The Parable of the Unjust Steward

What Is Going on Here?

(avg. read time: 10–20 mins.)

Back in seminary, I had an idea for a research project that I hoped to turn into an article. It concerned what is often called “the Parable of the Unjust Steward” (or something to that effect) in Luke 16. When I once tried to do some quick research on the text and how scholars responded to it, I was struck by the many divergences concerning its interpretation. This gave me an idea to which I dedicated much of the summer of 2013 outside of coursework. I wanted to look at the intersections of historical Jesus studies, parables studies, and scholarship on Luke to see how different approaches, particularly on the former two fronts, affected the interpretation of this parable. Like many of my early paper ideas—and, to a somewhat lesser extent, ideas I still have—this proved to be too much ground to cover for one article. The research I did was not wasted, but it was not ultimately put to the use I hoped for. And it does provide me with groundwork for addressing interpretive questions about this parable today.

Jesus’s parables have been passed on for almost 2,000 years at this point. The narrative parables in particular have excited people’s imaginations, and they have frequently been the subjects of sermons, articles, and books, not to mention many adaptations. I have briefly overviewed such history of reception elsewhere, and there is much more to be said, for which reason I direct my readers to the sources cited there. But one of Jesus’s parables that is often overlooked outside the realm of biblical commentaries (and occasional articles) is the parable of the unjust steward. On the one hand, one could argue that this is a function of placement, as the story gets overshadowed by being in between the story of the prodigal son/lost boys in Luke 15 and the story of the rich man and Lazarus later in Luke 16. On the other hand, I would suggest that it is overlooked for how uncomfortable it makes people, particularly scholars, hence the attempts to redirect its point.

There are several interpretive issues to deal with in this parable. I will address them as they arise in presenting what I think is the best and most intuitive interpretation. From this basis of solid ground, I will then address other views that deviate for one reason or another. For readers who want to see more extensive engagement with these issues, I would recommend the best exposition available today in Dennis J. Ireland’s published dissertation Stewardship and the Kingdom of God.¹

Where Is the Parable?

The first interpretive issue that has had a major influence on the different groups of interpretations is what the actual parameters of the parable are.² The issue is not as straightforward as it seems, and, unsurprisingly, it is often influenced by one’s preconceptions of what a parable ought to be. We see this especially among scholars who argue that the parable ends at v. 7 or v. 8a and everything afterwards represents a secondary addition to explain the significance of the parable. On the other hand, those who insist that the parable ends at v. 8b, v. 9, or v. 13 see application or explanation as important to the work of the parable, not something that only later Christian writers would add onto a teaching of Jesus that was just a story. Although the story as such ends in v. 8a, the parable teaching properly ends at v. 9, wherein Jesus gives direct instruction to his disciples in light of the preceding story. Otherwise, it is difficult to account for where v. 9 would properly fit better than it does with the preceding story (particularly with its links to vv. 4 and 8b). Indeed, it is difficult to justify any idea that it was a free-floating saying, particularly since the introduction is a typical connector Jesus uses in his teaching to link statements and ideas together (Matt 18:13; 21:43; 24:47//Luke 12:44; Luke 11:8; 14:24; 15:7, 10; 18:8). Verses 10–13 are not part of the parable, properly speaking, but they are placed here because of their similarity in theme to the parable in terms of dealing with possessions and stewardship of the same. These teachings then allow for a transition to the rest of ch. 16 in terms of describing the attitude of the Pharisees, their further disregard of the Torah, and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus that draws together points about the use of possessions, listening to Scripture, and living in light of eschatological awareness.

What’s Going on in This Parable?

