(5 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...
There are passages of the New Testament that I’ve always found puzzling and have left it at that – not digging in deep in order to try to understand them. That may be kinda weird for a NT scholar, but it is just as common as it is weird. Some of these puzzlers involve the parables of Jesus. Recently I’ve decided to put in the brain work to figure them out, and I have – to my own satisfaction, at least. And hey, who else do I need to satisfy?
Here are two examples. I have long thought neither of these parables made sense, and I’ve thought that whatever sense they made, they sure seemed to stand at odds with one another.
Both are found only in the Gospel of the Luke, the Gospel most concerned to portray Jesus’ views on wealth and money, and both are in fact about money:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thanks Dr Ehrman. Yes, I’ve come across these parables in Bible Study groups and no-one really seems to understand them, particularly the second one, for all the reasons you’ve said. I suppose they sort of make sense in an apocalyptic framework (but I thought Luke had junked that?) if in both cases, the rich guy is linked to Satan running the world (ie. because he’s successful) and therefore needs to be punished one way or another. But it still doesn’t make complete sense and the two parables do seem to contradict one another, as you say 🤔
Yes, I’m assuming, actually, that Jesus told the parables, not that they are based on Lukes imagination or redaction.
The apparent contradiction lessens when both parables are read through Luke’s comments on wealth.
The rich fool is condemned not for prudence but for the direction of his wealth, a closed circle of my barns, my grain, my soul. No neighbour appears: God only interrupts the illusion. Luke answers the practical objection himself: not stewardship abandoned, but abundance moved outward: “sell your possessions, and give alms” (12:33).
The dishonest steward isn’t praised for dishonesty; he remains dishonest. What is praised is prudence: he sees it coming and uses money for a future beyond his position. The logic is a fortiori: if even a compromised steward acts for an earthly future, how much more should the children of light use it for the kingdom?
That makes 16:13 important. “You cannot serve God and mammon” isn’t a Matthean saying against this parable; Luke places it in the same pericope. He didn’t think the steward served mammon. The reverse: mammon can serve purposes beyond itself.
So both parables say the same thing from opposite sides. The fool lets wealth curve inward and grows poor toward God. The steward, however compromised, at least sees wealth is temporary and must be used before it fails.
These parables will be great for your book on socialism and how the NT saw the right use of wealth (or the dangers of having it.) Theres a lot of liberation theology that has worked through these parables though I’m not sure if thats what youre looking for.
It feels weird asking an unrelated question but I’d love your thoughts on Douglas Campbell’s theological work on justification and Romans. Does he have merit that “justification theory” was an aberrant doctrine, spurred on my interpreting Romans 1-3 as the voice of Paul when in fact it might have been the voice of his interlocutor? Ive kinda fallen in love with this idea but not sure how it holds up academically.
I’m not sure how much of a following Douglas has received for this view. I haven’t heard a lot of scholars supporting it, and I find it a bit difficult to support.
Do we have an idea who the people were the manager gave the discount to? Maybe this was another way of redistributing money (the sell your stuff and give to the poor idea). In this case, it was money the manager had access to instead of his own money. It’s telling that at the end some people who are described as loving money jeered at him… they would have cheered instead if the parable was meant to celebrate money.
good points.
1. I think it’s clear in the 1st parable that the rich man was only thinking of himself (“eat drink, and be merry”) and not intending to help others with his wealth, helping others equating to being rich toward God.
2. In the 2nd, Jews were not supposed to charge interest to fellow Jews. The steward was just releasing people from their burdensome and unlawful debt (think college debt today?). Despite the details the point is similar to the 1st parable: use money and materials in service to the true Kingdom through helping others. Money is simply a tool for helping others, not a goal in itself.
3. Just read a story by Tolstoy that relates: peasant farmer schemes to get more and more land for farming. Finally dies from over-exertion. They find that the only land he needed in the end was about 6 feet.
Not to answer your question, but I wonder if it would be worth considering what sort of person would have written Luke 16:1-8. I.e. would parable have made good sense to another steward, a lawyer, a wealthy businessman…?
Good question!
If the good majority of first century Palestinian rural folk were illiterate, how did they keep records? Would people know how to write names and numbers or were the debts people owed just remembered by both parties?
