Luke 16:1

We mistake if we imagine that the design of Christ's doctrine and holy religion was either to amuse us with notions of divine mysteries or to entertain us with notions of divine mercies. No, the divine revelation of both these in the gospel is intended to engage and quicken us to the practice of Christian duties, and, as much as any one thing, to the duty of beneficence and doing good to those who stand in need of any thing that either we have or can do for them. This our Saviour is here pressing us to, by reminding us that we are but stewards of the manifold grace of God; and since we have in divers instances been unfaithful, and have forfeited the favour of our Lord, it is our wisdom to think how we may, some other way, make what we have in the world turn to a good account. Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord, but that, in the general, we must so lay out what we have in works of piety and charity as that we may meet it again with comfort on the other side death and the grave. If we would act wisely, we must be diligent and industrious to employ our riches in the acts of piety and charity, in order to promote our future and eternal welfare, as worldly men are in laying them out to the greatest temporal profit, in making to themselves friends with them, and securing other secular interests. So Dr. Clarke. Now let us consider,

I. The parable itself, in which all the children of men are represented as stewards of what they have in this world, and we are but stewards. Whatever we have, the property of it is God's; we have only the use of it, and that according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. Rabbi Kimchi, quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, says, "This world is a house; heaven the roof; the stars the lights; the earth, with its fruits, a table spread; the Master of the house is the holy and blessed God; man is the steward, into whose hands the goods of this house are delivered; if he behave himself well, he shall find favour in the eyes of his Lord; if not, he shall be turned out of his stewardship." Now,

1. Here is the dishonesty of this steward. He wasted his lord's goods, embezzled them, misapplied them, or through carelessness suffered them to be lost and damaged; and for this he was accused to his lord, Luk 16:1. We are all liable to the same charge. We have not made a due improvement of what God has entrusted us with in this world, but have perverted his purpose; and, that we may not be for this judged of our Lord, it concerns us to judge ourselves.

2. His discharge out of his place. His lord called for him, and said, "How is it that I hear this of thee? I expected better things from thee." He speaks as one sorry to find himself disappointed in him, and under a necessity of dismissing him from his service: it troubles him to hear it; but the steward cannot deny it, and therefore there is no remedy, he must make up his accounts; and be gone in a little time, Luk 16:2. Now this is designed to teach us, (1.) That we must all of us shortly be discharged from our stewardship in this world; we must not always enjoy those things which we now enjoy. Death will come, and dismiss us from our stewardship, will deprive us of the abilities and opportunities we now have of doing good, and others will come in our places and have the same. (2.) That our discharge from our stewardship at death is just, and what we have deserved, for we have wasted our Lord's goods, and thereby forfeited our trust, so that we cannot complain of any wrong done us. (3.) That when our stewardship is taken from us we must give an account of it to our Lord: After death the judgment. We are fairly warned both of our discharge and our account, and ought to be frequently thinking of them.

3. His after-wisdom. Now he began to consider, What shall I do? Luk 16:3. He would have done well to have considered this before he had so foolishly thrown himself out of a good place by his unfaithfulness; but it is better to consider late than never. Note, Since we have all received notice that we must shortly be turned out of our stewardship, we are concerned to consider what we shall do then. He must live; which way shall he have a livelihood? (1.) He knows that he has not such a degree of industry in him as to get his living by work: "I cannot dig; I cannot earn by bread by my labour." But why can he not dig? It does not appear that he is either old or lame; but the truth is, he is lazy. His cannot is a will not; it is not a natural but a moral disability that he labours under; if his master, when he turned him out of the stewardship, had continued him in his service as a labourer, and set a task-master over him, he would have made him dig. He cannot dig, for he was never used to it. Now this intimates that we cannot get a livelihood for our souls by any labour for this world, nor indeed do any thing to purpose for our souls by any ability of our own. (2.) He knows that he has not such a degree of humility as to get his bread by begging: To beg I am ashamed. This was the language of his pride, as the former of his slothfulness. Those whom God, in his providence, has disabled to help themselves, should not be ashamed to ask relief of others. This steward had more reason to be ashamed of cheating his master than of begging his bread. (3.) He therefore determines to make friends of his lord's debtors, or his tenants that were behind with their rent, and had given notes under their hands for it: "I am resolved what to do, Luk 16:4. My lord turns me out of his house. I have none of my own to go to. I am acquainted with my lord's tenants, have done them many a good turn, and now I will do them one more, which will so oblige them that they will bid me welcome to their houses, and the best entertainment they afford; and so long as I live, at least till I can better dispose of myself, I will quarter upon them, and go from one good house to another." Now the way he would take to make them his friends was by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord, and giving it in his accounts so much less than it was. Accordingly, he sent for one, who owed his lord a hundred measures of oil (in that commodity he paid his rent): Take thy bill, said he, here it is, and sit down quickly, and write fifty (Luk 16:6); so he reduced his debt to the one half. Observe, he was in haste to have it done: "Sit down quickly, and do it, lest we be taken treating, and suspected." He took another, who owed his lord a hundred measures of wheat, and from his bill he cut off a fifth part, and bade him write fourscore (Luk 16:7); probably he did the like by others, abating more or less according as he expected kindness from them. See here what uncertain things our worldly possessions are; they are most so to those who have most of them, who devolve upon others all the care concerning them, and so put it into their power to cheat them, because they will not trouble themselves to see with their own eyes. See also what treachery is to be found even among those in whom trust is reposed. How hard is it to find one that confidence can be reposed in! Let God be true, but every man a liar. Though this steward is turned out for dealing dishonestly, yet still he does so. So rare is it for men to mend of a fault, though they smart for it.

4. The approbation of this: The lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely, Luk 16:8. It may be meant of his lord, the lord of that servant, who, though he could not but be angry at his knavery, yet was pleased with his ingenuity and policy for himself; but, taking it so, the latter part of the verse must be the words of our Lord, and therefore I think the whole is meant of him. Christ did, as it were, say, "Now commend me to such a man as this, that knows how to do well for himself, how to improve a present opportunity, and how to provide for a future necessity." He does not commend him because he had done falsely to his master, but because he had done wisely for himself. Yet perhaps herein he did well for his master too, and but justly with the tenants. He knew what hard bargains he had set them, so that they could not pay their rent, but, having been screwed up by his rigour, were thrown behindhand, and they and their families were likely to go to ruin; in consideration of this, he now, at going off, did as he ought to do both in justice and charity, not only easing them of part of their arrears, but abating their rent for the future. How much owest thou? may mean, "What rent dost thou sit upon? Come, I will set thee an easier bargain, and yet no easier than what thou oughtest to have." He had been all for his lord, but now he begins to consider the tenants, that he might have their favour when he had lost his lord's. The abating of their rent would be a lasting kindness, and more likely to engage them than abating their arrears only. Now this forecast of his, for a comfortable subsistence in this world, shames our improvidence for another world: The children of this world, who choose and have their portions in it, are wiser for their generation, act more considerately, and better consult their worldly interest and advantage, than the children of light, who enjoy the gospel, in their generation, that is, in the concerns of their souls and eternity. Note, (1.) The wisdom of worldly people in the concerns of this world is to be imitated by us in the concerns of our souls: it is their principle to improve their opportunities, to do that first which is most needful, in summer and harvest to lay up for winter, to take a good bargain when it is offered them, to trust the faithful and not the false. O that we were thus wise in our spiritual affairs! (2.) The children of light are commonly outdone by the children of this world. Not that the children of this world are truly wise; it is only in their generation. But in that they are wiser than the children of light in theirs; for, though we are told that we must shortly be turned out of our stewardship, yet we do not provide as we were to be here always and as if there were not another life after this, and are not so solicitous as this steward was to provide for hereafter. Though as children of the light, that light to which life and immortality are brought by the gospel, we cannot but see another world before us, yet we do not prepare for it, do not send our best effects and best affections thither, as we should.

II. The application of this parable, and the inferences drawn from it (Luk 16:9): "I say unto you, you my disciples" (for to them this parable is directed, Luk 16:1), "though you have but little in this world, consider how you may do good with that little." Observe,

1. What it is that our Lord Jesus here exhorts us to; to provide for our comfortable reception to the happiness of another world, by making good use of our possessions and enjoyments in this world: "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, as the steward with his lord's goods made his lord's tenants his friends." It is the wisdom of the men of this world so to manage their money as that they may have the benefit of it hereafter, and not for the present only; therefore they put it out to interest, buy land with it, put it into this or the other fund. Now we should learn of them to make use of our money so as that we may be the better for it hereafter in another world, as they do in hopes to be the better for it hereafter in this world; so cast it upon the waters as that we may find it again after many days, Ecc 11:1. And in our case, though whatever we have are our Lord's goods, yet, as long as we dispose of them among our Lord's tenants and for their advantage, it is so far from being reckoned a wrong to our Lord, that it is a duty to him as well as policy for ourselves. Note, (1.) The things of this world are the mammon of unrighteousness, or the false mammon, not only because often got by fraud and unrighteousness, but because those who trust to it for satisfaction and happiness will certainly be deceived; for riches are perishing things, and will disappoint those that raise their expectations from them. (2.) Though this mammon of unrighteousness is not to be trusted to for a happiness, yet it may and must be made use of in subserviency to our pursuit of that which is our happiness. Though we cannot find true satisfaction in it, yet we may make to ourselves friends with it, not by way of purchase or merit, but recommendation; so we may make God and Christ our friends, the good angels and saints our friends, and the poor our friends; and it is a desirable thing to be befriended in the account and state to come. (3.) At death we must all fail, hotan eklipēte - when ye suffer an eclipse. Death eclipses us. A tradesman is said to fail when he becomes a bankrupt. We must all thus fail shortly; death shuts up the shop, seals up the hand. Our comforts and enjoyments on earth will all fail us; flesh and heart fail. (4.) It ought to be our great concern to make it sure to ourselves, that when we fail at death we may be received into everlasting habitations in heaven. The habitations in heaven are everlasting, not made with hands, but eternal, Co2 5:1. Christ is gone before, to prepare a place for those that are his, and is there ready to receive them; the bosom of Abraham is ready to receive them, and, when a guard of angels carries them thither, a choir of angels is ready to receive them there. The poor saints that are gone before to glory will receive those that in this world distributed to their necessities. (5.) This is a good reason why we should use what we have in the world for the honour of God and the good of our brethren, that thus we may with them lay up in store a good bond, a good security, a good foundation for the time to come, for an eternity to come. See Ti1 6:17-19, which explains this here.

2. With what arguments he presses this exhortation to abound in works of piety and charity.

(1.) If we do not make a right use of the gifts of God's providence, how can we expect from him those present and future comforts which are the gifts of his spiritual grace? Our Saviour here compares these, and shows that though our faithful use of the things of this world cannot be thought to merit any favour at the hand of God, yet our unfaithfulness in the use of them may be justly reckoned a forfeiture of that grace which is necessary to bring us to glory, and that is it which our Saviour here shows, Luk 16:10-14.

[1.] The riches of this world are the less; grace and glory are the greater. Now if we be unfaithful in the less, if we use the things of this world to other purposes than those for which they were given us, it may justly be feared that we should be so in the gifts of God's grace, that we should receive them also in vain, and therefore they will be denied us: He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. He that serves God, and does good, with his money, will serve God, and do good, with the more noble and valuable talents of wisdom and grace, and spiritual gifts, and the earnests of heaven; but he that buries the one talent of this world's wealth will never improve the five talents of spiritual riches. God withholds his grace from covetous worldly people more than we are aware of. [2.] The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain; they are the unrighteous mammon, which is hastening from us apace, and, if we would make any advantage of it, we must bestir ourselves quickly; if we do not, how can we expect to be entrusted with spiritual riches, which are the only true riches? Luk 16:11. Let us be convinced of this, that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich towards God, rich in Christ, in the promises, and in the earnests of heaven; and therefore let us lay up our treasure in them, expect our portion from them, and mind them in the first place, the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof, and then, if other things be added to us, use them in ordine ad spiritualia - with a spiritual reference, so that by using them well we may take the faster hold of the true riches, and may be qualified to receive yet more grace from God; for God giveth to a man that is good in his sight, that is, to a free-hearted charitable man, wisdom, and knowledge, and joy (Ecc 2:26); that is, to a man that is faithful in the unrighteous mammon, he gives the true riches. [3.] The riches of this world are another man's. They are ta allotria, not our own; for they are foreign to the soul and its nature and interest. They are not our own; for they are God's; his title to them is prior and superior to ours; the property remains in him, we are but usufructuaries. They are another man's; we have them from others; we use them for others, and what good has the owner from his goods that increase, save the beholding of them with his eyes, while still they are increased that eat them; and we must shortly leave them to others, and we know not to whom? But spiritual and eternal riches are our own (they enter into the soul that becomes possessed of them) and inseparably; they are a good part that will never be taken away from us. If we make Christ our own, and the promises our own, and heaven our own, we have that which we may truly call our own. But how can we expect God should enrich us with these if we do not serve him with our worldly possessions, of which we are but stewards?

(2.) We have no other way to prove ourselves the servants of God than by giving up ourselves so entirely to his service as to make mammon, that is, all our worldly gain, serviceable to us in his service (Luk 16:13): No servant can serve two masters, whose commands are so inconsistent as those of God and mammon are. If a man will love the world, and hold to that, it cannot be but he will hate God and despise him. He will make all his pretensions of religion truckle to his secular interests and designs, and the things of God shall be made to help him in serving and seeking the world. But, on the other hand, if a man will love God, and adhere to him, he will comparatively hate the world (whenever God and the world come in competition) and will despise it, and make all his business and success in the world some way or other conducive to his furtherance in the business of religion; and the things of the world shall be made to help him in serving God and working out his salvation. The matter is here laid plainly before us: Ye cannot serve God and mammon. So divided are their interests that their services can never be compounded. If therefore we be determined to serve God, we must disclaim and abjure the service of the world.

