101. Chapter 42 - The Parable of the Unjust Steward
Chapter 42 - The Parable of the Unjust Steward
Background
It is not certain that this parable was spoken on the same occasion as the Parable of the Prodigal Son, but they seem to have a direct connection in thought. It fits perfectly with the method of Jesus for Him to have gone on and pointed out some of the Pharisees sins. The grosser sins of the publicans were public and apparent to all. The sins of the Pharisees were more respectable and hence apt to be hidden from general view. The three parables Jesus had just delivered struck at their selfishness and lack of sympathy and love for their fellowmen. They give answer to the typical insolence, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The two accounts that follow indict the Pharisees for their self-indulgence and their lack of responsibility toward God.
Difficulties
“And he said also unto the disciples” (Luke 15:1), but the Pharisees were much in evidence in the crowd, and their scoffing at the close is most revealing of Jesus’ purpose and result. This is one of the most difficult parables to interpret. This is not merely because the main actor is wicked. In a number of other parables wicked persons and wicked conduct are depicted, as in the cases of the unjust judge and the wicked husbandmen who kill the messengers and finally slay the Son. But in this parable the master, who is a good man, commends the steward who is wicked. The parable would not be so difficult if we knew exactly what the wicked steward had done to be commended, and if we knew just what sort of commendation was given.
Here is a parable which illustrates the fact that we must not be disturbed by details which may only be scenery of the account, and be content with the fundamental principles. All sorts of weird speculation has been indulged in attempting to identify details. The steward has been identified as the Jewish hierarchy, the tax collectors, Pilate, Judas, Satan, penitents, Paul, Christ. All this confusion results from the allegorical method of interpreting parables The steward evidently represents no one. He is simply the main actor in this parable. There is the same sort of confused effort to identify the rich owner as representing God, the Romans, mammon, Satan. It is part of the superb character of these parables that the hearer and reader are left to work long and hard on the jigsaw puzzle to understand the principles.
Two Principles
There are two main principles in this parable. Jesus states both these principles, and the Pharisees give a dramatic underscoring to the second one. The first principle urges wise foresight to use with all diligence all the opportunities of life. The fact that the foresight of a wicked man and his shrewd use of his opportunities to achieve his objective is the example which is used makes the parable similar to the exhortation which a preacher gives to a sleepy, lethargic congregation when he cites the exuberant enthusiasm the world shows at a baseball or football game, or the driving energy people in the world show in their determined search for profit or pleasure. The second principle is not so clearly evident; it protrudes from the surrounding shadows, but explodes into living reality in the scoffing of the Pharisees at the close. This principle sets forth that a person cannot show foresight for the future unless he takes heaven into account. Foresight limited to this world is false sight. There is an undercurrent in this parable which keeps saying, “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” This comes out in Luke 16:9, where Jesus urges the bold use of earthly treasures so that we may enter into heaven at last. The reaction of the Pharisees shows clearly this objective of Jesus: “And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him” (Luke 16:14). Luke does not define just what caused their scoffing, but he declares it was the result of their love of money.
Appeal to Pharisees
What is there in this parable which pinched the Pharisees so sharply? Although the parable was spoken to the disciples, the Pharisees accepted it as spoken against them because: (1) Jesus had just been rebuking them in the preceding parables (2) The disciples were poor, and the Pharisees were rich; this made the parable especially applicable to them. (3) Their conscience condemned them as they listened to the crooked manner in which the steward stole his master’s substance, the manner in which he wasted it, and became engulfed in the love of money. The element which makes the parable so difficult is the gentle manner of the master with the steward at the chose, when we should expect stern orders to throw the wicked man into prison. This very thing joins with the earnest appeal to the Pharisees to repent. When they only scoff and jeer at this appeal, Jesus follows with more severe warnings; He gives the fearsome account of the rich man and Lazarus, which opens to view paradise and Tartarus. The Contrasts
It is of the utmost importance to see that this parable is a study in contrasts; it proceeds by citation of opposites. This is seen throughout the parable and in the comments of Jesus at the chose. The parable teaches foresight in the right use of opportunities, but see how the steward continually stands out in contrast. (1) He did not use foresight in the whole pattern of his life. The most charitable judgment which can be made of the steward is that through the parable he is under the shadow of suspicion of being dishonest. Anyone who finds himself in this predicament certainly has not shown foresight in the right use of his opportunities.
