A number of preliminary remarks need to be made about this parable. We might well begin with a quote from
Bro. Russell (R. 5436). “There is room for dispute in respect to the teachings of this parable.” Indeed! Those of us in the little group that studied the parables seem to be of one mind that this is the most difficult of all the parables.
Even the name of the parable creates inner turmoil! It is true that Jesus refers to the steward as “the unrighteous (unjust) steward” (16:8). But he also calls him “shrewd.” For a very important reason, it might be called “The Prodigal Steward” — as opposed to the prodigal son of the preceding parable. We will see why shortly.
While certain aspects of interpretation could wait until the examination of each individual verse, there is a strength in presenting certain concepts before we examine the parable’s details.
First, as a reminder, this parable, like the four before it, and the one immediately after it, deals with the Jewish Harvest. The context of the parable is imperative in arriving at a successful interpretation.
There exist a number of different kinds of parables. Some are historic; some are prophetic; some are just to teach concepts. This parable, however, is LINKED to the events of the Jewish Harvest, but it is neither historic nor prophetic. It is instructional. Jesus gives this parable for a rather unique purpose. He is saying to that segment of Israel which is about to be rejected: “If only you could have done it this way, you could have had a successful transplant from the House of Servants into the House of Sons.” Thus it teaches a lesson of correct behavior, while it never intimates that Israel observed such behavior. This instructional purpose will become evident as the details of the parable unfold.
One other item can be helpful. Where does the parable end? It seems to end in the middle of verse 8. It is with the phrase, “For the sons of this age,” that Jesus’ commentary on the parable begins. Seeing this construction is not difficult, but it is necessary.
As we begin to examine the parable in its detail, we must notice that it is addressed TO THE DISCIPLES (verse 1), but it is overheard BY THE PHARISEES (verse 14). Thus, if the Pharisees cared to learn from it, (they didn’t!), they could. But the disciples could learn from it and must learn from it. Jesus is explaining the reason for failure in the Pharisee class, while he is presenting a concept for future behavior of the remnant class. The parable has two reasons for its existence.
The Details
16:1. This is primarily to the disciples. The disciples needed to learn why the Law Age was being rejected, and also to learn how not to repeat the problem in the Christian Age. Unfortunately, NOMINAL Christianity did not learn this lesson. They followed the Pharisees rather than the “shrewd” (but fictitious) servant of this parable.
The “Rich Man” in this parable seems to be God, Himself. His “possessions” seem a symbol of the Law. The “steward” is, in one sense, those who were keepers of the Law (in the sense of watching over it to see it prosper). Hence, they would be the ruler-class of Israel. But we stress WOULD BE because this parable is strictly fictitious. What Jesus shows in the parable DIDN’T HAPPEN! It only SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
The charge against the steward (and this DID happen!) is that he squandered his Master’s possessions. “Squandered” is an important word. It means WASTED. “Wasted” is the meaning of the word “prodigal.” We see it in 15:13 (the previous parable) applied to that portion of Israel which lived in open defiance of the Law.
But here! Here we have a wonderful alternate application of the word. Here, wasteful (“prodigal”) is applied TO THE RULERS! Thus, Jesus is saying that the ESTABLISHMENT class of Israel also were PRODIGAL — not just the publicans and sinners! We can see how Jesus is using one parable as a FOLLOWUP to a previous parable, but with the TWIST OF IRONY that no one was expecting. The “Older Brother” of the Prodigal Son Parable ALSO is being classified as prodigal! While the matter is sad, it is sadly humorous! It is to magnify this irony that we suggest that a better name for this parable would be THE PRODIGAL STEWARD — or, even, THE PRODIGAL NATION.
16:2. God “called” to Israel through John the Baptist who, among other things, said to the Pharisees, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7) This little statement is predicting that the “Steward” was about to LOSE HIS POSITION. But it also shows that the Pharisees could have fled from the problem. When John issued the question, the Pharisees were coming to be baptized! John refused them because he knew their hearts weren’t in it. But this little incident in Matthew 3 actually sets the stage for Jesus’ parable. Jesus will show that the “steward” COULD HAVE taken a wise path; but history shows us that that didn’t happen. In Matthew 21:43, Jesus predicts that they would fail to take the opportunity; he said, “The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” The Jewish Age was going to end — regardless of who in it did or did not do anything.
