SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY: TEN LESSONS FROM SCIENCE

I am a Christian who is also a scientist, which is not the same as saying that I am a Christian Scientist. Therefore I can see both sides of what is sometimes considered an on-going conflict between two entirely different worldviews. Christians often invoke the findings of science to confirm statements found in the Bible, and rightly so. One example of a group that takes what I believe is a responsible approach to that sort of apologetics is Reason to Believe. (See their website for some informative talks on the subject).

Another useful resource is the recent Dictionary of Christianity and Science (DOCAS) [Unless mentioned otherwise, all page numbers given below refer to this resource], which I will be quoting from extensively, beginning with this explanation by Robert C. Bishop (pp. 595-596): “Concordism is an interpretive framework presupposing biblical and scientific statements have scientific import, so we should expect implications for the actual content of the sciences.” “Nonconcordism is an interpretive framework where correlations or parallels between biblical and scientific statements are not required – no scientific implications of biblical statements are presupposed.” RTB, for example, holds a moderate concordist view.

Ian Barbour's classical fourfold approach to the subject of science and Christianity is summarized on p. 510:

1. Conflict (Irreconciliation)

It hasn't always been this way. Science arose in large part along with the rise in Protestantism.

2. Independence (Compartmentalist or Complementarian)

p. 611: Those who feel there is no commonality between the two are compartmentalists or complementarians.

p. 608: Stephen Jay Gould (1999) said that “science and religion do not even share the same domain or subject matter, but constitute non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). While science is concerned with how the world works, religion is concerned with questions of ultimate meaning and value.”

3. Dialogue (Conversation)

p. 608: “...some argue for a more cautious, open-ended dialogue between science and religion. On this view, science and religion explore common ground, but neither of them commits to a final synthesis.”

p. 614-617: a traditional reconciliation in which both may need to change some of their understandings. This last view is close to Barbour's conversation or dialogue view.

4. Integration (Reconciliation)

p. 608: “Another approach distinguished by Barbour, is to start from a religious tradition and to develop a theology of nature in which religious doctrines are reinterpreted so that they apply to the world disclosed by modern science.”

a. conservative view (science must change to bring it in line with traditional understanding of the Bible) pp. 614-617

b. liberal view (traditional Christian theology must change and adapt to fit in with the understanding of contemporary science) p. 614-17

5. Replacement

p. 614-17 Replacement is the radical view that ultimately science will replace religion entirely.

Considering the various alternatives above and having a fairly good understanding of how science works, I will try to outline some commonalities with a Christian approach to life and specifically to the Bible.

“I have been impressed by the example of research in the physical sciences, and believe that there is much to be gained by an inductive approach to biblical materials also.” David Noel Freedman, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation, Volume 1, p. 152. The late Dr. Freedman was one of the most admired Bible scholars in the world at the time of his death in 2008. He made this statement in 1963 at just about the time I was beginning to wonder the same thing.

Similarity #1. Both are defined as a process (way, method) used to approach the truth.

This is the first of several parallels between how science operates and how faith can or should operate.

Jesus said, “You know the way to the place where I am going.” Thomas said...”how can we know the way?” Jesus said to hm, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” John 14:4-6

“Saul...went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Acts 9:1-2

Christianity was called the Way before it was called Christianity. And, of course, science is actually defined by the way or method it uses to reach the truth.

 p. 508: Arthur R. Peacocke was a biochemist-theologian who said “...both science and theology use inference to the best explanation and employ imperfect and revisable concepts and models to describe objective realities.”

p. 593: “Christianity cultivates both humility and confidence in human knowledge. Confidence derives from the orderliness of God's world designed for discover by his human image bearers. However, the Christian doctrine of the fall of Adam and Eve provides an explanation for the difficulty of human reason in achieving certainty about the cosmos, with a consequent emphasis on the testing of hypotheses.” This is the hardest thing for scientists or Christians to grasp: purposely testing your own theories.

Let's review what the scientific method is.

Basic Assumptions

Observation

Hypothesis

Test Hypothesis

Revise Hypothesis

Test Revised Hypothesis

Christians often dismiss the Theory of Relativity or Evolution by saying, “Well, it's only a theory.” But the sense in which people popularly use the term is really equivalent to what scientist would call a working hypothesis as a starting point for testing. A scientific theory has been tested and tried experimentally for years and passed every test before it is even called a theory.

And in practice you can begin almost anywhere in the process and keep repeating it to refine your results. This is quite similar to what Grant Osborne has called The Hermeneutical Spiral in describing the proper approach to interpreting Scripture.

It has been said that recognition of man's fallibility and fallen nature is what originally gave rise to the idea of testing and revising, rather than just going with what an authority such as Aristotle had said.

Similarity # 2: Both begin with a set of basic assumptions which are taken on faith

Basic Assumptions of Christianity

A. God existing outside of time and space created the universe and the natural laws that govern it.

B. The consistency in these natural laws, along with any other principles under which God operates, reflects God's orderly nature.

C. We can learn more about God and his plan for creation through study of His revelation (both natural and special) and by guidance of the Holy Spirit

Basic Assumptions of Science

A. There are natural causes for the things that happen in the universe.

B. There is consistency in these causes.

C. We can learn about those causes by application of reason to observable physical evidence

 p. 689.  Presuppositions of Science: objective reality of the cosmos; order, regularity and uniformity of nature; validity of mathematics and logic, intelligibility of the cosmos, basic reliability of human cognitive faculties and sensory organs, congruence between the human mind and physical reality.

p. 589. Basic presuppositions of science: “the physical world is real and orderly, humans find it substantially comprehensible.”

p. 590-591.Presuppositions include the inescapability of logical laws, the basic reliability of reason and sense experience, the uniformity of nature (over place and time), nature is intelligible.

Note that none of these assumptions in the realm of science or religion is capable of being proved, either through logic or by experimentation; they are all ultimately matters of faith.

Similarity # 3: The final goal of both processes is the formulation of the truth expressed as universal laws.

Scientific Laws of Nature

Isaac Newton: Laws of Motion

Johannes Kepler: Laws of Planetary Motion

Antoine Lavoisier: Law of Mass Conservation

Willard, Clausius, Rumford, and Thomson: Laws of Thermodynamics

Gregor Mendel: Laws of Heredity

All of these scientists believed in God, and some were obviously more than just nominal Christians. Newton wrote Bible commentaries, Lavoisier was executed during the French Revolution, in part because he was loyal to the Church, and Mendel was an Augustinian friar.

