The Stewardship of a Scoundrel, Part 2 | How to be a Faithful Steward

Luke 16:1-8

Turn in your Bibles to Luke 16 and we’ll be looking at verses 1 to 8. Let’s read the whole thing now. “He also said, Jesus also said to the disciples, ‘There was a rich man who had a manager and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. He called him and said to him, “What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.” The manager said to himself, “What shall I do since my master is taking the management away from me? I’m not strong enough to dig and I’m ashamed to beg. I’ve decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.”

“‘So summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, “How much do you owe my master?” He said, “A hundred measures of oil.” He said to him, “Take your bill, sit down quickly and write fifty.” He said to another, “And how much do you owe?” He said, “A hundred measures of wheat.” He said to him, “Take your bill and write eighty.” The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.”

Nevertheless, the steward’s mind is reeling. You can imagine as he asks that first question, when he says, “What is this that I hear about you?” His heart is in his throat. The room is kind of spinning in the moment. Just lost his job. It’s very real potential for him that his troubles have really only just now started and once word gets out about the reason for his firing, man, he is through as a steward.

He’s through in this whole accounting gig. He can hang it up. If he wants the same kind of work, he wants to be entrusted again, with fiscal responsibility for any other landed gentleman, he’s gonna be forced to move far, far away, way from way this community where no one knows his name and then he’s got to start over from scratch. That is not an attractive proposition. So at this point the manager is facing a crisis.

This is an existential emergency. This has to do with his future survival. It has to do with his livelihood. And as he takes the long slow walk back to his own office, he’s gotta do some fast thinking, which brings us to point number two: A prudential strategy. By prudential, I mean an intelligent strategy, a shrewd strategy. Look at verse 3, and we’re picturing the dismissed manager here. He’s left the owner’s office. He’s leaving town heading back to the estate. He’s got to go to his own office to grab the ledgers, gather all the accounting files. And on the way the manager, verse 3, “says to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking away the management from me?’”

It’s kind of funny, the owner made it pretty clear. He just said, “You are no longer able to be manager.” That is present tense verb which points to a continuous present reality from that moment onward. Can’t be the manager. So from that point forward, the master no longer considers him his manager. He’s taken away the management full stop, no authority, no responsibility, no privilege, nothing. You’re not the manager. All the legal authority, responsibility, privilege is gone in that moment.

But this guy, in his mind, he’s thinking to himself, my master is taking away the management. Not has taken away, but is taking away. He’s thinking as if it’s still his, for the moment, as if he’s got still a little bit of time, as if he’s still got his job. It’s not yet over. In white collar business today, if you find somebody who needs to be let go from your company, you walk into their office and you seize everything right there. Pack up your pencils and any items of personal value in your desk, in front of me. Put them in that box and we’re going to escort you from the building. Nobody wants him to have any access to the files in the computer. Nobody wants him touching a thing. Once he knows he’s fired, that’s it.

Here, computers were called files. So there’s a gap. The owner thinks you’re done, go get the files and come back. And in that way, you’re just doing what you should do and bringing back the files. This guy is saying, uhuh, it’s not over yet. What’s he doing here? He’s scheming. First, he ponders some other options for a new career, and it’s kind of funny how he goes through his thinking. He considers first manual labor, quickly dismisses it. I’m not strong enough to dig.

He’s not dismissing this option because of his pride, but rather because of reality. I mean, this guy is white collar. There’s no dirt under his fingernails. He goes home clean every night. The position he just vacated, that is high level stuff. It took him many years to qualify for it. The skill, the competency to handle that level of an operation, takes a lot of time. So you got to picture this guy is an older, maybe middle-aged man. He’s probably well fed too, probably put on a few pounds. So, this is an accurate self-assessment. I am not strong enough to dig. Takes one look in the mirror. Not happening.

Another option, since he likes food is to beg for it, okay? So the term he uses, the grammar here, he’s imagining a future as a mendicant beggar. Someone who’s got a career in begging, panhandling in the streets. It’s probably despair talking of this moment, cause he really doesn’t consider it long. But he imagines there begging money from all of his former business associates. Can see them walking by and oh, Charlie is that you? Yeah, here’s a denarius. They all know the reason for his dismissal. He can’t bear the shame of that.

So he snaps back to reality, brushes that aside. I’m ashamed to beg. Verse 4 though he pulls himself together and he says, again, it’s pictured as him having a eureka moment, a sudden burst of inspiration, “I have decided what to do.” Literally, it’s I know what I should do. I know. We don’t find out what the plan is until he executes on the plan in the next three verses. Takes action, moves quickly. That’s the sense of urgency that’s there. It goes from I know and then boom, he’s doing it.

