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.