Luke 16- The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward

Recent interactions with a student (Brent W.) have caused me to re-think (or more accurately, "more closely examine") my view/ interpretation of Luke 16, the Parable of the Unrighteous Steward.

Granted, this is universally acknowledged as one of the toughest parables to understand and especially to apply. To say, "I don't know what it means" is no failure. For in this parable Jesus seems to be praising the steward for cheating his boss AND calling us to be like him. Numerous explanations have attempt to side-step this problem. But now I'm thinking that a more straightforward approach is best. I can't say that I'm completely settled on my view yet. However, for posterity, I thought I'd set down my thoughts as they are now.

Summary of the Parable

Here's the skinny of it: Jesus tells this parable to his disciples (v. 1) but the Pharisees overhear it, too (v. 14). In the story, a steward/ manager is accused of mishandling his rich boss' money. Knowing he'll get fired, the steward hatches a plan: he will "cook the books" or redistribute what's owed to key debtors to his boss in order to win their favor. These debtors--who owe a lot--will in turn owe the steward a big favor. So the steward accomplishes his plan by reducing one man's debt from 800 gallons of oil to 400; for another 1000 bushels is reduced to 800.

Jesus says that the master commends the dishonest manager for his "shrewdness". Then Jesus goes on to say that the people of the world are more shrewd than the "people of light" and tells the people of light to "make friends" with the use of "unrighteous money". Then He gives the principle of those who are diligent with little will be entrusted with more (like the Parable of the Talents), similarly, those who are unfaithful with little will not be entrusted with anything. Then comes the famous "You cannot serve two masters" quote. Then after this, the Pharisees are described as sneering over what Jesus had said of them because they "loved money."

Major Issues:

The major issues are as follows:

(1) Was the steward's actions unrighteous or simply clever? Was he tagged as "unrighteous" because of his actions in reducing the debts or his mismanagement of the master's money prior to doing this (v. 1)?

(2) If his actions are unrighteous, is Jesus praising the steward for being unrighteous? Are we in turn being called to be unrighteous? or pragmatic? or the ends justifying the means?

(3) What does it mean to "make friends" with money? Is this some kind of bribery?

(4) Why does Jesus call money "unrighteous"? Is all money unrighteous? Is there a particular kind of money that's unrighteous?

There are numerous smaller issues involved, but these are the ones that will occupy this exercise.


Suggested Solutions:

There are ways some have tried to squirm out of the stickiness these questions raise.

Contrastive Parable: This is the view I used to take until I took a second look at it. Many of Jesus' parables are contrastive, that is, they are not telling us what to do but what NOT to do. (E.g., the Parable of the Persistent Widow.) In this view, Luke 16 is not Jesus affirming what the steward did, but the opposite. This is how the world works but in contrast we are to manage our money righteously. This view has the effect of side-stepping the problem of being called to imitate the steward. However, the problem with this view is that it doesn't account for the fact that the master praises the steward and that Jesus makes application from the steward's actions that don't bear the hint of a contrast.

The debt-lowering was not unrighteous: Another solution is to posit that what the steward did was clever but not illegal or harmful. Some believe that since every debt includes interest garnered and a handling-fee by the steward, all the steward did was take away his portion of the debt to lower it. Therefore, he didn't take away anything from the master's money, just his own. This view has the effect of eliminating the idea of the actions being unrighteous and so the comparison is just with the cleverness of it. The problem is that Jesus calls the steward "unrighteous". To counter this, some claim that the unrighteousness is a reference to v. 1, his mishandling of the money before his debt-lowering. But a careful reading of v. 1 shows that the master only "accused" the man, and the accusation was not thievery or embezzlement but "wasting" money. In other words, the charge was mismanaging or not being efficient with money, and it was an accusation only. How this alone could account for Jesus calling the man "unrighteous" seems to be a stretch. Again, they could turn and argue that vv. 10-12 speak of being entrusted with someone else's property, a reference to the failure of the steward. But nothing in vv. 10-12 limits the steward's unrighteousness to the mishandling of money. For the same texts speak of being "dishonest" (unrighteous) with money, a more accurate description of what happened in the debt-lowering not in an accusation of mismanagement.


