The Shrewd Lettings Agent is based on Luke 16: 1-9
Introduction
This is probably the most confusing parable in the Gospels. It’s possible that the deep confusion is because Jesus was relying on a well known type of story in the ancient world; the wily servant outwits his master. In the context of the modern UK, this would be like using Robin Hood to make a point in a sermon. Everyone knows Robin Hood will rob the rich and give to the poor – and we wouldn’t assume that the preacher was telling everyone to go out and rob random rich people. We’d look for: ‘What is it in this story of Robin Hood that tells us about God?’
Background to the Parable
The ‘shrewd manager’ is probably an estate manager, with one of his duties to collect rents in kind. So when retelling, this would be someone in a well-paid and responsible position. Looking at the parable, the original tenants were ‘share-croppers’ paying rent with part of their crops. However, they were definitely not the poor peasant farmers that ‘share cropping’ might suggest. The rental section of their crops, laid down in writing, suggests large farms – the produce of a hundred acres, or a hundred and fifty olive trees. So, they’re also probably in comfortable circumstances – just not as rich as the land owner.
Honesty
In retelling this parable we also need to consider the honesty of the owner and whether the tenants are colluding with the agent’s rent adjustment. Some commentaries do suggest that the owner is dishonest, possibly charging some kind of interest on his rents (forbidden by the laws of the day). Other commentators don’t; as I said in the first paragraph, this is a really confusing parable.
I went with the commentators who argue that a dishonest owner doesn’t really fit the parable. The owner responds to complaints. People thought it was worth complaining to him. The owner cares enough about his property to fire a wasteful manager; he seems to be respected. In addition, from what we know of First Century Galilee and Judea, there seems to be nothing extortionate about the rents.
I also went with the idea that the tenants honestly thought they had a rent rebate – I set the retelling in the pandemic because it was a period when a rent rebate would have been both reasonable and generous. In place of possible agricultural problems that Jesus’ audience would know about (bad weather, lack of rain) I had lockdowns and furloughs.
The Manager’s Problem
The manager’s problem is that he’s been caught and he’s been fired. What he doesn’t do is defend himself – by the custom of the times, that means he accepts that he’s guilty. Likewise, the customs of the time would mean that he lost his authority as soon as the owner told him he’s no longer a manager. What he should do is send in the accounts and go. Instead, he seems to have a period of ‘golden time’ where the tenants don’t yet know he’s been fired.
In retelling, one problem might be people’s assumptions about what happens when you’re fired. A common film trope is someone immediately carrying his possessions out of the office in a cardboard box, in the middle of the working day, accompanied by security. If this parable is being retold in a country where that can happen – why hasn’t the owner done that? If the parable is retold in a country where that generally can’t happen, where firing someone can’t happen on a whim, do we want the manager to be working out her/his notice?
The Prodigal Manager?
It’s interesting that this (ex) estate manager dismisses a laboring job because he’s not strong enough to do it, not because it’s beneath his dignity. Equally, as someone who was able to work, he’d be ashamed to beg. I switched to a female manager and suggested construction because that’s still largely a male industry – women tend to be in more skilled jobs, which the manager wouldn’t have the knowledge to do. Begging was changed to Universal Credit/Social Security. In the UK, someone dismissed (or asked to resign) because of gross misconduct wouldn’t be able to claim Universal Credit.
As more than a few commentators have pointed out, the manager has elements of the Prodigal Son (coming just before this parable, in Luke 15: 11-31). In place of the wasteful son and the rich father there’s a wasteful manager and a rich owner. Both father and owner are remarkably forgiving of their wayward son/manager. Equally, both son and manager seem to realise they don’t deserve the good fortune they had.
The Manager’s Solution
The prodigal’s solution is to go home and ask his father for a job. The manager’s solution is to misuse the resources of the owner one last time – in a way that’s generous to the tenants. He reduces their rent-in-kind by goods that are valued at about 500 denarii – think eighteen months pay for a labourer. It’s worth noting that the tenants are all getting their rent reduced by the same value, which is why I made a reduction of £200 pw for both the first two tenants.
One consequence of the manager’s actions is that the owner will now be an incredibly popular man. This is why the manager is so clever; if the owner repudiates the manager’s actions, demanding the original rents, his name (not the manager’s name) will be mud. If, on the other hand, he accepts the reductions -then he’s lost money, but gained a great reputation as a generous and caring landlord. In the time of Jesus, reputation was important.
Again, I tried to hint at this by setting the parable in the pandemic. A rent reduction in that situation would also have gained the owner a good reputation. In a way, the shrewd manager has found a solution that relies on using money to create an ‘everyone wins’ situation. He was dishonest in the way he used someone else’s money, but the ‘dishonest wealth’ was used to benefit everyone.
Generosity
It’s probable that the tenants would think the manager had talked the manager into the rebate. Jesus doesn’t say that explicitly, but it’s implicit in ‘will welcome me into their homes.’ The culture of the time meant that honour required generosity received to be repaid with generosity given. A favour (the manager getting the rents reduced) was supposed to be repaid. That’s why Jesus spends so much time on telling his followers to be generous to people who can’t repay, to invite those who can’t invite you back. A culture where you expect people to return your generosity can lead to those who can’t return it being excluded.
So any retelling has to keep the generosity. The owner is generous, the steward is generous (with someone else’s money) and – maybe – this parable is about God being generous.
The Parable’s Meaning?
The owner’s being generous (and merciful!) because he simply fires the manager for wrongdoing, but doesn’t put him in prison. The manager is punished by the loss of his job; that’s enough. The manager himself is generous – but his generosity is based on expecting a return. Finally, his clever plan relies on the owner continuing to be both merciful and generous. If the owner symbolises God, then how much more can we rely on God being both merciful and generous?
The manager is down-to-earth and practical. He uses the world’s rules – generosity given means generosity repaid – to get by. The followers of Jesus also need to be practical, but by God’s rules. Their generosity will also be repaid – but not on Earth. The homes they’ll be welcomed into are the eternal ones.
Some translations talk about ‘unjust riches’ or ‘dishonest wealth’, but the word used is ‘mammon’. Again, we don’t know the context; ‘mammon’ might not mean ‘money you’ve stolen’. It could be used in the sense of ‘worldly wealth’. Be generous with your worldly wealth, use it to get friends like the estate manager did. Which eternal homes will he be welcomed into? That’s left open. But we’re aiming for the ones in God’s nation.
Previous Parable: What’s in the Box? (Matthew 13: 51-52)
Next Parable: The Good Israeli Settler (Luke 10: 30-36)
Leave a Reply