3. We are here told what entertainment this doctrine of Christ met with among the Pharisees, and what rebuke he gave them.

(1.) They wickedly ridiculed him, Luk 16:14. The Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things, and could not contradict him, but they derided him. Let us consider this, [1.] As their sin, and the fruit of their covetousness, which was their reigning sin, their own iniquity. Note, Many that make a great profession of religion, have much knowledge, and abound in the exercise of devotion, are yet ruined by the love of the world; nor does any thing harden the heart more against the word of Christ. These covetous Pharisees could not bear to have that touched, which was their Delilah, their darling lust; for this they derided him, exemuktērizon auton - they snuffled up their noses at him, or blew their noses on him. It is an expression of the utmost scorn and disdain imaginable; the word of the Lord was to them a reproach, Jer 6:10. They laughed at him for going so contrary to the opinion and way of the world, for endeavouring to recover them from a sin which they were resolved to hold fast. Note, It is common for those to make a jest of the word of God who are resolved that they will not be ruled by it; but they will find at last that it cannot be turned off so. [2.] As his suffering. Our Lord Jesus endured not only the contradiction of sinners, but their contempt; they had him in derision all the day. He that spoke as never man spoke was bantered and ridiculed, that his faithful ministers, whose preaching is unjustly derided, may not be disheartened at it. It is no disgrace to a man to be laughed at, but to deserve to be laughed at. Christ's apostles were mocked, and no wonder; the disciple is not greater than his Lord.

(2.) He justly reproved them; not for deriding him (he knew how to despise the shame), but for deceiving themselves with the shows and colours of piety, when they were strangers to the power of it, Luk 16:15. Here is,

[1.] Their specious outside; nay, it was a splendid one. First, They justified themselves before men; they denied whatever ill was laid to their charge, even by Christ himself. They claimed to be looked upon as men of singular sanctity and devotion, and justified themselves in that claim: "You are they that do that, so as none ever did, that make it your business to court the opinion of men, and, right or wrong, will justify yourselves before the world; you are notorious for this." Secondly, They were highly esteemed among men. Men did not only acquit them from any blame they were under, but applauded them, and had them in veneration, not only as good men, but as the best of men. Their sentiments were esteemed as oracles, their directions as laws, and their practices as inviolable prescriptions.

[2.] Their odious inside, which was under the eye of God: "He knows your heart, and it is in his sight an abomination; for it is full of all manner of wickedness." Note, First, It is folly to justify ourselves before men, and to think this enough to bear us out, and bring us off, in the judgment of the great day, that men know no ill of us; for God, who knows our hearts, knows that ill of us which no one else can know. This ought to check our value for ourselves, and our confidence in ourselves, that God knows our hearts, and how much deceit is there, for we have reason to abase and distrust ourselves. Secondly, It is folly to judge of persons and things by the opinion of men concerning them, and to go down with the stream of vulgar estimate; for that which is highly esteemed among men, who judge according to outward appearance, is perhaps an abomination in the sight of God, who sees things as they are, and whose judgment, we are sure, is according to truth. On the contrary, there are those whom men despise and condemn who yet are accepted and approved of God, Co2 10:18.

(3.) He turned from them to the publicans and sinners, as more likely to be wrought upon by his gospel than those covetous conceited Pharisees (Luk 16:16): "The law and the prophets were indeed until John; the Old Testament dispensation, which was confined to you Jews, continued till John Baptist appeared, and you seemed to have the monopoly of righteousness and salvation; and you are puffed up with this, and this gains you esteem among men, that you are students in the law and the prophets; but since John Baptist appeared the kingdom of God is preached, a New Testament dispensation, which does not value men at all for their being doctors of the law, but every man presses into the gospel kingdom, Gentiles as well as Jews, and no man thinks himself bound in good manners to let his betters go before him into it, or to stay till the rulers and the Pharisees have led him that way. It is not so much a political national constitution as the Jewish economy was, when salvation was of the Jews; but it is made a particular personal concern, and therefore every man that is convinced he has a soul to save, and an eternity to provide for, thrusts to get in, lest he should come short by trifling and complimenting." Some give this sense of it; they derided Christ or speaking in contempt of riches, for, thought they, were there not many promises of riches and other temporal good things in the law and the prophets? And were not many of the best of God's servants very rich, as Abraham and David? "It is true," saith Christ, "so it was, but now that the kingdom of God is begun to be preached things take a new turn; now blessed are the poor, and the mourners, and the persecuted." The Pharisees, to requite the people for their high opinion of them, allowed them in a cheap, easy, formal religion. "But," saith Christ, "now that the gospel is preached the eyes of the people are opened, and as they cannot now have a veneration for the Pharisees, as they have had, so they cannot content themselves with such an indifferency in religion as they have been trained up in, but they press with a holy violence into the kingdom of God." Note, Those that would go to heaven must take pains, must strive against the stream, must press against the crowd that are going the contrary way.

(4.) Yet still he protests against any design to invalidate the law (Luk 16:17): It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, parelthein - to pass by, to pass away, though the foundations of the earth and the pillars of heaven are so firmly established, than for one tittle of the law to fail. The moral law is confirmed and ratified, and not one tittle of that fails; the duties enjoined by it are duties still; the sins forbidden by it are sins still. Nay, the precepts of it are explained and enforced by the gospel, and made to appear more spiritual. The ceremonial law is perfected in the gospel colours; not one tittle of that fails, for it is found printed off in the gospel, where, though the force of it is as a law taken off, yet the figure of it as a type shines very brightly, witness the epistle to the Hebrews. There were some things which were connived at by the law, for the preventing of greater mischiefs, the permission of which the gospel has indeed taken away, but without any detriment or disparagement to the law, for it has thereby reduced them to the primitive intention of the law, as in the case of divorce (Luk 16:18), which we had before, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9. Christ will not allow divorces, for his gospel is intended to strike at the bitter root of men's corrupt appetites and passions, to kill them, and pluck them up; and therefore they must not be so far indulged as that permission did indulge them, for the more they are indulged the more impetuous and headstrong they grow.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk_16:1-13. The Unjust Steward.

1. And he said also unto his disciples] In interpreting the two following parables it is specially necessary to bear in mind the tertium comparationis, i.e. the one special point which our Lord had in view. To press each detail into a separate dogmatic truth is a course which has led to flagrant errors in theology and even in morals.

a certain rich man, which had a steward] The rich man and the steward are both men of the world. It is only in one general aspect that they correspond to God and to ourselves as His stewards (Tit_1:7) who are ‘required to be faithful,’ 1Co_4:1-5. No parable has been more diversely and multitudinously explained than this. For instance in the steward some have seen the Pharisees, or the publicans, or Judas Iscariot, or Christ, or Satan, &c. To enter into and refute these explanations would take up much space and would be quite fruitless. We cannot be wrong if we seize as the main lesson of the parable the one which Christ Himself attached to it (8-12), namely, the use of earthly gifts of wealth and opportunity for heavenly and not for earthly aims.

was accused] In Classic Greek the word means ‘was slandered.’ Here it has the more general sense, but perhaps involves the notion of a secret accusation.

that he had wasted] i.e., had squandered upon himself.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

His disciples - The word “disciples,” here, is not to be restricted to the twelve apostles or to the seventy. The parable appears to have been addressed to all the professed followers of the Saviour who were present when it was delivered. It is connected with that in the preceding chapter. Jesus had there been discoursing with the scribes and Pharisees, and vindicating his conduct in receiving kindly publicans and sinners. These “publicans and sinners” are here particularly referred to by the word “disciples.” It was with reference to “them” that the whole discourse had arisen. After Jesus had shown the Pharisees, in the preceding chapter, the propriety of his conduct, it was natural that he should turn and address his disciples. Among them there might have been some who were wealthy. The “publicans” were engaged in receiving taxes, in collecting money, and their chief danger arose from that quarter - from covetousness or dishonesty.

Jesus always adapted his instructions to the circumstances of his hearers, and it was proper, therefore, that he should give “these disciples” instructions about their “special” duties and dangers. He related this parable, therefore, to show them “the danger of the love of money;” the guilt it would lead to Luk 16:1; the perplexities and shifts to which it would drive a man when once he had been dishonest Luk 16:3-7; the necessity of using money aright, since it was their chief business Luk 16:9; and the fact that if they would serve God aright they must give up supreme attachment to money Luk 16:13; and that the first duty of religion demanded that they should resolve to serve God, and be honest in the use of the wealth intrusted to them. This parable has given great perplexity, and many ways have been devised to explain it. The above solution is the most simple of any; and if these plain principles are kept in view, it will not be difficult to give a consistent explanation of its particular parts. It should be borne in mind, however, that in this, as well as in other parables, we are not to endeavor to spiritualize every circumstance or allusion. We are to keep in view the great moral truth taught in it, that we cannot serve God and mammon, and that all attempts to do this will involve us in difficulty and sin.

A steward - One who has charge of the affairs of a family or household; whose duty it is to provide for the family, to purchase provisions, etc. This is, of course, an office of trust and confidence. It affords great opportunity for dishonesty and waste, and for embezzling property. The master’s eye cannot always be on the steward, and he may, therefore, squander the property, or hoard it up for his own use. It was an office commonly conferred on a slave as a reward for fidelity, and of course was given to him that, in long service, had shown himself most trustworthy. By the “rich man,” here, is doubtless represented God. By the “steward,” those who are his professed followers, particularly the “publicans” who were with the Saviour, and whose chief danger arose from the temptations to the improper use of the money intrusted to them.

Was accused - Complaint was made.

Had wasted - Had squandered or scattered it; had not been prudent and saving.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Luk_16:1-8

There was a certain rich man, which had a steward

Christs servants are stewards

I.

SHOW WHAT THINGS THEY ARE ENTRUSTED WITH, THAT ARE NOT THEIR OWN.

1. All earthly good things, as riches, health, time, opportunities.

2. Also spiritual goods, viz., the gospel and its ministration, spiritual knowledge, gifts, grace, the worship of God, and His ordinances, promises, providences, and care of His holy temple or vineyard.

II. SHOW WHY WE MUST CAREFULLY IMPROVE ALL THINGS THAT ARE IN OUR HANDS.

1. Earthly things.

(1) Because, whatsoever we have put into our hands is to advance the honour of our great Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, and to refresh, comfort, and support the whole household where we are placed.

(2) Because we have nothing that is our own; it is our Lords goods.

(3) Because if we are not faithful in the least, it may stop the hand of Christ from giving the greater things to us.

(4) It will be otherwise a wrong and great injustice to the poor, or to such for the sake of whom they that are rich are entrusted with earthly wealth, in withholding that which is theirs by Christs appointment from them; and so a clear demonstration of unfaithfulness both to God and man; and it may provoke God to take away from them what they have.

(5) Because we must in a short time be called to give an account of our stewardship; we must expect to hear Christ say, What have you done with My gold and silver, My corn, My wool, and My flax? How is it that My poor have wanted bread and clothes, and My ministers have been neglected and forced to run into debt to buy necessaries to support their families?

(6) Because if these good things be not rightly and faith fully improved as Christ commands, His poor and His ministers may be exposed to great temptations, and their souls borne down and sorely discouraged; and Satan may get advantages against them, for many snares and dangers attend outward want; moreover the name of God and religion may also thereby be exposed to the contempt of the world. Who can believe we are the people of God, when they cannot see that love to one another among them which is the character of true Christians? Or how should they think that we believe the way we are in is the true way and worship of God?

2. Spiritual things.

(1) The gospel and its ministration, because it is given to the end that we may profit thereby. It is Christs chief treasure, and that which He intrusts very few with. If not improved, He may take it away from us, as He has already from others. When that goes, God, Christ, and all good goes, and all evil will come in.

(2) Spiritual gifts, knowledge, etc., because given for the use and profit of the Church; and they that have them are but stewards of them, which they are commanded to improve (1Pe_4:10). Use: Get your accounts ready; you know not but this night Christ may say, Give an account, etc. (B. Keach.)

All men are stewards of God

A friend stepping into the office of a Christian business man one day, noticed that he was standing at his desk with hit, hands full of banknotes, which he was carefully counting, as he laid them down one by one. After a brief silence the friend said: Mr. H----, just count out ten pounds from that pile of notes and make yourself or some other person a life member of the Christian Giving Society! He finished his count, and quickly replied, Im handling trust funds now! His answer instantly flashed a light on the entire work and life of a Christian, and the friend replied to his statement with the question, Do you ever handle anything but trust funds? If Christians would only realize that all that God gives us is in trust, what a change would come over our use of money! Im handling trust funds now. Let the merchant write the motto over his desk; the farmer over the income of his farm; the labourer over his wages; the professional man over his salary; the banker over his income; the housekeeper over her house expense purse; the boy and girl over pocket money--and what a change would be made in our life. A business man who had made a donation of one thousand pounds to a Christian enterprise, once said in the hearing of the writer--I hold that a man is accountable for every sixpence he gets. There is the gospel idea of trust funds. Let parents instruct and train their children to handle trust funds as the stewards of Gods bounty, and there will be a new generation of Christians.

The proper improvement of temporal possessions

I. That the common maxims of human wisdom in the conduct of worldly affairs, and even those of carnal and unjust policy, may be usefully applied for our direction in the concerns of religion, and they reproach the folly and slothfulness of Christians in working out their salvation; the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.

