The Parable of the Dishonest Steward is not about Honesty

Many People are caught up on the idea of the dishonest steward being dishonest that they miss the purpose of the parable altogether. So here is my version of the parable. Not that I can improve on Jesus’ version. I think some was lost in translation. In Arabic (which is close to Aramaic it’s a little easier).

Jesus said many times that if you use your money here in this world to build mansions they will be no use for you later. If you use this money to build a treasure in heaven (by giving it to Jesus) it will be far more valuable. So it is the wise thing to do. The exact same principle restated is to use this money (which will soon be worth nothing) to make friends (like Jesus) in the afterlife (again by giving it now to Jesus).

It’s like being the IT guy in charge of the website of a very large bank. If he knew he was being fired tomorrow (for whatever reason. Let’s say he was accused by the FCC and the bank would not spend money to defend him. He might even be guilty. It’s not the issue here). But he figured I will never get another job. I will have a criminal record. I will be on welfare for the rest of my life. Today I control millions of dollars. Tomorrow I will have nothing. I can’t transfer money into my own account. That will get caught. I can only adjust other balances. If the computer has a glitch, takes away a couple of zero’s from someone’s account, I fix that. It’s my job. So if you have $ 1,000,000 and the computer messes up and makes it $10,000 I fix that. All adjustments made by me being the IT guy are strictly “legal” and irreversible.  Here’s what I will do I will add money to these 2 guys accounts. They will each find an extra $ 5 million in their accounts and they will know who did it. The first guy owns hotels. I am sure he will let me stay at one of his hotels in Mexico for the rest of my life. The other is the Mexican version of Sam Walton. He will let me shop at his stores for free for food, clothes, and everything else. I will have zero cash, but, I will live happily ever after. I cannot be prosecuted. I will have zero assets so they can’t come after my assets.

The plan was so brilliant. When the board of the bank heard about it they had a good chuckle. One of them said “I wish I was so smart when I was his age”. Another said “It seems that these shady characters are smarter than the more honest ones in their generation”.

So honesty and all that aside (We will talk about honesty later because I do care about it) I just wanted to show you how giving your money to Jesus is just simply the most brilliant financial planning.

In Defense of John the Baptist

I was disturbed when I heard a preacher on the radio saying that John the Baptist had a crisis of faith when he sent disciples In Luke 7. I had to write this in his defense. Here is the story first.

¹⁸ John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, ¹⁹ he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

²⁰ When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”

²¹ At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. ²² So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. ²³ Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

²⁴ After John’s messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? ²⁵ If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces. ²⁶ But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. ²⁷ This is the one about whom it is written:

“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
    who will prepare your way before you.’

²⁸ I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

Now the defense.

Mr. Anderson the religion teacher at the mission in Guatemala had to leave town. He told his students that the Pope himself will be teaching them until a new teacher is hired. Many students didn’t know exactly what a “Pope” was. The students were sad. A third grader said “We don’t want you to leave. We like learning religion from you. We don’t know if we can trust this Bishop to teach us the right thing.” Mr. Anderson explained you can totally trust the Pope

 

Student: Should believe whatever he tells us?

Anderson: Yes

A 6^th grader decided to play along. “Suppose he tells us not to listen to the priest?”

Anderson: He won’t do that?

Student: What if he does?

Anderson: Then you would listen to the Pope.

Student: Suppose he says Father Tony is not even a priest anymore?

Anderson: You would listen to the Pope.

Student: So who could tell us that Jesus is not the Messiah?

Mr. Anderson was a bit taken by the question. After thinking for a while he said” No one can. Only God or the Son of God”

Mr. Anderson looked at the back of the church where Father Tony was sitting. Father nodded in approval.

After class Mr. Anderson asked Father Tony, “So when John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus if He was the Messiah, John must have already known and believed that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God?”

Fr. Tony: Indeed!

Anderson: So why ask?

Fr. Tony: The first question we should be asking is why did John the Baptist still have disciples after he told all his followers that he is only here to prepare the way for Jesus? Did John do his very best to make his disciples follow Jesus instead?

Anderson: Yes

Fr. Tony: Is it a good thing that there were still disciples that followed John?

Anderson: No

Fr. Tony: Do you think he tried his best to get them to stop following him and turn to Jesus?

Anderson: Yes

Fr. Tony: So why did they continue?

Anderson: Maybe they were emotionally attached to him.

Fr. Tony: I think so. So this was a sort of intervention for those disciples’ emotional problem. Instead of telling them to go follow Jesus which they seem to refuse, he tells them “Go ask him a question for me”. Doing that he puts them in a mind set to listen to Jesus and do as he says. He also makes himself seem unsure (intentionally). He also knows that when they go see Jesus they will witness great miracles.

And Jesus (knowing everything) “plays along” speaking as if John was stumbling.

