Charles Ellicott Commentary Luke 16

There was a certain rich man, which had a steward.—There is, perhaps, no single parable that has been subjected to such various and discordant interpretations as this of the Unjust Steward. It seems best to give step by step what seems to be a true exposition of its meaning, and to reserve a survey of other expositions until they can be compared with this.

The word “steward” had, we must remember, been already used by our Lord in Luke 12:42, and had there pointed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to the office of the Apostles and other ministers, as dispensers of divine truths, and perhaps also, of the means of grace. So St. Paul, whose language is, as we have seen in so many instances, always important in connection with St. Luke’s vocabulary, speaks of himself and his fellow-laborers as stewards of the mysteries of God. He has learned, may we not say, from the parable, that it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful (1 Corinthians 4:1–2).

We start, then, with this clue. The Unjust Steward represents primarily the Pharisees and scribes in their teaching and ministerial functions. But though spoken in the hearing of the Pharisees, the parable was addressed, not to them, but “to the disciples.” And the reason for this is obvious. They, too, were called to be “stewards;” they, too, collectively and individually, would have to give an account of their stewardship.

But if this is what the steward represents, then the rich man, like the “householder” in other parables, can be none other than God, who both appoints the stewards and calls them to account. In the further extension of the parable it is, of course, applicable to all who have any “goods” entrusted to them, any gifts and opportunities, any vocation and ministry in the great kingdom of God.

The same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.—

1. The Greek word for “was accused” commonly carries with it the idea of false, slanderous accusation. Probably, however, the idea connected with it, as seen in the word diabolos, or devil, which is derived from it, is that of malignant accusation, whether the charge was true or false.

   It is conceivable that it may have been purposely chosen to suggest the thought that the great Adversary was at once tempting the double-minded teachers to their life of hypocrisy, and exulting at their fall.

   If we ask why this was only suggested and not more directly expressed, as it would have been if one accuser had been named, the answer is found in the fact that the one great Accuser has many mouthpieces, diaboli acting under the diabolos (the Greek word stands for false accusers in Titus 2:3), and that there was no lack of such comments, more or less malevolent, on the inconsistencies of the professedly religious class.

2. There is an obvious purpose in using the same word, in the hearing of the same persons, as that which, in Luke 15:13, had described the excesses of the Prodigal Son. The Pharisees had heard that parable, and even if they had caught the bearing of the language which portrayed the character of the elder son, had flattered themselves that they were, at all events, free from the guilt of the younger. They had not wasted their substance in riotous living. Now they were taught that the “goods” committed to them might be wasted in other ways than by being devoured in company with harlots. They were guilty of that sin in proportion as they had failed to use what they had been entrusted with for the good of men and for God’s glory.

How is it that I hear this of thee?—

1. The opening words of the steward’s master imply wonder as well as indignation. They remind us so far of the words of the lord of the vineyard in another parable, Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? (Isaiah 5:4).

   Speaking after the manner of men, it was a marvel and a mystery that men with so high a calling as the scribes and teachers of Israel should have proved so unfaithful to their trust.

2. The words that follow, Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward, while they admit legitimately enough a personal application to each individual at the close of any period of trust and probation, and therefore at the close of life, are yet far from being limited to that application. In their primary significance, they do not even admit it.

   The close of a stewardship—for a party like the Pharisees, for a school like that of the scribes, for any Church or section of a Church—is when its day of judgment comes. This is when its work in the Kingdom is done, when history, and God in history, pass their sentence upon it.

   And that day of judgment was coming fast upon those who then heard the parable.

I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.—In the outer framework of the parable, there is something eminently characteristic in this utterance of the steward’s thoughts. He has lost the manliness and strength that would have fitted him for actual labor. He retains the false shame that makes him prefer fraud to poverty.

He shudders at the thought that it might be his lot to sit, like Lazarus, and ask for alms at the rich man’s door.

Spiritually, we may see what happens to a religious caste or order, like the Pharisees, when it forfeits its true calling by misuse. It has lost the power to prepare the ground for future fruitfulness by the digging, which corresponds, as in Luke 13:8, to the preliminary work of education and other influences that lie outside direct religious activity. It is religious and ecclesiastical, or it is nothing. It is ashamed to confess its spiritual poverty and to acknowledge that it is poor, and blind, and naked (Revelation 3:17). Anything seems better than either of those alternatives.

I am resolved what to do.—More literally, I know, or even, I knew, like a man to whom a plan suddenly occurs. The dramatic abruptness of the parable leaves us uncertain who “they” are that are to “receive” him. The context that immediately follows resolves this uncertainty. In the interpretation, what corresponds to this is the moment when a Church, party, or individual teacher hesitates between two policies—one of striving for righteousness, and the other of secular expediency—and decides to adopt the one that promises the most immediate and most profitable results.

So he called every one of his lord’s debtors.—The debtors might be either men who had bought their wheat and their oil at the hands of the steward; or, as the subsequent part of the parable makes more probable, tenants who, after the common custom of the East, paid their rent in kind.

Who, we ask, are the “debtors,” in the interpretation of the parable? The Lord’s Prayer supplies the answer to that question. The “debtors” are those who have sinned against God, who have left undone the things which they were bound to do, who have made no return for the outward blessings they have received.

The unfaithful Church or party tries to secure its position by working on the lower nature of those who feel the weight of that burden. It neither gives the sense of peace or pardon, nor asserts the righteous severity of God’s commandments. It keeps their consciences uneasy, and traffics in its absolutions.