The Dishonest Steward, An Interpretation of Lk 16:1-8

In that great standby for clergy and students, The Interpreter’s Bible, George Arthur Buttrick writes, “Many people wonder if Jesus could have told this story. Would he use an arrant rascal “to point a moral, or adorn a tale?”  He expresses in these words  the frustration of students of the gospel for almost 2,000 years and succinctly presents the dilemma with which this parable confronts us.

 

In the recent Anchor Bible Commentary on St. Luke  and the new Interpreter’s Bible Commentary as well as other most recent studies the general view follows the traditional interpretation of two thousand years, namely that the steward Jesus describes, is in his duplicity an example of Godly conduct. Each author expresses dissatisfaction with this interpretation. So far no other interpretation has been found which can be supported by the text.

 

The story as we have it is more detailed than many of Jesus’ parables. Most are pictures quickly drawn with a few bold strokes e.g. the sower, the mustard seed, the pearl merchant. In this one Jesus gives context, character to the two people involved and a step by step unfolding of the story. It ranks with the Prodigal Son and the Wicked Husbandmen in length and complexity. By paying close attention to the text,  remembering Jesus invented every detail for his own purposes and ignoring the traditional teaching heard and read on many occasions, there is another possible interpretation.

 

Lk. 16:1 There was a certain rich man, which had a steward, and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

 

Very clearly and simply Jesus tells us who the subject of the parable is:  “There was a rich man”.  The parable is not about the steward but about ‘a rich man’. We should therefore find the key to the parable in the actions and words of the owner of the business and not the steward. 

 

The next critical detail is the reason for an audit, and possible dismissal of the steward.  It has been noted before there is no immediate charge of dishonesty and the steward continues in his job with all its responsibilities  until the Owner appears to take account or audit the books. “And the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.” In the following verses we  are told precisely the nature of the problem with which the Owner of the business was faced and which the steward acknowledged.

 

The first verse of the parable, 16: 1 states the reason for the concern were reports of the steward ‘wasting’ the owner’s goods. The word Luke used has been traditionally translated as wasted or squandered. The Greek word is “diaskorpizdo”. In the parable of the “Prodigal Son” the same word is used to describe the way the prodigal son achieved instant poverty. He again “wasted” his inheritance. Elsewhere in Matthew the word is used to describe the way a person scatters corn or grain when sowing.

 

Mt.25:24 & 26  “I knew you to be a hard man; you reap where you have not sown, you gather where you have not scattered.”

Mt.26:31 “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.”

 

In the LXX the word occurs several times but always with the meaning of “scattered”. Sheep are scattered on the mountain, grain is scattered on the earth, and the tribes of Israel are scattered amongst the nations. It is also used to translate the word “winnowed”. The suggestion here that the word  “diaskorpidzo” was used not to express waste, but of something scattered abroad, which by implication was expected to be gathered together again. Thus grain is sowed in expectation of harvesting, it is winnowed and flung up into the air only to be raked together again, sheep are scattered on the mountain awaiting the attention of the shepherd, and the tribes of Israel are scattered amongst the nations awaiting the Messiah who will bring them together again as one nation.  Even in the Prodigal Son  story, the account revolves round the action of a young man who buys a lot of friends with his money only to find that when he was in need, and could expect some of his generosity to be returned, ‘nobody gave him anything’. 

 

In the context of a business, diaskorpidzo would express not waste but rather investment or extension of credit.  By the examples of the amounts of oil and grain owed by just the debtors referred to in the parable, it is clear there were large outstanding debts. It has been suggested these large amounts are hyperbole, and are overstated for effect. There is no reason to think so. There is an indication in verses 5 and 7 that the two debtors specifically mentioned are representative of a large number. Elsewhere Luke uses ‘ena ekaston.’ to refer to each of several.

 

Lk.16:5  “So he called every one of his Lord’s debtors to him  and said unto the first, ……….and to another he said,….”.

 

The problem which faced the owner in the beginning, and which triggered the audit was a cash flow crisis created by allowing a large number of clients to run up huge bills. The size of the amounts suggest the business was a wholesale operation and therefore susceptible to credit extension to the extent illustrated here. For the ordinary retail customer a thousand gallons of olive oil or a thousand bushels of wheat would be unlikely but for a wholesale customer it might represent two or three unpaid invoices. This is an important issue, for on it hinges an element of the parable which will become evident later.

 

Lk 16:4 the steward says, “I am resolved what I shall do, that when I am put out of the stewardship they may receive me into their houses.”  

 

This form of reasoning applies to clients who had other businesses, and who might want to hire a steward, rather than customers of a retail outlet. The ‘Owner’ therefore has position and power and owns a sizable operation. Later when he speaks he does so with the authority born of custom and experience.