A Better Way

(1) The steward's debt-lowering was unrighteous: I believe that the steward's debt-lowering actions were "unrighteous." I cannot see how the disciples would be expected to assume that the reduction was solely in the amount the steward would've cut out for himself. Nothing in the text says this. Even if this were common knowledge (which is a stretch for those not professional stewards), it still cannot be assumed here, especially since the two reductions were different. One reduced it by half! Is half the debt really the steward's cut?

Also, "unrighteous" does not fit the description of v. 1, the "accusation" of "wasting" money. Further, even if v. 1 showed the steward's unrighteousness, that unrighteousness was a "seed" in v. 1 which "blossomed" in vv. 5-7. In effect, I see the steward's mismanagement of money (v. 1) as an early indication that he was unrighteous but his debt-lowering scheme as proof of it. Hence, Jesus' description of the steward as "unrighteous" only stated as late as v. 8 is appropriate as it comes only after the description of his debt-lowering actions.

(2) Jesus is making a positive comparison between the steward's actions and how He expects us to manage our money though there is a clear contrastive element, too. Jesus clearly describes the secular world as being more "shrewd" than the people of God in order to shame believers for being poor users of money. This does NOT mean that Jesus wants us to be unrighteous or slippery in using money. Nor is the upcoming comparison meant to be total, in every point. By "positive" comparison, I mean that there are elements of the steward's actions that are meant to be paralleled by us. But there is also a clear contrastive element present, insuring we don't misread Jesus' point. How is this done? A knowledge of the Greek here is vital:

(2a) The steward's own statement as to his reasons for the debt-lowering scheme are grammatically parallel to Jesus' statement on what believers are supposed to do with their money.

Compare the steward's thoughts in v. 4 with Jesus' exhortation in v. 9:

"I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses." (v. 4)

"I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings." (v. 9)

Here is how that portion in blue reads in the Greek (transliterated) for both:

hina hotan metastatho ek teis oikonomias dexontai me eis tous oikous auton (v. 4b)

hina hotan eklipei dexontai humas eis tas aionious skeinas (v. 9b)

Notice how both follow this grammatical scheme:

hina hotan + (a verb describing "loss") + dexontai + (direct object) + (eis + accusative of "dwelling place")

This is not a coincidence. In his exhortation for believers in v. 9, Jesus intentionally borrows the wording from the steward in v. 4 to show the parallel between the two.

- The steward knows that his job will be "lost" (metastatho) so he makes plans to "be received" (dexontai) by his benefitors "into their houses" (eis tous oikous auton). He's smartly planning for his future.

- Jesus says that since money "fails" (eklipei) we are to make plans to "be received" (dexontai) by the friends that we make using the money "into the eternal tents" (eis tous oikous auton). This smartly plans for our future.

The exhortation to "make friends with unrighteous money" is a call to take the money of this world and redeem it for something good, namely, to make friends. Now this doesn't have the crass connotation of bribery or using wealth to win friends and influence people. Nor is this works-salvation. Jesus has consistently associated true righteousness with giving generously, esp. to the poor. Remember Matthew 25:31-46? Jesus describes the separation of the sheep (heavenbound) and goats (hellbound) on the basis of whether they gave to the poor.

This has the effect, naturally, of making friends with them. So in the end, when we get to heaven (the eternal tent), we will be welcomed (received) by those to whom we gave as friends. (Bock argues that it is God who receives us not the friends since the friends don't construct heaven. But I don't think that's the implication at all here. The scene is IN heaven and it's a question of who's doing the receiving/ welcoming/ (cheering?).) Naturally, the friends who were made--the poor who were given to--will line up to welcome the generous giver.

The point being: when you use worldly money in this life to do good deeds, you are reaping eternal rewards. THAT'S smart planning for your future.

But does this mean we are to do what the steward does? Is Jesus affirming his unscrupulous practice?


(2b) Jesus makes the actions of the steward clearly unrighteous and makes it clear that we are NOT to act like that.

Again, we press the Greek into service to help us here. We note that Jesus uses the word "unrighteous" (adikia) here in a way seems stands out.

Jesus calls the steward "adikia" in v. 8 ("dishonest"- NIV).
Jesus calls money "adikia" in vv. 9, 11 ("worldly"- NIV)
Jesus refers to "adikos" practices in v. 10 ("dishonest"- NIV), which is virtually the same as "adikia"

Notice, then, the flow of thought. Jesus calls the steward adikia in v. 8. What the steward did with the debt was wrong (vv. 5-7), an outflow of his original mishandling of the money beforehand (v. 1). Then Jesus praises the steward for some aspect of what he did, namely, the parallel of intentions in v. 4. It's the steward's intention (to plan to secure his future) and goal (to gain the favor of others) that is praiseworthy though his actions (unrighteous debt-lowering) are not. So the shrewdness that Jesus is praising and wants us to emulate is not the fixing of the books but the good intention to plan for one's future and to take steps to do so.

