In Luke 16:1 we have come to the Parable of the Unjust Steward. In my previous post I identified the unjust steward as the high priest in particular, but in general he could be any one of the Jewish authorities in Jesus’ day. In the parable it doesn’t appear that the rich man immediately deprived his steward of his office (Luke 16:4) and neither was Eli, the high priest when Samuel was a boy (cf. 1Samuel 2:31-33), immediately deprived of his office as. Rather, they would continue, until that faithful priest would come along whom the Lord had chosen (cf. 1Samuel 2:35).
In the context of the Parable of the Unjust Steward, it doesn’t appear as though any of the rich man’s debtors understood that the steward had been rejected, or was even presently held accountable for his unjust deeds. For all they knew, the steward (priest) was still a man in good standing with the rich man (i.e. God). So, when the steward forgave part of the debt the rich man’s debtors owed their lord, it seems to me that they would have considered it a command that came from the rich man (God) himself.
Therefore, in this context, forgiveness meant removing their obligation to God, as that obligation is understood in his word (the bill in the parable). However, once this was done, the change of the bill (the Law) obligated God’s debtors to the steward (cf. Matthew 23:1-28), because only he was able to interpret the bill or what the word of God required (cf. Luke 16:6-7).
In other words, the rich man’s (God’s) debtors were unaware that the steward (the high priest and those he appointed to authority) had been rejected, so when the Law (the bill in the parable) was interpreted in such a manner that part of the people’s debt to God was forgiven, they were glad. Believing that this new interpretation was legitimate, it ingratiated the people to their authorities, who seemed to be unburdening them of guilt associated with the evil they had done or would have liked to do. Such an interpretation reduced their obligation to obey the Law.
With a bit of sarcasm, the rich man commended the steward for his craftiness (wisdom in the ways of this world), which permitted the unjust steward to continue to enjoy the fruits of his stewardship, even though he no longer represented his lord (Luke 16:8). The steward found a way to have his cake and eat it too! He could waste his life, as he had been doing (Luke 16:1), and still benefit from the office he held as the rich man’s steward (priest). Nevertheless, just as the Lord wasn’t happy with Eli, the high priest (1Samuel 2:30-31), so the rich man in the Parable of the Unjust Steward wasn’t happy with what the steward had done. Therefore, his praise for his steward must be taken as ironical, because, in effect, the steward removed his lord from having any input or say as to how his goods would be distributed (or how indebtedness would be recognized), and he was denied any fruit that would have given him joy (viz. repentance).
Therefore, it seems to me that the actions of the unjust steward are a very grave matter. It is not as simple as a quick interpretation of the parable might make it seem. The steward isn’t simply reducing debt. He has no power to do that. The debt owed is still required by the rich man. What seems to be the case is the steward has come between the rich man and his debtors. He is not really extorting anything from his former lord, but he is not only extorting a living from the rich man’s debtors, but he is causing them to have an improper understanding of the gravity of their own relationship with the rich man (God). By ingratiating the people to himself, he had drawn their allegiance away from the rich man (God), and in doing so, he has brought untold pain and hardship upon them in the judgment of the nation that would occur in 70 AD.
Smoodock's Blog 