(2) When he suddenly is deprived of the position and authority he has exercised for so long, he is penniless and in despair. His foresight did not even reach beyond his daily high living. How true to life this is! Look at the Hollywood stars with their enormous salaries and the famous gamblers who win incredible fortunes at a single turn of the dice. See how many of them run through their money with utter abandon and end up in abject, helpless poverty.
(3) His sudden, desperate burst of activity when he had been fired and must now face an accounting of his stewardship is the climax of the account, but Jesus points out that even then his foresight did not reach beyond mere earthly things.
(4) His foresight to provide a sort of hiding for the few years left to him (he is an old man) faced up to the accounting he now had to make to the owner, but it did not take into account the final accounting when he must meet God. When death comes, what then? At every turn this steward who gives at the crisis of his life a solitary example of foresight in the use of opportunities is a startling warning to a Christian. He is “the unrighteous steward” (Luke 16:8); he is one of “the sons of this world” rather than one of “the sons of light” ; he has not been “faithful in the unrighteous mammon”; the Christian must seek “the true riches” and gain entrance “into the eternal tabernacles.” But the difficulty is that the owner at the last commends the steward. If he had condemned him and had him thrown into prison, this difficulty would not confront one, but in that case the steward would not offer any sort of foresight.
Dishonesty
“There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods” (Luke 16:1). The a.v. has “had wasted his goods.” The Greek verb was accused means to give hostile information and probably accusing secretly. The steward in Luke 12:42-48 may have been a slave or a freedman in charge of other slaves or servants but in this parable the steward has a place of larger trust and is placed in charge of the entire estate. The rich owner evidently had such confidence in the steward that he had given him a free hand in the management. The owner may have lived in town as an absentee landlord. It is not clear what is meant by “was wasting his goods.” Does this mean merely clumsy mismanagement by an inept steward without the financial ability to manage so large an estate? Does. it charge the steward with deliberately stealing his master’s money? The steward in Luke 12:45, Luke 12:46 became drunk and beat the other servants. There is no such charge against this steward. Whether he was wasting his master’s goods by extravagance or by riotous living and what the evidence was which was reported against him is not stated. If he had been deliberately stealing from his master, he certainly had not been depositing his ill-gotten gains in the First National Bank of Joppa. Extravaganza of some sort evidently had consumed his gains. The Accounting
“And he called him, and said unto him, What is this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward” (Luke 16:2). The owner quite frankly takes up the charges against the steward. Since the uncial manuscripts had no punctuation and the Greek pronoun Ti can mean either “what” or “why”, the question can be rendered in the following ways: (1) “What? Do I hear this of thee?” (2) “What is this that I hear of thee?” (a.s.v.) (3) “Why do I hear this of thee?” This last alternative is the one chosen by the a.v. : “How is it that I hear this of thee?” The owner does not seem to order him to balance his books and give an account of his stewardship in order to determine whether he can remain as steward, but he is summarily dismissed on the basis of overwhelming evidence which the steward does not deny. The accounting as the owner will go over the steward’s records of his transactions will give final proof of his incompetence or dishonesty. The Bright Idea
“And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord taketh away the stewardship from me? I have not strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses” (Luke 16:3, Luke 16:4). The steward sits at his desk in despair. He cannot picture himself digging in the ground as a day laborer on a farm; he is too old or not rugged enough to survive such hard labor. Nor can he picture himself begging from door to door after all his extravagant life. Then comes the sudden idea. This is an extraordinary use of the aorist tense. The present tense expresses continued action in present time: “I am going home.” The imperfect expresses continued action in past time: “I was going home.” The aorist gives definite, historical statement of action in past time: “I went home.” This aorist in Luke 16:4 cannot be so translated: “I knew what I will do.” There are certain extraordinary uses of the aorist where it does not carry this historical statement of past action. It is a dramatic aorist called “aoristus tragicus,” and is translated like a present tense. It carries a sudden explosive quality which the present tense would not express. Here is the steward seated at his desk in despairing meditation. Suddenly in jubilation he says within himself, “I know what I will do.” Like a stroke of lightning the idea has occurred to him. This is aoristus tragicus. He does not show a penitent spirit, but only shrewd plotting as he twists and turns and attempts to escape the toils he has wound around himself. He will make further and speedy use of his waning opportunities.