To insure that we know that Jesus does not mean for us to emulate the steward's debt-lowering scheme, Jesus uses the word adikia as a signal of a contrast. The steward was adikia for doing what he did. In v. 9 when he tells us how we are to use money, notice that instead of describing our actions as adikia (like the steward's), He describes the money itself as adikia.

This is further signaled by the fact that the phrase "unrighteous money" is redundant in the Greek. The term for money used here is "mamonas". This is NOT the common term for money. Usually Koine uses the specific type of metal in view like gold ("crusos") or most commonly silver ("argurion") or even bronze ("chalkos"). The classical Greek term for money is "creima" which carries more the sense of "wealth" or "riches" in the NT.

But most importantly, in the 1st century Jewish culture "mamonas" referred to more than money. "Mammon" as it is preserved often in English translations is not capitalized for no good reason. "Mammon" was the Jewish name for a fallen angel (demon) who was believed to represent or rule over the evil use of money. This use is even clearer in v. 13 of Luke 16, where Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and Mammon." The idea of "serving" is the idea of worship as described by the Second Commandment. By personifying or personalizing "money" as a demonic figure, the idea of money as an idol becomes clearer. And it makes better sense than the image of bowing down to sacksful of coins.

Therefore: when Jesus calls it "unrighteous Mammon," it is like saying "evil Satan." It's redundant, unnecessary. We know "Satan" is evil just as "Mammon" (the demon!) is unrighteous. So why do it? The use of adikia here is not descriptive but rhetorical. It stands out, why? To remind us in v. 9 that when Jesus instructs us how we're to live, in contrast to the steward who is adikia, for believers it is the money that is adikia though our actions are not! In fact, using adikia money for righteous ends is even more righteous!

The point is this: Jesus' use of adikia sets up an obvious and intentional contrast between the actions of the steward and ours as believers. Though the positive parallels are plain (just as the steward was a careful planner of his future, so we are to be), so are the negative aspects to be excluded (unrighteous means to achieving that righteous purpose).

(3) Jesus paves the way for an even greater contrast

Our friend adikia takes up yet another function!

In v.11 Jesus makes the statement: "So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?" (NIV)

The term "worldly wealth" is our friend "unrighteous Mammon" again (adikioi mamonai). Notice how Jesus contrasts "unrighteous Mammon" with "true riches" (lit. "the true thing", to alithinon)?

So not only is money described as "adikia" to contrast our actions with that of the steward's, but also in contrast to "real" riches. Earthly money is "adikia" even more so because it is lowly, poor, and petty compared with "the true riches" (to alithinon) of God: the Kingdom, heavenly rewards, the real stuff.

Jesus is insuring that while we are to make good use of earthly money, we shouldn't get caught up in it (like the Pharisees of v. 14). If anything, the "shrewd" solution is to use the earthly money to gain heavenly riches.

______________

In sum, in telling this story, Jesus has spun up a complex analogy, one of comparison and contrast. We are to be like the steward in that we plan for our future, make wise use of our resources and opportunities, and seek the good goal of winning people not gaining things. We are to be unlike the steward in how he went about doing it.

The steward was wise in wanting to plan for his future and was understandable in his desire to be welcomed by others. His means didn't justify his ends, though even from a worldly perspective his wrong deed was still "clever." When I get cut off on the freeway by a driver, I may get upset for being denied that spot but if he made a skillful move, a part of me thinks, "Hey, nice move!" though I still grumble. Wrong move but a skillful one, admittedly. What the steward did was wrong but skillful, admittedly.

Money is a tool that's not entirely "neutral." In an ideal world it would be. In a fallen world, money is a strong temptation for evil. That's why Jesus personifies it with the familiar "Mammon" concept, since Satan is behind the world's system and the world's system runs so much on money.

A wise Christian will use money that's earthly (at best) and demonic (at worst) and redeem it for something eternal: by using it to help people, give to the poor, and win friends (and souls) to Christ! And when we "make friends" with it, they will "welcome us" in heaven, praising us for our generosity.

That's wise financial planning!