Did you notice that Jesus has so many good things to say about John? But he only says those things after John’s disciples leave. Jesus always had great things to say about John (some of the greatest testament by one man to another ever). The only time he says something less than flattering about John was when John’s disciples are around. As soon as they leave he goes back to saying great things about him.

Would Jesus, who knows the heart of every man say such things about someone who has a crisis of faith?

Why did Jesus say so many outrageous things?

Once upon a time there was a conservative candidate for the presidency who was known for being ultra conservative. He was opposed to illegal immigration and probably all immigration. He strongly opposed same sex “marriage” and gay couples adopting children. When he was asked about his view on immigration he said, “I don’t care if it is legal or illegal. I just don’t want this country to become Mexico.” When asked about children of gay couples he said, “Gay and lesbian couples can’t have children.” His responses were immediately picked up by all the news media. Many experts said that this was the most outrageous statement ever by a presidential candidate. “In the era of soundbites this is all you have to do to end your campaign”, the experts said. “He should’ve known that now even conservatives can’t stand by while he says things like that”. When liberals heard of this they were duly outraged. They said that now conservatives will have to abandon him or be viewed as lunatic right wingers. “This is the end of his candidacy.” The big surprise was that most, if not all, conservatives agreed with him. His support among conservatives increased. Even middle of the road conservatives, and some moderates and independents, liked his views.  Conservative media were now replaying his quotes round the clock energizing more conservative voters. There was no way for anybody to avoid hearing those quotes. Almost every person in the country knew about them. Each side claimed that those quotes helped their cause and converted some undecideds to their side. But, one thing was certain, his quotes reached everyone. He became the most well-known politician in recent history. Did he win the election you may ask? No he didn’t. You can say he energized the opposition too much!  He was accused of hate speech and forced to drop out of the race.

The most amazing thing about our candidate was he was able to use his opposition to spread his message. The same quotes that the opposition thought were outrageous and absurd and thereby replayed over and over, those same quotes were picked up by his followers and repeated with great pride and affection. Imagine if this happened before there was the internet and news TV. Imagine further that this was before newspapers, when the only news was word of mouth. How amazingly effective was this mechanism of spreading the word? That is why when his history was written by his followers many years later most of what they remembered verbatim was those outrageous quotes. If you read their reports you might think that half of what he said was so outrageous and outlandish. Or as one priest said “Deliberate exaggeration intended to shock for the desired effect”. I think he probably had a lot more “reasonable” things to say. But, it makes sense that if no one wrote any of them down at the time, then they would be more difficult to remember so many years later.

Think about how many outlandish quotes from the gospel were repeated by Christian parents, priests, preachers, and teachers? Quotes about hating your parents and plucking your eye out! They were repeated with great pride, respect, and affection. These are the kind of quotes that non-Christians would say is all they need to show how crazy those Christians are. My thesis is that for a few years, even decades after the ascension, those quotes continued to be repeated by both sides. And that is why those quotes are over represented in the gospels. Jesus basically used his opposition both to spread his word and as a memory aid. The quotes had to be exaggerations to achieve that.

Eleventh Hour Laborers

Matthew 20, 1-16

(The 11^th hour is about 5pm. It is based on a 12 hour work day from sunrise to sunset. If you start working at the 11^th hour you have only about 1 hour of daylight left to work.)

Mr. Anderson was teaching religion to the 8^th grade class. He was explaining the parable of the 11^th hour laborers. There was almost a student revolt against the owner of the vineyard. They all insisted that he was unfair. Leading the charge were Peter and Paul, new converts to Catholicism. They both spent years in foster homes and got into a bit of trouble until they were adopted by two wonderful families. Those two kids were a wonderful success story. They were excellent academically and morally. They embraced the faith and were so motivated and curious to understand all about it. Mr. Anderson tried to explain that the “daily wage” they agreed on is actually a “Dinar” in the original scripture and that was a generous pay for a day’s work. That didn’t help much. Also explaining that the Dinar was eternal life, God himself was the reward and there could be nothing more didn’t help. Neither was explaining that the owner fulfilled the contract requirement and that, by definition, would be justice under the law. He went on to explain the personal loving relationship that developed between owner and the 11^th hour workers. How they never asked how much will they be paid. They started work at a time when the other workers were starting to slow down, gather their tools, clean up and get ready to go home. They were running around wishing there was more time to work for this wonderful man. They didn’t think about their wages, anything would be generous. They were not expecting to make a single penny that day.