II. The second observation is, that riches and other gifts of providence are but little in comparison with the greater and more substantial blessings which God is ready to bestow on His sincere and faithful servants; that these inferior things are committed to Christians as to stewards for the trial of their fidelity, and they who improve them carefully to the proper ends for which they were given, are entitled to the greater benefits which others forfeit, and render themselves unworthy of, by negligence and unfaithfulness. This is the meaning of the 10th and 11th verses--He who is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much; if, therefore, you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true richest We may further observe upon this head, that God hath wisely ordered the circumstances of this life in subordination to another. The enjoyments of our present state are the means of trying our virtue, and the occasions of exercising it, that so by a due improvement of them to that purpose, we may be prepared for the perfection of virtue, and complete happiness hereafter. This might be illustrated in a variety of particular instances--indeed, in the whole compass of our worldly affairs, which, according as they are conducted, either minister to virtue or vice. By the various uncertain events of life, as some are tempted to different distracting passions, to eager, anxious desire, to fear and sorrow, so there is to better disposed minds an opportunity of growing in self dominion, in an equal and uniform temper, and a more earnest prevalent desire of true goodness, which is immutable in all external changes; in afflictions there is a trial and an increase of patience, which is of so much moment as to be represented in Scripture as the height of religious perfection. Knowledge, likewise, is capable of being greatly improved for the service of mankind; and all our talents of this sort, which are distributed promiscuously to men, though little in themselves, and with respect to the main ends of our being, yet to the diligent and faithful servant, who useth them well and wisely for the cause of virtue, and under the direction of its principles, they bring great returns of real and solid benefit, which shall abide with him for ever. Thus it appeareth that Divine Providence hath wisely ordered the circumstances of our condition in this world, in our infancy of being, so that by the proper exercise of our own faculties, and the industrious improvement of the opportunities which are afforded us, we may be prepared for a better and happier state hereafter. But if, on the contrary, we are unjust to our great Master, and to ourselves, that is, to our highest interest, in the little, which is now committed to us, we thereby forfeit the greatest good we are capable of, and deprive ourselves of the true riches. If in the first trial which God taketh of us, as moral agents during our immature state, our state of childhood, we do not act a proper part, but are given up to indolence and sloth, and to a prodigal waste of our talents, the consequences of this folly and wickedness will naturally, and by the just judgment of God, cleave to us in every stage of our existence; of which there is a familiar instance every day before us in those unhappy persons who having from early youth obstinately resisted the best instructions, for the most part continue unreclaimed through their whole lives, and bring themselves to a miserable end. Let us, therefore, always consider ourselves as now under probation and discipline, and that eternal consequences of the greatest moment depend upon our present conduct.

III. The third observation is, THAT THE THINGS OF THIS WORLD COMMITTED TO OUR TRUST ARE NOT OUR OWN, BUT THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER; BUT THE GIFTS OF GOD, GRANTED AS THE REWARD OF OUR IMPROVING THEM FAITHFULLY, HAVE A NEARER AND MORE IMMEDIATE RELATION TO OURSELVES, AND A STRICT INSEPARABLE CONNECTION WITH OUR HAPPINESS. And if you have not been faithful in that which is anothers, who will give you that which is your own? (Luk_16:12.) The things which are said to be anothers, are, the unrighteous mammon, and others like it; God is the sovereign proprietor of them; they are foreign to the constitution of the human nature, and their usefulness to it is only accidental and temporary. But the other goods, virtuous integrity and the favour of God, enter deeper into the soul, and by its essential frame are a never-failing spring of joy and consolation to it in every state of existence.

It is very surprising that a man, who so much loveth and is devoted to himself, being naturally and necessarily so determined, should be so ignorant, as many are, what that self really is, and thereby be misled to place his affections on something else instead of it. By the least attention every man will see that what is meant by himself is the same person or intelligent agent, the thinking, conscious I, which remaineth unaltered in all changes of condition, from the remembrance of his earliest thoughts and actions to the present moment. How remote from this are riches, power, honour, health, strength, the matter ingredient in the composition of the body, and even its limbs, which may be all lost, and self still the same? These things, therefore, are not our own, meaning by that, what most properly and unalienably belongeth to ourselves; we hold them by an uncertain, precarious tenure, they come and go, while the same conscious, thinking being, which is strictly the man himself, continueth unchanged, in honour and dishonour, in riches and poverty, in sickness and health, and all the other differences of our outward state. But, on the contrary, state of religious virtue, which it is the intention of Christianity to bring us to, and which is the immediate effect of improving our talents diligently and faithfully, that kingdom of God which is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; this is of a quite different kind, it entereth into our very selves, and closely adhereth to us; it improveth our nature, refineth and enlargeth its noblest powers; it is so much our own, as to become our very temper, and the ruling bent of our minds; there is nothing we are more directly conscious of in ourselves than good dispositions and good actions proceeding from them, and the consciousness is always accompanied with delight. The good man is therefore satisfied from himself, because his satisfaction ariseth from a review of his goodness which is intimately his own. (J. Abernethy, M. A.)

Stewardship

I. THE OFFICE OF STEWARD.

1. A steward is a man who administers a property which is not his own. His relation to property is distinguished on the one hand from that of those who have nothing to do with the property, because the steward has everything to do with it that he can do for its advantage; and, on the other hand, from that of the owner of the property, because the steward is no sense the owner of it, but only the administrator. His duty towards it is dependent on the will of another, and it may terminate at any moment.

2. The office of a steward is before all things a trust. It represents in human affairs a venture which the owner of a property makes, upon the strength of his estimate of the character of the man to whom he delegates the care of the property.

3. An account must at some time be rendered to some one.

(1) We are accountable to public opinion.

(2) To our own conscience.

(3) To God. If man has no account to give, no wrong that he does has the least consequence.

If man has no account to give, no wrong that is done to him, and that is unpunished by human law, will ever be punished. If man has no account to give, life is a hideous chaos; it is a game of chance in which the horrible and the grotesque alternately; bury out of sight the very last vestiges of a moral order. If man has no account to give, the old Epicurean rule in all its profound degradation may have much to say for itself (1Co_15:32).

II. HUMAN LIFE IS A STEWARDSHIP. We are stewards, whether as men or as Christians; not less in the order of nature than in the order of grace.

1. Every owner of property is in Gods sight a steward of that property, and, sooner or later, He will demand an account. Has it, however little, been spent conscientiously; or merely as the passion or freak of the moment might suggest?

2. Or, the estate of which we are stewards is a more interesting and precious one than this. It is situated in the world of the mind, in the region where none but knowledge and speculation and imagination and taste have their place and sway. Yet all this is not ours, but Gods. He is the Author of the gifts which have laid out the weed of taste and thought and knowledge; and each contributor to that world, and each student, or even each loiterer in it, is only the steward, the trustee, of endowments, of faculties which, however intimately his own when we distinguish him from other men, are not his own when we look higher and place them in the light of the rights of God. Give an account of thy stewardship. The real Author and Owner of the gifts of mind sometimes utters this summons to His stewards before the time of death. He withdraws the mental life of man, and leaves him still with the animal life intact and vigorous. Go to a lunatic asylum, that most pitiable assortment of all the possibilities of human degradation, and mark there, at least among some of the sufferers, those who abuse the stewardship of intelligence.

3. Or, the estate of which we are stewards is something higher still. It is the creed which we believe, the hopes which we cherish, the religion in which we find our happiness and peace as Christians. With this treasure, which He has withheld from others, God has entrusted us Christians, in whatever measure, for our own good, and also for the good of our fellow-men. Religion, too, is a loan, a trust; it is not an inalienable property.

4. And then, growing out of those three estates, is the estate of influence--that subtle, inevitable effect for good or for ill which man exerts uponthe lives of those around him. The question is, what use are we making of it; how is it telling upon friends, acquaintances, servants, correspondents, those who know us only from a distance--are we helping them upwards or downwards, to heaven or to hell? Surely a momentous question for all of us, since of this stewardship events may summon us before the end comes to give account.

5. And a last estate of which we are but stewards, is health and life. This bodily frame, so fearfully and wonderfully made, of such subtle and delicate texture that the wonder is that it should bear the wear and tear of time, and last as long as for many of us it does--of this we are not owners, we are only stewards. It is most assuredly no creation of our own, this body; and He who gave it us will in any case one day withdraw His gift. And yet how many a man thinks in his secret heart that if he owns nothing else, he does at least own, as its absolute master might own, the fabric of flesh and bones, nerves and veins, in which his animal life resides: that with this, at least, he may rightfully do what he will, even abuse and ruin and irretrievably degrade, and even kill; that here no question of anothers right can possibly occur; that here he is master on his own ground, and not a steward. Oh, piteous forgetfulness in a man who believes that he has a Creator, and that that Creator has His rights! Oh, piteous ingratitude in a Christian, who should remember that he is not his own, but is bought with a price, and that therefore he should glorify God in his body no less than in his spirit, since both are Gods! Oh, piteous illusion, the solemn moment for dissipating which is ever hurrying on apace! The Author of health and life has His own time for bidding us give an account of this solemn stewardship--often, too, when it is least expected. (Canon Liddon)

Moral stewardship

I. MEN ARE STEWARDS.

1. In regard to their talents.

(1) Time.

(2) Money.

(3) Physical, mental, and moral abilities.

2. In regard to their privileges. Each privilege is a sacred talent, to be utilized for personal, spiritual end. Golden in character. Uncertain in continuance.

3. In regard to their opportunities. Men are responsible not only for what they do, but also for what they are capable of doing.

II. MEN ARE STEWARDS ONLY. Whatever we have, we have received, hold in trust, and must account for to God.

III. THE RECKONING DAY IS COMING.

1. The day of reckoning is certain.

2. Uncertain as to the time.

3. Divine in its procedure. God Himself will make the final award.

4. Solemn in its character.

5. Eternal in its issues.

Learn--

1. That moral responsibility is a solemn thing.

2. It is imposed upon us without our own consent.

3. That we cannot avert the day of reckoning.

4. That upon the proper use of our talents shall we reap the reward of life and blessedness.

5. That unfaithfulness to our solemn responsibilities will entail eternal disgrace and everlasting reprobation. (J. Tesseyman.)

The stewardship of life

I. THE TRUST REPOSED IN US--Thy stewardship. Stewardship is based upon the idea of anothers proprietorship.

1. Of the Divine Proprietorship.

2. Stewardship implies interests entrusted to human keeping and administration.

3. Stewardship implies human capability. Faithfulness cannot be compelled by an omnipotent Ruler. It is a subject of moral choice.

II. THE END OF OUR STEWARDSHIP AS HERE SUGGESTED--Give an account. Thou mayest be no longer steward. Moral responsibility is the solemn heritage of all rational intelligences.

1. The stewardship may be held to be determinable at death. Moral power continues, and moral obligations and duties rest on the spirit. So, there will be stewardship in eternity. But here the concern is with the deeds done in the body.

2. Stewardship may practically be determined before the last hour of mortal history. (The Preachers Monthly.)

The unjust steward

1. We are stewards, not proprietors.

2. Let me urge upon you to be faithful in whatsoever position in life you may be.

3. It is only as you are in Christ, and Christ in you, that you will be able to realize your true position, and act with true faithfulness. (A. F. Barfield.)

Christian prudence

I. THE OBLIGATION TO THIS.

1. Because we are dependent on God.

2. Because we are accountable to Him.

II. ITS PROPER NATURE.

1. In general.

(1) It is provident of the future.

(2) It conceals not from itself the true state of matters.

(3) It is inventive of means for its well-being.

(4) It forms its purpose with greatest determination.

(5) It discloses clearly who or what can be of service to it for the accomplishment of its purpose.

(6) It does not content itself with purposes, but goes immediately to action.

(7) It employs the time without delay.

(8) It transacts everything with careful consideration.

2. In particular.

(1) It employs temporal goods in well-doing.

(2) It is mindful of death and the day of reckoning.

(3) It has an eye to eternal bliss.

III. THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT.

1. It obtains the approval of the Lord and Judge of all.

2. It renders us capable and worthy of receiving greater, truer, abiding goods. (F. G. Lisco.)

Lessons:--

1. A regard to our own interest is a commendable principle. The great fault which men commit is, that they mistake the nature as well as the means of happiness.

2. There is another object which our Saviour has in view. It is to compare the sagacity and exertion which worldly men employ in order to attain their ends with the lukewarmness and negligence of the children of light. Do we not see with what ardour and perseverance those who place their happiness in wealth pursue their grand object?

3. We learn from parable, and the observations of our Saviour which accompany it, the manner in which riches may be applied for the advancement of happiness.

4. From this passage we may learn the benefit which good men may derive from observing the vices which prevail around them. This lesson our Saviour has taught us. By seeing vice, as it appears in the world, we may learn the nature and character, the effects and consequences of it.

5. But the principal object of this parable was evidently to teach us that the exercise of forethought is an important duty required of all Christians. Forethought, then, is necessary to reformation. It is not less necessary to improvement. For does not improvement presuppose that we seek or watch for opportunities of exercising our benevolent affections--of doing good and kind actions--and of supplying the importunate wants of the needy and the destitute? (J. Thomson, D. D.)

