Luke 16 - The Unrighteous Steward Part 1

The parable of the unrighteous steward in Luke 16 is one that is confusing for most. People often wonder what it is that Jesus is trying to teach through this parable. Below are some of my thoughts on this confusing passage of Scripture.

We know from verse 1 that Jesus was telling this parable to the disciples, although from verse 14 we read that the Pharisees were also listening in to Jesus’ teaching. Verse 1 is also where this parable begins. The rich man becomes aware of a possible wrongdoing committed by his steward. Two words I’d first like to focus on are the words “reported” and “squandering” (NASB). I use the NASB which uses these words in this verse. Other translations may use different words here.

First let us focus on the word translated as “reported” which is the Greek word διαβάλλω (G1225). This word is a verb which can more literally be translated as “accuse”. Using a more literal translation for this word here will help us in our understanding as we read further into this parable. Next we see the word “squandering” which is the Greek word διασκορπίζω (G1287). This is also a verb which we can translate as “to scatter” or “to disperse”. We do not know who this man’s accuser is or their relation to the master, the steward, or the debtors. We also do not know if the accusation of squandering/scattering his master’s possessions is true. Based on the master’s response in verse 2 (for you can no longer be manager) and the steward’s inner thoughts in verse 3 (what shall I do since my master is taking the management away from me?) we can arrive at one of three conclusions:

1. The accusation is true and the steward knows he is caught

2. The accusation is false but the steward has no way of disproving it (this also supposes that the accuser is more reputable than the steward is)

3. The steward was acting in good faith all along and made decisions he thought his master would favor but it turns out his actions were wrong

Regardless of which conclusion you choose to believe, in verse 4 the steward knows what his fate will be. He will be removed from his position and will find himself among the people who owe his master money. Verses 5 through 7 the steward interacts with two of the debtors. He allows both of them the opportunity to reduce their debts drastically by simply writing down a new amount owed which was less than before. It is this action that warrants praise from his master.

So what do we make of all of this? It is my belief that this steward was accused of unfair lending practices. I think any one of these scenarios can be true:

1. He lent out more on behalf of his master than he was allowed to (perhaps for personal gain)

- If we agree that this scenario is likely then what we see the steward doing is making an attempt to remove some of the amount owed in an attempt to quickly regain his master’s possessions and reduce the number of debtors.

2. He was asking for too much in return from the debtors (unfairly inflated the loan amounts)

- If we agree with this scenario then what we see the steward doing is perhaps removing any fee that he may collect from the debtors leaving them with just the amounts owed to the master.

3. He was lending out to people that he knew could not repay their debts

- If we agree with this scenario then we see the steward is resetting the loans to what they should have been all along or cutting it down to an amount that is both fair for his master and the debtor.

In all three scenarios one thing is true: the steward is looking to gain the favor of the people he will now have to live among. Some of these people could even be people that he has not treated fairly. He looks to do them right by using the only thing he has control over: money. Even though his actions were an attempt to gain favor of the debtors, we see that it is the master who praises the wise actions of the steward. We do not know if the steward was put back in charge of the master’s possessions or if he was still removed from his position. If he was still removed we do not know if his plan found favor among the debtors.

Whether or not the steward was guilty of a wrongdoing is irrelevant to the story. The accusation was made that he was not being a good money manager and his actions could be interpreted to show that in fact he was not being good money manager. When he was called out for doing wrong (or potentially doing wrong) he responded in a way that showed he was not a slave to money. He showed more desire to do right by his soon to be peers as opposed to looking at ways to get rich quick before hitting the streets alone.

In part 2 I hope to cover verses 9 through 18 and finish out the discussion on the first half of Luke 16.