“Give an account” is a phrase which epitomizes the “Harvest” nature of the time. It was “accounting” time. “What has the season produced?”
“You can no longer be steward” is a sentence which simply says, “The Age Is Over.” Verse one shows WHY it is ending: Israel has squandered its advantages. God’s vineyard was ready to enter a new growing season that would, indeed, produce special fruitage.
16:3. Now we genuinely enter the fictitious. THIS verse never happened. It only SHOULD HAVE. It is not history or prophecy; it is INSTRUCTION IN WISDOM.
The rulers of Israel could have transitioned from Moses into Christ. SOME OF THEM DID. Perhaps Nicodemus was in the number of those who became part of the remnant. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathaea was also. Saul of Tarsus certainly was! But Jesus is, within hearing of the Pharisees (verse 14), showing that it can be done, even though both he and John the Baptist foretold the general failure of the opportunity.
So, our fictitious steward, (or maybe not-so-fictitious in the person of Paul and others like him), starts “coming to his senses.” (Recall this same realization in 15:17 for another group.) When the Jewish Age was ending, the realization of that fact had to awaken questionings and concerns about what was coming next. Revelation 5:2-10 is a prophetic statement of how that was to happen. The trouble (the “Strong Angel”) on Israel had Jews asking, “Who will open the book? — and they began to weep greatly.”
The two statements by the steward at the end of this verse are intriguing, but not easy of interpretation. We can only speculate until someone finds what seems to be the “That’s-it!” answer.
“I am not strong enough to dig.” Perhaps this statement is much like the expression, “I’m in too deep to dig myself out!” Digging is WORKS. By this time in history, the Jews should have known well that they COULDN’T keep the works of the Law. Jesus may be implying by these words of the steward that the Jews were, or at least should be, recognizing their lack of strength to continue in laboring under the burdens of the Law.
“I am ashamed to beg.” We must put ourselves in a Law mindset to catch the implications of this. A person living as faithfully as he could under the Law was guaranteed to be increased in basket and in store. Thus, if someone were a beggar, it was a visible admission that he was not even trying to live up to the Law. THAT does bring shame!
With the elements of this verse, we thus have the “wake-up moment” — the REALIZATION that things are changing, but that the way to adapt to the changes is not yet clear.
16:4. The NAS margin says that the literal reading of the opening of this verse is, “I have come to the knowledge of” what I shall do. John the Baptist and Jesus both helped the remnant class of Israel “come to this knowledge.” REPENTANCE was the main ingredient. Those who did repent and receive Messiah were received into the “new home” of the Sarah Covenant. (“Houses” in the New Testament seem to symbolize COVENANTS.)
So, verse 4 seems to be saying, “I have finally acknowledged to myself what is happening. Jesus is Messiah, and he is opening a new age. I’m going to change entirely my old ways of doing and thinking. Then, perhaps, I’ll be received into the fellowship of this new and incoming age.”
16:5-7. Before we examine the little things in these verses, we must see the big lessons here implied.
When Jesus instructed the Pharisees about their relationships with the people, he reduced the imperative instruction to one verse (Matthew 9:13): “Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion (mercy) and not sacrifice; for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’” Thus Jesus epitomizes 16:5-7 as COMPASSION. This fictitious steward took the advice.
The “debtors” are in debt to the Master. They owe nothing to the steward. But the steward is helping them give SOMETHING to the Master.
In reality, God is wanting the SPIRIT of the Law. Is that more or is it less than the letter? For the purposes of this parable it is less, because the debtors CAN PAY it, whereas they COULD NOT pay the letter.
This steward will be commended as “shrewd” for taking this action. When the new age opens, it is this very concept of faithfulness to the spirit of the Law that will triumph.
