive action. Thus
the shrewd manager becomes a model for Christians who are in a situa-
tion which calls for prudent use of material wealth (Fitzmyer, 1974:177-
78).
This interpretation rightly focuses on the crisis in which the unfortu-
nate manager found himself. But again, because the interpretation is done
from the perspective of the rich man, there is no critique of the unilateral
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 195

action of the rich man which brought the manager's crisis. Rather such a
unilateral dismissal of an employee is taken for granted and implicitly
condoned. Those who follow this line of interpretation exonerate the rich
man.
Yet another line of interpretation connects this parable and those of
chapter 15 and seeks to focus the parable on the rich man's forgiving the
manager. According to it, the lesson of the parable is forgiveness mani-
fested in a generosity that seems "unjust" to human eyes. The manager
has squandered the rich man's money, just as the prodigal son has
squandered his father's money (Lk 15: 11-32). And just as the father for-
gave his prodigal son, just so in the case of the shrewd manager, the
master was not only prepared to forgive him but even to praise the inge-
nuity of the person who had wronged him. This is a forgiveness beyond
human standards. The manager therefore rightly forgives the debtors, just
as the older son should have forgiven his prodigal brother. In human
eyes, the master's forgiving of the manager is "unjust," "unfair." What
the manager does—reducing his customers' debts—is similarly in human
eyes "unjust." Yet he is held up as an example for Christians. This is pre-
cisely because Christians are being called upon to do what may seem
"unjust" means. To forgive seven times a day (Lk 17:3) is far beyond hu-
man standards and reveals a higher standard of justice for the kingdom
(Topel: 225-27).
While this interpretation, in my opinion, rightly points to the concepts
of justice as an important element in the parable, its tying the theme of
this parable to that of the parables in chapter 15, and so making forgive-
ness its focus, is problematic. It is true that he reduced the debts of his
customers, and that the master praised him, but this is not enough to in-
dicate the theme of forgiveness in the story. Other factors must be taken
into consideration.
Of particular note is the fact that the master did not forgive the man-
ager when the manager was reported as having wasted his goods. Rather
he set out to dismiss him. This becomes much clearer when we compare
the action of the master with that of the father in the preceding parable of
the prodigal son (15:11-32). Both the manager and the prodigal son were
guilty of "wasting" property, and while the father of the prodigal son for-
gave the boy and received him back, the master dismissed the manager.
And as we shall see later, the image of the master in our parable stands in
sharp contrast to the image of the father in the story of the prodigal son. It
is therefore not convincing to hold that the theme of forgiveness found in
chapter 15 is continued in our parable.
This brief survey shows that the parable of the shrewd manager has
been interpreted mainly from the perspective of the rich man in the story.
196 SEMEIA

For this reason attention has focused mainly on the manager. I contend
that the parable has more to offer than a critique of the manager. It is no-
table that apart from the last approach presented above, no serious effort
has been made to relate the parable to one of the great themes of Luke's
Gospel namely, Jesus' teachings on riches.
In this study, I shall interpret the parable from the perspective of the
peasant farmers in the story. That the farmers are not the main actors in
the story provides another vantage point for assessing the activities of the
main actors and interpreting their relationship among themselves and to
the farmers in the story.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE PARABLE

The parable of the shrewd manager is part of Luke's narrative of Je-

sus' journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, Luke 9:51-19:27. In this block of
material three important themes of Luke's Gospel are found: discipleship,
God's mercy, and forgiveness. For Luke the good news of the kingdom is
for the poor. The rich are warned against the danger of being excluded
from the kingdom by their possessions. They are to use wealth in the
right way if they want to enter the kingdom (Marshall, 1984:206). No-
where else in the Gospel is this theme so well developed as in the section
on Jesus' journey to Jerusalem.
The second section opens with the teaching about poverty and de-
tachment from worldly ties as a condition for discipleship (9:57-63). An
example of such detachment is given in the Samaritan's use of his own
money to care for a stranger (10:25-37). In the story of the prodigal son
(15:11-32), detachment from riches is exemplified by the father who ac-
ceded to his son's request to give him his portion of the father's property,
while the prodigal son exemplifies attachment to and misuse of riches.
These stories are not specifically on riches, but aspects of them exemplify
Jesus' teaching on riches in the section.
The main teaching on riches is developed in three parables of the sec-
tion (12:13-21; 16:19-31) and two narratives at the end of it (18:18-30;
19:1-10). What is the focus of this teaching and, by implication, of our
parable? The first parable, the rich fool (12:13-21), exposes the folly of
hoarding material goods. It is specifically and explicitly a critique of the
rich and the societal practice of hoarding material wealth. The parable of
the shrewd manager is the second. Its focus is not as clear, but I shall seek
to discover it through the comparison with other texts in the section. The
third is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), which exposes
the eschatological punishment for not sharing material wealth with the
poor. This, no doubt, is a clear critique of the rich; their lack of concern for
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD M A N A G E R 197

