Luke 16:1

This chapter relates Jesus' continued discourses to the disciples in the presence of the public and the Pharisees particularly. The great parables of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13) and the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) are both related to the conflict with the Pharisees; but the connective teaching between them was abbreviated by the sacred author. However, the positive connection is still clearly discernible (Luke 16:14-18).

And he said also unto the disciples, There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. (Luke 16:1)

THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD

He said also unto his disciples ... These words do not remove the obvious fact that the unjust steward in view here represents the religious leaders of Israel. True, the parable was spoken "to" the disciples, but "about" the Pharisees, etc. "The rich man represents God";Luke 2p. 247.">[1] and among all classes of people in that ancient world, only the hierarchy of Israel would qualify as stewards of God's house. To them were committed the oracles of God (Romans 3:2); they alone sat "in Moses' seat" (Matthew 23:2); and they only were custodial heirs of the religious economy of Israel.

A certain rich man ... stands for God, as the vast majority of commentators agree; and despite the objection of Barclay that "The rich man himself was something of a rascal,"[2] and Plummer's opinion that "The rich man has no special significance,"[3] it is nevertheless the standing interpretation of the Coccian school,[4] stated by Vitringa, that "The rich man is God, and the steward the ecclesiatical leaders of Israel."[5] Albert Barnes stated that "By the rich man here is doubtless represented God."[6] Objections to this view derive from a failure to understand WHY the rich man commended the unjust steward. Only God has the power over men to dismiss them from life and custodianship of heavenly gifts, the very things clearly typified by the prerogatives enjoyed by this unjust steward.

Furthermore, the allegation against the rich man, to the effect that he was a rascal, or that he endorsed the steward's dishonesty, is not logically taken. "The Emperor Julian (the bitter apostate) said this parable proves Jesus a mere man, and hardly a worthy man";[7] but apostates are blind, by definition, and without any spiritual perception whatever. When it is clearly understood why the steward was commended, all difficulties disappear. In another parable, an unjust judge bore an analogy to the heavenly Father (Luke 18:1-6); and Christ himself likened his second coming to "the thief" (Matthew 24:43). This comparison did not embarrass the holy apostles; for Paul used it (1 Thessalonians 5:2); Peter used it (2 Peter 3:10); and Christ himself repeated it from glory (Revelation 16:15). In the light of this, the tender consciences of modern commentators who find something "amoral" in this parable's representation of God under the figure of this rich man are not at all convincing!

That he was wasting his goods ... As Trench said, "All attempts to explain away the dishonesty (of this steward) are hopeless."[8] His own behavior in context was a positive admission of guilt on his part.

Luke 2p. 247.">[1] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press,), Vol. II, Luke 2p. 247.

[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 216.

[3] Quoted by Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 418.

[4] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 431.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), Luke, p. 109.

[7] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 280.

[8] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 435.