2013-09-15 Fr. Fernando Armellini
Original
Italian translated by Fr. John Ledesma,
per Claretian Publications, Macau www.bibleclaret.org
(Comments welcome here)
ADMINISTRATORS
ONLY, NOT OWNERS
25th
Sunday of Ordinary Time
PS.
24 – “The earth and all it contains, the universe and its inhabitants are of
the Lord. Man is a pilgrim, lives as a stranger in a world not his own. He is a
wanderer who traverses the desert. He owns a lot of land as much as his feet
trod. But as he steps forward then it’s not his anymore.”
People
are not owners but administrators of God’s goods. This is an often insistently
repeated affirmation of the church’s fathers. We recall one, Basil.
“Aren’t you a thief when you consider your own the riches of this world,
riches are given to you only to administer?”
The
administrator is a person who appears often in the parables of Jesus. We have
one “faithful and wise” who does not act arbitrarily, but uses the goods
entrusted to him according to will of the owner. We also have another one who,
in the absence of the Lord, takes advantage of his position to “make himself
the owner” and getting drunk and dishonors the other servants (Lk
There
is the enterprising administrator, who commits himself, has the courage to risk
and makes the master’s capital gain profit and one who is a slacker and a
sloth. The most embarrassing one is the shrewd administrator spoken of in
today’s gospel.
The
Lord puts a treasure in the hand of each person. What to do to administer it
well?
First
John
Chrysostom—a church father of the IV century wrote a memorable page on the way
to enrich oneself. It could be summarized in a sentence: “The rich is either a
thief or a son of thieves.” It’s a provocative affirmation, perhaps too
drastic, however the passage proposed to us today as first reading seems to
confirm it.
We
are in 750 B.C. and
Religion
is also in vogue: the temples regurgitates/spews of devotees and pilgrims who go
to pray and offer sacrifices. The priests are salaried by the sovereign and they
are well paid. One has to bless God and thank the king for so much prosperity
and fervor.
But
one man does not join the choir who praises the politics of Jeroboam II: It is
Amos, a shepherd from Tekoa, a city situated at the periphery of the desert,
south of
The
prophet addresses his accusations against Jeroboam II, against the priests, the
landowners and the rich. In the reported passage in today’s reading, he
attacks the traders: “Hear this, you who trample upon the needy and destroy
the poor of the land” (v. 4). What are their wrongdoings? They buy the
products of the land from the poor farmers and resell them to other poorer
people at a higher price, “they trample on the poor and extort levies on their
grain” (Amos
Amos
describes in details the technique they use. During the week the normal people
await the Sabbath to raise their mind to God, to rest, to meet family members
and friends and to celebrate. The traders instead are not interested in the
feast, the Sabbath and the new moon, because in those days trading is blocked.
They could not wait for the hour to pass to resume their selling of grain and
wheat. They lessen the measure, raise the price, use false scales, let pass
waste products as good, and what is worse “they buy the lowly with silver and
the poor for a pair of sandals” (vv. 5-6). Some fifty years later Micah will
re-echo: “you tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones”
(Mi 3:2). One seems
to
hear
the stinging words
with
which, on the IV century, Bishop Basil condemned the usurers of his time: “You
exploit the misery, extract money of tears, strangle the person who is nude,
crush the hungry.”
Amos
speaks of trading, tricks and cheating. What has God to do with these problems?
Surely he has something to do and the last part of today’s passage (vv. 7-8)
the prophet makes clear his thought. Where there is no justice, where the weak
are oppressed and suffering ignored (Amos 5:21-24) religion is only hypocrisy.
Faced
with the exploitation of the poor, the Lord is indignant and pronounces an oath
which makes one shiver: “I will never forget their works.”
The
prayer of the Christian community is universal. It is addressed to God for the
good and the bad, for friends and enemies. In this prayer the great heart of the
disciples, which does not accept making distinctions based on race, tribe,
nationality, social position and riches, is shown. In his behavior the
sentiments of the Father, who is in heaven “who wills everyone to be saved and
to come to the knowledge of the truth” (v. 4), are reflected.
One
notices how many times in the reading the term all recurs.
The
passage concludes with a recommendation: “I wish, then, that in every place
the people should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument” (v.