Undercover Transaction
“And calling unto him each one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bond, and sit down quickly and write fifty” (Luke 16:5, Luke 16:6). Who are these debtors? Are they tenants on the farm who have been unable to meet quotas and found themselves sinking into debt? or has the steward been running a loan-shark business in his master’s name? We do not know the nature of the estate, but “oil” and “wheat” implies that the estate is a farm. Quickly suggests some more crooked work is being plotted with a hasty look over the shoulder to see that no one is looking. But quickly may only mean that the steward awaits momentarily a second stern summons to come now and bring his books. That the debtor was told to put the changed amount in the bond in his own handwriting suggests more fast foot-work to cover up crookedness. But if the indebtedness were increased it would have been important to have the acknowledgment in the debtor’s own hand-writing. Since the amount is being decreased, why would not the notation of the steward have been sufficient? Perhaps the steward was merely attempting to keep the appearance of the original bonds. The conference and the mutual understanding with each of the debtors were essential. The Debts
“Measures of oil” are “baths,” a Hebrew liquid measure of about 8¾ gallons. One hundred baths of olive oil are estimated at $50 “Measures of wheat” are “Cors,” about ten bushels; one thousand bushels of wheat would be worth something like $500 or $600. But the difference in the purchasing power of money is so great that this suggests to us only a fraction of the actual value. The fact that the two debtors, described as examples of all the others, had their debts reduced on a different scale (the one, from one hundred down to fifty: the other, from one hundred to eighty) suggests that this was not a mechanical procedure, but a correction of fraudulent entries formerly made. The steward may have formerly demanded more than was proper and may have pocketed the difference. He now seems to be correcting former injustice. This is not done to impress his master or in the hope of being restored to his lost position, but for the effect upon these debtors who will now take a more friendly attitude toward him. To suppose that this is further robbery being perpetrated at the last minute would make all the debtors join in the robbery and would leave unexplained the master’s commendation. The Master’s Commendation
“And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely” (Luke 16:8). The master condemns the former steward as unrighteous, but admits he has acted shrewdly in these last hours before he turned in his books. The master sits at his desk pouring over the records of the steward. He fastens a keen glance on the steward and says, “You certainly are a clever rascal. I will admit you have made good use of your final opportunities. You have straightened up your books with the correction of all these false entries. You have given belated justice to these debtors. You have gained their friendship for the future.” If the steward had only been incompetent, then the commendation would have been greater without imputation of dishonesty. It seems he had been dishonest, and the commendation is merely that the steward had acted shrewdly under the circumstances. The steward certainly did not show repentance. He changed his mind, but it was not because of sorrow for sin. He was merely planning selfish advantage in a tight spot. The master did not praise him as repentant. He merely said he had acted “wisely.” This was the wisdom which is of the earth, not that from above. It was not the wisdom which enables a man to govern his life so as to win God’s favor, but the shrewdness that enables a man to get ahead of his fellows. The Sons of Light The sons of the world means worldly people who by fair means or foul advance their own selfish interests by skillful use of their opportunities. The sons of light are the disciples who strive to win God’s favor. The sharp contrast between the attitude, objectives, and conduct of the steward and those of faithful disciples is underscored by these titles. The sons of light should be as diligent and swift to use their opportunities nobly as the sons of the world are to make dishonest use of their advantages.
Mammon
“Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into eternal tabernacles” (Luke 16:9). This is what the steward had done by reducing the indebtedness. He hoped they would receive him into their homes now that he was without position or home. Mammon is an Aramaic word for worldly riches. It seems to mean literally “that which is trusted in.” The phrasing is different in Luke 16:9 and Luke 16:11, but the meaning is the same, i.e., the riches of this world that entangle men and lead them to sin. In Luke 16:13 the word is personified as the object of worship and obedience; “it shall fail.” There is a manuscript difference here. Most manuscripts carry the singular, “it shall fail” ; some, the plural, “ye shall fail.” The former means “when it [the mammon] shall fail [as it had with the steward and will ultimately come to an end for all]”; the latter, “when ye shall die.” A tabernacle is a temporary habitation. “Eternal tabernacles” seems to be a plain contradiction. Jesus uses this striking phrase to sum up the study in contrasts. The man has secured for himself a home with the debtors for the few fleeting years that remain for him in this world, but it is purely temporary and uncertain. But by a noble use of his opportunities a man may secure an eternal home with God.
