25th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C

The Lectionary and Scripture Interpretation for Ordinary Time

Overview and Connections

Our spiritual life is deeply intertwined with how we engage the goods of this world.

Amos 8:4-7

Chapters 7-9 contain various visions and explanations of those visions. 8:1-3 is a vision of ripe summer fruit. The time is ripe for God to bring justice. Pious hypocrisy (vv4-8) is one of the reasons for that. Read 1:1-5 to really get a sense of things.

In v1, God shows Amos a basket of ripe summer fruit. Summer fruit is actually “end of the season” fruit, and is a play on words because God says this is the end of Israel. Sometimes we feel that God’s actions come out of nowhere – a divine retribution that no one could see coming. The vision given to Amos is fruit in a basket in the summer, a time when fruit is expected. Part of what God says here is that judgment naturally happens, and if you pay attention to things, you will expect it. Think, too, of how we say that something is “ripe for change.”

Vv1-3 are the vision, and v4 moves into a description of the corruption which has necessitated God’s judgment. It describes a person who treats poor people as less than nothing. The focus is on merchant fraud. Merchants at the time sold necessities. These merchants are ones who have taken advantage of those most economically vulnerable: those who must buy their necessities at whatever cost is charged.

V5 addresses the Sabbath. The Sabbath restriction on trade often caused friction between the Israelites and surrounding cultures, contributing to corrupt business practices to “make up the losses.” The new moon marked the beginning of a new month, and was, many times, a holy day. They scrupulously observe holy days but then turn around and cheat the poor:

They don’t measure out the full amount of grain.
They used shekels, which had no standardized weight. By using lighter shekels, they could charge more.
On top of that, they fixed the scales to show heavier weights.

These merchants often padded the grain with husks of the wheat that weren’t fit to consume, but would cause it to weigh more, and, therefore, cost more. Only free people had shoes. If the needy lost their shoes because they sold them for food, they were effectively enslaved.

V7 addresses Jacob. Amos prophesied to the northern kingdom, which was often referred to as Jacob.

Imagine God looking at our world today. What is ripe for judgment and change?

1 Timothy 2:1-8

Background of the book

The letter to Timothy is actually sort of a form letter to a pastor beginning a new position of church leadership. It describes expectations and responsibilities. One responsibility was to lead communal prayer and include all the necessary elements. This passage describes some of those elements.

By the late first century, Christianity was already being harassed by Rome. And yet, Christians were urged to pray for those in authority. In fact, they were to pray for all people. The author says we are to pray for leaders, to bring peace, but also (vv3-4) so that the good news can be preached to all.

Vv5-6 provide an early look at the church’s developing Christology – who we understand Christ to be. Here, he is understood through the lens of his role as mediator between God and humanity.

V8 recommends “lifting holy hands,” which suggests an embodied, participatory prayer.

How does your own prayer life reflect God’s heart for all humanity?

What challenges do you encounter particularly in praying for those in authority with whom you disagree?

Do you incorporate any forms of embodied prayer in your spiritual life? If not, consider something like making the sign of the cross or lifting up your hands, or even something as simple as standing or kneeling.

Luke 16:1-13

Background of the book

Today’s parable raises more questions than it answers! It is a curious and troubling one for sure. This parable comes on the heels of the 3 parables about God’s seeking and saving that which is lost. Keep this in mind. Also, keep in mind that it seems to form almost a pair with the prodigal father parable – there are many similarities.

Part of the interpretation problem is that Luke appends a number of sayings that seem to attempt to explain the parable, but actually only create more difficulties. The sayings seem to function like notes for different homilies, but none of them captures the whole meaning.

Some questions that stand out:

Why didn’t the master have the steward thrown in prison?
Why didn’t the steward just leave?
Why the need for haste? (sit down quickly)
Where does the parable end and the commentary begin?

The parable itself (v1-8a)

V1 begins with two figures. “Rich” could be more literally translated as “fully resourced.” He has a steward, or a household manager. The actions of this steward seem to suggest he is not a slave but someone employed in this position. He is accused of wasting or squandering the possessions, the same word used in the prodigal father parable. In v2, not only does he lose his job, but he is also subject to an audit of his books.