But what do we learn from this eureka moment? It’s the why of the plan. He gives us his reason. His motivation. He goes from I know, and then the reason why, what he’s after. It’s in order that, I know what I should do in order that, purpose clause. In order that when I am removed from management, people “may receive me into their houses.” He has come up with a perfect strategy and it’s not just to get room and board. He’s not just looking for hospitality. His strategy is to find a new place of employment, not as a digger, not as a beggar, but as a steward again. He wants to be a manager. He wants his job back. Maybe not with this man, but he wants his job back because he wants the gravy train to continue. Pretty good gig if you can get it.

He’s ruined the opportunity with his old boss, but it doesn’t mean he can’t find new employment elsewhere with perhaps somebody else. If he can just swing this whole situation to his favor. This guy’s smart, he’s cunning. He’s even daring since his plan involves, and here’s a third point for your outline if you’re building one, a deceitful generosity. In verses 5-7, we see that strategy in action. It says, “So summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘how much do you owe my master?’ He said, A hundred measures of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’”

Now, here is one of a number of major points, but here’s one of the major points of the parable that interpreters vary on, and they vary widely. They disagree on several points, but this has to be the most consequential of those points. There’s a set of questions I’ll pose to you to help you see why there’s such a divergence of opinions on this. First, what do we see the manager doing here? What is he doing by reducing the amounts of the bills? Is he just simply forgoing his commission? Or did he cheat them to begin with and now he’s just removing the cheat? Were the charges inflated from the start and now he’s removed the inflation? Is that what’s going on? Or something else?

Second, maybe, depending on how we answer the first question, the first set of questions, does any of this reflect on the character of the landowner? Have he and this steward been cooperating together? Or perhaps, it’s not the steward and the landowner, but the steward and the debtors. Maybe they are complicit in the two of them deceiving the landowner, and that’s what’s going on. Are the tenants in on the plan to cheat the owner of money that he’s owed? Or are they ignorant? Are they completely in the dark here?

Wide, varied interpretations, some of them quite complex. I’ll try to simplify all that, but there are some who see the master and the steward as conspiring together to cheat the other farmers. That is, the two of them they’re in cahoots. They jacked up the rent, they added a hundred percent increase on the oil. This olive oil basically is fuel. I mean it provides for cooking, that’s how we are familiar with it today, but they lit lamps with it. So, this is their lights at night, very important.

So, they added this hundred percent increase on the oil and a twenty five percent increase on the wheat. The original bill was eighty and then they added a twenty five percent increase. So now it’s a hundred measures of wheat. Is that what they’ve done? As we have yet to see, the master’s character is such that he could not be involved in this kind of a scam. He’s not in cahoots with the steward to cheat the other farmers. He couldn’t try to get away with something like this. He could try it, but it wouldn’t work for long. Any businessman who is considering the use of his property, any businessman once they figured out the outrageous injustice of charging such high rents, they take their business elsewhere.

Besides that, if the owner were a man of disreputable character, what explains the report that was brought to him by that anonymous concerned party in verse 1? Who’d care to do that? Or the way that he deals with this prodigal manager in verse 2? Did he call him in and just give him a little slap on the wrist? Perhaps the steward is acting alone. Maybe he’s cheating the tenants without the master’s knowledge? Well, that would mean first, that he’s inflated the bills on his own to an incredibly high level, and it also means, secondly, that the owner is utterly oblivious to all this going on underneath his nose. He’s totally ignorant. Is that true? That’s what many commentators believe.

But listen, that view really doesn’t fit the evidence here. It doesn’t line up with what Jesus has described in telling the story, and it doesn’t fit the evidence of the culture either. First of all, as the legal agent of the master’s estate, the steward received a salary from the master. He’s being paid and he’s being very well paid. That’s why he’s got that job. He also receives an official fee from the farmers for his role in awarding contracts and brokering and creating contracts. There’s a fee for every transaction that’s legal, justifiable. It’s also likely he’s got a little something coming to him under the table from his master’s tenants as well, little tokens and gratuities were often and commonly practiced back then.

So he’s well paid. He’s not charged actually with greed and fraud and embezzlement, he’s charged with squandering. And then secondly, even if he wanted to cheat his master’s tenants, all these contracts he creates, they’re not sealed and secured in such a way that no one else can review them. One commentator cites a Mishnaic passage that says this, “Agents may not write contracts of share tendencies or fixed rate tendencies except with the knowledge and agreement of both parties and the tenant must pay the fee.”