NO ONE will be expected to pay IN FULL, (in other words, with perfection of works). While the Jewish leaders could not comprehend this before Pentecost, if they practiced the concept of “I will have mercy,” they were, indeed, helping the sinners against the Law AGAIN APPROACH a relationship with God. That was John the Baptist’s work of baptism unto repentance.
In these three verses, the steward summons two debtors. He “lets them off the hook” for the part of the debt they could not pay. If the Jewish leaders had this attitude toward publicans and sinners, we could expect that John would have baptized them! But that wasn’t happening, and Jesus is using this parable to emphasize that flaw — as well as to impress upon the disciples that this kind of action would be absolutely necessary in the new age.
The interpretation of the number 100, and of the varying percentages, and of the significance of the symbols of oil and wheat is, at very best, OBSCURE.
Perhaps 100 represents WORKS — the Law demanded 100% perfection. But the steward said, “I know you can give 50%, and you can give 80%, in the sense of entering into the SPIRIT of PAYMENT. This much you must do. So, QUICKLY, agree to it!”
“Oil,” of course, symbolizes the Holy Spirit. We cannot assume we are to give only 50% of the spirit of the Law! But, perhaps, the oil as a symbol is SEPARATE from the percentage concept. Perhaps it is saying, GIVE YOUR OIL. Don’t withhold any you have. It is the OIL (spirit) of the Law that must be paid.
“Wheat” is frequently the “first fruits” of the Harvest which are offered in sacrifice. Again, we would not want to sacrifice on an 80% basis! But, separating the percentage symbol from the wheat symbol, the meaning may be: OFFER EVERYTHING YOU HAVE.
These “solutions” constitute MERCY. They give the Master what He wants, even though not all that He deserves. Isn’t that the new age in a nutshell?
16:8. God praises this fictitious steward because the steward was “shrewd” enough (alert and watching enough) to see what was happening and to adapt to it. Most of Israel’s leaders were not.
That marks the end of the parable. The middle of the verse begins Jesus’ comments on the lessons to be learned from it.
Jesus’ Comments
16:8. “For the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.”
This sentence is HEAVY with meaning. First of all, who are the “sons of this age?” “THIS age” we suspect is the incoming (Gospel) age. The steward of the parable was “shrewd” — and thus must be a son “of this age” if we are to make sense of Jesus’ explanation: “the sons of this age are…shrewd.” The implication is that this fictitious Pharisee became a “son” of God in the new age. He did so because he was willing to repent — unlike the Pharisees who were listening and “were scoffing” (verse 14). The “scoffing” ones were “the sons of light.” During the entire Jewish Age, Israel was the enlightened nation and reflected the light of the Law. But now, as the new age dawns, the Christians are more shrewd than the Jews who should have been so. Jesus contrasts “this age” against “the sons of light” — implying that “sons of light” are from a different age — the old Jewish Age.
Jesus says that the “sons of this age (the new age) are more shrewd TO THEIR OWN KIND.” This is the second lesson of this parable. The Jewish leaders DIVIDED “their own kind” into the powerful “righteous” class and the publicans-and-sinners class. This was not shrewd! But Christians (including the steward who was received into a new “house”) are not respecters of person. They magnify, encourage, and practice THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.
So, to paraphrase Jesus’ explanatory remarks in the last half of this verse — we list remarks which show the TWO reasons for the parable to be:
- Repentance will bring you to a new home, and
- Christians, unlike Jews, will not be unkind to their “own kind.”
This parable shows that those transferred into Messiah will be very much infatuated with their brethren (their “own kind”) and not have respect of persons — very much unlike what the so-called “chosen people” have done.