With such parameters established, let us go through this parable from the beginning. There was a certain rich man who had a steward (i.e., a household manager). The position of the οἰκονόμος is one of a slave, but a slave who had attained an advanced position (cf. Luke 12:42; 1 Cor 4:1–2; Titus 1:7), that of being entrusted with his master’s possessions (ὑπάρχοντα; cf. Luke 12:44). The rich man receives an accusation concerning the steward that he wasted (more literally, “scattered”) his possessions. With this accusation, the rich man gives the steward his notice that he must give an account for his stewardship, but he also makes clear that even this accounting will still not save him, for he can no longer be his steward. The account is for the rich man to know what the damage is. The scene then shifts to the steward’s internal monologue, as he asks himself what he is going to do now that he is going to lose his position. It is unclear at this point if the steward has put much back for himself. It appears that he has not, but he may be looking even further ahead than a time in which he could potentially live comfortably between jobs. After all, if his master dismisses him from his position and it becomes known why he did so, it would be difficult for the steward to find work in a similar position, as other rich people would think that they could not trust him with their possessions. Hence, his mind goes to extreme cases. He much prefers life as a steward for a rich person to digging for (maybe) subsistence pay, for which he is not strong enough, and to begging, for which he is too proud.

He then comes up with a solution so that others will receive him into their houses, presumably to continue stewarding. But in any case, his idea provides for his future. Verses 5–7 reveal what this plan of his was. He summons his master’s debtors and marks down how much each of them owes. Scholars sometimes speculate that these debtors are the rich man’s tenants, and this may be what we are to assume, but it does not ultimately affect the point of the teaching one way or the other, so we leave such considerations aside. The first debtor has his debt reduced from one hundred baths of (olive) oil to fifty. The second debtor has his debt reduced from one hundred cors of wheat to eighty. The typical estimate of the amount reduced in each case is about 500 denarii, or 500 days of wages for the average field laborer.

At this point, once we come to v. 3, we encounter three interwoven interpretive issues. 1) What does this reduction in debt consist of? 2) Who is the κύριος of v. 8? 3) What does it mean that the “lord/master” in question “praised” (ἐπαινέω) the “dishonest/unjust/unrighteous” (ἀδικία) steward? I will review some proposals about 1) later, but I will say for now that we have no reason to think this is not simply a unilateral move to curry favor by reducing debt that the rich man says is owed. The steward is already on his way out, but he must act quickly to provide for himself and present an honor challenge to his master that will prevent him from exacting further punishment. After all, landowners and lenders who reduce debt would be honored as benevolent and generous, and the honor that would accrue to the man’s name is not something he would easily discard in such an honor-driven culture just because it meant he would be paid less (notice that the steward only reduces the debt, rather than eliminating it altogether, for surely, outside of the Jubilee, that would be considered as going too far). If he reneged on what would be interpreted as authorized debt reductions, it would make him look like he cannot control his own household, it would disparage his character, and it would negatively affect future business deals as potential clients could seek more forthright patrons who can still provide for them. There is no hint that this is the steward no longer skimming off the top or reducing interest, as will become clearer when we address 3).

As for 2), it is not infrequently suggested that ὁ κύριος here is a reference to Jesus, and that Jesus is praising the steward. But all that would make this suggestion compelling is if one accepted that the parable ends at v. 7. Otherwise, it seems rather straightforward that the rich man is being referred to here, given that the steward referred to him with this term in v. 3 and Jesus referred to him with the term in v. 5. The fact that the reference is unadorned makes sense in context and it is no more indicative of a switch in reference than what we see in Luke 12:36–37, 41–43, and 45–47. Besides, it makes more sense in this way for Jesus to begin v. 9 with “And I say to you,” if there is no shift in the “discourse setting” (from narrative to explanation/application of the narrative) from v. 8a.