So, in other words, the contract is legally binding only when both parties are present in front of each other. When the tenant and the agent, that is here, the agent is a steward acting on behalf of the owner. When they both are there present and they both sign and countersign the contract. And after that contract is signed, in the presence becomes a matter of public record. Anybody can look at that contract. So, if a greedy larcenous steward is trying to inflate the bills on his own in secret, especially to the tune of a hundred percent increase on oil, twenty five percent increase on wheat. Listen, tenants aren’t going to tolerate that for one moment. The owner has access to all this anyway. He’s keeping accounts as well. He’s checking in from time to time, but the tenants they’re not going to allow that. They’re going to run directly to the master, complain about this jacked up rate.

This brings us to thirdly, the master, the landowner. Again, Jesus has not pictured the kind of man who is disengaged. This guy isn’t aloof. This isn’t a small thing to him, like some estate out in the country. This man is a decisive, take charge, hands on kind of a leader. He reacts quickly. He’s intelligent, conscientious, as a landowner. He has access to tenant contracts at any time. There is no way that a rogue steward could on his own, inflate the bills and get away with it.

There are other views as well, and let’s take another pass at the verses and see what’s really going on here. Notice that the steward, this manager, notice what he does in verse 5. He summons his master’s debtors. That is, he has the authority as steward, and authority delegated to him by the owner. He has the authority to summon them to himself; to call them into an unscheduled meeting, and this is an unscheduled meeting.

Socially, you need to understand on the social ladder, these wealthy farmers are his superiors. But legally, in this situation, he has the authority because he represents the owner. He can’t take advantage of that authority order them around willy nilly, but they are inclined to respond when he calls. When he summons, they come. Now we know, because we’ve read. We know, because Jesus has said, we know he’s fired. So technically speaking, we all know he no longer has this authority, but the farmers don’t know that yet.

By summoning them now, that it’s not at harvest time, not at bill paying time. He’s summoning them off schedule, not when rent is due. They’re going to see this summoning, this meeting as totally out of the ordinary. They’d know something’s up. They know something irregular is going on and they’re going to expect a very good explanation coming out of this inconvenience to their schedule. They’re going to get one.

But notice also how he summons the debtors, it says one by one. And why is that? He doesn’t want them talking to each other. He wants to keep them in the dark as long as possible, because once his plan gets back to the owner, it’s over. He’s got to do this now. He’s got to do it quickly, in haste. So he says to the first, “How much do you owe my master?” Just to clarify, he’s not looking for information here. He knows exactly what this farmer owes his master. He’s got the farmer’s contract in his files. So when the farmer arrives, he pulls out the man’s contract, hands it to him, and has him read the amount owed. 

“Summoning his master’s debtor one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master? He said a hundred measures of oil.’” Hangs in the air. “He said to him,” good news, “take out your bill, sit down quickly,” why does he gotta do it quickly? He’s in a hurry. “and write fifty.” He’s in a hurry. In fact, he’s in enough of a hurry, he’s not thinking here of percentages. He’s not interested in doing math. He’s simplifying this, and he’s applying an across the board five hundred denarii discount to every single one of the bills. So he calls in the next man verse 7, “And he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘take your bill and write eighty.’”

I’m not gonna do the math now. I’m not going to show you all my work, but it works out. This is another five hundred denarii reduction of the bill. Everyone’s getting the same thing. This isn’t a percentage of the gross, it’s five hundred for every single person. Everyone is getting the same thing, so just in case they do happen to talk on the way out. And they’re going to, but there’s no opportunity here for complaining.

The net effect is a five hundred denarii gift, maybe upwards of seventy-five thousand dollars in today’s money. That gift comes from the master. It comes to each one of these tenant farmers and it’s totally unexpected, and each gift comes to them, note, by the hand of this wily little thieving, conniving steward. You can bet he slipped in some comments in there about his role in persuading the landowner, this is a good gesture. About giving him the idea. About all the work that he’s going through to execute on. This guy is a total scoundrel, isn’t he?

None of these farmers know that the steward is no longer the steward. None of them know that he’s not the authorized agent to discount their bill. None of them know that he has schemed to ingratiate himself to them, hoping for a job from them in the future. They’re completely in the dark. They got a good relationship with the landowner and the last thing they want to do is conspire to cheat him. It’s all of them know the character of this landowner so, it wouldn’t be hard for them mentally to make the leap to see this gift as consistent with the landowner’s very generous nature. I mean, I knew he was a good guy, but wow, this is great.

What’s the potential problem? What’s the little wrinkle in the plan? Well, once word gets back to the landowner, which it eventually does, verse 8, we might wonder why the master didn’t just expose this steward. Why he doesn’t go around and reveal the deceitful nature of this generosity? That this little gift isn’t a gift. Why doesn’t he go and null and void all these fraudulent contracts to revert back to the original contract? Why would he simply do that? What is it that compels the master to keep his lips shut?