Even though these basic laws are considered to have met the test of time and experimentation, they are still subject to revision if more data become available. For example, the Law of Conservation of Mass has to take Einstein's work into account and is now sometimes called the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

Christian “Laws”

Historic Creeds:

Apostles' Creed (200-900) Western Church

Creed of Nicaea (325) Ecumenical Church

Nicene Creed (381) Ecumenical Church expansion and

    revision of the 325 Creed including new section on Holy Spirit

Athanasian Creed (500) Western Christian denominations

Denominational Doctrinal Statements

The Nature of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent

The Four Spiritual Laws

Our own basic formulations of spiritual truth are attempts to summarize briefly a mass of biblical data. And they too are subject to revision, as you can see by the various early Church creeds which were reworded when they were found to be too loosely stated or could be misunderstood.

Similarity #4: Successful predictions resulting from a theory strengthen the plausibility of that theory.

Here is an example from one of my preliminary orals proposals. The cyclic benzene molecule can be pictured as having alternating double and single carbon-carbon bonds. In actuality, the electrons are equally shared around the ring, rendering the molecule much more stable against chemical attack. These type of molecules are called aromatic. If one of the carbons is replaced by a nitrogen, it is still aromatic in character.

Molecular orbital theory had predicted that replacement of a carbon with a phosphorus atom instead would also yield a stable, aromatic compound, but no one had yet synthesized the molecule to test out the theory. So one of my orals proposals involved several synthetic schemes to make this compound, and six years later someone actually did it, and the compound proved to be aromatic as theory had predicted, as well as another non-classical aromatic compound I had proposed to make.

Here is an example of the Bible being used in a predictive manner. During the beginning phases of the excavation of the city of Hazor by Yigael Yadin in 1955-1960, he identified what looked like the corner of the city gates. That night he took out his Bible and read the following passage:

“And this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the LORD and his own house and the Millo and the wall of Jerusalem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer.” ( I Kings 9:15)

He reasoned that if those last three cities had been rebuilt by Solomon at the same time, perhaps the same architect was used in all three constructions. The gates of Megiddo had been excavated earlier, and Yadin had the detailed report with him. So the next morning he outlined on the ground, exactly where he wanted the workers to dig to clear away the rubble. He reported, “When they were finished, they looked at us with astonishment, as it we were magicians or fortune-tellers.” The gate is an almost exact replica of the gates at Megiddo and Gezer in every dimension.

So his theory was strengthened by the results. But like any theory, it must be purposely tested, and that is the process going on currently since some scholars have now proposed that the dating of the ruins comes from a time period other than Solomon's. Only time will tell how it all works out.

Similarity # 5. When predictions from a theory prove false, that casts doubt on the theory or the experimental method—not on the basic assumptions.  

This is a very important point to keep in mind.  D. A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture, p. 206: “All such evidence considered, the traditional view claims that its interpretation is the best 'fit.' If in a few cases it is prepared to suspend judgment because of difficult pieces of evidence, it does not see this as admission of defeat any more than a theory in science admits defeat at that point. The theory must be rejected or modified only if there is unambiguous counter-evidence, or a clear counter-example, or if there arises another theory with a better 'fit.'”

My first assignment when I left school and began work was to find a method of producing surface-active agents (call them detergents) from a specific class of alcohols. One way of accomplishing this was by addition of ethylene oxide in the presence of Lewis acid catalysts. I kept getting erratic results. One day I would be able to add enough ethylene oxide to make a good detergent, but the next day the reaction would suddenly stop half way through and not go any further. At this point, I could have said, “I have disproved one of the basic assumptions of science; in fact there is no regularity and order in the universe. I think I'll switch over to English literature instead.” Of course, I didn't do that because I had an underlying faith in the regularity of the universe even when the facts didn't seem to support it. I assumed instead that the problem had to lie with me and my experimental method. I eventually found that the lack of reproducibility in my experiments was due to a hidden variable: trace quantities of water in the various batches of alcohol I was using were poisoning the catalysts, even when present in part per million quantities. By scrupulously drying my starting materials, I could control the reaction as I wanted.

Why I am I wasting time discussing this example? Because many people make the same mistake in the religious realm. Consider a few of the Christian "theories" shown below that were all developed based on passages in the Bible:

Once saved, always saved.

Prosperity gospel

Calculations on the timing of the Second Coming

Various schools of eschatology

The divine right of kings

Views on the age of the earth

Supremacy of the white race

A good and powerful God would not allow the innocent to suffer.

Some of these theories have been thoroughly discredited by now. What happens if one of your pet theories doesn't pass the test of reality? Take the last example especially. This belief regarding the nature of God has probably been responsible for more people abandoning their faith than any other. Voltaire was shaken in his faith after the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 where 15,000 people died. One of the main reasons Charles Darwin stopped believing in God was the death of his 9-year old daughter. Mark Twain turned from God when his daughter died at an early age. Their mistake, and one we often make, is to question the truth of our basic Christian tenets, belief in God and his Word, rather than questioning our own limited understanding.

Similarity # 6:. Results in both fields are enhanced greatly when subjected to intense peer review.

a. This is the only way fraud and unfounded statements based on inadequate data or misinterpretation can be detected. It illustrates the self-correcting nature of science.

b. It guards against group-think. The Bible Knowledge Commentary is a two-volume work in which the authors are all associated with Dallas Theological Seminary. There are some very worthwhile articles in it, but the uniformity of theology between the various authors on even minor subjects sometimes leads to a rather lock-step approach that allows for little deviation. For example, I looked at 33 different commentaries regarding the return of Elijah. Only three stated that John the Baptist was merely a partial fulfillment and that Elijah will literally come again in the last days. All three were articles in BKC.

c. Ultimately leads to a closer formulation of the truth.

Let me bore you with three examples in the area of chemistry. One was the so-called discovery of polywater, a polymeric form of water occurring when it is drawn up into a very thin glass capillary tube. It possesses a higher boiling point and lower freezing point than water itself. As a joke, ten of us chemists at work submitted a joint patent suggestion on the use of polywater as the perfect antifreeze. Of course, there is no such thing as polywater. Under the experimental conditions, what happens is that water dissolves silica out of the glass capillary tubes. So the experimenters were measuring the properties of silica gel instead.

Cold Fusion was a very hot topic at one time after University of Utah researchers discovered a way to conduct a nuclear fusion reaction in a beaker. In essence, it was a perpetual motion machine that could eliminate the energy crisis worldwide. After the results were published, teams of scientists in major universities tried to duplicate the results to no avail.

Russian chemical publications, at least back in the 60's, had virtually no peer review system and so it was not uncommon for errors to be exposed in them. I personally overturned two of so-called findings in Russian technical journals.