I’m just reading up on that now, and am not entirely sure yet — except to say that numeracy is different from literacy, and that literacy comes at different levels (if you can write and read your name, but nothing else, in a sense you are literate)
Actually, written records began as ‘accounting’ or ‘ledgers’ to record how much one had or sold and the amount, etc. Many of those trained to write, wrote accounts. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, clauses, etc. all evolved over time.
The barn builder I could read as saying that the landowner has always been more concerned with getting to a point where he can rest on his own laurels and not worry about the future. So God rebukes him on his last day because God was hoping he would see the wickedness of his ways before the end.
The dishonest manager parable though, I am just lost and can’t square that one.
It seems entirely contradictory, which is at least in keeping with the rest of the Bible. Frankly it reads like it’s missing some context
Thanks, Bart. Though we can’t be sure, my feeling is that many of the parables found in the NT, especially the confounding ones, are perfect examples of the “phone tree” oral history problem you’ve described over the years; stories being repeated across the decades that have, thanks to untrustworthy human memory, lost and gained elements to the point that leaves them unrecognizable and undecipherable from their original form. Now, 2,000 years later, historians and theologians frequently twist themselves into pretzels trying to make sense of stories that lost their original meaning ages ago.
Do you think that Jesus actually told these two parables and actually said “You cannot serve both God and mammon”?
Yup, as it turns out, I do!
In Roman times most people were poor. The world was glaringly unjust. Christianity had to convince its hearers God is both all powerful and loving. The message was twofold: 1) Your lot is to work yourself to the bone to survive. You must do what you’re told and not rebel against “God’s plan”. 2) Trust in Jesus and don’t worry about the future, and you’ll have eternal life. The rich men who exploited you will burn in hell. This promised reversal of fortunes in the afterlife made the gospel attractive.
This is the premise of both parables. The “barn builder” teaches that some landlord getting lucky with a massive harvest isn’t proof he’s right with God. Follow Jesus, and you’ll be better than him, because not even his excess – regardless how he manages it – will save him from the fires of hell. The “shrewd manager” teaches that since this world is unfair, “God’s people” get a pass for using even ill-gotten weath to “make friends” (that is, win converts).
I suspect this deceit-justifying parable is not authentic Jesus, but was “slipped in” by the author of Luke or one of his sources.
I would not read this parable as Jesus praising dishonesty itself. Rather, he seems to praise the steward’s shrewdness: he realizes that his present position is coming to an end and acts decisively in light of the future.
In that sense, the steward is almost an ironic example. The “children of this age” know how to use present resources to prepare for a coming crisis, while the “children of light” often fail to use temporary wealth in view of the kingdom of God. “Unrighteous mammon” is not to be served, but it can be redirected toward relationships, mercy, and eternal purposes.
This reading also fits Jesus’ apocalyptic message. If the present order was soon to be overturned by God’s kingdom, then the issue is not simply how wealth should be managed, but how temporary resources should be used before it is too late. In other words, the parable seems to emphasize an eschatological urgency more than strict ethical consistency.
The rich fool’s mistake was not planning ahead, but imagining that stored wealth could secure his future. So both parables ask the same question from opposite angles: What future are you preparing for?
The first parable, the farmer is rebuked for saving his excess for himself instead of distributing it freely to those in need. He is being selfish.
In the second parable, the steward is lessening the debts of his masters clients, which Jesus sees as a good thing. The master should not be causing people to go into debt, but should be freely providing to those who need.
Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.
The solution to both is in the verses following both (i.e. Luke 12:22-34 and 16:9-13) and the reconciliation is to serve God instead of wealth and let God give you your provisions instead of letting wealth do so. The barn builder’s mistake was to trust money and the steward was trusting friends instead of money consistent with 16:13 which says people cannot serve both God and money.
According to verse 14 the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard Jesus telling this parable of the Unjust Steward. This parable makes more sense if it was aimed at certain outsiders in the audience. Perhaps the “rich man” is God who owns everything and entrusted the management of his wealth to the wealthy people (represented by the “steward”). If the “steward” shares some of God’s wealth with the poor (represented by the “debtors”), then the steward will be commended by God and will be accepted by the poor who are going to be on top in the imminent Kingdom of God, living in mansions.