“Fair is fair”, said Peter. “These guys were paid way more per hour than the first ones. I am sure they were paid way more per unit work than the first ones. That is not fair. Should not the judge of all the world act with Justice?” Peter was quoting Abraham from Genesis, knowing that the owner of the vineyard represents God.  Paul asked “Why did he start by paying the 11^th hour workers first? Is that to add insult to injury? Maybe it’s the only way the parable would work. But surely Jesus could find a way to teach his point without being more abusive to the first workers.” Mr. Anderson seized on that point. “What is Jesus’ purpose in teaching that parable?” “I don’t know. How you should never work for this owner starting in the morning and under contract?”, said Peter. “These guys got a terrible deal”.

Mr. Anderson started, “Remember how I explained that many of Jesus’ sayings are deliberate exaggerations meant to shock for the desired effect. The desired effect here is….” Paul interrupted, “And why that tone? He talks to the first workers as if he wants nothing to do with them. Like get out of my face. These guys didn’t do anything wrong. They expected to get paid more and grumbled. But that seems reasonable. If the owner wants to teach them something maybe he should explain whatever he wants in a nicer way.” “You think that would help?”, asked Mr. Anderson. “Sure”, echoed the whole class.

“OK let’s do this. Let’s reproduce the parable and I will be the owner and I will explain to the first workers what Jesus wanted to teach them to their full satisfaction. “I gotta see this”, answered a few students. Taking the bait, or perhaps the challenge, Mr. Anderson said, “I guarantee that by the end of this class all the students playing the role of the first workers will be totally satisfied with my explanation.” “Are we going to work all day in the vineyard?”, joked one of the students.”No, we will just reshoot the last scene of the foreman paying the laborers. I will be the owner and foreman. I will sit down here up front. You guys will stand in line. In the front of the line would be the 11^th hour workers. In this group I need people who feel that God has been so generous to them. That they wish they had more time to do good works. That even if they lived another hundred years serving God and laboring in his vineyard they would never deserve the rewards of eternal life.” As expected, Peter and Paul were upfront with a few other students. “Behind these guys I want the laborers who started working in the afternoon. If you feel that God has been very kind to you and that you are undeserving of His gifts get in that point.” A few more students got in. “Now on to the workers who started at noon and late morning. If you feel that you have worked hard serving God in your life but still know that you cannot possibly be deserving of eternal life because of your own merits and being free from sin, then get in that group.”

“Now, for the last row I want students who feel that they have definitely earned the right to Heaven by their hard work and…” Paul interrupted, “ Mr. Anderson, there’s no one left. There are no students in the last row. Do we have to put some students in the last row for the parable to work?” “ The exact opposite”, said Mr. Anderson. “Nobody has to be in the last row. That is the purpose of the parable. Jesus wants everyone who hears this parable to never ever want to be in that row. Perhaps that is why the owner was particularly abusive to them. It is a motivational story about how wrong it is to feel entitled to God’s gifts. Not only are you not entitled, but also if you feel entitled you will be miserable and would be offending God, who purchased the gift of eternal life for you by his own suffering and death. The “day’s heat” doesn’t really account for much. If you appreciate God’s gift you would wish there was more heat and labor to repay him.

The Parable of The Ten Virgins: What Is The Oil?

The 3 questions people have when they read this parable are:

1. What does the oil stand for?

2. Why wouldn’t the wise virgins share their oil with the foolish virgins?

3.  What is the difference between the wise and foolish virgins?

What is the parable supposed to teach us? It must be something like: If we manage certain things in our lives wisely we would make it heaven just like the wise virgins managed the lamps and made it to the wedding. We should emulate the wise ones and avoid acting like the foolish ones. So, it becomes obvious that finding out the difference between the wise virgins and the foolish ones is the most important question, which always leads to the question of what does the oil stand for?  After all, it is the amount of oil you take with you that makes the difference?  Right?

Let’s examine the characteristics of the oil. Perhaps that would allow us to ID it. The oil has such strange characteristics:

1. The wise virgins have more of it. But,

2.  It is easy to come by. Anyone can go buy as much as they want of it.

3. It is not too expensive. The foolish virgins seem to have enough money to buy as much oil as they want.

4. Everybody probably has enough of it at home.

5. It does not require a lifetime of commitment.

6. It is not a characteristic of the person. It can be simply handed from one person to another

Confused yet?

Growing up in Egypt we used to play a game similar to “20 questions” called ‘My Bride”. One of the kids leaves the room and then we choose an object. When he returns he would go around the room asking each kid, “My Bride?” Each person would tell him one feature of his “bride”. For example, “Is in this room”. Next, “has four legs”, “made of wood” and so on until he can figure out what his bride is. Once in a while one prankster kid would suggest that we play a trick on the guesser and choose nothing. The more innocent kids would ask, “What does that mean”. “It means you can say whatever you want. It is nothing or it’s everything”. So each person would say anything they want as a feature of the bride. For example: lives in the sea, is made of plastic, is baked in the oven,… You get the point. The kids would giggle and the guesser would think they are giggling because they chose a very difficult one. Eventually the guesser would figure out that when you add up all the characteristics it cannot be anything. Sounds familiar?