The unjust steward an example in one respect

If we were to wait for perfect men, men perfect in all parts and on all sides of their character, before admiring them or asking others to admire them, whom should we admire? what models or examples could we hold up before our children or our neighbours? Instead of turning so foolishly from the instruction human life offers us, we detach this quality or that from the character of men, and admire that, without for a moment meaning to set up all the man was or did as a complete model, an exact and full epitome of human excellence. We can call the attention of our children to the dexterity of a cricketer or a juggler without supposing, or being supposed, to make him the beau ideal of mental and moral character. We can admire Lord Bacon as one of the greatest and wisest of mankind, if we also admit him to have been one of the meanest. We can quote an eminent sceptic as a very model of patience and candour, yet deplore his scepticism. Both we and the Bible can detach noble qualities from the baser matter with which they are blended, and say, Imitate these men in what was noble, pure, lovely, without being supposed to add, and imitate them also in what was mean, weak, immoral. Why, then, should we deny our Lord the liberty we claim for ourselves? What should we expect of Him but the mode of teaching which pervades the Bible throughout? Above all, why should we suppose Him to approve what is evil in the men He puts before us, unless He expressly warns us against it, when we ourselves, and the inspired writers, seldom make any such provision against misconception? Read the parable honestly, and, according to all the analogies of human and inspired speech, you will expect to find some excellent quality in the steward which you will do well to imitate; but you will not for an instant suppose that it is his evil qualities which you are to approve. Do any ask, What was this excellent quality? Mark what it is, and what alone it is, that even his lord commends in the Unjust Steward. It is not his injustice, but his prudence. His lord commended him because he had done wisely--because on a critical occasion he had acted with a certain promptitude and sagacity, because he had seen his end clearly and gone straight at it. Did he not deserve the praise? (S. Cox)

Our stewardship

I. IN THE PRESENT LIFE EVERY ONE OF US HAS THE CHARACTER AND PLACE OF A STEWARD.

II. THE TIME OF OUR STEWARDSHIP WILL HAVE AN END.

1. It will end certainly at death.

2. It may end suddenly.

3. Our stewardship, once ended, shall be renewed no more. When death comes, our negligences and mismanagement are fatal.

III. ON OUR CEASING TO BE STEWARDS, AN ACCOUNT OF OUR STEWARDSHIP WILL BE REQUIRED.

1. Who must give an account? I answer, every one that lives and is here a steward.

2. To whom? And this is to God; to God by Christ, to whom all judgment is com-mitred.

3. Of what will an account be demanded? The text says, of our stewardship, i.e., how we have acted in it while it lasted.

4. When will such aa account be demanded? The Scripture tells us--

(1) Immediately upon every ones going out of his stewardship.

(2) Most solemnly at the last day.

5. what is conveyed in the expression, Give an account of thy stewardship?

(1) That God will deal with every one in particular.

(2) That notice is taken, and records kept of what every one now does, and this in order to a future judgment, when all is to be produced, and sentence publicly passed.

(3) Every ones account called for to be given, shall be according to the talents wherewith he was entrusted.

Application:

1. Is every one in the present life to be considered as a steward of all that he enjoys? How unreasonable is pride in those who have the largest share of their Lords goods; as they have nothing but what they have received, and the more their talents, the greater the trust.

2. What cause of serious concern have all that live under the gospel, left, as stewards of the manifold grace of God, they should receive it in vain, and have their future condemnation aggravated by their present advantages, as neglected or abused?

3. Will the time of our stewardship have an end? What a value should we put upon it, as a season in which we are to act for eternity.

4. The believer has no reason to faint under the difficulties of his stewardship; seeing it will have an end, a most desirable one; and neither the services nor sufferings of the present time are worthy to be compared to the glory to be revealed.

5. When our stewardship ends, must an account be given up? It is hence evident, that the soul survives the body, and is capable of acting and of being dealt with in a way of wrath or mercy, according to the state in which it goes away; and hereupon--

6. How great and important a thing is it to die; it being to go in spirit to appear before God, and give an account of all that we have done in the body, and to be dealt with accordingly? What is consequent upon it? (Daniel Wilcox.)

Faithful stewardship

In this parable the man was dispossessed from his place because he wasted goods which did not belong to him. He had been in various ways careless. The particular nature of his carelessness is not specified; but this is specified--that he was to be dispossessed because he was not faithful in the management of the property of another. Our subject, then, is: The use of funds not your own, but intrusted to your administration or keeping. Men think they have a complete case when they say, Here is a power in my hand for a definite end, and I shall use it for that end; but I find that it is a power which may accomplish more than that: it can do good for more than the owner. I can use it and derive benefit from it. I can also benefit the community by my operations. Besides, it will never be known. Therefore men who are weaker than I will not be tempted by my example to do the same thing. It will never injure the owner, it will help me, through me it will benefit many others, and no evil shall come from it. This would seem to make the thing secure; but let us examine the matter.

1. It would not be honest, and therefore it would not be wise, to use other peoples property for our own benefit, secretly, even if it were safe. If it did them no harm, if it did you good, and if nobody knew it, it would not be honest. You have no business to do it under any circumstances. And it does not make it any better that you have managerial care over property. In that event the sin is even greater; for you are bound to see to it that it is used for the purposes for which it was committed to your trust, and not for anything aside from that.

2. No man has a right to put property that is not his own to all the risks of commerce. What if a man thus employing trust funds does expect, what if he does mean, so and so? That is nothing. He might as well throw a babe out of a second-story window, and say that he hoped it would lodge in some tree and not be hurt, as to endanger the property of others held in trust by him, and say that he hopes it will not come to any harm. What has that to do with it? The chances are against its being safe.

3. No man has a right to put his own character for integrity and honesty upon a commercial venture. No man has a right to enter upon an enterprise where, if he succeeds, he may escape, but where, if he fails, he is ruined not simply in pocket, but in character; and yet this is what every man does who uses trust funds for his own purposes. He takes the risk of destroying himself in the eyes of honest men. He places his own soul in jeopardy.

4. No man has a right to put in peril the happiness, welfare, and good name of his family, of the neighbourhood, of the associates and friends with whom he has walked, of the Church with which he is connected, of his partners in business, of all that have been related to him.

5. No man has a right to undermine the security of property on which the welfare of individuals of the community depends in any degree. (H. W.Beecher.)

The Sunday-school teacher--a steward

I. First, then, THE STEWARD. WHAT IS HE?

1. In the first place the steward is a servant. He is one of the greatest of servants, but he is only a servant. No, we are nothing better than stewards, and we are to labour for our Master in heaven.

2. But still while the steward is a servant, he is an honourable one. Now, those who serve Christ in the office of teaching, are honourable men and women.

3. The steward is also a servant who has very great responsibility attached to his position. A sense of responsibility seems to a right man always a weighty thing.

II. And now, THE ACCOUNT--Give an account of thy stewardship. Let us briefly think of this giving an account of our stewardship.

1. Let us first notice that when we shall come to give an account of our stewardship before God, that account must be given in personally by every one of us. While we are here, we talk in the mass; but when we come before God, we shall have to speak as individuals.

2. And note again, that while this account must be personal it must be exact. You will not, when you present your account before God, present the gross total, but every separate item.

3. Now remember, once again, that the account must be complete. You will not be allowed to leave out something, you will not be allowed to add anything.

III. And now, though there are many other things I might say, I fear lest I might weary you, therefore let me notice some occasions when it will be WELL for you all to give an account of your stewardship; and then notice when you MUST give an account of it. You know there is a proverb that short reckonings make long friends, and a very true proverb it is. A man will always be at friendship with his conscience as long as he makes short reckonings with it. It was a good rule of the old Puritans, that of making frank and full confession of sin every night; not to leave a weeks sin to be confessed on Saturday night, or Sabbath morning, but to recall the failures, imperfections, and mistakes of the day, in order that we might learn from one day of failure how to achieve the victory on the morrow. Then, there are times which Providence puts in your way, which will be excellent seasons for reckoning. For instance, every time a boy or girl leaves the school, there is an opportunity afforded you of thinking. Then there is a peculiar time for casting up accounts when a child dies. But if you do not do it then, I will tell you when you must; that is when you come to die. (C. H.Spurgeon.)

A certain rich man had a steward

We learn here incidentally, how evenly balanced are the various conditions of life in a community, and how little of substantial advantage wealth can confer on its possessor. As your property increases, your personal control over it diminishes; the more you possess, the more you must entrust to others. Those who do their own work are not troubled with disobedient servants; those who look after their own affairs are not troubled with unfaithful overseers. (W. Arnot.)

Give an account of thy stewardship

An account demanded

1. An account of the blessings received, children of prosperity.

2. An account of the fruit of trial, members of the school of suffering!

3. An account of the time measured out to you, sons of mortality!

4. An account of the message of salvation received, ye that are shined upon by that light which is most cheering! (Van Oosterzee.)

How much owest thou unto my Lord?--

The obligations of Great Britain to the gospel

I. Our first appeal must be made to rest upon the BROAD BASIS OF OUR PRIVILEGES AS A NATION. How much, I ask, do we of this land owe to the God of all mercies, as inheritors of the noble patrimony of a constitutional government; as dwelling under the shadow of equal law; as enriched with a commerce which allies us with the most distant extremities of the earth; as honoured, in the great brotherhood of nations, for our literature, for our science, for our vanguard position in all the ennobling arts of life; as rich in agencies for promoting the physical and moral happiness of all classes of our people, providing for the young, the old, the fallen, the outcast--for the poor a shelter, and for the sick a home; as enjoying a liberty of thought and conscience, free as the winds which sweep round our shores, and yet as having a governing power over the opinions of other nations, which controls more than half the world? For how much of such blessings we are indebted to our Christianity, we may admit, it is not easy to determine. Here, then, I rest my first appeal to your gratitude as possessors of a national Christianity. Religion, says Burke, is the basis of civil society, and education in its truths is the chief defence of nations. It hallows the sanctions of law. It puts the seal of heaven on social order. It ministers to learning and the liberal arts. It strengthens the foundations of civil liberty. It refines the habits of domestic life. It makes each home that embraces it a centre of blessing to the neighbourhood, and every country that adorns and honours it a centre of light unto the world. And this is the religion which by the gospel is preached unto you. How much owest thou unto my Lord?

II. But let me urge a claim upon your gratitude, in the next place, ARISING OUT OF THAT PURE AND REFORMED FAITH, WHICH IN THIS COUNTRY IT IS OUR PRIVILEGE TO ENJOY. How much owest thou unto thy lord, for the glorious light and liberty of the Protestant faith, for the recovered independence of our ancient British Church, for the Protestantism of Ridley, and Latimer, Jewel, and other faithful men, who witnessed for the truth of God by their teaching, and some of them with their blood?

1. How much do we owe for a permanent standard of religious faith--for a form of sound words which yet bows implicitly to the decision of the sacred oracles to approve its soundness?

2. Again, how much do we owe for the clearer views--brought out anew as it were from the concealment and dust of ages--of the method of a sinners acceptance and justification, through faith in the merits of Christ to deliver, and by the influences of His Spirit to restore.

3. Again, we owe much to the men of those times for their vindication of the great principles of political and religious freedom, and the services thereby rendered to the cause of moral progress in the world.

III. I must not conclude, brethren, without urging upon you one form of gratitude, which, to those who have experience of it, will be far more constraining than any! have yet brought before you, I mean THE DEBT WHICH YOU OWE TO THE GOD OF ALL GRACE AS BEING YOURSELVES PARTAKERS OF THE SPIRIT AND HOPES OF THE GOSPEL. And I ask how much owest thou for a part in Christ, for a sense of forgiveness, for the weight lifted off the burdened conscience. (D. Moore, M. A.)

The universality of debt to God

I. I turn at first TO THE ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN and ask, How much owest thou unto my Lord?

II. Is any here A LOVER OF PLEASURE MORE THAN A LOVER OF GOD? How much owest thou unto my Lord? He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. O will ye defraud Jesus of the travail of His soul, by making an idol of the world and bowing down before it as before your God?

III. Are any among you offending God, BY DISREGARD OF HIS LAWS, OR UNBELIEF OF HIS GREAT SALVATION.

IV. There are persons who have DECLINED IN RELIGION. Ye did run well, who hath hindered you? O take with you words of penitence and sorrow, and turn to the Lord your God.

V. Once more. LET ME ADDRESS THE AFFLICTED SERVANT OF CHRIST, and say, How much owest thou unto my Lord? (R. P. Buddicom.)

Mans debt to his Maker

I. I might remind you, in the first place, of our obligations to God, AS CREATURES OF HIS HAND. He not only made us, but He preserves us; in Him we live, and move, and have our being. Are there no obligations that we have incurred, in consequence of our constant reception of these varied mercies at the hands of God?

II. But I proceed to take another view of our subject, and to remind you HOW WE ARE INDEBTED TO GOD AS SINNERS AGAINST HIS RIGHTEOUS LAW. You will remember that the blessed Saviour teaches us to look upon sins in the light of debts. Surely there is none present who would have the hardihood to say that he owes nothing (Jer_2:22-23).

III. Let me remind you next, of DUTIES THAT HAVE BEEN NEGLECTED. Alas I how long a list might here be made, in the catalogue of unworthiness, ingratitude, and guilt! To say nothing of our unprofitableness, under the public ordinances and means of grace, what says conscience as to our daily communion with God in privacy and retirement?

IV. I must remind you, further, of OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN UNIMPROVED. We have, first, the opportunities of gaining good, and then the opportunities of doing good.

V. But there is yet another view of our subject. How much do we owe unto Him, as those who have hopes of pardon through His mercy in Christ Jesus? (W. Cadman, M. A.)