the poor in society is the object of critique. It is therefore to be expected

that the parable of the shrewd manager, which is sandwiched between
these two, and treats the same general theme of riches, is also a critique of
the rich and the attendant societal attitude associated with riches.
The three parables on riches in the section also have literary connec­
tions. Each of them describes the main figure in the parable as a "rich
m a n . " This description is not present in the parables of the good Samari­
tan (10:11-27), the prodigal son (15:11-32), and the p o u n d s (19:11-27),
which are also found in the section, and in which material wealth is men­
tioned, but which are not directly connected with critiquing riches.
For Luke, the phrase άνθρωπος τις ην πλούσιος (rich man) has a pejo­
rative connotation. It is always found in contexts where material wealth is
directly or indirectly critiqued. Apart from the parable of the shrewd
manager, there are ten such references in the Gospel. The first is found in
6:24, in which Jesus delivers a curse on the rich, an explicit criticism of
riches and the rich. The second is found in the parable of the rich fool
(12:16), another context in which material wealth is critiqued. In the third,
which deals with invitations to parties of rich people (14:12-13), those
w h o ought to be invited are the poor not the rich. Similarly, the rich are
criticized for associating only with the rich. The fourth, fifth, and sixth
references are found in the stpry of the rich m a n and Lazarus (16:19, 21,
22), which is another explicit critique of the rich and their lack of concern
for the poor.
The seventh and eighth are found in the story of the rich noble m a n
w h o became sad w h e n he was told to sell all his property and give the
money to the poor, including Jesus's statement on the impossibility of the
rich people to enter the kingdom (18:23, 25). This is perhaps the most
poignant pronouncement of Jesus about the rich in the gospels. It was so
devastating that even the disciples sought an explanation as to how peo­
ple could then be saved. Jesus' reply is even more disturbing: to be saved
one must be detached from material things, and this is m a d e possible
only by God's grace. The ninth reference is about Zacchaeus whose action
of making restitution is a critique of riches (19:2). Himself a rich man,
Zacchaeus voluntarily restores what he got through extortion. H e ac­
knowledges the evil of accumulating wealth while dispossessing the
poor. His actions bespeak of self-criticism. The last reference contrasts the
offering at the treasury made by the rich to that made by a poor w i d o w
w h o m Jesus commended (12:4). Here the poor widow is preferred to the
rich.
In all these stories, the rich and material wealth are held out in one
way or another as the object of critique. This means that the use of the
term άνθρωπος πλούσιος to describe the master of the estate in the parable
198 SEMEIA

of the shrewd manager signals that he is to be looked at as an object of

critique.
That Luke's presentation of Jesus' teaching on riches in this section is
meant to be a critique of the rich and riches is further confirmed by the
two narratives on the same theme at the end of the section. These are the
case of the rich noble m a n (18:18-30), which shows how h a r d it is for
those w h o have riches to enter into the kingdom, and the case of Zac­
chaeus (19:1-10) where Jesus' words (v. 10) show how the right use of
wealth is a precondition for gaining salvation. These narratives serve as
practical cases to exemplify and confirm the parabolic teachings in the
section.
In terms of proximate context, the two parables in chapter 16 have
both literary and thematic continuity. The main figures are described as
rich m e n (16:1; 16:19). Both parables present the rich m e n against the
background of disadvantaged people—the dismissed manager and the
peasant farmers in the first story, and the beggar in the second. Both focus
on riches. If the second one is a critique of the riches and the rich man,
then it follows that the first one should also be a critique of riches and the
rich m a n in the story.
In addition, Luke 16 exhibits elements of discontinuity with the pre­
ceding chapter 15. The chapter opens with the words βλζγβν δέ, which
generally introduces a contrast, and the audience changes from the Phari­
sees and scribes (15:1-2) to the disciples (16:1). Besides, the main figures
in the parables in chapter 16 stand in contrast to those in chapter 15. First,
while the shepherd (15:1-7), the woman (15:8-10), and the father (15:11-
32) are anxious about and search for what is lost, the rich men in 16:1-13,
and 16:19-31 d o not care for the marginalized in the society. Second,
while the father in 15:11-32 welcomes back his son, w h o was guilty of
wasting goods, the rich m a n in 16:1-13 dismisses his manager for the
same offense of wasting goods. Thus, the main figures in chapter 16 are
contrasted with those in chapter 15. This means that while it is reasonable
to understand the main figures in chapter 15 as they are generally under­
stood to stand for God, it is not reasonable to understand those in chapter
16 in the same way.
In sum, therefore, the teaching of Jesus on riches in this section fo­
cuses on a critique of material wealth and of the rich. The parable of the
shrewd manager is a critique of riches, and the rich man in the parable is
the object of critique.
In Judaism, the context out which Jesus spoke his parables, the form
of the parable comprised the body of the story called the mashal, and the
moral or commentary on the story called the nimshal. (Of course, not
every parable had a nimshal). Sometimes the same mashal could be found
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 199