Finally, we must address 3), the interpretive issue that is probably the main driver of interpretation here. First, the word for “praise” does not need to mean more than commendation. That is, it is not loaded with moral content, so that the master is saying what the steward did was morally good/righteous. And it is important to recognize that the master does not praise him because he was dishonest/unjust; that is simply a matter-of-fact statement about the steward that Jesus, the narrator, takes for granted. Rather, he is praised because (ὅτι) he acted shrewdly/prudently. I draw attention to the Greek just to make clear what the causal declaration is attached to. And as Joel Green states quite clearly, “The master commends the manager for his shrewdness, while the narrator of the parable, Jesus, identifies the manager as ‘dishonest.’ That is, the master does not commend his manager for his dishonesty, but for his prudence in business affairs.”³

It is important that this distinction is made because both characterizations of his unjustness and his shrewdness extend from the same set of actions. The steward at no other point before v. 8 is referred to in this manner. Nor is the adjective needed to specify which steward we are talking about, since there is no cause for confusion. As such, we must look to vv. 3–7 for the grounding of this characterization. We are thus led to see that the debt reduction was not a removal of his commission in collecting the debt (and if this is so, the debtors would hardly be appreciative of learning that they have been significantly overpaying because of the steward), nor was it removal of interest, for both of these actions would have been just. Rather, his debt reduction must be taking away money legally owed to his master, but he does it in a shrewd way that both ingratiates him with others and makes his master appear generous. In this way, we can see how, on the one hand, he has done something that justifies his characterization as unjust or unrighteous, but, on the other hand, he has been shrewd in committing this unjust act so that he protects himself from reprisals from his master and from the uncertainties of his future once he loses his position altogether.

It is this characterization that leads to the two-pronged explanation and application in vv. 8b–9. It is the fact that the steward has acted wrongly, but shrewdly, that shows that he is among the “children of this age” (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) and that he demonstrates how they are shrewder or more prudent in their own generation than the “children of the light” (τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτὸς). His shrewdness appears in how he used possessions with an eye to his future so as to make wise preparations for himself.

It is this quality that Jesus calls upon his disciples to apply and extend through “eschatological” awareness or perspective in a sort of “from lesser to greater” reasoning. The eschatological framing of this instruction is clear from his contrast of “this age” with the righteous who are described as “children of the light.” The contrast of this age and the age to come is a basic one in Jewish eschatology, particularly apocalyptic eschatology, and the contrast of the children of light with the children of darkness is known from Qumran, though the contrast of light and darkness, of the righteous with the unrighteous, is known elsewhere and obviously has a role in eschatology. This eschatological context is made all the clearer in v. 9 when Jesus refers to “everlasting dwellings,” which could also have the sense of “dwellings of the age [to come],” as the outcome of using “unjust/unrighteous mammon” to make friends who will last beyond the present age. The mammon or wealth is described in this fashion, as ἀδικία like the steward, because it too belongs to this present age that is characterized by the principle of ἀδικία (cf. vv. 11 and 13) and thus can corrupt, as opposed to the principle of justice and righteousness that characterizes the age to come (Isa 9:7; 11:4–5; 32:1, 16–17; 33:5; 42:1, 3–4; 51:4–8; 54:14; 58:6–8; 59:15–19; 61:8, 11; Jer 23:5; Dan 12:3; Hos 2:19; Zech 8:8; Mal 4:2; cf. Isa 65:13). Similarly, the reference to “when it comes to an end/fails” (ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ) may have some connection to the eschaton, as it would itself be a reference to either death or the eschaton when wealth will come to an end, in the sense that, when it comes to the possessions of this age, “you can’t take it with you.” Furthermore, it is interesting that while the adjective itself does not have the sense of “eschatological” wisdom, it usually appears in contexts in the Gospels where the application of the object lesson has eschatological significance (cf. Luke 12:42; Matt 7:24; 24:45; 25:2, 4, 8, 9). It is that wisdom that goes beyond the prudence of the steward that is directed only to the future of the temporary and not the everlasting.

