Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T02:34:51.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Wasteful Steward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Extract

The traditional division of Luke’s Gospel between chapters 15 and 16 conveys a hidden meaning to the reader: a meaning which was not intended by Luke himself who did not make the division. The meaning is roughly: now we have finished with Jesus’s parables on forgiveness; now we are moving on to another topic, the right use of money; here are a couple of parables on that issue.

Luke gives no signal in his text that he sees a change of subject at this precise point. There are signs of a shift at verses 9 and 14 of chapter 16, but this leaves open the possibility that the parable of the wasteful steward might be linked in its meaning to the three parables of chapter 15.

In a sense the parables of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10) and the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) are also about money, but everybody agrees that looking after money properly is not the point of these parables. The point of the lost coin story is brought out in verse 10. As regards the prodigal son, the final saying of the father in the story gives the meaning: ‘It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found’ (Luke 15:32). This directly answers the complaint of the Pharisees that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them (Luke 15:2).

The very next verse is: ‘He also said to the disciples...’ Luke 16:1). The natural way to read this is: here is a follow up story on the same theme, but directly aimed at the situation of the disciples rather than the complaint of the Pharisees.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am very grateful to Adrian Graffy of St John's Seminary, Wonersh who read an earlier draft of this article, and made a number of comments which I have incorporated, or which have led to important alterations.

2 I had my attention drawn to this translation, and to Plummer's commentary, by Adrian Graffy.

3 Plummer, , The Gospel According to S. Luke, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, Fifth edition, 1922, pp. 383384.Google Scholar