with different nimshalim, thus pointing to differences in the context of in­

terpretation (Culbertson: 206). In the case of the parable under considera­
tion there is one mashal and many nimshalim attached to it. This is the
common opinion of scholars. There is, however, disagreement as to where
the mashal ends and where the nimshalim start.
The majority of the exegetes see the parables as ending at v.8, and see
the other verses as the nimshalim on it. (Among those who hold this view
are E. Klostermann, A. Descamps, Κ. H. Rengstorf; see Fitzmyer,
1985:1096.) What is problematic about this view is that v.8b, which is
clearly a commentary on the manager's action, is counted as part of the
mashal. This verse is an exhortation for people to approach their spiritual
affairs with the same zeal and seriousness as the approach temporal af­
fairs. Therefore, it cannot be considered as part of the mashal, but as a nim­
shal.
According to B. Weiss, W. O. E. Oesterley, J. Fitzmyer, among others,
the parable proper ends at v.8a while the rest of the parable ( w . 8b-13)
are the nimshalim on it (Fitzmyer, 1985:1097). This position rightly recog­
nizes the fact that v.8b is a commentary on the manager's action and
hence a nimshal. This is the position I shall adopt here.
There are two problems with regard to the understanding of v. 8a.
First: to whom does ó κύριος in this verse refer? Second is: why did the
"master " praise the manager?
With regard to the first question, ó κύριος could refer either to Jesus or
to the master in the parable. According to some, it refers to Jesus. Jeremías
has strongly argued for this position. For him it is doubtful that the mas-
ter in the parable would praise his deceitful manager. That Jesus is meant
here finds an analogy in Luke 18:6 where the same expression (της
άοικίας) is clearly used by Jesus to qualify the principal figure in that story
(Lk 18:1-18). In that text, too, it is clear that with the words ei7T€z; be 0
κύριος the judgment of Jesus inserted into the parable (18:6) should be
seen as introducing the insertion of Jesus' words into the parable. Against
this argument that the change of subject in 16:9 suggests that Jesus is not
the ó κύριος of 16:8, Jeremías cites a similar change of the subject in 18:8
(Jeremías: 46-48).
In my view, Jeremías has failed to take into account the fact that in
Luke 18:1-8 it is only at 18:4-5, which expresses the comment of the prin-
cipal figure in the story, that the story is complete, and the rest is a com-
mentary on it. Similarly, in the story in 16:1-13, one needs the reaction of
the main figure to make the story complete, and 16: 8a is the only possible
text expressing such reaction. Besides, from the point of view of the nar-
rative structure of the text, it is only normal that the story which started
with the reaction of the rich man to allegations about his manager should
200 SEMEIA