Traditionally, this teaching has been applied in terms of giving alms as well as all works of mercy and charity for those in need (that is, in emulation of the principle in v. 9, not of the steward’s actions as such). Of course, it can also extend more literally to debt reduction and debt forgiveness—although ideally such relationships resembling the patron-client ones would not be created—as well as any use of money that is driven by this awareness and wisdom of the kingdom. The lesson and its outcome of friends welcoming one into everlasting dwellings after “it comes to an end/fails,” has a connection with another eschatological teaching in Luke. In Jesus’s teachings on hospitality for the guest and the host, he says in the latter case to invite those who cannot reciprocate or repay, and that this will mean repayment in the resurrection of the righteous (Luke 14:12–14; cf. 6:32–35). But in this case, those who are the friends have a more pronounced role as reflecting the verdict of God in the eschaton.⁴

As Ireland observes, in line with what we noted at the outset, the parable that follows this one validates such application:

First, Luke 16:14-31 sheds light on our parable by clarifying the exhortation in v. 9. In that verse, Jesus exhorts his disciples to “use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves,” but does not specify how they are to do so. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus supplies the answer….

Second, Luke 16:14-31 enhances our understanding of the parable of the unjust steward by making the eschatological background and motivation of the parable more pronounced.⁵

The latter parable is thus a negative contrast to what Jesus tells his disciples they ought to do. This teaching also fits with what Jesus says about not storing up treasures for yourself on earth but having treasure in heaven, in part by how you use your possessions in the present age (Luke 12:33–34; 18:22; 19:8–10). And indeed, the overall eschatological tenor of this message fits with what we have observed on multiple occasions in Luke’s works concerning eschatology and judgment.

So What’s the Problem?

An interpretation along the lines of what I have laid out is the most common, at least according to Ireland’s survey and what I have been able to see from commentators after him.⁶ There are, of course, variations, but these interpretations are held together by thinking that the steward’s actions are fraudulent/dishonest, but that Jesus draws a positive lesson anyway that relates to the wise use of material possessions. That is, his dishonesty is not praised, but his wisdom in response to a crisis is. As Craig Blomberg summarizes, in his typical three-point fashion: “(1) All of God’s people will be called to give a reckoning of the nature of their service to him. (2) Preparation for that reckoning should involve a prudent, shrewd use of all our resources, especially in the area of finances. (3) Such prudence and shrewdness, demonstrating a life of true discipleship, will be rewarded with eternal life and joy.”⁷

But various interpreters, for one reason or another, are unsatisfied with the idea that Jesus uses such a negative character as any sort of positive illustration. Of course, this would not be out of keeping with the case of the unjust judge in 18:1–8. But scholars still insist that something is wrong this picture and thus look for other clues as to the real meaning. For some, this is a result of arguing that the parable ends at a point other than v. 9. By removing the interpretation Luke attached, which they insist is secondary to Jesus’s historical teaching, they are left with figuring out another point to it. Such efforts are not so much a treatment of the text as a of subset of the text decided on other grounds to be the teaching of Jesus. They are like a man who walks away from a fire and freezes to death trying to make another one.

Some insist that the steward himself was righting a wrong here and that is why he was praised. J. Duncan M. Derrett famously suggested that the steward was removing interest charged on these debts.⁸ But nothing in the text suggests such a thing, so the audience is not prepared for it. Nor is anything beyond the text preparing the audience for this idea, as the reductions do not match standard interest rates. Most importantly, this reading does not give any clear indication as to why the steward would be called “unjust” or “unrighteous” even after what he did.

Likewise, Joseph Fitzmyer and Darrell Bock have argued that the steward is acting rightly by removing his commission.⁹ Like the previous view, this relies on the incredulity that the master could be praising the servant for shrewdness if he is reducing debts that are rightly owed him. But it too runs into the same problems of having no indications in the text as such. In fact, we have a contraindication in that the steward needs to ask the debtors how much they owe, which one would expect he knows if he is taking a cut of it. Furthermore, it can make no clear account as to why the servant would be called unjust in v. 8. After all, it is not as if the audience needs him to be distinguished as such to avoid confusion. Nor does it make sense that he is referred to as such in v. 8 if vv. 5–7 presents him as acting righteously. In other words, the characterization is incoherent if, when we are given his reason for being dismissed in vv. 1–2 he is not described as “unjust,” but he is described as being “unjust” only in v. 8 after doing something utterly benevolent and beneficent as to remove his sizable cut from the debt.

