Luke 16:10-13

““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.

Matthew 19:16-30

“Now someone came up to him and said, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?” He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he was very rich. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.” The disciples were greatly astonished when they heard this and said, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans, but for God all things are possible.” Then Peter said to him, “Look, we have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth: In the age when all things are renewed, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And whoever has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

— ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭16‬-‭30‬‬

This is a great passage to use as illustration of similarities/differences between gospels. Here Jesus is called teacher, and the man asks about “good things.” I think in Mark the man calls Jesus “good Teacher,” and Jesus questions the title “good.” The message is still the same, but it’s a key point about how gospel writing works. Paraphrasing is definitely acceptable, and gospel writers are making a point (conveying their personal perspective and message to their audience) through the gospel. 

We see this in Matthew here. Even from the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus ends with “be perfect.” And Jesus challenge the young man to sell everything to therefore show his “perfection.” Is that the standard? Moral perfection/sinlessness? Well, that’s systematic theology for another day. But from the Sermon, we learned that Jesus is not emphasizing moral perfection. He’s talking about keeping the law at its highest intent. At the heart of each command is a deep love for God and others, even those who are persecuting you for religious beliefs. If we can forgive them, serve them, pray for them, we have embodied God’s law (which may be how Jesus “fulfilled” it). So this is perhaps what Jesus means for the young man to be “perfect.” Sure, he hasn’t disobeyed commands (well, at least in his mind. But has he embodied the full intent of the law to the point of loving those around him? Can he give his possessions away? Can he not love two masters? Can he seek God’s kingdom?

This would be nearly impossible for him. 

And though Luke is the one who emphasizes the great reversal, we see it all throughout the NT. Those who are self sufficient, whether religiously, politically, socio-economically, or in any other measure of identity, they rarely turn to Jesus. There’s no need. Those who think they should naturally belong or that God would benefit from having them on His team, they can’t follow Jesus. That requires submission. That requires expressing dependence. But the outcast, the poor, the sick—they flock to Jesus because being dependent is all they’ve ever known.

Disciples don’t understand—surprise, surprise. Who can be saved? Good question, since most humans are self-sufficient. But they mean, “Wow, Jesus, he would be a great candidate for disciple. If he’s not coming along, then what hope do we have.” God changes people. God has to move in salvation. Otherwise, things are impossible, and that’s not really trickling into the free will debate. I hate that debate. I’m just quoting Jesus in this context. With humans, this would be impossible. God has to move.

I’m not sure if Peter is being brash or confused. He asks about their reward. Jesus confirms they would rule with Him in the coming kingdom. Not the time for an eschatology lesson, but it is fun to think about who will reign and how that will happen. I agree with others who think the eternal kingdom will be established on earth as heaven and earth intertwine. Jesus reigns finally and fully, and other passages confirm all believers assist in that rule. How? Not sure. What power? Not sure. But I envision life pretty much as we know it now but with perfect authority and perfect justice. 

The point of the whole passage is the final verse. First become last and last become first. This is the great reversal. The self-sufficient rich don’t gain the kingdom (so the humble rich could potentially), and the self-sacrificing followers of Jesus gain the kingdom. 

But on our own, everyone fails. Only with God is any of this possible.

1 Timothy 6:11-16

 “But you, as a person dedicated to God, keep away from all that. Instead pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness. Compete well for the faith and lay hold of that eternal life you were called for and made your good confession for in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you before God who gives life to all things and Christ Jesus who made his good confession before Pontius Pilate, to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ – whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of Lords, will reveal at the right time. He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.”

— ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭6‬:‭11‬-‭16‬‬

Previous paragraph and following paragraph discuss those with riches. Paul rebukes the wealthy and then gives them commands on what to do instead of pursuing money. Then here in the middle are commands for Timothy, his young protege/ambassador left at Ephesus to oversee the churches there. (Not the pastor)

First, he should keep away from pursuing/dreaming about money. As many have said, having money is fine but building one’s life around it is so dangerous and actually pointless. We’d have to look at previous passage for why. “All kinds of evil.”

Paul (assuming he wrote these books for now) lists several other attributes worth pursuing. Lay hold of eternal life may sound strange to someone with background of strong “assurance of salvation.” But over and over in NT we see emphasis on endurance, need to pursue eternal life while following Jesus. Yes, God preserves/keeps His own, but faithfulness on our part is important. Not really worth debating, since passages emphasize both sides.

Paul says to seize it, and not make it questionable basically. Timothy made confession either at his baptism or ordination of some sort. Lots of witnesses just as Jesus had at His trial.

Without failure?? Wow, high standard, but wavering (at least for Timothy) has consequences. A faithful life is necessary. Not pursuing riches but righteousness and and gentleness and love. 

Just read a book that focused on this term of Jesus’ appearing not coming, as if He will just become visible, not necessarily descend in clouds. Basis of thought depends on where heaven actually is (he thought another dimension basically, and heaven will become one new earth. Heaven and earth overlap now). There are other reasons for Jesus not to descend, per se, since a descent on one side of earth is an ascent from the other hemisphere. But God can do things however He wants. There are verses that say all will see Him. I’ll focus on that.

He alone has immortality. So we don’t have immortal souls? We won’t live forever? Same author reached this conclusion. God gives immortality/eternal life to those who believe. What about unbelievers? This position is annihilationism, and has some merit, but I’m not there yet. Does God give immortality to all people to give eternal life or judgment forever? Hmm.

Paul doesn’t focus on these implications. He jumps straight to praise for all that God is. He alone is worthy. 

Then he gets back to yelling at the haughty rich people.