He said also. [The Dishonest Steward, Luke 16:1-18 On parables see pp. 203-207.] No specific information is given concerning the time, place, or circumstances under which the parables and instruction of ch. 16 were given. The opening words of the chapter, however, strongly imply that it was soon after the events of ch. 15, possibly upon the same occasion. It was but a few months before the close of Christ’s ministry, probably about January or February, A.D. 31, and the place, Peraea, the region beyond Jordan (see on ch. 15:1).
Unto his disciples. As was so often the case (see on Matt. 5:1, 2), Jesus first addressed His teaching to the disciples even though others might be present. As in Luke 15 (see v. 2) there were Pharisees present upon this occasion (ch. 16:14), and eventually Jesus spoke directly to them (v. 15; see on v. 9). Publicans were also in the circle of listeners, and the parable had special meaning for them. Many of them were no doubt “rich.”
A certain rich man. Only Luke records this parable, as is true of much of the record of the Peraean ministry (see on Matt. 19:1, 2; Luke 9:51). This parable and the one that follows, the Rich Man and Lazarus, are both concerned with the use of present opportunities with a view to the future life (Luke 16:25-31), particularly with the use of the material things of this life. The first parable of this chapter was specifically addressed to the disciples, whereas the second one was spoken chiefly for the benefit of the Pharisees. The first illustrates a principle vital to wise stewardship — the discreet and diligent use of present opportunities. The second approaches the problem of stewardship from the negative point of view, as do the parables of the Friend Calling at Midnight (ch. 11:5-10) and the Unjust Judge (ch. 18:1-8).
In the first parable Jesus calls upon men to turn their thoughts from the things of time to those of eternity (COL 366). Among the publicans there had been a case similar to this not long before (COL 368), and the publicans in the audience would likely be particularly impressed as they listened to Jesus’ narration of the story.
Commentators generally find this parable difficult to explain, especially because of the seeming commendation accorded the dishonest steward of the story (see v. 8). These difficulties are due to the attempt to assign a meaning to every detail of the parable, such as the suggestion that the “rich man” represents God. But this parable is not to be interpreted allegorically. It is a fundamental principle in the interpretation of parables that no attempt should be made to read some special meaning into every detail. For principles of interpretation see pp. 203, 204. Jesus designed this parable to illustrate one specific truth, the one He points out in vs. 8-14.
A steward. A manager of the affairs of a household or of an estate. As the context makes plain, this “steward” was a freeman rather than an overslave, such as some “stewards” were. Had he been a slave his prospect would have been slavery under some other owner, and thus he would have had no concern about earning a living after being relieved of his stewardship; furthermore, if a slave, he would not have been free to carry out the plan he proposed to himself (v. 4).
Had wasted. According to the Greek, the steward was still wasting his master’s goods. In fact, he was accused of systematically robbing his master (see COL 366, 367), and the charges seemed sufficiently well substantiated to lead to his dismissal even before he had opportunity to give an account of his stewardship (v. 2). The “waste” may have been due in part to incompetence or to neglect, though the steward’s shrewdness (vs. 4-8) implies that he was clever enough when it came to looking after his own interests.
.png&w=384&q=75)
.png&w=384&q=75)