Why did the wise virgins refuse to share their oil? It seems that there should be enough. Each wise virgin still has a whole flask full of oil and there is no more waiting. You just need to put some in the lamp and take off with the groom. The parable tells us that they didn’t think they had enough oil, and for the purpose of the parable that is the undisputed truth. Some people might say even if they thought it was not enough they should share and take their chances. That would be an act of charity and self sacrifice. Here it is very important to remember that the parable is about wise virgins make it to the wedding not about nice virgins showing us how to behave or charitable virgins making it heaven. Just like the parable of the prodigal son is about how a father can keep his kids at home or make sure whoever has a rebellious phase comes back home. It is not about how a father shows justice or makes sure his kids make it to heaven. OK, so they don’t have to be charitable, but how could they be so dumb to truly believe it would not be enough. Which brings us to the final question of what is the difference between the wise and the foolish? The parable deliberately points out the similarities between the wise and the foolish. There is really no difference whatsoever except with regard to the oil, which so far seems to stand for nothing. The reason the wise virgins didn’t share is in the parable itself.  It is not that each virgin did not have enough oil for two. Perhaps they did. But, what we know for sure is that they didn’t THINK they had enough. It is as simple as that. Whatever the oil is, they didn’t think they had enough of it. If they shared their oil with the foolish virgins, that would defeat the whole purpose of the parable. Not because all ten virgins would make it to the wedding. No, far more important is that if they would share then there would be no difference between the wise and the foolish. What DEFINES the wise virgins is that they really truly don’t think they have enough of anything or everything. And, that is what the oil is. It is everything- grace, virtue, holiness, charity, faith, prayer, sacraments, etc. Whatever it is, the wise don’t think they have enough of it. They are always trying to have more and conserve what they have. It (the oil, or all the above) is so precious to them because it will get them to meet the Groom.

The virtue of always thinking that you don’t have enough and the fault of thinking that you do will help you understand why the Lord is so upset with the angel of the church of the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:

14] And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
[15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
[16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
[17] Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked

It will also help you understand why Jesus gives credit to the losing king in Luke 14:

[31] Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
[32] Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

What Was Abraham Thinking: Lost in Translation

What was Abraham thinking when he pulled out the knife and proceeded to slaughter his son Isaac? Was he really going to go through with it? How did he reconcile God’s order with God’s promise that Isaac will produce the promised offspring? I am sure many students of the Bible have commented on that over the centuries. Obviously, the most authoritative view on what Abraham was thinking (at least for Christians) is St. Paul (assuming that he is the author of the letter to the Hebrews.)  Hebrews 11:17-19 King James Version reads:

[17] By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
[18] Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

[19] Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

It is that last phrase: “from whence also he received him in a figure” that I want to focus on here.

Verse 19 in the New American Bible reads: “He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, and he received Isaac back as a symbol.”

The footnote reads: As a symbol: Isaac's "return from death" is seen as a symbol of Christ's resurrection. Others understand the words en parabole to mean "in figure," i.e., the word dead is used figuratively of Isaac, since he did not really die. But in the one other place that parabole occurs in Hebrews, it means symbol.

Neither of these explanations seems satisfactory. They seem out of context. The natural progression of the verse and the logic is to tell us what made Abraham reason that God was able to raise from the dead. I first read this verse in Arabic many years ago. The Arabic reads something like: “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from whom he received him also in an example”). It seems the words “en parabole” in Greek are very similar to the corresponding Arabic. They mean: in an example, or in a figure, or in a parable. I always thought that it should read something like: “from whom he has – in a sense - received him.” Arabic does not have an equivalent to “in a sense” I thought that if it did the meaning would be so obvious. Sadly the English did not use “in a sense” but the Greek is very consistent with it.  So if you replace verse 19 with:  “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whom he has – in a sense - received him.” does the source of Abraham’s faith become obvious?

No, not yet. We have to overcome one more linguistic road block and we will get there.

Paul tells us that it should not be so difficult for Abraham to believe that God can bring Isaac (back to life) from the dead because Abraham has already received Isaac -in a sense- from the “dead”. In Arabic, the expression “raising from the dead” always uses the plural for dead meaning dead people. “The dead” in English can mean that too, but in the context of raising from the dead it is taken to mean raising someone out of the condition of being dead.  So now read: “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead (plural); from whom he has – in a sense - received him.”  You can now understand St. Paul’s great parable.- the dead here being Abraham and Sarah, because they were old and barren. St Paul had just used the word “dead” a few verses before. Verse 12 talking about Abraham says, “Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.” He also uses the words dead and deadness to describe Abraham and Sara in Roman’s 4:19: “And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb”. St. Paul says that Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead because Abraham has already – in a sense - received Isaac from the dead.