Whether there was a basic flaw in these original studies or purposeful fraud, it was rapidly exposed by peer review. Any true scientist recognizes the absolute necessity of allowing his work to be independently reviewed by other experts in the field. Scientific journals hand over any submitted papers to a team of reviewers first to critique them and make suggestions for any possible changes or the need for further work before publication. I have served as a reviewer myself in the past and have recommended rejection where the data sim;ly didn't warrant the conclusions of the paper.

Does anything like this process exist in the religious realm? Yes, there are a number of reputable journals that publish papers on biblical research. And the papers are carefully screened by a board of editors for content and the technical background and expertise of the authors. The same care is taken before reputable publishers like Baker Books, Zondervan, Eerdmans or Intervarsity Press will publish a new Bible commentary. A lot of nonsense is weeded out in the process so that it never sees the light of day.

Where does the nonsense end up? On the internet which you are now consulting yourself. Unfortunately, on the internet there is no peer review whatsoever. I realize that it is much easier and cheaper to just go there for your answers regarding the Bible rather than building up your own library of reliable resources and digging through them on your own. But if that is going to be your main source for understanding the Bible, you need to at least look into the scholarly training and background of your sources and take all of their teachings with a large spoonful of salt. And that includes my own opinions.

Similarity #7. With more theories and laws developed to successfully explain existing phenomena (both physical and spiritual) comes greater confidence in the basic assumptions.

Even though the basic assumptions in science and Christianity can never be ultimately proved, we can be strengthened in these beliefs the further we go in investigating their implications. For example, Keith Miller and Bruce Larson wrote a very popular book in 1974 entitled Edge of Adventure: An Experiment in Faith in which they proposed that the scientific method could actually be used as a model by which to live and grow spiritually. Here is a quote from the introduction to their book: “Each of us has discovered that the best way he's found to learn and teach about the Christian life is to accept the hypothesis that God really was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and that it is possible to communicate with him through prayer. For instance if you should decide, as an experiment, to give as much of yourself as you can to as much of God as you can grasp in this hypothesis, then the adventure is to try to live your whole life for a certain period as if you believed totally.”

Similarity # 8: Both are, or should be, suspicious of taking as authoritative comments outside their respective areas of expertise.

On the scientific side, this can include the astronomer Carl Sagan famously saying: “The Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.” This is a rather bold statement of a universal negative that both theologians and philosophers rightly condemn as going far beyond the evidence. Or witness Isaac Azimov's pathetic attempt to write a two-volume Bible commentary.

But we Christians should not be so smug. Just look at the reliance of many Christian home schools on science material written by a Dr. Hovit, a so-called expert with minimal scientific credentials. And once my former church brought in a creationist speaker for a week of lectures. He said that he had a PhD in Science, a non-existent degree. He got very embarrassed when I asked him where he got such a degree, and he refused to answer me. Even the otherwise respectable Truth Project came out with a video which mocked scientists for putting in fudge factors to get their theories to fit the data. I could go on with a number of equally embarrassing examples of how Christians who don't really know what they are talking about make incorrect statements regarding science.

DOSAC, p. 55: This is not a new problem. “[Augustine] warned in his work the Literal Meaning of Genesis of the danger of non-Christians hearing Christians who affirm the book of Scripture nevertheless talking nonsense about matters relating to the book of nature.”

p. 142: “...educated non-Christians who come across young-earth advocates will equate inaccuracies about the natural world with the teaching of the Bible and thus be less inclined to give credence to the gospel, and...young Christians immersed in YEC doctrine who later discover its untenability may face a crisis that robs them of their faith...”

Similarity #9: A certain amount of uncertainty is to be expected in both fields.

When you plot the effect on one physical parameter obtained by varying a related parameter, you almost always get some deviation from an expected straight line or curve because of random errors. When I was a laboratory teaching assistant in graduate school, I would always suspect a student who got exactly the expected result from his or her experiment. We used to call that “dry-labbing.” As one scientific example, look at the estimated age of the universe as determined by different methodologies:

Red shift of light from other galaxies gives 14B years

Radioactive decay on stars yields a value of 11-16B years

Cosmic microwave background radiation indicates 13.8B years

                            Michael G. Strauss, Dict. Of Christianity and Science

Since we have three different types of measurement all based on different assumptions, we have three independent witnesses to the same fact, even if we now have to live with a certain amount of uncertainty.

The very same thing occurs in the biblical accounts where an event happens to be told in more than one place.  Critics of the Bible latch on to any little discrepancies in the details in attempts to invalidate the whole event as fabricated. I have given a number of these in my posts on Bible Contradictions. 

Actually, by comparing the minor differences between parallel accounts, we can actually increase our understanding of the events as well as seeing the particular concerns that each author has.

Similarity # 10. In both fields, an emphasis on arriving at the truth is (or should be) more important than pushing individual agendas.

p. 219: Stephen A. Contakes states, “On the whole, science's ethic of integrity is consonant with the Christian ethic of integrity...”

James Watson wrote a fascinating inside account of all the in-fighting and competing egos behind the race to determine the structure of DNA. Without going into all the details, Watson and Crick were hampered throughout their search by a number of people:

    Crick's graduate research advisor, Sir Lawrence Bragg, told Crick point-blank to stop all research on DNA, but Crick went ahead behind his back anyway. I must admit that I did something similar during my doctorate studies.

    The brilliant x-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin had vital data on the subject, but she refused to share it with Watson when he suggested a possible research collaboration between them. She made fun of his approach to the problem and forcibly ejected him from her office.

    Linus Pauling, a CalTech professor of chemistry and world expert on the subject of chemical bonding, was totally humiliated in scientific circles when he proposed in print an obviously erroneous structure for DNA and Watson and Crick published their model shortly afterward.

The amazing conclusion to this story is that Bragg became a complete supporter of Crick once his approach began to look promising. And even more amazingly, Pauling and Franklin were among the first to congratulate Watson and Crick since their main concern was to further the course of scientific knowledge. It is an example that we could take to heart when we get embroiled in theological debates with those with whom we don't agree.

I will give a final personal example related to my preliminary oral exam in graduate school. I found out a little too late that a very prominent chemist on my committee had actually been co-author on a technical paper that disproved the thesis of one of my proposals. My only alternative was to prove that the research in his paper had been poorly carried out. Surprisingly, he did not argue with my reasoning at all since he knew it was true.