(I suspect the last bit about the “children of this age” and “children of light” is unlikely to be an accurate record of the exact words spoken by Jesus decades earlier).
With respect to the Rich Fool parable: this one connects for me with other passages relating to not storing up treasures on earth. What was he to do with the excess grain? Give it away to those in need! They need it now more than he *might* need it in the future, especially in light of the end coming soon. The takeaway from Unjust Steward is murkier. I can make some sense of it only by including verses 10-11: “The one who is faithful in a very little thing is also faithful in much; and the one who is unrighteous in a very little thing is also unrighteous in much. 11Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true wealth to you?“ – verses 8 and 9 appear to be irony in light of 10-11. In an attempt to curry favor, the steward has displayed his unrighteousness to all those he thought might be his future employers. Perhaps currying favor with “the sons of this age” means he will spend eternity with the likes of them rather than with the sons of light.
To my mind, the Rich Fool is analogous to the billionaires of today, who are hoarding their wealth and who are still unsatisfied with their riches. I’m not sure this is much different than the billionaires of today who use their wealth to buy a yacht or a third vacation home, rather than to reduce suffering in the world. You ask: “What’s the guy supposed to do?” Rather than hoarding his goods, he could have been using his wealth to care for those who did not have enough. He could have made an enormous difference in the lives of the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the refugee, the imprisoned.
I don’t see Jesus using the term “fool” disparagingly as much as he is expressing sadness that the Rich Fool has missed the boat: “How sad it is,” I hear Jesus (or, perhaps more accurately, Luke) say, “think of all the good you could have done with your wealth.”
Thanks for sharing this!
I wonder if you can make sense of them by thinking about Jesus’ focus (in Luke particularly) on the poor?
You could read the first as the man keeping all the bumper crop for himself, rather than sharing it with the poor who might need it – that’s bad. And the second as the steward helping the poor, by relieving them of their debts to the rich – that’s good (and opens up an interesting Christian justification for defrauding the rich, or at least manipulating them (so long as it helps the poor)).
Though the thing I struggle with there is that the selfish motives of the steward seem to have no bearing on Jesus’ judgement…
Good thoughts!
The Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21) had never seemed problematic to me before you pointed it out. I thought about what you said about good stewardship – what is he supposed to do?
But, no, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, and worldly work and planning is an affront to this belief. Further, Jesus (or Luke, at any rate) is only interested in the rich man’s motivations, which are portrayed as purely selfish. The idea of a broader community benefit this might bring just isn’t there. Luke hadn’t read his Mandeville. There is no mention in the parable about the harvest spoiling if the rich man didn’t act – it’s outside of the text, so it’s not relevant to the point Luke is making.
Luke echoes Ecclesiastes (1:3, 2:4-11,
2:18 עֲמָלִ֔י … שֶׁ֣אַנִּיחֶ֔נּוּ לָאָדָ֖ם שֶׁיִּהְיֶ֥ה אַחֲרָֽי׃ cf Lk 12:20 ἃ δὲ ἡτοίμασας, τίνι ἔσται; ), picking up on the futility of work, albeit for different reasons. Compare also Luke’s attitude to work with Mary and Martha (10:38ff). He’d make a poor Protestant. He’d have joined a contemplative order rather than a working one. A very Lucan parable.
Hi Bart,
Is Rudolf Bultmann and Adolf Von Harnack still worth a read today ? Do they still have any influence with scholars today ?
I’m a big believer in reading the classics in the field. They were both brilliant. Harnack in particular. Most young scholars don’t read them any more, seeing them as now bypassed. But no one could match Harnack for brilliance.
I agree with those who believe the first parable makes sense but the second one doesn’t. I suspect the 2nd one has been corrupted (e.g., a statement by Jesus was omitted) somewhere along the way in the sequence of times it has been copied and recopied since the day some unknown party first wrote it.
Bill Steigelmann
I’ve often wondered why the rich fool planned to tear down his existing barns, presumably already full of the bumper crop. Why not leave those barns up and build a couple of new ones to hold the excess? Seems like that would be easier and cheaper. That aside, if he had said to himself “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; so now relax and use your wealth to help the poor, the sick and the needy” maybe his life wouldn’t have been demanded of him. The act of building new barns to help provide for his future might, in itself, have been no problem.