Owing to God

A merchant, who was a God-fearing man, was very successful in business, but his soul did not seem to prosper accordingly; his offerings to the Lord he did not feel disposed to increase. One evening he had a remarkable dream; a visitor entered the apartment, and quietly looking round at the many elegancies and luxuries by which he was surrounded, without any comment, presented him with the receipts for his subscriptions to various societies, and urged their claims upon his enlarged sympathy. The merchant replied with various excuses, and at last grew impatient at the continued appeals. The stranger rose, and fixing his eye on his companion, said, in a voice that thrilled to his soul, One year ago tonight, you thought that your daughter lay dying; you could not rest for agony. Upon whom did you call that night? The merchant started and looked up; there seemed a change to have passed over the whole form of his visitor, whose eye was fixed upon him with a calm, penetrating look, as he continued--Five years ago, when you lay at the brink of the grave, and-thought that if you died then, you would leave a family unprovided for--do you remember how you prayed then? Who saved you then? Pausinga moment, he went on in a lower and still more impressive tone--Do you remember, fifteen years since, that time when you felt yourself so lost, so helpless, so hopeless; when you spent day and night in prayer; when you thought you would give the world for one hours assurance that your sins were forgiven--who listened to you then? It was my God and Saviour! said the merchant, with a sudden burst of remorseful feeling; oh yes, it was He! And has He ever complained of being called on too often? inquired the stranger, in a voice of reproachful sweetness. Say--are you willing to begin this night, and ask no more of Him, if He, from this time, will ask no more of you? Oh, never! never! said the merchant, throwing himself at his feet. The figure vanished, and he awoke; his whole soul stirred within him. O God and Saviour I what have I been doing! Take all--take everything I What is all that I have, to what Thou hast done for me?

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 16:1. And he also, &c. — To give a further check to the maliciousness of the Pharisees, and the obstinacy with which they opposed every thing that was good, he delivered, while they were still present, the parable of the crafty steward, whom he proposed as an example of the dexterous improvement which worldly men make of such opportunities and advantages as fall in their way for advancing their interest. By this parable, Jesus designed to excite his disciples to improve, in like manner, the advantages they might enjoy for advancing their own spiritual welfare; and particularly to spend their time and money in promoting the conversion of sinners, which, of all the offices in their power, was the most acceptable to God, and the most beneficial to man. He said also to his disciples — Not only to the scribes and Pharisees, to whom he had been hitherto speaking, but to all the younger as well as the elder brethren, to the returning prodigals, who were now his disciples. A certain rich man had a steward — To whom the care of his family, and all his domestic concerns, were committed: Christ here teaches all that are now in favour with God, particularly pardoned penitents, to behave wisely in what is committed to their trust. And the same was accused unto him, &c. — Some of the family, who had a real concern for their lord’s interest, observing the steward to be both profuse in his distributions, and negligent in taking care of the provisions of the family, thought fit to inform their lord, that he was wasting his goods. Dr. Whitby quotes Rab. D. Kimchi, on Isa 40:21, commenting as follows, “The fruits of the earth are like a table spread in a house; the owner of this house is God; man in this world is, as it were, the steward of the house, into whose hands his Lord hath delivered all his riches; if he behave himself well, he will find favour in the eyes of his Lord; if ill, he will remove him from his stewardship.” And thus, adds the doctor, “the scope of this parable seems to be this: that we are to look upon ourselves, not as lords of the good things of this life, so as to get and use them at our pleasure, but only as stewards, who must be faithful in the administration of them.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 93. PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD; AND OF THE RICH MAN, Luk_16:1-31.

1. He said also—In addition to what he had said to the Pharisees in the last chapter, but probably on a later occasion. The disciples here mentioned are understood by most commentators to be not so much the twelve as the received sinners alluded to in the second verse of the last chapter; namely, the publicans and (Gentile) sinners converted under Christ’s preaching in the Jordanic regions of Peraea and Judea.

A steward—The steward is probationary man; the rich man whom he serves, is the God of life and providence. The removal from the stewardship is the fail or life-close at Luk_16:9.

Was accused—Disease and decay in due time charge the man with unfitness for his stewardship, and the God of life calls him to answer it.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-31. The Lord"s teaching on the right use of earthly possessions with regard to the prospect of another world, in the form of the two parables of the unjust steward, and Dives and Lazarus.

Vers. 1, 2. And he said also unto his disciples. There is no doubt that this important teaching belongs to the last portion of our Lord"s life, and it is probable that it is closely connected with the parable of the prodigal son just related. It is not likely that two such weighty sermons had been preached at the same time, but in the evening, or on the following day, or at least on the next sabbath, the same auditory that listened to the prodigal son we believe were startled and enthralled by the story of the unjust steward, and then, or very shortly after, by the awful and vivid picture of life beyond the grave in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. There is a close link of thought between the parable of the unjust steward and that of the prodigal. The heroes of both these narratives, in the first instance, had a considerable share of this world"s goods entrusted to their charge, and by both, in the early portions of the story, these goods were misused and wasted. The Greek words used of the "wasting" of the prodigal and of the steward were in both cases the same. (Luk_15:13 Luk_16:1) No parable in the New Testament has been so copiously discussed or has received so many end such varying interpretations at the hands of expositors. We will at once put aside all the ingenious, but from our point of view mistaken, interpretations which see in "the steward" the Pharisees, the publicans, Judas Iscariot, or Satan. The parable has a broader, a more direct, a more universally interesting, meaning. It contains a deep and important teaching for every man or woman who would wish to rank among the followers, of Jesus Christ. Now, our Lord would have all men look forward gravely and calmly to the certain event of their death, and. in view of that event, would have them make careful and thoughtful preparation for the life which was to come after death. To press this most important lesson home, the Master, as his custom was at this late period of his ministry, conveyed his instruction in the form of a parable. The sketch of a steward about to be dismissed from his office, and who thus would be stripped of his income, was a fit emblem of a man about to be removed from this world by death. The steward in the parable-story felt that, when dismissed, he would be as it were alone, stripped of all, and destitute. The soul of such a man, when dead, would be also stripped of everything, would be alone and destitute. The question here might be asked Why take for the principal figure of the parable so immoral a character as an unjust steward? The answer is well suggested by Professor Bruce, "For the simple reason that his misbehaviour is the natural explanation of the impending dismissal. Why should a faithful steward be removed from office? To conceive such a case were to sacrifice probability to a moral scruple." Roughly, then, two things all-important to us are taught here:

(1) that dismissal, death, will certainly come;

(2) that some provision certainly ought to be made for the life that lies beyond the life that comes after the dismissal, or death. There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. The story of the parable contains little incident. There is the rich man, clearly a noble of high rank, whose residence is at a distance from his estates, the scene of the little story. Over these he has placed, as administrator or factor, the one called here a steward; the revenues of the lands this official has wasted; he appears to have been generally a careless if not a dishonest servant. The owner of the estates, when he becomes aware of the facts of the case, at once gives notice of dismissal to the steward, desiring him, however, before yielding up his office, to give in his accounts. Appalled at the sudden and utter destitution which lay before him, the steward occupies the short time of office yet remaining to him in devising a plan by which he would secure the good offices of certain persons who were in debt to his master. He (the steward) had yet a little time of power remaining before he was turned adrift; he would turn this to account, and would do a good turn to these men, poor neighbours of his, and debtors to his lord, while he was in office, and so win their friendship, and, on the principle that one good turn deserves another, would be able to reckon on their gratitude when all else had failed him. With the immorality of the act by which he won the good will of these debtors of his master we have nothing to do; it is simply a detail of the picture, which is composed of figures and imagery chosen for their fitness to impress the lesson intended to be taught. Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. This taking away the position and privileges of the man represents the act of death, in which God takes away from us all the varied gifts, the possessions, and the powers large or small with which we are eutrusted during our lifetime. Our day of dismissal will be the day of our passing away from this life.

Vers. 1-13. The unjust steward.

Whereas the three preceding parables were spoken to the Pharisees, this is spoken to the disciples. It is not quite certain whether all the parables were uttered at or about the same time; but the use of the word "also" (ver. 1) suggests that they were. Anyhow, the saying before us has reference to a different kind of wasting from that of the younger son a wasting against which the followers of Jesus are solemnly warned. We are called to listen to the Master as he indicates temptations and enforces duties within the special circle of discipleship. This parable is a saying hard to be understood. Many explanations have been given. A very learned commentator, appalled by the difficulties connected with the interpretation, abandoned the attempt, declaring that the solution of the problem is impossible. And truly, if we canvassed all the schemes of exposition which have been proposed, all the inferences which have been founded on clauses, and all the speculations which have been raised, we should find "no end in wandering mazes lost." Let our aim be less ambitious; let us try to get hold of some plain, practical instruction which shall help us to be better disciples of Jesus Christ. The outline of the story is simple. The dramatis personae are not numerous. A wealthy landowner has a steward who, in the management of his estates, possesses a large discretionary power. He is informed that this steward has, not stolen or wrongfully applied, but by neglect or want of skill has squandered, the estate entrusted to him. He is called to account and is dismissed peremptorily. Now comes into view the adroitness of the man. He wishes to have some friends who can do him a good turn when he is out of a situation; and so, before news of his dismissal reaches any, while it is supposed that he has full power, he calls together those who are in arrears of rent or are otherwise indebted to his lord. We can imagine the trembling with which they obey the summons. How bland and smiling is the factor! What kind inquiries as to wife and children and belongings! And then, "By the way, what is the amount of your obligation?" Two specimens are given. One person owes a hundred measures of oil. "Take your pen," says the factor, "score out the hundred, and make it fifty." Another owes a hundred measures of wheat. "Take your pen, write down eighty." All retire charmed, loud in the steward"s praise. Had he not secured a warm place in their regard? When told of his downfall, would not they all cry, "Shame!" and speak of him as the tenants" friend, and welcome him to their houses? The point of the lesson which Christ would teach is this separate the energy from the dishonesty, the foresight from the fraud, and as he, for his own wrong ends, was wise and calculating, so, for your right ends, practise a wisdom like his, though nobler than his: "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye die, or fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." Now, without puzzling ourselves over the details of the parable, consider the lessons inculcated as to

(1) Christian responsibility;

(2) Christian administration; and

(3) Christian service.

I CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY. In the relation of the steward to the rich man we have a foreshadowing of the relation in which we stand to God. "Steward" is the word which indicates this relation. To every one of us is given a charge of goods whose Owner is God. Our own constitution physical, mental, moral is a trust; all our endowments talents, powers of whatsoever kind are a property of which we are farmers; and he who thinks that he can do as he likes with these, that he can dissipate his substance by intemperance, or alienate his strength from higher ends, is false to his Maker and false to himself. So with regard to all our influence direct and indirect it is a power delegated to us by the Almighty, and to be realized under the sense of the account to be rendered to him. Money, relationships, social positions, all are items of the estate over which we are set. Do we all realize this as we should? Do we not sadly forget this fact of stewardship? Christ speaks of "the mammon of unrighteousness." Here is an explanation which has been given. "The ears of Jesus must have been repeatedly shocked by the kind of rashness by which men speak, without hesitation, of my fortune," my land," my house." He who felt keenly the dependence of man on God perceived that there was in this feeling of property a sort of usurpation, a forgetfulness of the real owner; in hearing such language he seemed to see the tenant changing into the master." Ah! does he not hear such language every day? Is it not in the air? Is it not in our own feeling? Are we not, in many ways, changing the tenant into the master, the steward into the owner? taking the goods, and using them without giving praise to him whose they are? Would that the answer given to the first question in an old Catechism were written into the texture of every life chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

II Connected with Christian stewardship is THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIAN ADMINISTRATION. And may it not be said that this is a truth far too little studied and practised? When we hear of depressions of trade, of hard, dull times, we may well reflect on the saying of the Prophet Haggai, (Hag_1:5, Hag_1:6) "Consider your ways. Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages, earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes." In regard to Christian objects, is there not much to learn from such tact and prudence as the steward"s in the parable? Do we not need them much in the conduct of benevolent enterprises? Competition may be healthy; but a competition which, in a limited area, or on mere windmills, spends a force which should be far more diffusive, is not only not healthy, it is a loss and a scandal. Is not this the kind of competition which is too prevalent in ecclesiastical and in charitable spheres? Otherwise must we not confess that, through our want of inventiveness or wisdom in management, our want of skill to turn opportunities to the best advantage, of the sagacity which is exercised in worldly matters, we lay ourselves open to the reproach, "The children of this age are wiser in their generation than the children of light" (ver. 8)? Realize that, whether there is much or little, faithfulness is demanded of the steward such a disposal or investment of all wealth as that the Lord"s interests are farthered. To each of us is given the charge, "So allocate the mammon of unrighteousness, the uncertain, unstable wealth which you possess, that it shall not hinder, but help you to the everlasting habitations." How many does that mammon hinder! How few of us so use our money as to advance not only Christ"s cause but our own holiness! But should it not be rendered a means of spiritual gain? It is concerning this fidelity to God in the laying out of the perishable riches that Christ hints that they in whom it abounds will not want the friendly welcome when the tent of this tabernacle is dissolved, and the spirit passes into the everlasting habitations.