First, because we need to understand he’s not American, he’s Semitic. It’s a cultural issue here. He’s not a western thinker. He’s eastern in his thinking. He’s from an oriental shame, honor culture. So, this wealthy gentleman, he’s never going to shame his partners by reneging on the gift, no matter how it came about. And furthermore, he never also in the same breath, sacrifice his own honor. He would rather suffer the financial loss than bear the public disgrace. The shame that he has been duped and outwitted by this wily little steward. I could get my hands on him.

But second, imagine the public relations sensation this guy would be, instantly. I mean, all of his tenants going out and rejoicing in public, over the master’s, unexpected generosity. This is incredibly liberal gift, unexpected, not on schedule. Totally takes them by surprise. They’d be elated. Yeah, it’s gotta be the talk of the town. He’s gonna be praised by everyone and this is going to spread outside this community, out into the region, even further. For this kindness and this generosity. So, in the hands of this crafty little steward, this shrewd manager, this total scoundrel. An existential emergency birthed a prudential strategy. It was worked out in a deceitful generosity.

We come to a final point, from the lips of the master. Number four, a justifiable eulogy. Here’s the conclusion of the parable, first part of verse 8. “The master commended,” the word praised. That’s literally the word there. “He praised the dishonest manager for his shrewdness.” It’s easy to see why people may be puzzled by that, but as T.W. Manson puts it, “The differences between I applaud the dishonest steward because he acted cleverly, and I applaud the clever steward because he acted dishonestly.” He’s not commending his dishonesty, but his cleverness.

I mean, what can he say? I mean, this dishonest manager put him in quite a spot. Quite surprisingly, it turned out in a way he could never have imagined, and not for the worse for him either. The tenant farmers are rejoicing. The master’s public images skyrocketed, it had shot through the roof. The jobless steward’s prospects are looking pretty bright. The master is not praising his dishonesty though. Rather, his shrewdness. The master can despise the unrighteousness of the plan, and at the same time, in the same mind he could admire the cleverness of it all.

And we understand this, don’t we? We enjoy similar stories about hucksters and con artists. I mean, we despise the brazenness of their dishonesty. We could see the consequences, terrible consequences of their unrighteousness, but we also enjoy reading, watching the clever cons that they pull on other people. Same thing here. You can imagine the disciples listening to Jesus. Others as well, they love this story. This is amazing.

The word translated shrewd here, is phronimos. Phronimos, which refers to a kind of worldly wisdom, is the skillful application of cunning for the sake of self-preservation. It’s being cunning because he’s got his own interest, his self-preservation to think of. It’s what we see in the unjust steward. He’s clearly unscrupulous. He deserves a very public and a very severe punishment for all this. But he did what he had to do to his, to ensure his survival here. That part, at the very least is commendable and that’s what Jesus thinks anyway.

As he concludes the parable, verse 8, draws our attention to the implications. “The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.” John Calvin writes, “To make donations out of what belongs to another man is an action which is very far from deserving applause. And who would patiently endure that an unprincipled villain should rob him of his property and give it away according to his fancy?” Think again about the plan hatched in the mind of that unjust, unrighteous, unscrupulous steward. What was it that emboldened this man in the first place? What gave him the opportunity or the idea to attempt such a thing? Wasn’t it the kindness of the master? The patience of the owner in dealing with this wasteful steward?

That became an occasion for him to take additional advantage. How much more, beloved, should we consider that we serve such a kind and merciful God? Full of goodness and grace that we would pursue excellence in the stewardship of our own lives. That we would not be mediocre Christians. But that instead, we would be excellent stewards of all the resources that he’s given us. Good stewards of our time. Good stewards of our money. Good stewards of our words. Good stewards of our thought life. Good stewards of everything God’s put in our care.

I interrupted John Calvin, but he’s got more to say. He goes on saying, “Christ means that ungodly and worldly men are more industrious and skillful in conducting the affairs of this fading life than the children of God are anxious to obtain the heavenly and eternal life or careful to make it the subject of their study and meditation.” Calvin says, “By this comparison. He,” that is Jesus, “charges us with a highly criminal indifference in not providing for the future, with at least as much earnestness as ungodly men display by attending to their own interests in this world.

“How disgraceful is it that the children of light whom God enlightens by his spirit and word should slumber and neglect the hope of eternal blessedness, held out to them while worldly men are so eagerly bent on their own accommodations and so provident and sagacious.” Sagacious meaning wise. How disgraceful indeed. May none of us be like that unrighteous steward. Taking our Lord’s grace for granted. May we not see his patience as a reason to not repent of our sins. Viewing his mercy as a reason to take more advantage. Let us instead take hold of our stewardship.