Unfortunately, we do not always meet with such magnanimous behavior when dealing with fell ow believers. In my own research on the literary structure of the Bible, I shared my results with several professionals in the field. One was by accident. A friend of mine happened to share share one of the chapters in my unpublished book with his brother, who had actually written the textbook on Biblical criticism. My friend shared his brother's very caustic and sarcastic response with me, which didn't really deal with any of the issues but dismissed the whole approach to structural criticism which scores of recognized scholars have used. Analyzing his response, I realized that if the approach I utilize continues to be considered valid by more and more scholars. a whole set of liberal approaches to biblical criticism that the brother had become an expert on will be considered passe'. He was protecting his own turf out of fear.

All is not negative in this respect, and so I will close with a more positive example of Christian behavior. Dr. David Dorsey wrote a very well-thought-out book entitled The Literary Structure of the Old Testament. I shared the draft of one of my chapters on the subject with him, and he wrote back with some very kind words as well as suggesting that I publish it so that more interest would develop in this general approach to Scripture. That was in spite of the fact that he knew I disagreed with him on some of his analyses. This is exactly the type of open spirit that is sometimes sadly missing in the Christian world. It is perhaps telling that a recent Gallup Poll on the most honest and trustworthy professions lists engineers as fourth while clergy come in at eighth.

The one attitude we should all steer clear of is epitomized in a speech I once heard at an industry dinner. The speaker was a noted political speechwriter who began his comments by glaring at the audience and saying, "I have been told that a number of you are scientists and engineers, and I must say that I have a problem with people like you. You all seem to feel that there is such a thing as the truth. I believe that the truth is whatever the people want it to be." Unfortunately, that attitude seems to be growing.

 

RUTH 1

This chapter is unified by the key word “went” (hlk) which appears at its beginning (v. 1) and 

conclusion (v. 19). It also takes the literary form shown below according to VanGemeren:

A. Background Information (1:7)

    B. Naomi and her daughters-in-law (1:8-9)

        C. Response from the daughters-in-law (1:10)

    B'. Naomi and her daughters-in-law (1:11-13)

        C'. Response from the daughters-in-law (1:14)

            D. Naomi to Ruth (1:15)

            D'. Ruth to Naomi (1:16-17)

A. Background Information (1:18-19)

Ruth 1:1 Elimelech and Naomi did not have to leave Bethlehem (“house of bread”) to survive as 

evidenced by the many people there who still recognized her when she returned. Deuteronomy 23:3-4 

teaches that Jews were not to have anything to do with Moabites since Moab would not give bread and

 water to the Jews coming out of Egypt and even hired Balaam to curse the Israelites. (George L.

 Miller)

 

Ruth 1:1-3 Phyllis Trible remarks that these verses begin with a man and his two sons but end with a 

woman and her two daughters, giving a pronounced feminist perspective to the rest of the book.

 

Ruth 1:2 The verb in verse 1 denotes a brief stay while “remain” in verse 2 denotes a settling there.

Implications? The names are significant: Elimelech means “my God is king” and this was a time when 

there was no earthly king in Israel. In Hebrew, Mahlon = sickly and Chilion = pining away.

 

Ruth 1:4 Oprah Winfrey was named Orpah from this biblical personage, but someone transposed two 

letters accidentally.

 

Ruth 1:6 Miller feels that the famine had been over for some time and it was only the deaths that

decided her to return.

 

Ruth 1:8 Miller's opinion is that the primary motive for Naomi's actions was to hide the fact that her 

sons had married Moabites. This may be an unduly harsh judgment on Naomi. However, Naomi 

certainly had something else to be criticized for. Ulrich says that “it is unthinkable that a daughter of 

Abraham would discourage willing Gentiles from being exposed to the means of grace in the covenant 

community.” I had always felt that was the case and criticized women's Bible study leaders who felt it 

was somehow an act of kindness for Naomi to send them back into a pagan environment no less!

 

Ruth 1:8-9 There is a close parallel to these events in the incident recorded in II Samuel 15:19-23.

Naomi acknowledged the kindness (hesed) of her daughters-in-law to her but not God's kindness. 

(Freedman)

 

Ruth 1:13 Note that Naomi's perceptions are so warped that she, in Ulrich's words, “measured God's 

goodness by what was happening to her and by how many of her desires were being met.” Not that any 

of us would do that today.

 

Ruth 1:14 Legend says that Orpah went on to become the ancestress of Goliath while Ruth, of course, 

was the ancestress of his enemy David.

 

Ruth 1:16-17 Miller points out the proper order of events in v. 16. First a person must become a Jew 

(your people) and then they can partake of all religious ceremonies (Your God). He says that in S. 

Korean culture these verses are used during the wedding ceremony as part of the vows so as to control 

the bride by her mother-in-law.

 

Ruth 1:21 She blames God for her misfortunes rather than her own sinful actions. This is similar to the 

Parable of the Prodigal Son. Miller: “How long would that prodigal son have stayed away from home 

if he had kept on winning at the slot machines and the lottery, and his stocks kept going up?”

 

Ruth 1:22 There is a marked reversal in situation here compared to the opening verse. We go from 

famine to harvest, presaging the happy events that will transpire in the remaining chapters.

 

PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE FIELD (MATTHEW 20:1-16)

Why is this often described as a problem parable? 

    “The story is as clear as it is unexpected.” (France)

    “It is a disconcerting parable on more levels than one because it seems to defend the unacceptable 

principle of equal pay for unequal work.” (Bruce)

   : “Little seems more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals.” (Blomberg)  I  learned this

personally being in a management position at work and listening to my workers grumble about how 

well another employee had been treated in comparison to them.

    “Why do we still feel that there is something wrong? Because we cannot detach ourselves from the 

ruling convention that rewards should be commensurate to the services rendered...But the kingdom of 

heaven does not operate on the basis of commercial convention.” (France)

Biblical Context

Deuteronomy 1:27: The grumbling workers in Matthew 20:1-34 are taken from this verse.

This is the common practice of using day laborers and paying them at the end of the day in obedience with laws in Leviticus 19:14 and Deueronomy. 24:15. It is in contrast to the use of slaves in other parts of the Mediterranean world and attests to its genuine nature. (Stein)

Verse 16 ties in with the parable found in 19:30. In that case the first were believers and the last were 

unbelievers. Both are believers in the present case. (Blomberg)

Blomberg sees the two questions in 19:3 and 20:15 forming an inclusio around the three controversy 

stories in 19:1-20:16.

The use of “for” to begin chapter 20 points back to 19:30 as the reason for this explanatory parable. 

France: the immediate context is the discussion on heavenly rewards in 9:27-29 and on the saying in 

19:30.