16:9. Jesus now forcibly turns to the disciples so that they know their responsibilities from this parable (other than to cherish “their own kind.”) To make his continuing lesson very personal and incoming-age-appropriate, Jesus says:
“AND I SAY TO YOU…”
“Mammon” is going to be a part of the lesson from here through verse 13. Its general definition is “riches” (a word which is notably spurious in verse 11). Riches (or mammon), in the sense only of money, probably is insufficient to explain the parable. POWER is probably included in the term. “Money is power” is an expression men like to use. And when we look at the parable, it seems MORE the abuse and the good use of power which defines the steward. Monetary value is included, but seems far from exclusive.
When Jesus says “make friends for yourselves by means of the mammon of unrighteousness,” he is telling us that the formerly wasteful power of the steward was turned to make friends of those in debt. We have no indication that the owed oil and wheat were unrighteously obtained. Therefore, the mammon reference seems exclusive to the steward, not to the debtors.
What “failed” was the power of the steward. Jesus uses the comparison to tell us that it is an unrighteous world which has supplied whatever temporal power or riches we possess. And, as with the steward, TEMPORAL ADVANTAGE WILL FAIL! We, then, must use it while we possess it to bless and relieve others (of either their temporal or mental pressures and anguish.) The “others” we are to relieve must be, as the parable suggests, our “own kind” — our brethren.
The end of the verse clearly makes reference to 16:4. But here it has a modifier. It is not “their homes” — which apparently refers to the Sarah Covenant of the Gospel Age, — but “the eternal dwellings” — an apparent reference to the heavenly resurrection. So, while his actions got the steward transferred from Moses to Christ, our actions will result in our heavenly resurrection.
16:10,11. While Jesus will not abandon the “mammon” theme, he now adds additional concepts we can draw from the parable.
“It is the little things that count” sums up the lesson of these verses. Jesus knew that the Jewish Age had built GRANDIOSE thinking into the Jews. THEY were “the chosen.” THEY had God’s Law. THEY were going to be the Kingdom. THEY were the sons of Abraham. It went on and on. But the parable started by saying THEY all were prodigal — wasteful. Their grandiose thinking made them lose sight of the “little” but really important things. They “strained at gnats, but swallowed camels”!
So Jesus, not wanting us to fall into the same trap, is pointing to our personal stewardships to tell us that we NEED NOT conquer armies; we NEED to build the “little” daily things in our characters which will guarantee that we are not wasteful stewards. He also stresses that if we let these “little” things slip, it will demonstrate that our stewardship has made us untrustworthy.
Verse 11 links the principle of verse 10 to the concept of the parable. The use of “mammon” (power and wealth of a temporal kind) is apparently considered the “little things” in our life that lead to the development of bigger things.
The “big things” must be those of a spiritual nature. But strongly implied is that our temporal-matter caretaking will influence whether or not we are worthy of true riches. It is a sobering verse.
16:12. Jesus brings it down to another level. The steward of the parable wasted ANOTHER MAN’S possessions. Jesus is reminding us that even our temporal things ARE NOT OURS. If our stewardship is wasteful, why should we have an inheritance that is actually ours?
16:13. This final verse is distressing in its lack of clarity of intent. Jesus seems to be repeating an idea. But WHY? WHAT is the practical difference (THE CONTRAST) between (1) “hate the one and love the other,” and (2) “hold to one and despise the other”?
The same words occur in Matthew 6:24. In that context they follow advice about having singleness of vision, and they are followed by the admonition not to worry about food, clothing, etc. The Matthew account CONTRASTS the spiritual against the temporal.
In Luke, they are in the context of faithful stewardship. But in that context Jesus is contrasting temporal “little things” (which he calls “mammon”) versus spiritual development (which he calls “much”).
It is interesting that commentators and translators seem to avoid discussing the two contrasting elements in Luke 16:13. This means one of three things:
- They fully understand it and assume we will also!
- They don’t understand it and, therefore, avoid
- They think Jesus is merely being
We can dismiss the third item. The Holy Word is not redundant! The first item seems unlikely. Therefore, it seems that, apparently, no one seems to understand the matter.
This leaves us with two possible approaches. (1) We can say that Luke has misplaced the verse (as opposed to Matthew 6:24), and we can ignore it here; or (2) Jesus used the verse twice, and we should try to explain it here. The verse needs explanation not only in a context, but because of the distressingly difficult-to-explain contrast of the two phrases.