 

If a cash flow crisis were the problem then the steward had clearly not been exercising the authority of his position and had permitted clients to run up huge bills by extending to them unlimited credit. The problem would not correct itself, but rather compound itself as time went on, for people who owe places of business more than they can pay, avoid going there in case they are required to pay. In addition, since cash is tied up in accounts receivable, there is nothing with which to pay the staff, or buy new stock. Business is brought to a standstill and failure threatens. even though on the outside everything looks in good order because sales continue, and accounts receivable are very high. 

 

This inability to demand payment of past due bills and the exercise of control of the cash flow fits with what we know about the steward from the rest of the story.  His response to his predicament leaves a lot to unrealistic optimism as he vaguely hopes someone will take him in if he does them a favor. However, would anyone who had benefited in that way trust him with his own goods and business? We are left with the uneasy conclusion the man was a weak, naive fool. Jesus creates this person for a reason, but not to hold him up as an example.

 

A cash flow crisis of this nature would necessitate the owner’s intervention. An audit to establish the damage and to begin correcting the problem would be necessary. Once the extent of the problem was clear the owner would be justified in dismissing the steward. It is with the entry of the ‘Owner’ to audit the books that the incredible occurs.  The owner evidently sees what the steward has done and congratulates the steward. 

 

Lk16:8 “And the Lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely.”

 

There is no evidence that the “Owner” knew the motives behind the steward’s actions, neither is there an indication that he was unclear in his approval.  His approval of what the steward had done was based on what he had seen in the records and the cash on hand. To appreciate Jesus’ point, we need to remember Jesus painted this person as an owner of a large operation, an experienced merchant who was not himself involved in the day to day running of his enterprises.  Jesus makes this person a man of substance, power and authority. His pronouncement and judgment carry weight, and it is in his perception the wisdom Jesus refers to in verse 8 resides. As we noted in the beginning, the subject of the parable is ‘a rich man’, and therefore it is what he says or does that is the point of the parable. 

 

In order to appreciate the nuances of Jesus’ narration, we have to consider the context in which we find this parable. It belongs to a portion of material special to Luke. This passage begins with two parables which form a couplet, namely the parables of the lost Sheep and that of the “Lost coin”.  There then follows the parable of the ‘Prodigal Son’.

 

The setting for all these parables is a meeting between Jesus, his disciples and a group of tax Gatherers and Sinners.

 

 Lk.15:1 “The tax gatherers and sinners, meanwhile were all seeking his company to hear what he had to say, and the Pharisees and the scribes complained,  “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them, so he spoke this parable to them,”

 

The parables follow immediately and they are Jesus’ response to the attitude and judgment the Pharisees display. Jesus’ validation of those before him is made plain in the denouement of the parable of the Steward. Jesus says of the ‘rich man ‘in the parable and those like him,

 

Lk. 16:8b “for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the sons of light.”

 

 Thus Jesus not only validates the business people before him, but holds up part of their wisdom as an example to the Pharisees, whose particular problems were their inflexibility, lack of generosity, and judgment of others. Recognizing Jesus’ agenda helps us understand the full irony of the story of the ‘Dishonest Steward’ and gives us a clue to the meaning of the parable.

 

In the parable the ‘Owner’ looks at the books, sees the written record and recognizes what the steward has done to redeem the situation. As an experienced businessman he sees that the steward has discounted the amounts owed the business. In return for the discount the steward had collected what cash could be collected and thereby has solved the cash flow crisis.  Losses have been cut, new capital exists, and now new business can go on. Thus, the steward had administered a viable solution to a serious problem. In other words, the owner assumed the steward had been actively giving discounts to encourage people to pay their bills. 

 

This is still a classic way to deal with a cash flow crisis. If there is too much stock on hand you have a sale and cut prices to reduce inventory, if people owe you more than they can pay, you discount what they owe so they are willing to pay what they can.  The necessity is to get cash circulating again so business can go on. When the steward calls the debtors to him he asks how much they owed, then tells them to write in a new figure. There is no mention of a cash exchange. Without a cash exchange there would be exposure for the debtor when the audit occurred.  Unless the amount was paid in full and therefore linked with the amount the debtor was willing to pay in cash for the discount then the fraudulent action could be reversed.  With an exchange of cash and signed receipt good faith is demonstrated. Though the text does not record this exchange precisely it is required to make the story credible and recognizable to those listening.  The merchants present would know instantly what Jesus was describing, just as farmers knew about seed falling on various types of ground or fishermen knew about the need of sorting fish.

This principle of ‘discounting the debt’ epitomizes Jesus attitude on forgiveness. He uses the entrepreneur’s attitude to illustrate the divine principle behind forgiveness; to cut the losses, the sins, the failures and to get on with life.   In his mouth it is tantamount to saying, “This is God’s way, discount the sin, accept what amends one can and get on with life!”  This was not the Pharisees’ way, neither has it ever been the principle by which religions have operated. 