end with the expression of his reaction to the further activity of the man-
ager. Along with Fitzmyer and others, I see v. 8a as referring not to Jesus
but to the rich man's reaction to his manager's activity (Fitzmyer,
1985:1097), and so the ó κύριος refers not to Jesus but to the master in the
parable.
With regard to the second question, some authors are of the opinion
that the manager is depraved, hence it is only his prudence in facing the
crisis that is praised (Jeremías: 46). Fitzmyer has argued that the manager
was not fraudulent and that describing him as unjust does not connote
depravity. He cites the case of the unjust judge (Lk 18:2-8) in support of
this. For him, the manager was praised for both his action and prudence
(Fitzmyer, 1974:172-73). In view of the fact that it is the rich man who
praised the manager and called him "unjust," it is plausible to see the rich
man as condemning the action of his manager yet admiring his prudence.
Whether the manager was in actual fact fraudulent or not is another mat-
ter, which I shall discuss later. But insofar as the rich man was concerned
the manager was unjust (v. 8a).
Concerning Fitzmyer's argument, I want to point out that the term
"unjust" is used in two different and contradictory senses in the parable
of the shrewd manager and in the parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-
10). In the former parable, it is the rich man who pronounces the manager
unjust. As I shall demonstrate later, his pronouncement is informed by
the oppressive society's concept of justice. In the second case, however, it
is Jesus who pronounces that the judge is unjust, and he expresses the di-
vine standard of justice. The difference is that in an oppressive society it is
taken for granted that the poor people, like the farmers in the first story
and the widow in the second, have no rights, and therefore do not de-
serve to be treated as human. To treat them as human is unjust. This is the
connotation of the term in the first story. The dismissed manager gave the
poor peasant farmers generous debt reduction, which could bring relief to
their poor living conditions. By the standard of an oppressive economic
system, which the rich man represents, this was unjust. Poor people have
no such rights. Similarly, the judge in the second story shows himself as
operating according to an oppressive standard of justice. Because human
rights are founded on God and the dignity of humanity as God's creation,
by having no respect for God and humanity, the judge shows that he has
no respect for human rights. Therefore, he vindicates the woman not be-
cause she has rights as a human being, whereby she would deserve to be
listened to, but simply because she has pestered him. All this is, of course,
unjust by divine standards. Hence, Jesus calls the judge unjust. In other
words, what is just by the standards of an oppressive society is unjust by
divine standards, and vice versa.
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 201

Before going on to discuss the background of the parable of the

shrewd manager, it is important to bring together the points that have
emerged from its textual analysis. These are:
1) The parable is a critique of riches and of the rich man, the principal
figure of the parable;
2) The rich man in the parable stands in continuity with the rich man
in the next parable involving Lazarus (16:19-31), and in contrast to
the principal figures in the parable of chapter 15, and so he is not
representative of God;
3) Four nimshalim are attached to the parable as follows, w . 8b, 9 , 1 0 -
12,13;
4) The ó κύριος of v. 8a refers not to Jesus but to the rich man in the
parable; and
5) The ingenuity of the manager is the object of praise in v. 8a.

SOCIAL HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE PARABLE

To gain a fuller understanding of the parable, I shall now probe into

the economic situation in Palestine reflected in the parable. According to
J. D. M. Derrett, the parable reflects Palestinian practices of agency and
usury (Derrett: 198-219). A manager of an estate had powers to act on be­
half of his master in transactions with third parties such as the renting of
a plot of ground to tenant farmers, giving loans against a harvest, liqui­
dation and reduction of debts, and keeping the accounts of such transac­
tions. Even though giving of loans with interests was regarded as usury
and forbidden by Jewish law (cf. Deut 17:7-8; 23:20-21; Exod 22:24; Lev
23:36-37), the practice was common. In the promissory notes or bonds of
such loans, only the total amount owed (i.e. principal plus interest) was
recorded. This made it possible to circumvent the law forbidding usury,
for if the amount charged as interest appeared in the bond, the borrower
could claim it back in the law court. According to Fitzmyer, the practice of
having borrowers sign bonds in which only the total amount owed was
indicated was quite common not only in Palestine but also in the Greco-
Roman world, Egypt, Syria, and Babylonia (Fitzmyer, 1985: 1097).
Josephus records that when Agrippa 1 was almost bankrupt (ca. AD 3 3 -
34) he borrowed money from a Near Eastern banker through an agent,
Marsyas, who had to sign a bond for 20.000 Attic drachmas, though he
had actually received 2500 drachmas less (Ant. 18.6, 3.157). A similar
practice was known to have been in vogue in India early this century
(Gibson: 334).
Against this background, the parable of the shrewd manager depicts a
situation where a rich man, probably the owner of a Galilean latifundium,
202 SEMEIA