This is an example of poor chapter division.One should properly start this parable with Matthew 19:30, 

which acts as a bookend to 20:16 with phrases given in reverse order. This same literary technique was 

used in many of Paul's epistles, which start out with “grace and peace” and end up with “peace and 

grace.”

 

Verse-by-verse comments

Verse 1: This is one of the few parables in which the cultural situation hasn't changed much since Jesus' 

day. We are familiar with the general situation of this story since we still have pick-up spots for day 

laborers in many towns. Ther is also the same general practice of paying wages at the end of each day. 

They were probably harvesting grapes in September, when it would still be hot in the afternoon. The 

working day was from 6AM to 6PM with time out for prayer and eating. A ten-hour 

day was standard. 

The vineyard in this parable probably should not be equated with Israel. (Snodgrass)

 

Verse 2: A wage of one denarius was just enough money to provide for a family's food for one day.

 

Verses 6-7: The five times of day mentioned in the parable refer to the five dispensations in salvation 

history of the world. Early church fathers interpreted this parable in this manner beginning with Adam 

and ending with the Last Days, a rather fanciful reading. The same is true of those who connect the five

 times of day with the five stages in everyone's life or with the five senses. (Snodgrass) 

 

There is no negative connotation to the fact that they hadn't yet been hired (such as they were too lazy 

to show up at the marketplace early or that they were known to be poor workers, etc.). “Idle” just 

means there was no work available for them. (France)

 

Adding workers later on was probably out of compassion, not because he had underestimated the 

amount of work needed. (France)

 Josephus told the story during the time of Agrippa after the completion of the Temple when many 

workman no longer had employment. Because of their need and the fear that excess money in the 

treasury would be stolen by the Romans, a days wage was given to all men even if they only worked 

one hour in the day. (Snodgrass) 

Alternatively, the landowner kept going back for more workers because grapes had to be picked at just 

the right time to ensure the proper sugar content. And if the harvest began late in the week, then it 

would have to be completed before the Sabbath. 

 

Verse 8: Kyrios (lord) often was used for God.  It is therefore tempting to see the foreman as a figure of 

Christ, to whom judgment is given by the Father. But many commentators say that is doubtful due to 

the fact that foreman is not mentioned except in this one verse. 

 

Verses 13-15: Contrary to the view that the only sin the first-hired workers were guilty of was envy, 

these verses expose their triple sin: mercenary spirit, failure to recognize the rights of the landowner, 

and envy of others. Note that the grumblers don't even address the owner with respect (just like the 

older son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son).

“Evil eye” in v. 15 is an expression indicating envy or stinginess. The master is described as 

“good,” which identifies him as a symbol of God in light of Matthew 19:17. (Snodgrass)

 

Verse 16 “Many are called but few are chosen” was added to the end of a number of manuscripts. but 

makes no sense here (only found in KJV). It probably came from Matthew 22:14. Thus, it points back to 

the main point of all 19:13-20:34.

“It is one of the three most difficult parables...the problems are relatively easy, except for two: the identity of the original audience and the meaning of the parable.” (Snodgrass) And, of course, the two issues are strongly interrelated.

Audience

1. This parable is addressed toward apostles like Peter who expected preferential treatment in heaven for following Jesus so wholeheartedly. Look at Peter's inappropriate question equating apostles' self-sacrifice with future rewards, and the following request of the sons of Zebedee. Snodgrass thinks this is the main setting of the parable. He says, “it is intended to exclude arrogance, ideas of superiority over others in the kingdom, and any idea that God's assessment is to be understood by some kind of reckoning.” “The parable addresses speculation about reward in comparison to others.”

2. This parable addresses the Jews who had the benefits of the law before the Gentiles but failed to recognize Jesus for who he was, unlike many Gentiles who came to faith later on. There are such hints of an historical interpretation for this parable. The Jews had been serving God much longer than Gentiles. This understanding is somewhat confirmed by the fact that the first group of workers had a contract (covenant) with the landowner while the others didn't. If this is the primary meaning, however, we would expect only two groups of workers to be mentioned. There is a contrast between those who do work after haggling over proper wages and those who simply trust the landowner that he will “do what is right” by them. “Israel was a highly self-conscious ethnic entity, proud of its separation, expectant of privileged treatment by God for having been the keeper of his word. But the proclamation of Jesus, though addressed to the people of the Covenant, did not exclude the Gentile world.”

By contrast, a later rabbinical parable has God giving Israel a large reward for their long work for Him, 

but giving Gentiles who have only worked a little while a small reward. (France)

The primary reference is to the Jew's precedence but could also be addressed to early disciples as a 

warning. (Albright and Mann)

3. This parable is addressed to the religious leaders who felt superior to the “sinners” that Jesus associated with. The law-abiding Pharisees, etc. felt they had made a bargain with God (as did the first group of workers): if they would keep His commandments, they would be rewarded. But the sinners (represented by the later group of workers) were in no position to bargain and just had to rely on God's grace rather than their own works. “Is it unfair that they get the same reward? “If God is pleased to give them as much, who will tell him that he should not.” (Bruce) Explanations 2 and 3 face the hurdle that they seem to imply that some will get their eternal reward from works while others will receive it by grace. Snodgrass sees no indication that this was the original audience.

Regarding the above: The focus is not on exactly who the two groups represent, but on the grace shown by the owner. (France)   Snodgrass disagrees: “While the parable is about the goodness of God at some level, it is not contrasting works and grace and is not about God's extreme generosity.”

Proposed Interpretations

1. This parable teaches that there will be differential rewards for those who go to heaven. That may be true, but this parable only addresses our eternal salvation. And there the reward is the same for all.

Verse 16 Then, in what way are the first last, etc. if both get the same amount? One will be unsatisfied and the other will be grateful. The common idea that there will be differences of status in heaven is not taught in the Bible. Those who look for such signs (and there have been popular books written on the subject) are not that far in attitude from the grumblers in this parable. (Blomberg) “Equality of reward does not mean, however, that there will be no differences of position in the Kingdom as Jesus points out in xxx. 28.” (Albright and Mann) Snodgrass feels the parable has “little concern to describe what it [heaven] is like.”

Hill: The main concern is on God's grace, not on the relative rewards or status. By grumbling, the first workers put themselves in the last rank.

2. This parable teaches that heaven helps those who help themselves. We can't stretch the details of any parable too much. Otherwise one could also argue that some of us earn the right to heaven (a whole denarius) to our own efforts while others are only there through grace. A standard Catholic interpretation is that it shows that even a little effort on our part is enough to earn us a place in heaven.