In v3, the man engages in an inner monologue about his situation and options (much like the younger son). Both digging and begging were shameful ways of living. Only Luke uses this word dig; see also 6:48 and 13:8. He also considers the culture of reciprocity. Giving something to someone meant that they then owed you back. He needs a solution that will enable him to give something so that people will then owe him something. Note that he acts very decisively here (much like the younger son) – something Jesus has called his disciples to do quite often.

He enacts the plan in vv5-7. The contracts would be made such that this is what the person would owe at harvest time from their harvest. The loan note would indicate the amount to be paid back rather than the original loan amount. Based on ancient records, he seems to be giving them about 500 denarii each (1 denarius = about a day’s wage).
The debt is put in their own handwriting so the manager avoids being implicated.

The beginning of v8 concludes the text of the parable according to most scholars. But it is an interesting debate whether the rest of the verse is something the master says in the parable or something Jesus says to help explain the parable. Again, note how the response of the authority figure is surprising, just like in the prodigal father parable.

Luke’s additional material after the parable (v8b-13)

Now here’s a surprise: The master praised the crooked manager! And why? Because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens. They are on constant alert, looking for angles, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way—but for what is right—using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so you’ll live, really live, and not complacently just get by on good behavior.
Luke 16:8-9 The Message

Jesus seems to applaud the steward, not for his dishonesty, but rather for his shrewdness or “practical wisdom.” He was prudent in striving to turn every situation to his own advantage.

V9 is puzzling. Elsewhere, Luke seems to say get rid of all possessions, but now he’s saying to use them wisely and shrewdly! There is a strong call to action, which is consistent with this gospel: secure your future today without delay! Tomorrow will be too late. What is the only way to use money profitably? Share it with those in need in a wise way.

The NAB uses the word wealth while the RSV uses “mammon,” following the KJV tradition. The Greek word is mamónas, and it likely derives from the Aramaic/Hebrew word aman, which we usually read as “amen” but can mean “to trust.” The only other place this word is used is Matthew 6:24, where Jesus says you cannot serve God and mamónas. We think of it as money, but one definition is “the treasure a person trusts in.” In ancient culture, it would have been position, privilege, and honor.

Vv10-12 contrast faithfulness in small things with responsibility for larger ones. I am reminded of a quote by Annie Dillard: “How we live our days is, of course, how we live our lives.” It speaks of the necessity of daily fidelity. There is an Interesting emphasis on the passive – being given wealth rather than making or taking it.

V13 gives us a familiar saying, which also appears in Matthew’s gospel but without the parable. You can’t serve two masters. If we take the meaning of mamónas as that which we put our trust in, we can understand the saying as meaning we can’t put our trust in more than one thing. You can either trust God or yourself, but not both.

The interpretation of the parable

Some observations based on ancient economics:

If the master rescinds what the steward did, it will shame him and decrease his honor – debtors are happy with him right now
If the master honors the new contracts, it will cost him dearly in money but gain him much honor
So perhaps the steward has ultimately done the master a good turn while helping himself as well – everybody won

So what does it really mean? Some possibilities include:

We should imitate the steward’s shrewdness in the use of possessions, noting especially that those possessions were not his own.
We should imitate the decisiveness of the steward in choosing a course of action when faced with a crisis. So too should Jesus’ listeners do who are wavering in their decision to follow him and his message.
Maybe it’s a challenge: you can trust a dishonest person to act dishonestly. He’s a pro. Can you trust a Christian to act like a Christian?

I believe it’s also important to pay attention to the many points of connection with the previous parable:

Both parables start with a reference to “a certain man”
Both son and steward squander resources
Both engage in a soliloquy to plan extrication
Both hope for a change in fortune by being accepted into a “house”
In both, literary devices are used to heighten the tension (journey home, negotiations of the steward)
The plans of both are somewhat realized and then transcended by the surprising action of the figure in power
Both are open-ended. Did the older brother go to the feast? Was the steward restored to his position?

What would it look like for us to be as strategic about kingdom work as the world is about business?