The parable of the unjust steward is one of the most difficult of Jesus’ stories. The following essay is an attempt (following Joel Green and other recent commentators) to make sense of the story.
Though Jesus begins a new parable in Luke 16:1, and is speaking to the disciples, in many ways chapter 16 is a continuation of what Jesus said in chapter 15. There is no change of scene, so Jesus is presumably still at the table with tax gatherers and sinners, as well as Pharisees and scribes (cf. 16:14 ). The scene in fact doesn’t change until 17:11 .
He does address a different set of listeners in 16:1: he begins to talk to the disciples at that point, but it’s clear that Jesus’ teaching of the disciples is overheard by the Pharisees (v. 14). They are still there, listening to Jesus, and the teaching in vv 14ff is clearly a response to the Pharisees’ scoffing at Jesus’ teaching about wealth. In 17:1 he again turns to the disciples, but this too is in the same setting: and should be understood as a follow-up to Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the issues concerning the Pharisees that come up in the second half of chapter 16.
There are, moreover, a number of verbal links that tie these chapters together. First, there are connections and parallels between the parable of the prodigal and the parable of the unjust steward. Beyond the setting, the content and the style of the parables makes them similar: “a certain man” ( 15:11 ; 16:1) and “squander” ( 15:13 and 16:1) appear in both; both the prodigal and the unjust steward receive mercy, the steward is not punished and the prodigal returns to a welcoming father. Besides, there are also connections between the two parables in chapter 16. Jesus begins both parables by saying “there was a certain rich man” and in both cases the parable is about one’s use of wealth. These are linked parables, the first addressed to the disciples and the second to the Pharisees who scoff at the first parable.
One of the implications of seeing chaps 15-16 together is that Jesus’ teaching on table fellowship, and the joy that comes from table fellowship, is intimately connected with the use of wealth, which is one of the main topics of this chapter. Table companionship and sharing material possessions are different aspects of the same reality for Jesus. Extending table fellowship to the outcasts of Israel also involves changes in priorities in our use of wealth, and changes in priorities in our use of wealth must be connected to table fellowship. “Who do I share a meal with?” and “With whom do I share my goods?” are, for Jesus, the same question.
Further, as we shall see, this setting indicates that the parable of the steward is a response to the Pharisees, just as the parable of the prodigal was. True, the parable of the steward is explicitly told to the disciples, but the Pharisees overhear, and surely Jesus intended that they overhear.
This context makes the first parable in ch 16 quite a bit easier to understand. This has been regarded as one of the most difficult of Jesus’ parables, partly because some details are hard to understand but mainly because Jesus seems to endorse cunning and conniving as a manifestation of “wisdom.”
There are some difficulties or questions about the story itself. On the surface, this parable is about the shrewd use of wealth. A steward, whether through incompetence or fraud, has squandered his master’s wealth, and is brought before his master to give an account (v. 1). Fearing that he will be dismissed from the house, the steward uses his position as steward to cancel half of the debts owed to his master (vv. 5-7). The debts owed are probably rents due to the rich man from people who are working his land: the rich man is not a banker or a moneylender. Wealthy men in Jesus’ time were usually landowners, and made their money from renting out their lands to men who would work the land and pay for it with a portion of their produce. The steward is the “estate manager,” in charge of collections and keeping accounts for the rich man’s landholdings.
The amounts are substantial, and the two items listed are two of the main crops in Israel . A hundred measures of oil is estimated at 90 gallons, the product of an orchard of 140-160 olive trees, which is large. The 100 “measures” of wheat would be the produce of over a hundred acres, and would amount to about 1000 bushels in our measurements. Monetarily, both amounts would have been about 500 denarii, which was the daily wage of a wage laborer in first-century Israel . That is, both of these debtors owe a substantial amount of money or goods, and cutting the two debts by 50% and 20% would be a substantial savings: there is no doubt that they would remember the steward later.
What exactly is he doing? There are two possible answers to that question. One is that the steward would have a commission coming to him, and he eliminates that. As the steward of the house, he was in charge of collections from the tenants of the rich man he serves. Being a steward gave him the opportunity to take a cut of the collection for himself, much as a tax collector in the Roman system made his living by taking a cut of the taxes. Some think that the steward has decided to forego his cut of the collection. He cuts off his portion, and requires only the amount owed to the master.
Another possibility is that he is stil l in charge of collections, or at least people think he’s still in charge. When he reduces the debts owed, and when the books are taken over to the master, the master is in a tough spot. He can either accept the steward’s actions as a fait accompli and lose the money, or he can try to explain why the reduction was not legitimate. The latter would clearly be tough sell, as he tried to convince his tenants that he does in fact want the full amount after all.
The latter of these is the most likely, and helps to explain the cunning of the steward’s plan. If everyone thinks that the steward is acting on behalf of the landowner, everyone would be extremely grateful to the landowner. The landowner would gain a reputation for being a generous master, and if he tried to correct this misimpression, he would gain the opposite reputation, as an unreliable and hard-dealing owner. Once the steward has done his debt-reducing, the master is probably a celebrity in the town, and he’d be inclined to take a hit and maintain his reputation as a generous landlord. If he then goes ahead with his plan to fire the steward, he again comes out looking mean spirited and he would lose honor in the village.