3. This parable teaches the sound business management principle that you can best motivate workers if you first pay those who work the least. The absurdity of that suggestion illustrates how most of Jesus' parables had unexpected twists that would have been received as outrageous by his listeners.

4. This parable teaches that we should closely monitor how well our fellow Christians live their lives. No, we should be thankful for God's grace to all, not envious toward others thinking that we deserve more than they. Snodgrass: “The life of God's kingdom with its focus on communal love cannot be experienced as long as we are comparing ourselves with others and calculating what is due us or being envious of what others receive.”

There is the old story about a group of people in line waiting to get into heaven. A rumor starts spreading-- “They are letting everyone in.” What would be our immediate response—one of joy, confusion, or anger?

What is it in human nature that causes us only to be happy when we look good in comparison to others? I must admit that I still read the annual Parade magazine issue that reviews the salaries of a number of people to see how it compares with what I was earning when I retired.

5. This parable teaches that even in heaven we must continue working to get the daily allowance God will provide. This explanation confuses the present and future aspects of the kingdom. The more likely proposed meanings of the payments are (1) that we need to rely on God's provision day by day and (2) that when we come to God, all our needs are met, if not all our wants.

6. This parable teaches that we will lose our salvation if we envy others. In verse 13, the word “friend” sounds gentle enough, but there is a definite rebuke given and a more sinister tone might be inferred from the only two other places in the NT where this word is used: Matthew 22:12 (The king rebukes the wedding guest who is not dressed properly and he sends him into outer darkness) and Matthew 26:50 (Jesus addresses Judas as he is betraying him in the garden of Gethsemene). In each case there is a relationship which has been broken by the actions and attitude of the subordinate party.

7. Equal pay for all the workers was just and fair since those hired later on probably worked harder than those hired at the start of the day. This explanation is similar to a works-oriented rabbinical parable in which the same pay is given to those who only worked for two hours since they accomplished as much as the others who worked all day. (France) This faulty interpretation even pops up in some Christian teaching and preaching I have heard, with the added explanation that those who worked in the cool of the evening were able to do more work than those exhausted by the heat of the day.

8. This parable teaches that our God is not a God of justice. True justice for all would lead to condemnation for all of us. Only through Christ can God's justice be met, and this is a case of grace being extended to all of us.

9. There is no reference to God in this parable. Instead, it “is an invitation to imagine a new order of compassion and concern for human need.” (Snodgrass)

10. David Barton ("Pastor to the Tea Party") on this parable: Jesus was anti-union and against the minimum wage. This parable teaches that an employer has the right to make individual agreements with his workers without any outside interference.

I have three comments concerning this interpretation: (1) Jesus explains the meaning himself at end of parable and it has nothing to do with economic theory; (2) one could use the same reasoning with the parable of the judge and the widow to conclude that God doesn't mind corrupt judges who ignore the needs of the poor; and (3) one could just as well argue that since a denarius was the bare minimum to support a man and his family, this parable actually teaches that there should be a minimum wage. But even this would be importing into the text a teaching that wasn't intended.

 

I like Hendricksen's conclusion on the three main lessons for us today: (1) avoid a works-oriented 

attitude toward God, (2) recognize and accept God's complete sovereignty in all things, and (3) don't 

have an envious spirit. France suggests that we need to have the attitude of the Dodo in Alice in 

Wonderland: “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” Snodgrass quotes Lischer as saying that 

“good people have a harder time understanding grace than people who are desperate.”

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: JESUS' EARLY LIFE AND MINISTRY

The following contradictions involve differences between the various gospel accounts as far as they describe Jesus' early life and teachings.

The infant Christ was taken into Egypt (Luke 2:22,39)

The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt. (Matthew 2:14-15,19, 21,23)

Christ was tempted in the wilderness (Mark 1:12-13)

Christ was not tempted in the wilderness (John 2:1-2)

John was not in prison when Jesus went to Galilee (John 1:43; 3:22-24)

John was in prison when Jesus went to Galilee (Mark 1:14)

Concerning these first three pairs of contradiction, note how the author of them cleverly gives the impression that the gospels actually say that Christ was not taken to Egypt, that he was not tempted in the wilderness, and that John was not in prison at the time. In fact, the various accounts nowhere make those negative pronouncement; they are merely the author's own comments.

Well, why then does the critic feel justified in stating that there are contradictions present? In each case, he is making an argument from silence. Thus, Luke happens not to mention that Christ was taken to Egypt, John happens not to mention the temptation in the wilderness, and John does not specifically state that John the Baptist was not in prison at the time in question. Each of the gospel accounts is very selective in which events they choose to relate and which ones they omit.

One needs to see the whole picture to get a total view of the story. And this is best done by purchasing what is called a harmony of the gospels. There are several editions in print, some containing the Synoptic Gospels and others also including the Gospel of John. The gospel accounts are presented in parallel columns arranged approximately in chronological order. Using a Harmony, one can see at a glance that in each of the three sets of “contradictions” given above, the events in the first listed scriptures occurred before those in the second listings.

One comment regarding the various harmonies available. They all need to rely on some value judgments, and therefore they may differ from one another in some details. This occurs because (1) some gospel authors group their material topically instead of chronologically and (2) on occasion it is not clear whether two accounts are of the same event or only a similar one. The next contradiction below is an example of the latter phenomenon.

Christ preached his first sermon on a mountain. (Matthew 5:1-2)

Christ preached his first sermon on a plain. (Luke 6:17, 20)

The first thing to note is that the critic is up to his old tricks again by implying that these gospels actually say that this was the “first sermon” given by Christ. Instead, it just happens in each case to be the first recorded sermon. For all we know, Christ may have given many sermons before that time. And thus, these could in fact be two entirely different occasions, as many scholars believe. A number of the teachings are indeed identical in both accounts, but that is natural considering that Jesus probably repeated many of his teachings when he encountered a new audience who had never heard him.

But there are a number of other scholars who believe that both accounts refer to the same occasion. They explain the somewhat different description of the setting as follows: The sermon was indeed given on a mountain, but obviously not on the very top of a steep mountain. Instead, it took place somewhere on a relatively flat portion (a plain) of the mountain side where the people could comfortable situate themselves.

Disciples commanded to go forth with staff and sandals (Mark 6:8-9; Luke 10:4)

Disciples commanded to go forth with neither staff nor sandals (Matthew 10:9-10)

At last, here is a genuine contradiction between the two accounts. It has been labeled as “a famous so-called contradiction” and “a well-known problem of harmony.” It is illustrative of many times in the New Testament where the gospel authors disagree on minor details. This disturbs many Christians, who seem to agree with the tongue-in-cheek comment: “A man with one clock always knows what time it is. A man with two clocks is never quite sure.” In fact, it is always helpful to have two clocks because you will at least have a pretty good idea of what the time is. The one clock only gives the illusion of accuracy since it may be far off or have stopped altogether.