entrusted the management of his estate to a manager (Fitzmyer,

1985:1097). During the normal course of his business the manager made
loans to people. Since these loans were repayable in kind—in agricultural
produce (vv. 6-7)—they could have been loans against a harvest, and the
practice was to pay them back with interest. Only the total amount to be
paid back, comprising the principal and the interest on it, was indicated
in the bond. The manager could also have rented out portions of his
master's land to tenant farmers, with the rent to be paid back in kind.
Would the master have approved of all this? Since this was part of the
normal course of the business of the estate and since such practices were
apparently common at the time, it is likely that the master approved of it.
In support of this is, he dismissed the manager for "wasting" his goods,
which among other things would mean that he was not making enough
profit. In 19:12-27, Luke tells of another master who punished one of his
managers for not having made profit. This indicates that the master him­
self was a shrewd businessman who kept an eye on his business and who
would regularly require accurate accounting from the manager. Besides,
the text indicates that the money was owed to the master (w. 5-7). Le­
gally, however, the master could plead innocent in the law court since all
the transactions were done by an agent. But that would not exonerate him
from moral involvement in the transactions. In other words, the rich man
must be seen as morally involved in the usurious deals that took place in
the estate.
Was the manager unjust? The text does not provide the precise nature
and details of the offence for which the manager was dismissed. It only
says that he was guilty of "wasting" his master's property (16:2). In Luke
15:13, the prodigal son is guilty of the same offence. In this text, the of­
fence is expatiated as meaning living a useless life, or living in an ex­
travagant way, ζών ασωτως. This could have been the offence of the man­
ager, but it is not indicated. In any case, this does not necessarily involve
defrauding his master. It would be implausible then to conclude that
wasting the master's property also equals defrauding him. Since, how­
ever, the accusation of injustice comes after the manager had given his
customers debt reductions, it is reasonable to assume that the accusation
refers to this incident.
That the manager had the accounts in the promissory notes of the
debtors altered could be explained in one of the three ways. One expla­
nation is that this was an outright fraud. And the manager was a cheat.
His action was tantamount to falsification of documents, therefore he was
unjust (Jeremais: 46-47). The problem with this explanation is that it does
not take into account the economic practices of the time. According to
such practice, as shown above, the manager had powers to reduce debts
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 203

and the story seems to indicate his exercise of such powers. To see him as
acting fraudulently is therefore not convincing.
The second explanation takes into account the economic background
of the story. According to this background, such a manager was generally
a household slave and did not receive a salary. Custom permitted him to
charge fees from his customers for his services. This was the interest that
the customers had to pay on loans, and he could keep all or part of it, re-
turning the rest to the master. Because the reductions he made to the
customers represent the fees he had charged them, he was therefore not
defrauding his master (Fitzmeyer, 1974:175-77). This explanation raises
two problems. The first is that there is no way of knowing how much of
what the customers had to pay represented the capital and how much
represented the interest. Therefore, it seems arbitrary to say that the re-
ductions represent the interest, that is, the manager's fees. The second
problem is that the text consistently says that the amount owed belonged
to the master of the estate (w. 5,7). There is no indication that the part of
what was owed belonged to the manager.
The third explanation takes the background of the text into consid-
eration but also takes the text itself seriously. From the background of the
text it is clear that the manager had powers to liquidate debts and give
reduction. It is also clear from the text that, at the time he was dismissed,
the loans had not matured, for he had to call in the borrowers, not to pay
what they owed, but to issue fresh bonds for payment at maturity. The
fact that the loans had not matured before he was dismissed means that
he was no longer entitled to the interest; it would, when paid, revert to
the master. This means that at the time he altered the bonds the amount
owed by the debtors (principal plus interest) belonged to the master.
Since the manager had power to reduce debts, it seems persuasive to in-
terpret what he did as an exercise of power. It was not therefore a matter
of foregoing his fees or a matter of fraud. Nor does the text describe him
as falsifying the bonds. He was acting within his legitimate duties.
How then does one explain that at v.8a the rich man calls the manager
unjust? The rich man calls the manager unjust in the very act of praising
him. The manager's acuteness is praiseworthy, but his act of giving debt
reductions to these exploited farmers, which he had powers to do, is seen
by the rich man as "unjust." This depicts the exploitative economic sys-
tem's concept of justice, which is giving to everyone their dues. Whatever
a person has is their due, and nobody else's. There is no questioning how
and where they got it. Thus, all the wealth and all the power which rich
people have are due to them, and it should be given to them (no matter
the extent of exploitation they engaged in to get rich). And to the poor
who have nothing, nothing is their due; they are not entitled to anything,
204 SEMEIA

and so they deserve to be given nothing. To do otherwise, that is, to give

some of what is due to the rich to the poor, is to be "unjust." In this sense
the rich man called his employee "unjust" for reducing the debts of his
customers. The concept of justice in the economic system of his time cre-
ates a system whereby the poor toil daily to create the wealth which the
rich enjoy. Wherever it operates, the rich are kept rich, and the poor, poor.