As indicated above, it is not uncommon for some to suggest that the one praising the servant is Jesus, not the master.¹⁰ This too is built on the incredulity that the master could be praising the steward. I must say that it is odd for interpreters to suggest that it is problematic for the master to praise the steward described as “unjust,” and yet that it is completely unproblematic for Jesus to praise the steward that he himself describes as “unjust.” But since the master praising the steward can be accounted for on the aforementioned interpretation, this supposition is unnecessary. Furthermore, as we have argued above, there is reason to think the κύριος in v. 8 is the master and not Jesus. David Garland still attempts to reinforce this view by his negative characterization of the master, wherein he relies less on the story itself as on his perception about what the story implies (like with Derrett, Fitzmyer, Bock, and those inclined to agree with them on their views of the issue). First, “In Jesus’ peasant society, however, ‘a certain rich man’ would automatically evoke antipathy.”¹¹ Second, “In Luke, ‘rich man’ and ‘generous’ are mutually exclusive terms.”¹² Third, “it would be incongruous for him to serve as a positive character or the one who scores the point of the parable (see 1:53; 6:24; 14:12; 18:23; 21:1). Modern affluent readers may want the rich owner to be gracious and whimsical, as we imagine ourselves to be, but Jesus would not have shared this view (see above on v. 1).”¹³ Whatever one may say about the first point (I will simply note here that the sociological picture is rather more complicated than what Garland lets on in his reliance on Bruce Malina’s claims), the latter doubly stated claim is not warranted by Luke, as we see the rich positively characterized (explicitly or implicitly) in Luke 8:3; 12:36–46; 14:16; 15:11–32 (in the case of the father); 19:1–10, 11–27 (given the direct connection of who the rich man represents).

Sometimes, interpreters will claim that this parable must be ironic.¹⁴ The force of this suggestion, that Jesus may somehow be meaning the exact opposite of what he says, arises mainly from people being taken aback by the praise offered in v. 8 and Jesus using an unjust man as a positive example. But there is otherwise no notice of irony, no hint of sarcasm (unlike, e.g., 1 Cor 4:10), no indication that the point of the parable is completely disconnected from everything Jesus is saying, so that disciples now have to discern his point from everything he is not saying. The most damaging thing to the case for irony is how unnecessary it is, given the interpretation we have already provided, which leaves no holes for irony to emerge from.

We have no reason not to approach this parable more straightforwardly. Jesus does in fact use an unsavory character that is emblematic of the children of this age to show his disciples that they can learn something from him. But in his typical fashion, he does not stop at that point, as if we ought to engage in pseudo-generosity and exploitative use of resources (much less resources that belong to someone else). Rather, he directs us to the eschatological application of this lesson in a lesser-to-greater approach, and thus to more righteous use of unrighteous mammon. For there will come a time when we cannot take it with us. But we can take with us into the age to come the good things we did with that wealth in this age.

1. Dennis J. Ireland, Stewardship and the Kingdom of God: An Historical, Exegetical, and Contextual Study of the Parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke 16:1-13, NovTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1992).

2. Ibid., 7–47.

3. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 589.

4. Ireland, Stewardship, 103–4.

5. Ibid., 138.

6. Ibid., 7–47 (esp. 7–8). Cf. Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 406–10.

7. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2012), 325 (italics original).

8. J. Duncan M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1970), 48–77.

9. Darrell L. Bock, Luke, IVPNTC 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 264–65; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke AB 28A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 1097–98. Also see Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 292.

10. E.g., Madeleine I. Boucher, The Parables, NTM 7 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1981), 110; George B. Caird, Saint Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 185; David E. Garland, Luke, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 648.

11. Garland, Luke, 638.

12. Ibid., 646.

13. Ibid., 648–49.

14. E.g., Paul G. Bretscher, “The Parable of the Unjust Steward: A New Approach to Luke 16:1-9,” CTM 22 (1951): 756–62.