III A word as to CHRISTIAN SERVICE. This mammon, which was meant to be an instrument for the accomplishment of our stewardship, is apt to assume the bearing of a master. At first it is the slave, the most obedient, until, by constant trafficking with it and by taking it into the region of our affections, it becomes our love; and when it is the love of a man, the consideration which to him is first, the supreme point of his interest, then it ascends from the kitchen into the parlour, and claims the self as its own. This mammon-rule, mammon-worship, is one of the most distinct features of the day, and few of us know how deep is its mark in our souls. Here is the choice this mammon, or Christ with the thorn-crowned brow; this mammon, or God himself. One or other we may serve; Christ insists we cannot serve both (ver. 13). "That usurping lord has a will so different from God"s will, gives commands so opposite to his, that occasion must speedily arise when one or other will have to be slighted, despised, and disobeyed, if the other be regarded, honoured, and served. God, for instance, will command a scattering, when mammon will urge to a further keeping and gathering; God will require spending on others, when mammon or the world will urge a spending on one"s own lusts. Therefore, the two Lords having characters so different and giving commands so opposite, it will be impossible to reconcile their services: one must be despised if the other is held to; the only faithfulness to the one is to break with the other; "ye cannot serve God and mammon. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. There is to be no playing at religion. A saintly voice (Augustine) has thus interpreted the election: may the "amen" to his words arise from our souls! O God, thou sweetness ineffable, make bitter for me all carnal comfort which draws me away from the love of eternal things, and in evil manner allures me to itself by the view of some present delightsome good. Let me not be overcome, O Lord, by flesh and blood. Let not the world and the brief glory thereof deceive me. Let not the devil and his subtle fraud supplant me. Give me strength to resist, patience to endure, and constancy to persevere. Give me, instead of all the comforts of the world, the most sweet unction of thy Holy Spirit and the love of thy blessed Name.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 1-9. Cleverness and sagacity.

There is a wide difference between worldly cleverness and spiritual sagacity; of these two acquisitions, the former is to be questioned if not avoided, the latter to be desired and attained. Christ"s teaching here will be entirely misunderstood if we fail to discriminate between them.

I THE EMPLOYER"S COMMENDATION OF HIS STEWARD"S CLEVERNESS. His lord" (not our Lord) commended the unjust steward because he had acted "shrewdly" (not "wisely") (ver. 8). What does this commendation amount to? It cannot be a justification of his action upon the whole, that idea cannot be entertained, for this action on the steward"s part was wholly adverse to the employer"s interests. It was simply a compliment paid to his keenness; it was equivalent to saying, "You are a very clever fellow, a very sharp man of the world; you know how to look after your own temporal affairs;" only that, and nothing more than that, is meant.

II OUR LORD"S COMMENDATION OF SPIRITUAL SAGACITY.

1. Jesus Christ could not possibly praise cleverness when devoid of honesty. He could not do that for two reasons.

(1) Because mere cleverness without honesty is a criminal and a shameful thing; no amount of imaginable "success" would compensate for the lack of principle; he who pays truthfulness for promotion, conscientiousness for comfort, purity for gratification, self-respect for honour or applause, pays much too high a price, does himself an irreparable wrong, sins against his own soul.

(2) Because mere cleverness does not succeed in the end. It did not here. The steward of the text would have been better off if he had shown less sharpness and more fidelity; if he had been faithful he would not have been reduced to a dishonourable shift to secure a roof above his head. It does not anywhere. No one is more likely to outwit himself than a very clever man of the world. Unprincipled dexterity usually finds its way to desertion and disgrace. Success begets confidence, confidence runs into rashness, and rashness ends in ruin. No wise man would bind up even his earthly fortunes with those of his clever, unscrupulous neighbour.

2. Jesus does praise sagacity in connection with integrity. He would like the "children of light" to show as much forethought, ingenuity, capacity, in their sphere as the "children of this world" show in theirs. He counsels them, for instance, to put out their money to good purpose, so as to secure much better results than it is often made to yield. Make friends with it, he suggests. What better thing can we buy than friendship? Not, indeed, that the very best fellowship is to be bought like goods over the counter or like shares in the market; but by interesting ourselves in our fellow-men, by knowing their necessities and by generously ministering to them, we can win the gratitude, the blessing, the benediction, the prayers of those we have served and succoured. And how good is this! What will personal comforts, bodily gratifications, luxuries in dress and furniture, any visible grandeurs, weigh against this? Nay, more, our Lord suggests, we may make even money go further than this; it may yield results that will pass the border. It, itself, and all the worldly advantages it secures, we know that we must leave behind: but if by its means we make friends with those who are "of the household of faith," we relieve them in their distress, help them in their emergencies, strengthen them as they pass along the rough road of life, then even poor perishable gold and silver will be the means of helping us to a fuller, sweeter, gladder welcome when our feet touch the other shore of the river that runs between earth and heaven. This is true sagacity as compared with a shallow shrewdness. It is to make such of our possessions, and of all our resources of every kind, that they will yield us not only a passing gratification of the lower kind, but rather a real satisfaction of the nobler order, and even lay up in store for us a "treasure in the heavens," enlarging the blessedness which is beyond the grave.

(1) Is our wisdom limited to a superficial cleverness? If so, let us "become fools that we may be wise" indeed.

(2) Are we making the best use of the various faculties and facilities God has committed to our trust? There are those who turn them to a very small account indeed, to whom they are virtually worth nothing; and there are those who are compelling them to yield a rich harvest of good which the longest human life will be too short to gather in. C.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Vers. 1-13. Money as a means of grace.

The previous chapter was spoken against the pride of the Pharisaic party, who were too exclusive to welcome publicans and sinners to the same feast of privilege as themselves. The parable now before us was spoken against their covetousness. It will be found that, as the graces are to be found and grow together, so do the vices of mankind. The idolatry of wealth goes hand-in-hand with pride. In warning his disciples, however, against the vice, our Lord inculcates positive truth, and brings out in his parables the important fact that money may either be a means of grace to men, or a temptation and a snare. The first parable, about the unjust steward, shows us one who was wise in time in the use of money; the second parable, about the rich man and Lazarus, shows us one who became wise when it was too late and his doom was sealed. The story need be no moral difficulty to us. The all-important point is the deprivation of his stewardship. It was taken from him on the ground of injustice of some kind. In view of his exodus from the stewardship, he prudently makes his lord"s debtors his debtors too, by largely reducing their liabilities. Having thus made friends with them all, he awaits his dismissal with confidence, and expects befriendment when out of his situation. It is his prudence, not his motives, that our Lord commends. Now, to our Lord"s spiritual eye, this was a beautiful representation of what a soul may do in prospect of dismissal from his earthly stewardship at death. He may take the money he happens to possess, and, feeling that it is not his own absolutely, but God"s, and that he is only a steward of it, he can use it liberally, making the troubles of his brethren lighter, so that, having laid them under obligations to him, he can calculate with certainty upon their cordial sympathy in the world beyond the grave. A prudent outlay may make hosts of friends among the immortals beyond; in a word, money may be utilized as a very important means of grace.

I MAMMON IS A BAD MASTER. (Ver. 13) We start with this thought as a kind of background to the more comforting teaching which our Lord here emphasizes. The soul that is enslaved by mammon becomes miserable. Is not this implied in the term "miser," which designates the slave of money? The poor slave is kept grinding away, amassing more and more, and yet never getting any benefit from all the lust of gold. Nothing seems more foolish and insane than the race for riches; nothing more ruinous than the snares into which the runners fall. When life"s end comes and the accumulated hoard has to be left behind, the condition of the soul is pitiful indeed.

II ON THE OTHER HAND, MONEY MAY BE MADE A VERY USEFUL SERVANT. (Vers. 1-9) For nothing is gained by denying that money is a great power. How much it can accomplish! Every department of enterprise regards money as the one thing needful." So powerful is it, that people by the use of it may become thoroughly hated, as many selfish speculators and covetous people are every day. On the other hand, it may be so wisely laid out as to increase our friends to troops. A judicious use of money can gather friends around us by the thousand. It may serve us by increasing our list of friends.

III MONEY CAN BE USED BY US TO SERVE GOD. (Vers. 10-12) This is the gist of Christ"s teaching in the parable before us; and we never use money aright until we have got this idea driven home of serving God by it. And to emphasize this, let us notice:

1. Money is God"s, and we are never more than stewards of it. This truth underlies the whole parable. The very rich man who has the steward is God. We are all his stewards, faithful or unfaithful, as the case may be, in our use of his money. It is never ours apart from God; it is ours only as his stewards. Other things are held far more surely for example, education, thoughts, culture. They enter our being and become ours, we have reason to believe, for evermore. But money is only ours for a time a loan from God to be put out to a proper use.

2. We are faithful in our stewardship when we give ungrudingly to those who are in real need. God gives us "enough and to spare" for the purpose of laying the needy under obligation. In this way we transmute our money into gratitude. The gratitude of the assisted is better than the money, for it abides and can be enjoyed when money cannot.

3. God guarantees the gratitude and the reward. Some of the recipients may turn out to be ungrateful, but "he that giveth unto the poor lendeth unto the Lord," and "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." We are, therefore, sure of the highest recognition when for the Lord"s sake we help our fellows.

IV THE TRULY GENEROUS AND LIBERAL SOUL HAS A WELCOME AWAITING HIM IN THE ETERNAL TABERNACLES. (Ver. 9) The expression, "eternal tabernacles," to adopt the Revised Version, seems to indicate everlasting progress to be realized in the next life. We shall be moving onwards even there to higher and higher attainment. Those we have befriended here will receive us into their eternal tents. There will be recognition and fellowship and its accompanying progress. What a judicious outlay to have all this awaiting us in the world to come! What a means of grace money may thus become and what a help to glory Let the so-called unjust steward, then, admonish us to make the most of our capital on earth, that we may have the best heavenly return from it when we have left the money behind us for ever. R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk_16:1. And He said also.—This implies that there is a certain, though perhaps not very close, connection between the discourse in this chapter and that which precedes it. The chapter mainly consists of two parables bearing upon the right use of riches in this world with regard to the prospect of another world. This subject was specially appropriate to the two classes of publicans and Pharisees—the one of which amassed ill-gotten gains, and the other of which was covetous (Luk_16:14) To His disciples.—The parable of the Unjust Steward, though of special bearing, perhaps, upon the publicans, was not addressed exclusively to them. A certain rich man.—In the interpretation of the parable the Rich Man can only represent God, who is possessor of all things. A steward.—A man of business, or agent. Such persons were often slaves, but it is evident from Luk_16:3-4 that this man was free. By the steward we are to understand disciples, or every man in Christ’s Church. Accused.—Probably a malicious, but certainly a true, accusation. Had wasted.—Rather, “was wasting” (R.V.).

Luk_16:2. How is it that I hear this of thee?—Or, “What is this that I hear of thee?” (R.V.). Probably the A.V. is to be preferred—i.e., not “What is the nature of this report?” but “What ground is there for the report?—produce books and vouchers.” Thou mayest be.—Rather, “Thou canst be no longer steward” (R.V.). The steward not denying the report, it was impossible to retain him in his office. The dismissal is to be understood of the day of death. I cannot dig.—Rather, “I have not strength to dig” (R.V.). His strength had been enervated by his soft life.

Luk_16:4. I am resolved.—The word in the original implies a sudden plan—an idea that has just dawned upon him. They.—I.e., the debtors. Receive me.—I.e., give me shelter. This is one of the points of comparison on which stress is laid in Luk_16:9.

Luk_16:5. Every one.—Rather, “each one.” Debtors.—It is doubtful in what relation these “debtors” stood to the “lord.” They were either tenants who paid rent in kind, and whose rent was now lowered, or persons who had received advances of food from the Rich Man’s stores, which they had not paid for, and the amounts of which were now fraudulently altered. Probably the latter explanation is the better of the two. The first.—Two specimen cases are given; the varying reduction in the two implies that consideration was paid to the different circumstances of the respective debtors.

Luk_16:6. Bill.—R.V. “bond”; the literal term is “writings.” Quickly.—Evidently a secret and hurried arrangement; the debtors, too, seem to have been dealt with separately and privately.

Luk_16:8. The lord.—Rather, “his lord” (R.V.), and not Christ. Wisely.—I.e., prudently and skilfully. Both the Rich Man and the steward were “children of this world,” and were therefore characteristically inclined to overlook the fraudulent part of the transaction, in view of its cleverness and success. Wiser.—More shrewd. In their generation.—Rather, “for their own generation”—i.e., in their lower sphere; in looking after their own interests. Children of light.—Cf. Joh_12:36; Eph_5:8; 1Th_5:5.

Luk_16:9. I say unto you.—“I,” in opposition to “the lord”; “you,” in opposition to “the steward.” Of the mammon.—I.e., “by means of” (R.V.). “Mammon” is an Aramaic word for “wealth”—not for “god of wealth,” as commonly explained. “Mammon of unrighteousness”—i.e., wealth which is so generally regarded as personal property, and squandered accordingly, instead of being considered as a trust committed by God to our charge; unrighteously claimed as one’s own, and unrighteously employed. Make friends.—The imagery is taken from the parable. As the steward procured grateful friends, who received him when dismissed from office, so may we, by charitable deeds, provide friends to welcome us into heaven (to welcome on arrival, not to open heaven to us). When ye fail.—Rather, “when it shall fail”—i.e., mammon. Everlasting habitations.—Rather “the eternal tabernacles” (R.V.)—i.e., as contrasted with the temporary refuge secured by the steward for himself.

Luk_16:10. He that is faithful, etc.—In the spiritual sphere the interests of steward and lord are identical; while in the parable the steward secured his own future welfare by defrauding his master. He was guilty of unfaithfulness; but we may, by showing a foresight like his, and by using what is entrusted to us in deeds of charity, show true faithfulness to our Lord. Our characters are tested in this way, by our taking means for securing our eternal welfare or by our neglecting to do so. The contrast between the “least” (or “a very little,” R.V.) and “much” corresponds to that between “unrighteous mammon” and “true riches” (in Luk_16:11), and between “that which is another man’s” and “that which is your own” (in Luk_16:12).