According to the Harper-Collins Study Bible, the steward, by reducing what was owed by the debtors was cutting out his own commission. if so, then maybe the owner was happy because he got what he would have gotten anyway, or closer to it, and the debtors were of course pleased. So, by depriving himself the steward got a win-win out of the situation. Perhaps a debtor would offer him a job in gratitude.
As to the “make friends for yourselves from the mammon of unrighteousness” part though, I don’t have a clue.
Please pardon my egotism, Dr. Ehrman, but I think I’ve figured out what Jesus had in mind when he told apparently perplexing parables.
Although other lessons may be intended, the core of what he wanted us to have was simply PERSPECTIVE. Things can look quite different when you look objectively at them – and perspective is the place where all good human (and Godlike) characteristics are formed: sympathy, empathy, patience, charity, etc., etc.
So the Rich Fool learns that death, viewed differently, can alter the meaning of life. And seeing the Dishonest Servant scheme so cleverly actually changes his bosses’ attitude to admiration.
It’s not obvious, but all the parables are ultimately all about perspective.
That’s why we love you, Dr. Ehrman, for making such remarks that other theologians don’t dare to make!.. Christ in the gospels sometimes praises Poverty and laziness and sometimes wealth, work and entrepreneurship. Protestantism chooses the parables that praise wealth and work, Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church the parables that praise poverty and laziness
.
As a Greek whose mother tongue is Greek and I can read the New Testament in the original, I believe that this is why Christianity had and has such success: Because its sacred texts contain everything and their opposites. You choose and you take.
By the way, I would like to ask you something specific: Would there be Capitalism and all this explosive economic progress and prosperity in the world if Protestantism did not exist? I am convinced that we would still be in the Middle Ages if we had left the exclusivity of Christianity to the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I’m afraid there’s no way to know whether capitalism may have developed on other grounds. One would think so, but it’s just an assumption I’m afraid.
Just curious, why do you think these parables originate from Jesus? Both are L, and that’s usually seen as some of the latest material in the Synoptics.
Rich Fool simply means, Don’t hoard and be selfish. Instead, share and be generous. Luke 16:19-31. Acts 2:44-45. Acts 4:34-37. Acts 5:1-11.
Second parable is more difficult. Maybe the key is that we see debt differently. Debt in antiquity was a financial chokehold. How would the poor ever earn extra to pay off debt? Reducing the debts helped the debtors far more than it hurt the rich man. The manager showed mercy so he could be shown mercy in his time of need. Just my 2c.
I’m actually not sure why L materials should be considered late. I suppose peole assume that since Luke is after Mark and Matthew that any source he used would also be late? My view is that we have to evaluate every unit on its own terms for authenticity. In these cases I’m not sure a strong case could be made either way: the perspectives are both those amenable to Luke and that can be shown, I think, to go back to Jesus…
Thanks. I don’t think there had to be a source behind Luke’s unique material. Luke is an incredible story-teller. Luke-Acts has comic relief (Acts 2:15; 19:15-16; 20:7-12), dramatic effect (Luke 24:13-35; Acts 22:25-29), and humorous misunderstandings (Acts 16:30-31; 17:18-32). Luke’s story parables are among the most memorable.
I see the parables progressing from Mark to Matthew to Luke.
Mark has a handful of agrarian parables that contribute to secrecy (Mark 4:33-34). And Mark’s parables are rather primitive, and all predictive–predictive of the outcome of characters (Mark 4:1-9), coming judgment (Mark 4:26-29), explosive growth of the kingdom movement (Mark 4:31-32), and 70 CE (Mark 12:1-12).
Matthew builds on this. Mark’s seaside parables become a whole discourse of kingdom parables (Matt 13). Matthew nearly triples Mark’s Olivet Discourse by including story parables at the end–be prepared (Matt 25:1-13), be productive (Matt 25:14-30), be compassionate (Matt 25:31-46). Not to mention other parables Matthew adds.