INTERPRETATION

From the textual analysis and the historical clarifications given above,
I shall now reread the parable of the shrewd manager dynamically
against the background of West African peasant farmers presented ear-
lier.
The text presents a rich man who owns an estate but who is an ab-
sentee landlord. He has a manager looking after the affairs of the estate.
He comes in occasionally to check on the manager and collect the pro-
ceeds of the estate. On one such occasion he gets information about the
manager wasting his goods and decides to dismiss him. He orders the
manager to turn in an account of the estate in preparation for dismissal.
The manager, the rich man's agent, bears the brunt of the work at the
estate. He toils for the rich man, he is at his beck and call, and keeps the
accounts of the estate. Even though he has wide powers, he is only an
employee and can be unilaterally dismissed and stripped of these powers
at any moment, with the shortest notice, and for any reason determined
by the master. In other words, because he is only an employee, and he is
poor, he has no rights. He is therefore an object of exploitation by the rich
man and a victim of the vagaries of the economic system of his society.
The customers at the estate, who are mainly the local peasant farmers,
know that the manager is not the master of the estate, but he works for a
master and is responsible to the master, even though he is rarely seen at
the estate. They know also that the debts they owe at the estate are owed
to the master and not to the manager even though he does the transac-
tions (vv. 5, 7). They may not know the master in person, but that does
not matter. In their eyes, therefore, the master is the lender (not the man-
ager who does the transactions) and they are the borrowers; he has eco-
nomic power and occupies an economically strong position while they
have no economic power and occupy a weak position. They borrow from
him to be able to cultivate the land during the farming season. At harvest,
what would have accrued to them as profit from their sweat and toil has
to be paid out in kind in respect of the loan. The rich man sells the pro-
duce of the farmers for profit and thus gets richer. He remains the lender
in the community while the farmers remain the borrowers. This is ex-
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 205

ploitation, an economic arrangement whereby the rich stay rich and the
poor stay poor. It is also an economic situation that involves usury, which
was forbidden by Jewish law.
It is clear from the above that the rich man is presented in the story as
an exploiter and as the object of critique. As the rich man stands in con-
trast to the poor Lazarus (16:19-31), so too does the master in the parable
of the shrewd manager stand in contrast in terms of economic power and
position to his employee and the peasant farmers. And by extension, the
economic system he represents—an economic system that favors exploi-
tation—is also being critiqued.
Aware that he is to lose his job, the manager plans for the future. He
first thinks of joining the band of peasant farmers in the locality, but dis-
cards the idea because he had not been trained for that sort of profession.
Next, he thinks of begging. Having wielded some power in the economic
status quo and having a high self image, he feels it is too shameful to beg.
One has the impression then that he has decided to look for another
"blue-collar" job. Meanwhile, until he gets another job, how does he live?
He knows that as soon as he loses his job he is likely to lose the friendship
of his former associates. Therefore, he decides on a public relations strat-
egy to create a new circle of friends from his peasant farmer customers.
He knows that he has powers to reduce their debts, and that as exploited
people like himself, some debt reduction would bring some relief to them.
Consequently, he decides to act in solidarity with them in the expectation
that they would respond in solidarity with him when he is dismissed. He
calls them in and gives them debt reductions of fifty percent and twenty
percent.
In fact, what the farmers got is not so much a matter of charity, but a
matter of justice. Charity supposes that a person has no right to what they
get, but gets it purely out of the benevolence of the giver w h o is looked
upon as a benefactor. Justice supposes that a person has a right to what
they get. Did the farmers have a right to the debt reductions they got? Le-
gally, they had. Here was a case of usury expressly forbidden by law, and
in theory they could claim back interest they were charged in the law
court. We have no way of knowing whether or not all of the reductions
represent the interest they were to pay, but it remains that they had a le-
gal right to get back what was charged interest. Morally, too, they had a
right to the debt reduction. The estate was built upon their labor. They
were the people generating wealth for the estate. They had a moral right
to restitution for exploitation.
The manager's action is restitutive and is an action of self-criticism. To
some extent, it parallels that of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) who, like the
manager, had been an agent for an oppressive system. The debt reduc-
2θ6 SEMEIA