 

When the parable is interpreted in this way its relation to the parable of the ‘Prodigal Son’ which occurs immediately before it becomes evident.  What we have in this section is two couplets which over the course of four parables, the ‘Lost sheep’, the ‘Lost coin’, the ‘Prodigal Son’ and the Dishonest Steward, develop a comprehensive teaching on forgiveness. Each parable adds an additional dimension of Jesus’ treatment of this subject.

 

This is a specialized parable spoken in a particular environment, to a particular group of people. This parable is inextricably associated with the surrounding material. It represents a coherent piece of teaching on the subject of forgiveness, which in itself was a response to a question raised by those present in 15:1.

 

The questions must now be asked, if it were not understood by people generally, how did it survive the oral tradition period before it became a written source? Why, if this parable was so enigmatic and incomprehensible was it remembered at all, and why preferred to so many other things Jesus must have said that day or even that hour?  How was the integrity, context and detail of four parables preserved intact?  

 

The parables of the Prodigal Son and the Dishonest Steward are effective teaching instrument but considered within the context offered they represent far more than teachings of moral principle. They become a record of Jesus’ personal mission towards those groups in front of him. The context of the parable and its preservation in such accurate detail suggest it was recorded by someone who understood it, appreciated the genius of it, who was present that day and who himself wrote it down there and then.  Once it became a written source tied in with such material as the Prodigal Son then it was copied without question of its meaning.  

 

Traditionally there has been the belief that what little information we have of Jesus’ ministry was through oral tradition, which only after time was written down. By then the original meaning and detail had been corrupted. Because of its specialized material and its enigmatic nature this parable confounds that assumption. Though oral transmission was very accurate compared to our skills in communication today, the detail and inter relatedness of each parable suggests very little time elapsed between when the parable was told and when it was written down. Jesus’ teaching in other parts of the gospels reflect this difference. In Mark and the Gospel of Thomas we see his teachings separated from context.  Even in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, the individual pieces of instruction do not relate to each other directly and when they are compared to the rough, primitive parallels in Luke, Matthew’s interpretive fingerprints are all over them. They are a collection of sayings.  If we compare the way some of Jesus’ sayings appear in various forms and context amongst the gospels with the homogeneity of this passage of Luke,(15:1 – 16:8) then we should seriously consider this passage to be an example of very early written record of Jesus teaching.  

 

The possibility of an editor having given this Lucan passage its final form, sewing it together out of miscellaneous remembered parables becomes more and more unlikely as we consider the wider ramifications of this parable. Because it was so specialized, so impenetrable for the normal person, and indeed has remained so for almost 2,000 years, it beggars the imagination to believe an editor would have unknowingly placed it in such careful juxtaposition to the others without explanation. Both the context of Lk 15:1 and the previous parables are necessary for our understanding of the full significance of the parable and the principle taught. Therefore I think we have represented here not only some of Jesus’ words but a coherent piece of Jesus’ teaching and a faithful report of its context. The detail and complexity suggests Jesus’ words were recorded soon after the event, maybe even a few hours. This is a daring assertion, but there is reason to consider it seriously.

 

Maybe we should not be surprised if there are some written records of Jesus words jotted down soon after they were spoken. Luke in his treatment of his material suggests he has before him written sources which he copies into his gospel.  In his introduction to Theophilus he says,

 

Lk.1:1 “I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received.”

 

Carefully going over the whole story could refer to hearing the stories from the mouths of the disciples and others, but the phrase depicts a man who has studied the whole story. Maybe we should take Luke at his word. As a diarist and researcher, he was more concerned with collecting and recording than editing. Maybe without his full understanding he left us a clue in the Parable of the Dishonest Steward to his method and motivation. 

 

Conclusion. There is a way to interpret the parable of the Dishonest Steward which does not do violence to the text, and reveals to us a most elegant insight into God’s forgiveness; it complements the parables which go before it; the very nature of its obscurity over the centuries bears witness to a very early provenance and finally the parable throws light on how Jesus taught and worked with the people in front of him.  Far from being dysfunctional it is one of the most remarkable parables preserved for us. 

 

Footnotes:

 

There can be no objection on the grounds Jesus spoke in Aramaic and therefore this would have been translated. Many more people used the written word in daily life than popular conceptions of that age would have us believe.  Business was conducted through written records, legal documents recorded transactions and accounts were kept. Those in front of Jesus that day would have spoken Greek and would of necessity been in the habit of writing. There is no objection to the possibility we have here an example of a very close reporting of Jesus form of teaching and the way he interacted with the people before him. 

Copyright:  Peter D. Snow  July 22nd 1998