The Parable of the Unjust Steward: Ethics and Wealth in Luke 16

Introduction: The Parable and Its Problems

Luke 16:1–8 is known as the parable of the unjust steward. It has been described as an "eschatological warning to sinners" (Bailey 86). Landry claims that the unjust steward presents "the most difficult of the parables" because it raises significant ethical problems and invites inquiry into potentially ambiguous areas. The hero of the parable has been called a "pragmatic schemer" (Donahue 13).

Jesus relates the story of a rich man who suspects that his property manager — the steward — has been mismanaging the estate. The rich man specifically accuses his steward of "wasting his possessions" (Luke 16:1). It is uncertain precisely what this means, but it can be inferred that the manager is potentially committing fraud or embezzlement, or doing what would be the ancient equivalent of charging personal expenses to a company account: "much as a modern executive with a budget at his/her discretion might illicitly spend some of these funds on personal items" (Landry).

The steward becomes determined to devise a scheme to avoid being fired. He cleverly negotiates a debt reduction plan, and surprisingly, the rich man is impressed. The rich man comments that the manager acted wisely, using his social networking skills to maintain trust and ensure the repayment of debt. Moreover, the rich man recognizes that money can facilitate social relations, "so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (Luke 16:8). The story provides a biblical view of wealth and an ethic related to business and financial transactions.

Socio-Cultural Context and Interpretive Challenges

The prevailing socio-cultural context of the parable offers essential clues for its interpretation. Luke 16:1–8 has proved problematic and has been perceived as "insolvable" mainly because modern social, legal, and economic customs are projected onto the past (Bailey 86). Anachronistic interpretations do not work. It is first critical to understand the purpose of the parable and its intended audience. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples here, and not to a crowd (Bailey). The underlying and overt messages of the parable must be understood in light of this primary audience, which reveals the intent of both the author and of Jesus.

Bailey points out that there are contextual questions that must be posed before engaging the text critically. Those questions include: What was the master's ethical role — was he in collusion with the steward, thereby fostering an atmosphere of corruption in the community? What were the customs regarding debt and debt reduction in Israel at that time? Was the steward taking a large "cut" of the rent, and, in order to save his job, became willing to reduce or eliminate that cut? (Bailey 86). What is the master's role in the community? What is the steward's role and status? Does the master operate an official lending business, or is he one of the dreaded moneylenders? These questions illuminate the socio-political and ethical context necessary for a better understanding of the parable of the unjust steward.

The fact that historians and biblical scholars have long referred to the parable as that of the "unjust steward" reveals a core bias. The steward performed debt reduction — why should debt reduction be considered "unjust"? If he were truly unjust, why would the master congratulate him on his cleverness? It can safely be assumed, as Bailey argues, that the master is a morally righteous man, since his role in the story closely parallels the role of the master/landowner/rich man in the parable of Lazarus and the parable of the Prodigal Son.

The Steward's Role, the Master's Trust, and Debt Reduction

It can also be assumed that the master had no prior knowledge of the steward's intentions. No indication of prior knowledge is given; in fact, the master at the beginning of the parable appears angry and ready to dismiss the manager unless he can help balance the accounts. It can, however, reasonably be assumed that the steward was entitled to take a "cut." This interpretation explains why the steward was able to negotiate with the farmers and also why the master was not upset. After all, the master would likely have objected if the steward had cancelled the debts altogether — that would have entirely defeated the purpose of the initial scolding. As it was, the master was simply trying to get the steward to be more honest in his land management practices. Taking a modest cut is considered part of the job and part of the arrangement the steward has with the farmers. "The steward is not depriving his master of his own property," but is rather forgoing his own cut in order to do right by both master and peasant (Landry). Viewed in this light, the steward is hardly an unjust man; quite the contrary.

Moreover, it can also be assumed that the land steward is entitled to take a "cut." As Johnson notes, the steward "had control" over the property and was thereby entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the property and any accounts associated with it. The issues of professional and ethical responsibility also come into play with respect to the obligations the landowner has to both the steward and to the peasant tenants. At the beginning of the parable, the landowner admits that he had only heard rumors and was willing to give the steward the benefit of the doubt: "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management" (Luke 16:2). The landowner could have fired the steward immediately but did not, because he trusted him.

Jesus might be making a case for debt reduction as a matter of social justice and business ethics. The steward could have been extorting as much as 100% above what the farmers owed the landlord, given that each farmer's debt is cut by roughly half. Threatened with the loss of his livelihood, the steward learns to be satisfied with the wages the rich man provides. He opts out of his personal cut, which empowers the workers and considerably reduces their poverty. The landowner recognizes that the steward made the right — and ethically correct — choice, given the income disparity implied by the passage.

Works Cited

Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Donahue, John R. The Gospel in Parable. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. SacPag. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

Landry, David and May, Ben. "Honor Restored: New Light on the Parable of the Prudent Steward (Luke 16:1–8a)." Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 287–.