Well after Mohammed's death, one of his followers saw that all the copies of the Koran were rounded up. He then burned all of them (which apparently disagreed in a number of places) except the one he personally felt was the most accurate. Thus, the followers of Islam have to rely on only one rather late clock. In contrast, we have four gospels that we can compare. It gives us four largely independent witnesses to the events of Christ's life. In the particular case above, we can say with great assurance that Jesus did send his disciples out with only minimal provisions in order to be dependent on God's provision and the charity of those they met up with, whether or not the disciples had sandals or staff.

France says, “Most readers, however, do not find it easy to get excited about this 'gospel discrepancy'...; whether the tradition actually forbade the disciples to carry a staff or not, the thrust of the passage is hardly affected.”

But for those who are still concerned and would like a little more assurance here, consider the following possibilities:

F. F. Bruce, Hard Sayings of the Bible: ”The differences remind us that in the Gospels we have the meaning of Jesus, his voice, so to speak, transmitted to us, but not his exact words.” Remember that they had to be translated from Aramaic to Greek. “Only if one has a very legal mind is there a significant difference.” “Jesus normally speaks in the hyperbole [exaggerated tone] of a wisdom teacher, not a Pharisee.” Witness the later time when he tells his apostles to go out carrying a sword.

Regarding the staff, both Barbieri and Grassmick try to resolve the problem by saying that Matthew's version states that they are not to procure (ktesesthe) these items while Mark says they could take (airosen) any staffs they already had. But R. T. France notes that this does not resolve the contradiction entirely since Luke uses the same verb as Mark.

Regarding the sandals, both Hendricksen and Ellison feel that the word “extra” in Matthew's account can apply to the sandals as well as the tunic. This would resolve that problem.

Getting back to staff, the Greek word appearing in all three accounts is rhabdon, a word having a number of meanings including a traveler's walking stick, a rod of authority, or an instrument of defense or punishment. Thus, Power concludes “that the staff permitted in Mark is the walking or shepherd's crook which became the symbol of office, while the rod prohibited by Matthew and Luke was the shepherd's club designed for protection.” This is possible, but there is no way of proving this contention.

Finally, I will give three additional possibilities offered by somewhat more liberal Bible scholars:

Blomberg: He proposes that Matthew has a composite account that includes the sending of the 72 and only recorded in Luke 10. This sending-out would have included the Twelve Apostles, who may have received separate instructions before they left.

Mann: “Possibly the mitigations [present in Matthew's and Luke's list of restrictions] have to do with the perils of the the situation for which this gospel [Mark's] was written.”

Marcus: Mark added deliberate parallels with Exodus 12:11 which, unlike Luke, include sandals.

In summary, we may never be able to remove the contradictions to the satisfaction of everyone, but the above offer some possible approaches to the problem.

 

HIDDEN TREASURE: PART 2 (MATTHEW 13:44)

We have already discussed the main teaching of this short parable, but what classes it as a problem parable? Obviously it is the fact that the man didn't tell the owner of the field that he had a buried treasure on it.

A rabbinical teaching of unknown date said that a workman uncovering and lifting up a treasure found 

in the course of his work had to turn it over to his master. But in this case, he didn't actually lift it up 

until he became the owner. So he didn't break any laws; only he did defraud the owner of the land by 

not telling him about it. (C. Brown) There are other rabbinical teachings giving elaborate guidelines on 

what is and is not permissible to do when finding a hidden treasure. One of these rules states that any 

hoard greater in value than three gold coins must be handed over to the owner. (France)

 

Kistemaker: “Because we lack the necessary details of ownership laws in Jesus' day, we need not call 

the man's morality into question. The parable does not stress the ethical conduct of the man who found 

the treasure.” 

 

Hill: “Attention is not being drawn to the morality of the man's hiding the treasure until he can buy it.” 

 

Blomberg: “One should not worry about the man's ethics in hiding the treasure. We need neither justify 

his behavior nor imitate it. This is simply part of the story line that helps make sense of the plot."

 

This parable must have bothered the author of the later Gospel of Thomas since it records another 

version of this parable in which neither the original owner, his son who inherited the land, or the man 

who bought the field from the son knows about the treasure. The new owner comes about it by 

accident while plowing. Thus, this version avoids the ethical question entirely. But the typical Gnostic 

moral of this version is the importance of having true knowledge because you can use it to your 

advantage since the man then “began to lend money at interest to whomever he pleased.” This last 

detail betrays the story as being a much later version since Jews were not allowed to charge interest to 

fellow Jews.

 

PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD (LUKE 16:1-13)

Gordon Fee calls it the most difficult of parables. “This parable is notoriously difficult...one feels that 

the lack of knowledge available to interpret this parable is inversely proportional to the amount written 

about it.” (Snodgrass)

This has also been called the Prudent Steward, the Clever Manager or the Shrewd Steward. Snodgrass notes: “To label this parable is to assume its interpretation.” (Snodgrass)

Verse 1: “a certain man” begins a number of other parables in Luke's Gospel. As mentioned earlier, it is sort of the equivalent to “once upon a time.” The following parable in vv. 14-31 also involves a rich man. The first parable is addressed to disciples with the Pharisees listening in; the second one directly to the Pharisees.

Snodgrass notes the many similarities between this parable and the story of the prodigal son: both use the wording “a certain man” and “squander.” And both have a main character who betrays a trust, talks to himself, seeks relief from a crisis and receives an unexpected and seemingly unfair response from an authority figure.

Verse 2: The steward is not a slave or he would have been punished severely for his actions.

Verse 3: There is an emphasis on action. The word “do” or “make” (poieo) appears in vv. 3,4,8, and 9.

Verse 4: The key word here means to be vindicated (get justice), not to get revenge. See Revelation 6:10: The martyrs cry out, “How long, Lord, before you avenge our blood...”