Luke’s parables are the most advanced–memorable story parables with colorful characters. They’re not predicting outcomes like those in Mark; they’re teaching morals, and often include questionable characters, the unhelpful neighbor (Luke 11:5-8), the dishonest manager (here), the unjust judge (Lk 18:1-8), and the vengeful king (Luke 19:12-27).
Thoughts?
I think you’re saying Luke devised them himself? It’s certainly possible. I’m not sure how we’d estabish the probability. For me one of the oddest things about Luke (I’ve just come to realize this in the last five or six years) is that in many respects he appears closer to what we can probalby establish on other grounds as the teachings of Jesus than the Gospels that came earlier (e.g., on his teachings of forgiveness and of care for the needy).
Yes, I’m not sure why some are hesitant to recognize the literary creativity of the evangelists.
I doubt there was a Parable of Four Soils (Mark 4:1-9) free-floating in a sea of oral traditions, and Mark just happened to dip his bucket and catch the perfect allegory to interpret the characters in his book.
Or with Matthew, I doubt there was a Parable of the Weeds (Matt 13:24-30) out there free-floating in that same ocean that just happened to be the perfect replacement for Mark’s less-than-poignant Parable of the Progressing Seed (Mk 4:26-29). Much more likely that the author enhanced Mark’s parable with a new parable emphasizing Matthean themes, using many of Mark’s same words, with the same before and after material in the surrounding context.
Or in Luke 13:6-9 with the Parable of the Unproductive Fig Tree, much more likely that Luke found the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-21//Matt 21:18-21) to be very problematic–the only negative miracle Jesus does, and it’s not even the season for figs (Mk 11:13)! Easier to retain the same teaching point–fruitlessness results in judgment–but convert the event to a parable.
Did these three parables originate with Jesus? the evangelist? or another source?
Speaking for myself, I don’t doubt that the Gospel writers could have been literary creative. I’m sure they could be. Were they?
What we know is that they used sources. There the evidence is overwhelming. But I don’t know of any evidence that they themselves simply made stuff up. How would we know? If we don’t know, what’s the basis for the claim?
I think we must read these parables as part of a series, which I like to call the Sermon on the Road, marked by the expectation that the saved will be few, culminating in Jesus’ prophecies of his own death, which the disciples don’t understand, and of the surrounding of Jerusalem by hostile armies. Everything is about the view of the Christian strand within post-70s Judaism, which Luke represents, that Jerusalem had fallen because the Jews had repudiated the great prophet. Thus the parables feature increasingly dodgy figures of authority and leadership, the rich man who has no idea what war will do to his business empire, the master who wants traitors and deceivers on his team, the corruption finally involving not just stewards but judges, very shockingly. The disciples are not ready for bitter irony of the whole discourse, including I think the figure of the unjust judge being used as a reason for prayer: Jesus speaks in increasingly bitter style as he senses that the authorities of Jerusalem will betray him.
These are admittedly impossible parables to make sense of logically. But then it fits in with Jesus’s answer when the disciples questioned him about use of parables in his public teaching. Parables were meant to obscure truth from everyone who has not been given the secrets of the kingdom. So the purpose of miracles is not to make spiritual truth clear to the blind. On the contrary parables conceal spiritual truth from reasonable enquiry. One has to be given special sight. Matt. 13:10-14. From this we can conclude that we are
blind. We need that ‘eureka’ moment when the scales fall off our eyes and parables make sense.
Jesus constantly teaching the lessons of estate stewards might have to do with him being sponsored by Joanna and Chuza, Herod Antipas’ estate steward who has the classically Nabataean name.
The first parables context is this “Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” 15 And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” 16 And he told them a parable, saying”. The first parable is talking about how storing things on earth isnt worth it because you cant take it to heaven. He is telling the crowd not to put to much care on worldly things.
3 articles how folks are dealing with this:
2 articles & ways younger folks are dealing w/that reality. https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/young-people-rejecting-boomers-view-090512108.html https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/chinese-economy-stuck-slow-lane-030000945.html
& https://qz.com/us-consumer-sentiment-june-2026-gas-prices-inflation-061226?email=A9C725A12621D645BA27CE0AD7E5B45FB14EB17E56179DA51EC3AC06B5EF79CC&utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DB%2006-15&utm_id=10869986