Luke 16:5-7

The agent’s plan involved discounting the debts of the people who owed his master money, probably by canceling the interest they owed. The fact that he dealt in commodities rather than cash is inconsequential since many traders dealt on these terms in Jesus’ day, as they do in ours. The amounts these debtors owed were quite large. Therefore the discount each one received represented a significant amount of money and drew the goodwill of the debtors to the manager. The debtors were probably people who had received goods from the master’s estate and had given the agent a promissory note rather than cash. This was and is a standard accepted way of doing business.

Did the manager dishonestly cheat his master out of what others owed him, or did he deduct the interest that would have come to him as the agent for each transaction? The first alternative is a real possibility. [Note: Derrett, Law in . . ., pp. 72-73.] However it seems unlikely that Jesus would have proceeded to commend the manager and hold him up to the disciples as an example to follow if he was that dishonest (Luke 16:9). Furthermore if the agent had chosen to cheat his employer further he probably would have ended up in jail rather than in the good graces of his master’s debtors. The second alternative is possible and probable. [Note: J. A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, pp. 175-76; idem, "The Story of the Dishonest Manager," Theological Studies 25 (1964):23-42. See also Edersheim, 2:267; and J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, 4:317-19.] The agent could well have received a commission for each of the transactions that he had negotiated for his employer and deducted these commissions from the debtors’ costs. Even a 100 percent commission (Luke 16:6) was not unknown in Jesus’ culture. [Note: Marshall, The Gospel . . ., p. 619.] Probably the commission was part of the original bill. [Note: J. D. M. Derrett, "’Take thy Bond . . . and Write Fifty’ (Luke xvi. 6) The nature of the Bond," Journal of New Testament Studies NS23 (1972):438-40.] Another possibility is that the steward eliminated his fee plus illegal interest that had been charged. [Note: Inrig, p. 112.] It appears that the steward cancelled the interest due that would have come to him as a commission. Whatever the sum that the servant discounted, it must have come out of his own pocket rather than that of his employer.