Some see in this admonition the use of humor. They would make it bitter irony as Jesus advised His disciples to imitate the unjust steward and use their earthly possessions to gain the friendship of the worldly who would then receive into eternal tabernacles at death (which, of course, they could not do, so the very opposite is meant). But there is no evident humor in the passage. The natural interpretation is to make friends and they refer to the same persons, but there is nothing that compels it Since death is pictured, and immediately after this Jesus describes in Luke 16:22 the angels as carrying the soul of Lazarus to Paradise, then in Luke 16:9they may refer to angels. The command would be to use earthly possessions to win the lost as He has commanded, and the angels will then at death welcome them. If friends and they are held to refer to the same persons, then the natural reference would be to the great commission as we use our earthly possessions and opportunities to win the lost, who will express their gratitude in heaven: “We are here in heaven because of your loving persistence. All others gave up, but you kept on praying, preaching, pleading, and we finally accepted Christ. Because of your compassion we are in heaven!” “They may receive you.” What great joy! The Principle
“He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10). This is the rule; any exceptions would merely underscore the rule. One of the most common deceits of the devil is that “this will only be a little sin and will not really amount to anything.” “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” (Luke 16:11). The word riches is supplied. The mammon could not have been supplied since it is used in a derogatory sense in the passage, and in this verse, heavenly treasures could not be called mammon “And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?” (Luke 16:12). These brief enigmatic statements have so many possible applications, they are difficult to define. The very little in Luke 16:10 is parallel to the unrighteous mammon in Luke 16:11; the much corresponds to the true riches (heaven). The steward had been unfaithful in handling what was another’s, but what did he have for his own in the final crisis? He was penniless, without friends, and in rebellion against God. Evidently that which is our own is parallel to the true riches. The destiny which God desires for man and has provided for him is heaven. In this sense it is his own. But notice the verb give. Heaven cannot be earned by man, even though it is his natural destiny. It is the gift of God. It is “the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34).
Reaction of the Pharisees This instruction had been directed to the disciples, but the Pharisees accepted it as a direct attack upon them and responded with scoffing. The Greek verb is vivid: “turned up the nose at.” Jesus replied, “Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts” (Luke 16:15). The Pharisees justified their great wealth and luxury by claiming it was the special blessing of God upon them for their meticulous keeping of the law. But they could not justify their wicked hearts before God. “God knoweth your hearts” does not condemn every Pharisee, but leaves room for judgment according to the heart and life of each. The general principle prevails that men exalt that which is disgusting to God because the majority of men are traveling the broad way that leads to destruction. Earthly treasures and pleasures are desired by most men rather than the favor and the company of God. Some men exalt the things which God exalts, but the majority do not. The word abomination has the root meaning of “that which greatly offends the nostrils.” The keeping of the law by the Pharisees had been the basis for their justification before men. Jesus proceeded to discuss further the keeping of the law and the manner in which they were seeking violently to enter into the kingdom of God by trying to turn the campaign of Jesus to their own ideas and purposes. The Zealots were especially violent and determined to take Jesus by force and make Him their kind of king. All who opposed Jesus and sought His death were seeking to seize the kingdom violently. They would not succeed in perverting His movement. They could not succeed in overturning and destroying even the smallest part of the law, for it found its fulfillment in the Messiah’s death.
Further Teaching
Jesus pointed out that the manner in which they had interpreted the law on divorce violated its spirit. He made clear that God intended for marriage to be holy and lifelong. Luke’s condensation of the topics of discussion at this point is such that we cannot regain the background, but wealth usually causes divorce to abound. The Pharisees were flagrant violators of God’s original divine plan of one man and one woman. Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 confirm this brief record of Luke that divorce was under discussion in this Peraean ministry.