tions make up for the exploitation the farmers had suffered from the sys­
tem through him. He therefore deserves to hear words similar to those
spoken by Jesus to Zacchaeus: "Today has salvation come to you." Unlike
Zaccheaus, he may not have been fully conscious of the restitutive nature
of his action, yet that his action was such and had an eschatological effect
is clear from the use of the expression φρονίμως βποίησεν (he acted wisely
v. 8a) to describe it. As used in the Gospel, the adverb φρονίμως describes
actions that have eschatological implications.
In its holistic sense, salvation involves forgiveness of sin and the con­
tinued living in harmonious peaceful fellowship with others (Ps 133:1) as
a sign of eschatological reality. Salvation, in this conception, starts on
earth but continues unto eternity (Ukpong, 1983:19). It is a reality that is
both present and eschatological, material and spiritual. It is essential to
the concept of the kingdom that Jesus inaugurated (Ukpong, 1993:150).
Such is the salvation that Jesus imparted to Zaccheaus when he said:
"Today has salvation come to this house" (Lk 19:9). He had brought his
followers into Zacchaeus' house thereby integrating one who was re­
garded as an outcast into a fellowship and a community. Such integration
and fellowship is what the dismissed manager sought with his former
customers, when he gave them debt reductions (Lk 16:4). Hence, he is de­
scribed as having acted wisely (φρονίμως ¿ποίησζν).
Because of the exploitative nature of the economic system in which he
operates, the rich man sees the manager's action of giving debt reduction
to his customers as injustice (v. 8a). According to the concept of justice in
this economic system, the poor have no right to anything; therefore it is
unjust to give some of the rich man's property to them. However, there is
another concept of justice whereby everyone is seen as having a right to
the material goods of this world; where material wealth is regarded as
God's own gift to humanity to be shared equitably in such a way that no­
body is in want. According to this world-view, to exploit another human
being is a crime. The poor are to be treated with dignity and love. Those
who have more than others must use their wealth to benefit others. This
was the authentic world-view of ancient Israel which the prophets con­
stantly sought to sustain, which got gradually eroded. It is the world-
view of African traditional society in which justice is a matter of sharing
the earth's wealth in such a way that nobody is exploited and all have
enough to live on.
Therefore, the manager's action of sharing the debts of his customers
is in line with this latter concept of justice. It is a critique of the exploita­
tive concept of justice operative in his society, of the rich man, his master,
as an exploiter, and of his former self as an agent of the oppressive sys­
tem. By calling the manager "unjust" in the very act of praising his inge-
 UKPONG: PARABLE OF SHREWD MANAGER 207

nuity (v. 8a), the master acknowledges the manager's critique. His em-
ployee's action has challenged his sense of justice and that of his society.
As a rich man, he already had more than enough and did not really need
what the farmers owed him. Rather, these farmers stood in far greater
need than himself.
Today, Two-Thirds World countries are groaning under the heavy
weight of international debt and the International Monetary Fund's Eco-
nomic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP). The latter is borne out of
desire to streamline the weak economies of the Two-Thirds World in re-
lation to the economies of the West. Everywhere the immediate impact
has been massive suffering for the ordinary people of Two-Thirds World
countries, where the Program has been launched. The ultimate aim is not
change or improvement, but to keep people where they "belong"; that is,
the weak to continue being weak and the strong to remain strong. Both
packages, the debt issue and the ESAP, are under the control of the rich
countries of the West.
In the light of the parable of the shrewd manager one is prompted to
ask: for whose benefit is the Two-Thirds World carrying debt and the
burden of ESAP? And how did the poor countries become poor borrow-
ers in the first place? Is it not through the exploitation of these countries
by the rich ones? In the case of debt one often hears the argument: "Debt
is debt and charity is charity, justice demands debt to be paid." This is of
course the jargon of an exploitative system. The full argument is simple:
the rich nations have, and so they must get back what they lent out so as
to keep what is due to them; the poor countries have nothing and so
nothing is due to them. Therefore, they must pay back what they got from
the rich nations with interest lest they should have something for which
they are not entitled. The same basic logic underlines the ESAP package.
I, and other readers from Two-Thirds World countries, see the parable of
the shrewd manager as a critique of this system and of the concept of jus-
tice that operates in this situation, including the current concept of justice
that operates in the exploitative world economy of today. The parable
thus challenges Christians to work toward the reversal of the situation.
The manager of the estate, as long as he was the agent of the rich man,
belonged to the power structure of the exploitative economic system. As
long as the system favored him, he was happy to maintain the status quo.
But then the sharp axe of the system fell. This became the moment of cri-
sis, leading him to turn against the system and critique it. His crisis be-
came the catalyst for the inauguration of a new system of justice. To the
peasant farmers he was a hero: he acted on their behalf. Here the Chris-
tian is being challenged to work for a new system of justice in order to
bring about the historical and eschatological realization of the kingdom,
2θ8 SEMEIA

which starts with h u m a n fellowship here on this earth and continues into
eternity.
Moments of life crisis are to be converted into opportunities to take
u p such challenges. Like the dismissed manager, Christians do not en­
gage in self-pity nor do they despair or bemoan their fate w h e n faced
with a crisis. Rather they take the situation as a challenge to rise to new
heights in response to the demands of the values of the kingdom within
their community.
In sum, therefore, this parable challenges Christians to be committed
to work towards the reversal of oppressive structures of contemporary
economic systems; and to take life crises as challenges to rise to new
heights in response to the demands of the kingdom.