Luk_16:13. No servant, etc.—“Mammon” and “serving” in this verse show that it is still connected with the preceding section. We are entrusted with the “unrighteous mammon,” but are not to be servants to it. God requires the undivided service of our hearts (cf. Jas_4:4; Col_3:5).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Luk_16:1-13

The Prudent Steward.—There is at first sight a difficulty in the interpretation of this parable; apparently there is a commendation of evil by Christ. We see a bad man held up for Christian imitation. The difficulty passes away when we have learned to distinguish the essential aim of the parable from its ornament or drapery. It is not Christ, but the master, who commended the Unjust Steward. And he did so, not because he had acted honourably, faithfully, gratefully, but because he had acted wisely. He takes the single point of prudence, foresight, forecast. We constantly do this in daily life. We are, perhaps, charmed by a tale of successful robbery; we wonder at its ingenuity, feel even a kind of respect for the man who could so contrive it; but no man who thus relates it is understood to recommend felony. This steward had planned, he had seen difficulties, overcome them, marked out his path, held to it steadily, crowned himself with success. So far he is an example. The way in which he used his power of forecasting may have been bad; but forecast itself is good.

I. Wisdom of this world.—There are three classes of men: those who believe that one thing is needful, and choose the better part, who believe in and live for eternity—these are not mentioned here; those who believe in the world and live for it; and those who believe in eternity, and half live for the world. “What shall I do?” Here is the thoughtful, contriving, sagacious man of the world. In the affairs of this world the man who does not provide for self, soon finds himself thrust aside. It becomes necessary to jostle and struggle in the great crowd if he would thrive. Note the kind of superiority in this character that is commended. There are certain qualities which really do elevate a man in the scale of being. He who pursues a plan steadily is higher than he who lives by the hour. There may be nothing very exalted in his aim, but there is something very marvellous in the enduring, steady, patient pursuit of his object. You see energies of the highest order brought into play. It is not a being of mean powers that the world has beguiled, but a mind far-reaching, vast, throwing immortal powers on things of time. Such is the wisdom of this world, wise in its contriving selfishness, wise in its masterly superiority, wise in its adaptation of means to ends, wise in its entire success. But the success is only in their generation, and their wisdom is only for their generation. If this world be all, it is wise to contrive for it and live for it. But if not, then consider the words, “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee; then whose shall those things be that thou hast gotten?”

II. The inconsistencies of the children of light.—“The children of this world are wiser,” etc. This is evidently not true of all. There have been men who have given their bodies to be burned for the truth’s sake; men who have freely sacrificed this present world for the next. To say that the wisest of the sons of this world are half as wise as they, were an insult to the sanctifying Spirit. But “children of light” is a wide term. There is a difference between life and light. To have light is to perceive truth and know duty. To have life is to be able to live out truth and to perform duty. Many a man has clear light who has not taken hold of life. So far as a man believes the body nothing in comparison with the soul, the present in comparison with the future; so far as he has felt the power of sin and the sanctifying power of the death of Christ; so far as he comprehends the character of God as exhibited in Jesus Christ;—he is a child of light. The accusation is that in his generation he does not walk so wisely as the child of the world does in his. The children of the world believe that this world is of vast importance. They are consistent with their belief, and live for it. Out of it they manage to extract happiness. In it they contrive to find a home. To be a child of light implies duty as well as privilege. It is not enough to have the light, if we do not “walk in the light.” To hold high principles and live on low ones is Christian inconsistency. If a man say that “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” and is for ever receiving, scarcely ever giving, he is inconsistent. If he profess that to please God is the only thing worth living for, and his plans and aims and contrivances are all to please men, he is wise for the generation of the children of the world; for the generation of the “children of light” he is not wise. The wisdom of the steward consisted in forecasting. He felt that his time was short, and he lost not a moment. The want of Christian wisdom consists in this, that our stewardship is drawing to a close, and no provision is made for an eternal future. “Make to yourself friends.” Goodness done in Christ secures blessedness. A cup of cold water given in the name of Christ shall not lose its reward. Wise acts, holy and unselfish deeds, secure rewards. “Everlasting habitations.” Nothing is eternal but that which is done for God and others. That which is done for self dies. Perhaps it is not wrong, but it perishes. You say it is pleasure; well, enjoy it. But joyous recollection is no longer joy. That which ends in self is mortal; that alone which goes out of self, into God, lasts for ever.—Robertson.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk_16:1-13

Luk_16:1-9. The Unjust Steward.

I. The steward dismissed.

II. The steward providing for the future.

III. The steward commended.

IV. The lessons for disciples.—

1. Every one is a steward.

2. Be like this steward in prudence, and use of opportunity.

3. Be unlike him in dishonesty. In this he is a warning.—Taylor.

Christian Prudence.

I. The stewardship of the unjust steward.—

1. Careless.

2. Dishonest.

3. Commended.

II. Our stewardship.—

1. We are all stewards.

2. We shall have to give account. We must keep our eye on the future.—Watson.

I. Wisdom’s eye.—

1. Looks far forward.

2. Looks also around.

II. Wisdom’s hand.—Is quick to do whatever needs to be done. The wisdom of the steward’s plan would have been folly, if it had not been carried out at once.—Wells.

Special Reference to the Publicans.—Apparently, though not certainly, these parables were spoken that the publicans might distinctly understand how their ill-gotten gains were to be used. They were to be taught that, though their past is forgiven, they have a duty to do with the gains they have made. And they are addressed as men thoroughly versed in all the ways of monied men, wide awake to appreciate hard work, vigilance, enterprise, and promptitude. And the aim of this first parable is to impress on them the necessity of carrying over with them into the kingdom of God the qualities which had made them successful in the kingdom of mammon.—Dods.

The Two Parables in this Chapter.—Note the connection between the two parables in this chapter: the one supplements the other. The idea common to them both is the connection between employment of earthly goods and life beyond the grave. The Unjust Steward represents the man who secures his future lot by a wise use of fleeting wealth; the Rich Man is a representative of those who ruin their future by a neglect of present opportunities of preparing happiness in the world to come.

General Teaching of this Parable.—The sum of this parable is that we should deal humanely and benignantly with our neighbours, that when we come to the tribunal of God the fruit of our liberality may return to us.—Calvin.

The Parable Teaches Two Lessons:

I. The general one a lesson of prudence in the use of temporal possessions with a view to eternal interests.

II. The special one a lesson as to the way of using these possessions which most directly and surely tends to promote our eternal interests—viz., by the practice of kindness towards those who are destitute of this world’s goods.—Bruce.

To Use the World for God.—The parable teaches Christian prudence, Christ exhorting us to use the world and the world’s goods, so to speak, against the world and for God.—Trench.

I. The fault and its punishment (Luk_16:1-2).

II. The sudden resolution (Luk_16:3-4).

III. The execution of the plan (Luk_16:5-7).

IV. The Master’s praise (Luk_16:8).

V. The counsel to disciples as an application of the parable (Luk_16:9).

Luk_16:1-2.

I. Every human being is simply a trustee.

II. We shall have to answer for our trust.

Luk_16:1. “Accused.”—The accusation may have been prompted by malicious motives, but the sting of it lay in its truth. In like manner it is not so much the malevolence of our great spiritual adversary that we have to fear as the just grounds for accusation which our conduct may afford.

Luk_16:2 “Hear this of thee.”—The steward had abused the trust his master had placed in him, and is called to account. In like manner God has entrusted much to man, and will be strict in requiring from him an account of his stewardship. He is not treated as one who, from the utter corruption of his nature, must inevitably go wrong, but as one who is fully responsible for all his actions.

Luk_16:3. “What shall I do?”—He tacitly admits his guilt, and instantly faces the situation and endeavours to make the best of it. His self-indulgent life has incapacitated him for hard work of an honest kind; his pride forbids him to beg for alms from those who had known his former circumstances of affluence and power.

Luk_16:4. “Receive me.”—Here we come across the great lesson of the parable. The steward, when put out of one home, is anxious to secure another. In like manner the fact that we have to leave our home on earth, when death comes, should make us anxious to provide for ourselves an abiding home in the world to come.

Luk_16:5-7. Beneficence a Passport to Heaven.—The steward acts so as to secure benefits for the debtors, without any pecuniary benefit to himself; and this points the moral of the parable—beneficence is a passport into the eternal habitations.

Luk_16:5. Obligations.

I. The grounds of our obligations.—The gifts of God, the gift of His Son, peace of mind, the society of the good.

II. The discharge of our obligations.—Cherish our blessings, live up to our privileges, scatter our blessings among others.

What we Owe to God.—Man is a debtor to God. He is continually forgetting this. Our indebtedness to God need not paralyse us into a sudden despair. Christ is our ransom for the awful obligation of “ten thousand talents.” But His love should constrain us into His service. There are two things to consider:

1. The cause.

2. The nature of our indebtedness to God.

I. The cause.—Each of us owes an infinite debt to God for creation, redemption, election, and grace. To us, especially, life should be a noble and beautiful thing. But more blessed than the first creation is the second. Another mystery of the Divine love is election—a fact which confronts us everywhere. The sovereign, righteous, loving will of God alone accounts for our privileges. Thank Him, too, for grace—the continual, overshadowing, indwelling, inexhaustible gift of the Holy Spirit.

II. The nature of this debt.—We owe God worship, righteousness, trustfulness, and love. In worship we must render substance, testimony, service. The law of God is to be fulfilled by us in our sanctification. Nothing honours God like trusting Him, or wounds Him like failing to trust Him. This is a service always open to all. Best, and last, and sum of all, we owe God love. Paying this we pay everything, and yet feel that nothing is paid. It is His nature to care for our love. God is not content with loving; He desires to be loved. But it must be a complete love—love of mind, will, and spirit.—Thorold.

Luk_16:6-7. “Write fifty … write fourscore.”—There is nothing of spiritual significance in these amounts. They represent merely the shrewdness with which the steward dealt with each debtor, with sole reference, probably, to the greater or less ability of each to render a grateful return to himself when cast upon the world.—Brown.

Luk_16:8-12. Christian Prudence.

I. Prudence.—Is a shorter form of providence. It has great value in human life. It is needed in our conduct, in relation to our money, in our undertakings, and in our companionships. Christian prudence will show itself in making provision for the future world.

II. Worldly prudence and its teaching.—The prudence of the worldly man is in advance of the spiritual prudence of the religious man, as the aims of the former are all directed to one single end—viz., worldly prosperity. The religious man’s aims are too often divided. Because worldly things are near and visible, they are apt to share the affections which should be wholly centred on “the things which are unseen.”

III. Christian prudence.—Christ not only drew lessons from the dishonest steward, but He proceeded to give us a rule for the wise use of money. Use riches, not as our own, but as the stewards of God. Use them as He directs. We are not to make getting rich our aim. We are not to love riches. We are to use them freely for deeds of charity and mercy. Christ also gives encouragements to prudence. Faithfulness in dealing as God would have us with the “unrighteous mammon” is to be the means of training us for, and proving our fitness for, the true riches. Worldly riches are not “true”; we cannot hold them permanently; they do not satisfy the soul. The knowledge and love of God alone satisfy the soul. These, and all that follows with them, are a sure and lasting possession.—Taylor.

Luk_16:8. The Follies of the Wise.—The world can teach the Church many lessons, and it would be well if the Church lived in the fashion in which men of the world do. There is eulogium here; recognition of splendid qualities, prostituted to low purposes; recognition of wisdom in the adaptation of means to end; and a limitation of the recognition, because it is only “in their generation” that the “children of this world are wiser than the children of light.”

I. Two opposed classes.—Our Lord so orders His words as to suggest a double antithesis, one member of which has to be supplied in each case. He would teach us that the “children of this world” are “children of darkness”; and that the “children of light” are so, just because they are the children of another world than this. Thus He limits His praise, because it is the sons of darkness that, in a certain sense, are wiser than the enlightened ones. And that is what makes the wonder and the inconsistency to which our Lord is pointing. Men whose folly is so dashed and streaked with wisdom, and others whose wisdom is so blurred and spotted with folly, are the extraordinary paradoxes which experience of life presents to us.

II. The limited and relative wisdom of the fools.—The steward would have been a much wiser man if he had been an honester one. But, apart from the moral quality of his action, there was in it what was wise, prudent, and worthy of praise. There was courage, fertility of resource, adaptation of means to end, promptitude in carrying out his plans. Bad the design indeed was, but clever. He was a clever cheat. The lord and the steward belong to the same level of character, and vulpine sagacity, astuteness, and qualities which ensure success in material things, seem to both of them to be of the highest value. The secret of success religiously is precisely the same as the secret of success in ordinary things. Nothing is to be got without working for it, and there is nothing to be got in the Christian life without working for it any more than in any other. The reasons for the contrast are easy to understand. “This world” appeals to sense, “that world” to faith. And so trifles crush out realities.

III. The conclusive folly of the partially wise.—Christ said “in their generation,” and that is all that can be said. Let in the thought of the end, and the position is changed. Two questions—What are you doing it for? And suppose you get it, what then?—reduce all the world’s wisdom to stark, staring insanity. Nothing that cannot pass the barrier of these two questions satisfactorily is other than madness, if it is taken to be the aim of a man’s life. You have to look at the end before you serve out the epithets “wise” and “foolish.” The man who makes anything but God his end and aim is relatively wise and absolutely foolish. Let God be your end. And let there be a correspondence between ends and means.—Maclaren.