Verses 6-7: Without knowing exactly the equivalent measures in today's terms, it is obvious that the amount of the debts is very substantial. By one reckoning, 1 measure of oil = 10 gallons and 1 measure of wheat = 10 bushels, approximately. Loans were a matter of public record; so the old IOU's were destroyed to remove the evidence and new ones drawn up (Marshall)

Although parables don't have to be totally realistic, at this point it is appropriate to ask, “Would anyone really cook up a scheme like this and expect it to work?” If you have problems with this, consider this newspaper article I noted soon after moving to Texas (names omitted to protect the guilty):

Austin-American Statesman, Jan 6, 1977, “N.G.'s poor legacy”

“Some of the last-minute acts of former County Attorney G leave a bad taste in the mouth and lead to 

the conclusion that he thought of his office as something less than a public trust. These acts show the 

type of public servant G was and the contempt he had for those who elected him. G has admitted to 

settling for 10 cents on the dollar on about $70,000 in bail forfeitures with bondsman S, just before G's 

term of office expired. G has told friends he intends to use S's bonding service to help build a clientele 

for his private practice of the law. He also filed a highly questionable lawsuit against S's principal rival 

in the Austin salvage business – just before his term ended.”

Verse 8: The main issue in the parable is: Why did the master commend the steward for his actions? Snodgrass outlines two possibilities: the steward did something just or effective, or unjust but effective. He concludes that “the master praises the steward for his quick thinking, his shrewdness or wisdom, to insure his own future. No more is intended than that.” Only the steward's wisdom is commended, not his dishonesty. This is similar to Rahab being commended for her faith, not for lying or being a prostitute. Ellis: “Unjust or unrighteous is a poor translation. It means that he is no better and no worse than any other son of the world – one who gives first priority to himself and worldly security. It does not refer to individual ethics but to the universal character of 'this age.'” Luke uses “unjust” also in two other parables concerning the future (13:27 and 18:6).

“Houses” is only used by Luke one other time (9:33) where it refers to our heavenly abode. The same meaning is probably intended here. The phrase “children of light” (those spiritually enlightened) also appears in the Dead Sea scrolls, John 12:36; Ephesians 5:8; and I Thessalonians 5:5. Jesus calls the steward “unjust” so that no one can accuse him of condoning dishonesty. “In their generation” = in worldly matters (Trench) The ending is totally unexpected in that the man is praised for his actions. One often repeated view is that master commended the steward for returning to legal dealings that reflected well on himself. (see 1 Thessaonians 5:19-20), but that is doubtful because the Jesus calls the steward “unjust.” Leadership is shrewdness carried out with the right motives. Otherwise it is manipulation.

Verse 9: “When money is gone” can refer either to one's death or, preferably, to the end of the age. “They” (as in Luke 12:20) can mean either the poor who are helped by the money, the angels, God, or Christ. The difference is small between these options. (Snodgrass)  Rabbis sometimes used “they” as a substitute for "God." They could also refer to the wealth itself, this time as a friendly witness unlike the unfriendly witness mentioned in James 5:3.

Various attempts have been made to get around problems by proposing that our present text with ek (“out of”) is in error and should read ektos (“outside of”) to re-translate it as “make friends without mammon” or “make friends rather than mammon.” (Fitzmyer) An easier approach that doesn't involve re-writing Scripture is given below. Almsgiving is implied, like Luke 12:33: “Sell your possessions, and give alms to provide yourselves with...a treasure in the heavens that does not fail.” For “eternal homes" (lit. tents) see Psalm 61:4: “Let me abide in your tent forever.”

Verses 10-12: Words repeated from the parable itself include unrighteous, mammon and lord. C. S. Lewis – the master is the world, whatever it gives you (wealth, power, talent), use them for your purposes. If you can't be trusted to handle that kind of property, who will trust you with the true kind?

Mammon of righteousness can mean (a) money obtained dishonestly (Geldenhuys), (b) money that belongs to the sphere of this unrighteous world (worldly possessions), (c) money that leads to unrighteousness (Fitzmyer) or (d) that in which one fully trusts. The first meaning has largely gone out of favor.  There are some complicated word plays going on in this verse using words with similar sounds: “if therefore in the unrighteous mammon 'amen you are not the 'emunah who will yeyminken..” (Snodgrass)

Verse 13: The sharpest condemnation of money comes from Jacques Ellul (Money and Power): “Here 

Jesus personifies money and considers it a sort of god.” And Paul makes this point even more clearly 

in Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5. “What Jesus is revealing is that money is power...something that 

acts by itself, is capable of moving other things, is autonomous (or claims to be) is a law unto itself...It 

has spiritual meaning and direction.” “God as a person and Mammon as a person find themselves in 

conflict...Jesus describes the relationship between us and one or the other; it is the relationship between 

servant and master.”

Snodgrass lists 16 different interpretations that have been offered for this parable. Even getting rid of the less likely minority views, we are still left with the following possibilities:

1. The steward's wisdom only, not his dishonesty is praised. “Worldly people with no thoughts beyond this present life, will sometimes behave more sensibly than other-worldly people.” (Bruce) “Be wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” (Matt. 10:16)

2. We should use our present time and resources wisely in order to enjoy our future.

3. It is a warning to the crowd of the imminent crisis they will be facing. It is a “how much more” parable. “Just as the steward acted in his world to safeguard his well-being, how much more in this eschatological crisis should Jesus' hearers act to safeguard their own eternal well-being.”  Jesus is challenging hearers with the urgency of the hour. Crisis is looming in everyone's life so they must act wisely and quickly to avert it.

4. There was nothing dishonest about the steward's actions since there was interest hidden in the IOU to avoid Jewish laws against charging interest to fellow Jews. By removing the interest from the debt, the master gained good will from the debtors and so he can't renounce the steward's actions. Another way a rich person could avoid usury laws was to leave every detail up to his manager so that he could plead innocent of any wrongdoing. (Kistemaker) The morals are that we should use our resources rightly and that God's laws are still valid. The problem with this view is that the amount of reduction is much higher than standard interest rates alone. The amount of reduction in debt in each case amounts to roughly three years of working wages.

5. The steward has done nothing illegal since all he has done is remove his personal commission. Perhaps the steward made good the difference out of his own pocket (Bruce) It has been suggested that there was no set salary for stewards and that they made their money through commissions (like tax collectors of the time). (Ellis)

6. Since the steward was treated mercifully by the master, he is relying on his continued leniency for his subsequent actions. Thus, we should throw ourselves on God's mercy.

7. The comment in vv. 4 is to be taken ironically: “Do you really think that they will welcome you after you have acted so dishonestly?” This view necessitates some rewording of verse 8, and flies in the face of experience where many politicians have done the same thing.

8. The parable is a condemnation of the rich man's behavior and a celebration of his somewhat forced conversion to true values. Snodgrass notes that this particular interpretation “takes the parable in a direction it was not intended to go.” Just because the man was rich is no necessary indication that he got his wealth dishonestly or that he should be viewed negatively at all.