CONCLUSION

As I pointed out at the beginning, my interpretation of the parable of

the shrewd manager is offered not as the meaning of the parable, but as
one of the many possible valid interpretations. The background which in­
formed the interpretation is that of rural West African peasant farmers,
especially their experience of exploitation by the middlemen agricultural
traders. This reading identifies with the peasant farmers in the story and
views the situation described in the parable from their perspective. Con­
sequently, the parable is seen as a critique of the exploitative economic
system of the society for that time and for today. It challenges Christians
today to be a catalyst for bringing about a new order of justice in the
world.
This perspective of reading has led to the conclusion that the rich m a n
in the story is not the benevolent grand personage he is often thought to
be, but an exploiter. The reading has also concluded that the manager of
the estate is not the villain he is often thought to be, but the hero of the
story, for having acted on behalf of the exploited peasant farmers. This
approach has brought to life the image of the peasant farmers in the story,
an image not generally evident when other exegetical approaches are
used.
 WORKS CONSULTED

Bartdorf, I.
1984 'Interpreting Jesus Since Bultmann: Selected Paradigms and their Her-
meneutical Matrix." Pp. 210-20 in SBL Seminar Papers 23. Ed. Kent H.
Richards. Chico, CA: Scholars.
Bultmann, Rudolf
1963 History of the Synoptic Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Croatto, J. S.
1987 Biblical Hermeneutics: Towards a Theory of Reading as the Production of
Meaning. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Culbertson, P.
1988 "Reclaiming the Matthean Vineyard Parables." Encounter 49:257-83.
Derrett, J. D. M.
1960-61 "Fresh Light on St. Luke XVI. I. The Parable of the Unjust Servant." NTS
7:198-219.
Dickson, K. A.
1973 "The Old Testament and African Theology." Ghana Bulletin of Theology
4:31^0.
Ellingworth, P., ed.
1969 Biblical Revelation and African Beliefs. London: Lutterworth.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1974 "The Story of the Dishonest Manager (LK. 16:1-13)." Pp. 161-84 in Essays
on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. Ed. Joseph A. Fitzmyer.
Atlanta: Scholars.
1985 "The Parable of the Dishonest Manager (Lk 16:l-8a)." Pp. 1094-111 in
The Gospel According to Luke x-xxiv. The Anchor Bible. New York: Dou-
bleday.
Gibson, M. D.
1902-3 "On the Parable of the Unjust Steward." ExpT 14:334.
Hiers, P. H.
1970 "Friends By Unrighteous Mammon. The Eschatological Proletariat (Lk
16:9)." JAAR 38:30-37.
Jeffre, C.
1972 A New Age in Theology. New York: Paulist.
Jeremais, Joachim
1963 The Parables of Jesus. London: SCM.

-209-
210 SEMEIA

Manson, T. W.
1971 The Sayings of Jesus As Recorded in the Gospel According to St. Matthew and
St. Luke Arranged With Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM.
McDonald, J. L H .
1989 "Romans 13:1-7: A Test Case for New Testament Interpretation." NTS
35:540-49.
Mveng, E. and Werblowsky, R. J. Z., eds.
1972 Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress on Black Africa and the Bible. Jerusa-
lem.
Prewisker, H.
1949 "Luke 16:1-7." Theologische Literatur Zeitung 74:85-92.
Schreiter, R.
1985 Constructing Local Theologies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Stuhlmacher, Peter
1979 Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture. London:
SPCK.
Topel, L. John
1975 "On the Injustice of the Unjust Steward: Lk. 16:1-13." CBQ 37:216-27.
Ukpong, Justin S.
1983 "Redemption: A Biblical Hermeneutic." Catholic Witness 3:14-26.
1987 Sacrifice: African and Biblical. Rome: Urbaniana University Press.
1993 "Proclaiming The Kingdom of God in Africa Today." Pp. 149-58 in Pro-
claiming the Kingdom. Essays in Contextual New Testament Studies. Ed.
Justin S. Ukpong. Port Harcourt: CIWA.
1994 "Towards a Renewed Approach to Inculturation Theology." Journal of
Inculturation Theology 1:8-24.
Williams, F. E.
1970 "Is Almsgiving the Point of the 'Unjust Steward'?" JBL 83:293-97.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.