Let’s first consider the contextual import of the verse (ignoring the contrasting phrases). Within the parable, it is not at all clear what might be meant by “two masters.” The steward had God as Master — but wanted to go into a “home” in the new age. Clearly, God is Master of both ages, so that is not our answer. BUT, perhaps the “two master” concept in the parable could be the LETTER of the Law versus the SPIRIT of the Law. This was, indeed, a constant contrast Jesus made when he witnessed to the Pharisees. Of course, Jesus would not want us to hate the letter of the Law. But he might want us to love it less than the spirit of the Law in that we CAN serve one, and not the other (and we can’t have both in our human condition).
The steward had loved mammon. In the parable, the implication is that the Law (in its strict letter of interpretation) was used by those in power TO PROFIT from it. He reformed and then used his formerly unrighteous mammon as a power to serve the spirit of the Law — righteousness in the sense of relieving the oppressed.
Jesus’ lesson for us from the parable is that we serve (= the spirit of the Law). He then expands the lesson (beyond what the parable mentioned) to teach that we use temporal things in the service of spiritual things. Then, seemingly AS A CAUTION, he says that we cannot serve both the temporal and spiritual — EVEN THOUGH we are involved in both, or one will get in the way of the other. This may be the contextual import of 16:13.
That leaves us with the question of, “Why the seeming repetition?”
EITHER:
- You will HATE the one and LOVE the other
OR:
- You will “give loyalty to one and despise the other” (Phillips)
One possible difference in the two examples is that the first is INWARD, the other is OUTWARD. In other words, hate and love are internal evaluations. Loyalty and the showing of despising are external expositions of that which originates internally.
Bringing all of this back to the meaning of 16:13 for us, the lesson seems to be this (for Jew and Gentile alike):
We must choose one master — even if we are involved with two. In the sense of the parable, we must choose SPIRIT over WORKS. Only one (spirit) will be our master; but we will USE works to the best of our ability. They (works), however, will not be a master in our lives.
In the non-parable sense — the literal sense of our spiritual versus our temporal lives — we likewise cannot allow both as masters. ONLY our spiritual life is our master. BUT: we will use our temporal lives (our mammon) to serve our spiritual interests. Knowing that one is a master and the other is a tool removes all fidelity to the tool — but it does not remove care for it as a tool.
We will not acknowledge two masters. We will not acknowledge temporal affairs as CONTROLLING anything. They are only servants — not masters. (Romans 6:19; 8:12)
And here, then, is Jesus’ warning. IF we allow both spiritual affairs and temporal affairs to control us (both to be masters), we will, indeed, learn to HATE the one that irritates us most, and to LOVE the one that makes us most comfortable. In other words, we will want to be rid of one of them! Thus, even if our priorities are straight, we will not be good stewards of temporal things; we will not let them serve us well, because we will HATE them!
That is the INTERNAL conflict. The second item in Jesus’ comparison is EXTERNAL: We will “give loyalty to one and despise the other” — (show despite to the other). In practical terms, this means that our time and effort will be lopsided. We will plainly be loyal to one side, and plainly demonstrate neglect to the other. Again, if our priorities are straight, we would show a great deal of spiritual activity, but would be slothful in temporal affairs — feeling an obligation to them (because they are one of two masters), but demonstrating which master we favor. But if the temporal is not a master, but only a servant, we will treat the servant well because he will better serve us.
16:14. We have, mostly, considered this verse by using it in reference to earlier considerations.
Nevertheless, a point about the Pharisees will help us to understand the early life of the steward in the parable.
Matthew 23:2-7 is most descriptive. Perhaps the one phrase in verse 4 sums it up well:
“They tie up heavy loads and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they, themselves, are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.”
This represents the “older brother” in the Prodigal Son Parable. He would not forgive nor rejoice. He just wanted his own feast! The “shrewd” steward of the parable reversed this course.