8). The Christian cannot pray with impure hands, with hands that do evil to the
brothers/sisters (Mt 5:23-25).
Gospel
Lk 16:1-13
This
parable has always aroused a certain embarrassment because, apparently, the
dishonest administrator is praised and cannot be recommended to Christians to
imitate. To understand its significance and to give meaning to all the details,
the how and when
this administrator fooled his master should be established.
The
traditional interpretation supports that the scam happened when, to ingratiate
himself to the debtors, he falsified the figures in the bills of exchange. Other
biblical scholars sustain instead that he committed some irregularities before
being discharged. This second hypothesis seems to us more coherent and logical
and we follow it.
More
than telling a story, Jesus seems to make reference to a news report of his
time. A steward is accussed before the big landowner
on whom depends his being incompetent,
one who devours and squanders his
wealth. The master has him called and tells him what he heard about him.
The facts are so clear and beyond doubt that the administrator does not try to
justify himself or mutter an explanation. He was immediately fired of his
responsibility (vv. 1-2). What to do now? He is in trouble, remains without
salary and must find as soon as possible a way to guarantee his future.
What
to do?—Here is the question that, in the Gospel of Luke and in the Acts of the
Apostles, many persons put to themselves. The crowd, the publicans and the
soldiers address John the Baptist asking: “What must we do?” The rich farmer
of the parable puts to himself, in his long soliloquy the same question: “What
must I do because I do not know where to place my harvest?” (Lk 12:17). The
listeners of Peter’s discourse on Pentecost day put it to themselves:
“Brothers, what must we do?” It is a question of anyone who finds
himself/herself in front of a decisive choice in life.
The
dishonest administrator knows of having little time at his disposition. Like
what the foolish farmer did, he starts to reflect. He knows only how to
supervise; he is neither able to hoe nor to humble himself to beg for alms.
“It’s better to die than to beg”—says Sirach (Sir 40:28).
Before
leaving the job he must put the accounts in order; many debtors have still to
deliver the products. He thinks deeply, calculates the pros and cons, and after
much thinking, here comes the flash of genius. I understand!—he exclaims
happily—I know what I must do (v. 4). He did not ask the opinion of anybody
because he already knows all the tricks of the trade. He understood by himself
what is the right choice and immediately goes into action.
He
calls all the debtors and asks the first one: “How much do you owe my
master?” “A hundred barrels of oil”—the person concerned answers. The
administrator smiles, taps his shoulders and says: “Scrap the bill, sit down
and write immediately, fifty”. The debt that was 4,500 liters of oil (the
product of 175 olive trees) is reduced to 2,250. A saving of almost two years of
work by a worker. Then the second debtor enters the scene: he has to deliver a
hundred measure of grain (550 quintals
[1
quintal = 100 kilos],
the product of 42 hectares of land). The same scenario. He is made to sit and
the discount accorded to is 20 percent. 110 quintals (11,000 kilos) are
discounted. Not bad.
In
the future these benefited debtors will certainly not forget the much generosity
and they will feel obliged to offer him hospitality in their houses. The story
concludes with the master, as well as Jesus, praising the administrator. He
acted with cunning. He’ll be imitated!
We
are expecting a different conclusion. Jesus should have said to his disciples:
“Do not act like this villain; be honest!” Instead he approves of what he
did. The difficulty lies here: how could a dishonest person be offered as a
model? Before explaining it, I’d note that praising the shrewdness of a person
does not mean to agree with what he did. They told me of a thief who was able to
escape from prison opening all doors with a simple lighter. He deserves a
praise…He was a villain, but he was clever (vv. 5-8a).
This
difficulty does not exist if the parable is interpreted in a different way. We
depart from the consideration that if the owner had felt cheated again (2,250
liters of oil and 110 quintals of grain are not small stuff) he would be
outraged. If he praises his former administrator it means, in this process, he
has not lost anything. We have to presume that the administrator this time has
put back his own, giving up what he used to grab for himself as commission.
Let
me explain: the administrators must deliver a certain amount to their owner;
what more they could get goes into their pockets and the figures could be
higher. It was the technique used by the publicans to enrich themselves when
they collected taxes.
