““The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own? No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.””
— Luke 16:10-13
This passage obviously follows the first portion of Luke 16 which is the parable of the “Dishonest Turned Shrewd Servant.” The manager was accused of being dishonest, then fired, then slashed all the debts until everyone like him again. The master applauded his efforts and reinstated him. There’s a lot in the passage by way of cultural contexts, so I’ll save that for discussion of the parable proper, but we can’t really understand these principles without looking at the parable, too.
Also worthy of note is Luke’s theme of money throughout the book, where rich become poor for the kingdom, and the poor are those who enter the kingdom bc of dependence on God. Zaccheus is another example of someone who gave away money in order to reflect heart change (and to be viewed as generous in people’s eyes).
Faithful/dishonest in little leads to faithful/dishonest in much. Someone’s character is so much more integral and important than the ministry, career, business, family, whatever that he/she is trying to lead. It is so easy to think one’s sphere of influence is insignificant. We always long for more authority or power or freedom in our schedule/choices.
I wouldn’t argue that a “small” stewardship reflects a lack of faithfulness and so “God can’t trust me anymore.” That’s not accurate and unhealthy. There are thousands of pastors and teachers and parents (and others) who are serving faithfully in what the world would see as small spheres of influence. Perhaps the expanded stewardship comes in this age, or perhaps it comes in the age to come. We can simply be faithful with what we’ve been given.
Luke’s focus then is material wealth. If we can’t be trusted with material goods, how can we be trusted with “true riches”? Need more research on what is referenced there, but I’m sure it’s eternal things. The point is that wealth fades. Materialism is pointless. We should be able to manage these things (as in be generous and wise), because we understand they are more than temporary). Then we will have the proper perspective for the eternal things.
Someone else’s property vs our own? I would think this is the opposite. Usually, I need to manage my own stuff before I can borrow or use someone else’s. I’m allowed to break my own stuff. But in light of the parable, I’m guessing as a servant I would be managing the master’s property/possessions, and eventually be promoted to own my own things. Haven’t confirmed this, but that makes sense to me.
No servant can serve two masters. (I’m not going to discuss here the Bible’s lack of abolishing servanthood/slavery. This would need to include a whole discussion of what slavery was in the first century, how the gospel interacted with it, and many other points. It’s a difficult issue.) The point is that we can’t have two people telling us what to do (and yes, for the first century slave, this would be more problematic).
Our potential masters are God and money. With divided loyalties, it soon becomes very clear where our true loyalty lies. God requires generosity, humility, and sacrifice. Money requires greed, pride, and taking advantage of others. Can’t do both.
We will become resentful toward the other master. Hate the other master. Why? Because they are giving opposite commands. Pulling us in opposite directions.