Whatever the precise method here, the purpose is quite explicit: The steward’s goal is to win favor with his master’s debtors, so that he can be received into their homes when he is cast out (v. 4). If the master is a celebrity for his generosity and charity, the steward will be as well. It is entirely likely that the steward will be seen as the one who convinced his master to give everyone a break, and he might even have dropped hints to this effect in the conversation with the tenants. In any case, they “receive” a benefit from him (vv. 6, 7), and he hopes to be “received” by them (v. 4). He is using his remaining days in the master’s employ to make provision for his future. He knows that his days our numbered, and knows that he has to do something with the resources he has.
One of the puzzles of the passage is that Jesus commends the steward behavior. Is he endorsing dishonesty? Is he saying that servants should try to corner their masters? No. It is clear that Jesus doesn’t completely endorse the steward’s actions. Jesus calls him an “unrighteous steward” (v 8). Probably this is because of the original “squandering” of his master’s possessions (v 1), but it could also be because there is something dishonest about the steward’s actions, especially if the steward pretends to be the master’s agent when he is no longer his mater’s agent.
Jesus’ point is not that he endorses the specific action of the steward. Rather, he is telling the parable to make the point that the “sons of this age” are wiser than the “sons of light.” The sons of this age know better how to use the resources that has been given to them for their own good. The steward is a son of this age who doesn’t have any aspirations beyond survival and financial success, or at least to avoid financial ruin. But he is shrewd in using the resources that he has to secure his future, to win friends, not to idolize his money and hoard it. Jesus says that in this, in using his available resources for his future good, he is wiser than the sons of light, those who consider themselves part of God’s kingdom. The steward is better and shrewder than many disciples, who hoard their goods.
At this level, Jesus is recommending that we do follow the steward’s example to a certain extent. According to verse 9, we are to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, with our earthly possessions. We are to use them to make friends, so that we can be brought into eternal dwellings. Earlier in Luke, Jesus has talked about being “rich toward God” and “treasures in heaven” earlier in Luke (12:21, 33), and He shows that treasure is stored up with God by “selling” possessions and “giving to charity” (12:33). The steward, wicked as he was (v. 8), is shrewd because he knows what money is for. Money is not a lord or a god who is to be served (16:13). Money is to be used to “make friends” through giving. The only question is what friends we are trying to make. Are we trying to make friends of the world, or are we using our money in a way that makes us friends with God? Are we using our resources and wealth to buy connections with the wealthy, powerful, and famous, so that we can bask in the glory of their fame, so that we can get invitations and benefits from them? Or are we using our wealth in order to honor God and seek a reward in the resurrection of the just?
The principle governing our use of money is the same as the principle governing our table fellowship: Do we use table fellowship as a way of gaining friends in this world, or to extend hospitality to outcasts so that we become friends of God?
There is also a more specific application to the Pharisees, who are “lovers of money.” Jesus’ parable has a particular edge for the Jews who “scoffed” at His teaching (v. 14). They are part of Israel, and think of themselves as “children of light,” as well as “stewards” under the Lord. Yet, they don’t know how to respond to a crisis as well as the “unjust steward” does.
One important part of the parable is the fact that the steward faces a crisis. A time for accounting has come, and he has to face the master and face the music: he has to explain where all that cash got to. Jesus is implying that the Pharisees, and Israel as a whole, also face a crisis. The law and prophets were proclaimed until now, but since John the kingdom of God is preached (v 16). That means that decisions have to be made, people have to respond, and Jesus says that people should respond in a way that will secure their future. Will the Pharisees respond to the preaching of the kingdom in a way that condemns them to destruction, as Jesus has been warning in earlier chapters? Or will the Pharisees respond to Jesus in a way that will win them “eternal dwellings”? Will they use their money, their food, their table, to “make friends with God,” or will they shun Jesus and His disciples and cling to their money? Learn this lesson from the steward, Jesus tells the Pharisees: learn that you must be shrewd in responding to a crisis.
Luke says explicitly that the Pharise es were “lov ers of money” and later he quotes Jesus saying that the Pharisees devour widows’ houses. It is not only that they love money, but their avarice and greed lead them to prey on the helpless and the vulnerable. The people they should be protecting, as shepherds of Israel, are the people that they are feeding upon.
The Pharisees’ love of money is all bound up with their obsessions with cleanliness and purity. Jesus’ description of the scribes and Pharisees is precisely accurate. They did in fact add to the “debt” of obedience that the people owed, by multiplying all sorts of laws. These laws had particularly to do with cleanliness, a fact that Jesus alludes to when He says that the lawyers are not willing to even “touch” the burdens they lay on others (11:46; cf. 16:3). And, because many of these laws required some payment at the temple, the leaders of Israel, particularly the priests, were getting rich on the backs of the faithful poor of Israel.
What specifically does Jesus want the Pharisees and scribes to do? What form should their repentance take? Jesus is instructing them to lighten the burdens that they have placed on the people, especially the poor of Israel (cf. 11:46). If they lighten the burdens, they would win the approval of their heavenly Master, win friends among the “tax gatherers and sinners” who make up the new kingdom of heaven, and be “received” into “eternal dwellings” (v. 9). If they fail, they will be dismissed from their position, and have nowhere to go.
Even an unrighteous steward (e.g., a Gentile) would see where things were headed, and would ally himself with Jesus and his rag-tag band rather than with the Jewish leaders. Unless the scribes and Pharisees are faithful and begin to handle the “little things” of the Old Covenant, they will not be granted the “true riches” of the New Covenant. Jesus’ warning is also to any within the church who would add to Scripture and load up burdens on people, especially if it is for financial gain.