What
did the administrator of the parable do? Instead of behaving like a loan shark
with the debtors, he left them the profit he expected to have. If things would
be in these terms, then all things will be clear. The admiration of the owner
and the praise of Jesus have a logical explanation.
The
administrator was shrewd—says the Lord—because he understood on which to bet
on: not on goods, products that
he was entitled to, that could rot or
stolen, but on friends.
He knew how to renounce the first in order to conquer for himself the second.
This is the point. We will shortly retake it.
Some
sayings of Jesus linked to the use of riches follow the parable. These should be
applications, teachings taken from the parable. The first: “The people of this
world are more astute, in dealing with their own kind, than are the people of
light” (v. 8).
After
having appreciated the ability of the administrator, Jesus makes an observation:
with regards to managing money, doing business, making trades; his disciples
(the children of light) are less shrewd than those who commit their whole lives
in hoarding goods (the children of this world).
It
is normal and it must be so: while “the children of the world” can act
without scruples (they only have to worry not to go against the law of the State
or at least not to be caught redhanded), the Christian believers must follow
other principles and maintain a transparent and right behavior. They are
prohibited from subterfuge and deceit.
Does
this really happen? Perhaps there are Christians that when they compete with
“the children of darkness” in economic affairs, they cut a poor figure. And
this is worrisome!
“Use
filthy money to make friends for yourselves so that when it fails, these people
may welcome you into the eternal homes” (v. 9). This is the most important
saying of today’s passage. It synthesizes the whole teaching of the parable.
We
note above all the hard
judgment the Teacher gives on riches. It
is called “unfair,” “acquired in a dishonest way.” The reason was
already indicated by Amos in the first reading. We have heard his explanation on
the origin of riches. After him, a wise person of the Old Testament affirmed:
“Just as the stake is settled between two stones, so sin wedges itself between
buying and selling” (Sirach 27:2).
This
is not a condemnation of goods of this world; it is neither an invitation to
destroy them, to be freed of them as if they are impure objects. It is an
observation: in the hoarded money there is always present some forms of
injustice, exploitation and misappropriation. Jesus teaches the method to purify
the unfair riches.
The
administrator is a model of ability because he has a brilliant idea. If he would
consult with his colleagues, they would exhort him to take advantage until the
very end of his position besides increasing the income (nest’s eggs).
He
will take all the counterattacks: he understands that money can devalue and then
he decides to stake all on his friends. This is the wise choice that Jesus
encourages to do, and he ensures the success of the operation: the benefitted
persons in this life will always remain by our side and they will bear witness
in our favor on the day in which money will have no value.
It
is not a question of favoring the giving of all that one possesses. That would
be a senseless gesture, not virtuous. It would not help the poor, but would
increase their misery and would favor the lazy ones. What Jesus would like us to
understand is that the only shrewd way of using the goods of this world is to
use them to help others, to make them friends. They will be the ones to welcome
us in life.
The
last part of the passage (vv. 10-13) contains some sayings of the Lord. To
understand them it is enough to clarify the significance of the terms. The
“little” (v. 10) “dishonest riches” (v.11) “the riches of others”
(v. 12) indicate the goods of this world that could not be brought with oneself.
St. Ambrose used to say: “We must not consider riches that which we cannot
carry with us. Because that which we should leave behind in this world does not
belong to us. It belongs to others.”
The
goods of the future world, the reign of God are instead called: “the many”
(v.10), “the true riches” (v. 11) “our riches” (v. 12). These could be
obtained only by renouncing, as the administrator of the parable paradoxically
did, to all goods that do not count (cf. Lk 14:33).
Jesus
concludes his teaching affirming that
no servant can serve two masters…God or money.
We
would like to please both: we will give to the first the Sunday and to the other
the ordinary days. It is not possible because both are demanding masters. They
don’t bear/tolerate that there is a place for another in the heart of a person
and above all, they give opposing orders. One says “Share your goods, help the
brothers/sisters, forgive the debt of the poor…” the other repeats: Think of
your own interests, study well all the ways to profit, to hoard money, have all
for yourself….” It is impossible to please them: It’s either that one
challenges us or to blindly believe the other.
-----