Mismanagement of Eternal Interests.—In this verse, Christ, after telling the story of the dishonest steward, speaks on His own behalf. Our Lord adds this comment of His own to the commendation pronounced by the steward’s master.

I. This maxim is literally true.—Worldly people are more quick-sighted than Christians as to worldly interests. The very goodness of the Christian is against him in the business of life. He is unwilling to think evil, and unready to counterwork it. So the world often has its laugh at the Christian.

II. The text is true as a serious reflection on the ordinary management of a Christian life.—Those who profess to be living for eternity do not act so wisely, with a view to that high and glorious end, as those who scarcely aim at anything beyond time, act with a view to that comparatively low and poor ambition. There are only these two classes of men—the “children of this age” and the “children of light.” The former are characterised by the absence of a definite pursuit and well-grounded hope of an immortal life in heaven. But the latter do not always associate this high aim of life with true wisdom in the choice of means. Worldly men, in accuracy of eye, steadiness of hand, and strength of effort, outstrip Christian men. These latter should copy, as regards spiritual realities, the good method of worldly men whose life-aims are purely secular. It is not enough to have a higher aim than worldly men. How does the Christian live, in view of, and in pursuit of, this higher aim? Is he wise? Is he prudent? Or is he languid, indifferent, slothful? How searching such an utterance of rebuke as Christ speaks here is to all who profess to be “children of light”? The Christian should be inventive, resolute. Too often he is living below his privileges and opportunities. Great exertions should accompany great expectations. It is so in things earthly. Give a man hope, and you give him zeal; make success doubtful, and you destroy endeavour. Let not the hope, the zeal, the diligent endeavour of the worldling, rebuke the sloth, the aimlessness, the languor, of a “child of the light”!—Vaughan.

Spiritual Far-Sightedness Commended.—The Unjust Steward showed, even in his dishonesty, a far-sightedness of prudence which it were well if Christian people, while eschewing the dishonesty, could always exercise in reference to their own higher aims and nobler interests. The conduct of this unscrupulous agent is made to furnish a lesson, not of imitation certainly, but yet not wholly of avoidance, to the disciples of Jesus Christ.—Ibid.

The Qualities Exhibited by The Steward.—The steward exhibits various valuable qualities of character well worthy of imitation—decision, self-collectedness, energy, promptitude, and tact.—Bruce.

“Commended.”—“Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself” (Psa_49:18).

“Wisely.”—This quality of wisdom Christ had already commended to His disciples, in the words, “be ye therefore wise as serpents” (Mat_10:16).

We May Learn from His History—

I. That dismissal, death, will certainly come to us.

II. That some provision should be made for what is beyond.

The Word Reminds Us—

I. How intricately mixed up with each other are virtues and vices, good and evil, in this human world.—In the character of this steward the virtue of prudence lay intimately associated with gross and deliberate fraud.

II. Of the high religious value of prudence. The need and function of prudence in relation to the life and future of the soul.

Points in which Worldly Men often Surpass Christians.—Worldly men prosecute their schemes

(1) with more ingenuity of contrivance;

(2) with more singleness of aim;

(3) with greater earnestness;

(4) with greater perseverance;—than “the children of light” often display.

Luk_16:9-10. Stewardship for the Lord.—These sentences require careful pondering, in themselves and in their connection.

I. We hold all we have as the redeemed subjects and servants of Christ.—The steward has nothing of his own. We are not our own. Christ, as Mediator, makes us His own property. This is the secret of Christian stewardship. You, and all you have, are restored to yourself; but you hold all for Christ henceforth. Your absolute all is His. Your possessions come under the same law. You must give all for all. He will have no divided stewardship.

II. What are the tokens of good stewardship?—

1. That the entrusted property be improved to the utmost.

2. That it be administered strictly according to the owner’s will.

3. That where His will is not certainly known, wisdom or prudence does the very best. Our Lord says, Be wise for Me as the steward in the parable was for himself. This is of the very essence of our trust, that the Master leaves much to our own tact. He gives us the main outlines of His will, and leaves us to fill up details. In nothing is Christian wisdom more needed than in the right employment of our wealth, be it greater or less. Let the steward feeling be well educated and keen, and there will be no error—at least, no error against Christ.

III. He who habitually remembers his stewardship will be saved from the deadly evil which besets the possession of property, the making it into a god.—Christ makes mammon the possible rival of the Supreme. Undue love of this world’s goods is inconsistent with the single minded fidelity of the steward sentiment. Of the love of wealth, pre-eminently, it may be said that it cannot co-exist with the worship of God. The only safeguard is the habitual remembrance that what we have is not our own. Faithful steward service will alone protect us from becoming idolaters of this world’s good. He who serves not God with His money makes money itself His only god. This warning is not addressed to the rich alone, though specially needful for them. But the warning is to all. Every one has some property, and therefore some stewardship.

IV. To all stewards there is approaching the day of reckoning.—The day of judgment throws its shadow over every life. We are all hasting to the one last audit. Our salvation, indeed, will depend on the presence or absence of our faith in Christ, but the kind of salvation, the measure of it, and the degree of future reward assigned hereafter, will be regulated by the faithfulness of the life in all its boundless variety of works. If we have proved unjust to our Master in this life, He will not trust us in the next.—Pope.

Luk_16:9. Christ’s Teaching on Wealth.

I. Riches are not necessarily to be repudiated.—Our Lord teaches that, rightly used, they may add intensity to the joy of our future condition. Out of the mammon, whose characteristic is injustice and untruth, we may form friendships which will not terminate with life. “I say unto you”—not repudiate your riches, but “make to yourselves friends out of them.”

II. These friends do not purchase or gain for us an entrance.—They simply receive us when we enter. Our names must be graven, not on the hearts of the poor saints, but on the hands of the Redeemer with the very nails of the crucifixion. “Friends.” With money alone you can buy slaves, tools, flatterers. But with money alone we cannot buy a friend. Only he who has a heart can win a heart. Only a heart-winner can be a friend-winner. Riches rightly used may therefore be profitable for our higher interests.—Alexander.

“Make to yourselves friends.”—No thought can be better fitted than that of this parable, on the one hand to overthrow the idea of any kind of merit attached to almsgiving (for what merit can there be in giving of that which is another’s?), and on the other to encourage us to the practice of that excellence which assures us of friends and protectors for so grave a crisis as that of our entrance into the world to come.

“Receive you.”—In the journey of life, as in other journeys, it is a pleasing reflection that we have friends who are thinking of us and who will receive us with joy when our journey is at an end.

Luk_16:10-12. How the Little may be Used to Get the Great.

I. The strange new standard of value which is set up here.—Outward good and inward riches are compared

(1) as to their intrinsic magnitude;

(2) as to their quality;

(3) as to their ownership.

II. The broad principle here laid down as to the highest use of the lower good.

III. The faithfulness which utilises the lowest as a means of possessing more fully the highest.—Earthly possessions administered according to the principle

(1) of stewardship;

(2) of self-sacrifice;

(3) of brotherhood.—Maclaren

Luk_16:10. “He that is faithful.”—Which is as much as if He had said: The use which men make of the goods of this present world, which are comparatively of small value, shows the use they would make of such as are far greater, were the same committed to them, and which belong to the children of God in heaven. If they have used these aright, so would they use those; and if they have abused these, they would abuse those likewise. Faithfulness and injustice are properly applied to the use and abuse of things not our own, but committed to us for the honour and purposes of the owner. For to apply them to our own uses and purposes, and not His, would be a breach of trust, and therefore unfaithful and unjust in a very high degree.’—Palmer.

“Least … much.”

I. This verse suggests that we are in this world merely on, trial, and serving our apprenticeship.

II. That it is our fidelity to the interests entrusted to us that is tried, and not so much whether we have done little or great things.

Faithful in Little, Faithful in Much.

I. True faithfulness knows no distinction between great and small duties.

II. Faithfulness in small duties is even greater than faithfulness in great.

III. Faithfulness in that which is least is the preparation for, and secures our having, a wider sphere in which to obey God.—Maclaren.

Faithfulness.—Put to the mind alone, as if that were all there is of us, the mind might ask doubtfully how it can be true. It looks as if one might be upright in large transactions, and yet careless in trifles; tell the truth commonly, but not always; keep the law of the school under the teacher’s eye, but break it out of sight; meet emergencies handsomely, but in the commonplaces of everyday affairs come short. We have seen such lives. What, then, does Christ mean? He says that faithful men and faithful women are faithful everywhere, under all conditions, in all places alike. “Faithful,” full of faith. This chosen word is the key to the sentence. Faithfulness is not a single virtue, or a separate trait. It runs through the whole character, as blood through the body. The root of it is faith in God, and itself is the root of all excellencies and all moralities. Faithfulness is not a thing of more or less, of seasons or opportunities, of ornament or convenience. Principles never are, and faithfulness is a principle. Duty is universal because God is universal. Duty is unchangeable because God is unchangeable. The “least things” in which each of us is faithful or faithless, are not only the beginnings of what seems great in the eyes of men, they are great already by what they come out of; they are discharges of a life within us; they signify a principle in the working and springs of character; they uncover and they prove the inward frame and habit of soul on which eternal life depends.—Huntington.

Luk_16:11-12. Stewardship for Self.—In this whole section there is a quiet undertone of reference to the true wisdom of life in extracting as much good as possible from all the elements of this world’s evil, especially from what we call its possessions.

I. Extracting it for self, and not only for our Master.—There is, indeed, a sense in which self may be entirely suppressed, self as a final end, self as the director of life. But, on the other hand, it is the will of God that the benefit of self shall, as subordinate, never be lost sight of. There is a Christian care for self which is at once the supremest wisdom and the supremest unselfishness. We must think and act in the midst of the dangers of time, and the snares of earthly wealth, for the interests of our immortal souls when time and the wealth of time are ended and gone.

II. For this is the true secret, that we have no self apart from our Master.—We never reach the height of our Lord’s teaching, nor rise to the grandeur of our relation to Him, until we so identify ourselves with Him and His universal cause on earth that we know no difference between His and ours. This is the true evangelical glorification of the steward principle. The more we have of earthly goods the more are our graces tested, and, if we are wise enough to sustain the test, the more confirmed becomes our renunciation of this world, and our preference of heaven. The wisdom of a man who has the dangerous trust of possessions is not only to keep himself from the special peril that besets him, but to turn the danger to good account. That is the lesson of the chapter, and of our whole life.

III. After all, we must go beyond this world for the Saviour’s most impressive illustration of His meaning.—We cannot disconnect the stewardship of time from the issues of eternity. All that we possess is ours for a season, that through our prudent use of it we may advance our own interests for ever. In two ways the Divine Teacher impresses this upon us:

1. We may make to ourselves friends by the mammon of unrighteousness, who shall welcome us to everlasting habitations.

2. By fidelity below in that which is least we may prepare ourselves for larger trusts, and for a jurisdiction hereafter for which the stewardship of time furnishes but a slight analogy. Christ’s emphatic preface, “I say unto you,” introduces the lesson that we must in our better and holier cunning create for ourselves friends by the charitable use of our substance. What the poor worldling in the parable did for the poor self of this generation, you must do for the higher and nobler self of the world to come. But that is not all. Our Lord teaches that our stewardship here may be so administered as to prepare us for larger trust hereafter. The Unjust Steward does not teach us this, save by contrast. He so failed that he could never be trusted again. We are to be trusted hereafter according to the measure of our capacity for trust acquired here. There will be stewardships in the other world, without probation, and without fear of failure, proportioned and accommodated to the character we have acquired here. The general principle of fidelity is to be trained in this life, and this prepares for independence in the coming life.—Pope.

Luk_16:11. “The unrighteous mammon.”—Unrighteous because

(1) it is so often used and enjoyed without any thought of God;

(2) because it is so often acquired in unlawful ways;

(3) because it is the source of manifold temptations (1Ti_6:9-10), which make it difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (chap. Luk_18:24-25).

Luk_16:12. “Another man’s.”—Wealth is here described as belonging to another, because it is not absolutely our own, but may at any moment be recalled, and must at the hour of death be resigned. In opposition to it are those spiritual benefits which are truly “our own,” because, once obtained through faith, they constitute an inalienable property.

God’s Faithful Steward.—The last inference from the most difficult of all Christ’s parables. It is a retrospect from the other side of death, when the earthly life lies all behind, shrunk to a single point and act. “If in that which was another’s ye were not faithful, who shall give you—I appeal to yourselves, to your common-sense, to your first principles of reason and equity—who shall give you that which shall be your own?”

I. “That which is another’s” is the whole of this life’s possession.—Even while we have it, it is another’s. Not only a trust, a stewardship. No idea of personal ownership can for a moment enter into it. It is so precarious in its tenure that we cannot reckon on it for a day; we brought it not into the world, and we cannot take it with us when we leave the world. It is not part of us—it is an adjunct, an accessory, an accident; it may go any day—it must go one day. It is another’s, even while we have it.

II. “That which is your own.”—The sound is pleasant to the ear. The lust of possessing is an instinct of nature. It waits not for the developed covetings of manhood. Even our own souls are not yet our own. They are “our own” only at last, as the prize of the lifelong conflict, the stake of the game in which the man and the man’s enemy are at play. This makes life so serious, so momentous. The risk of not “gaining” as “our own,” our own souls! The soul itself is not yet our own; it depends on the life, the life earthward and heavenward, the life towards man, and the life towards God. To the good steward, when all fails him, and the stewardship of the long past must be accounted for, he shall find himself for the first time as an owner, the soul, the self, the redeemed and sanctified nature, being at last given him for his own. This is the gospel for which we can never be too thankful, of the new ideal of life as Jesus Christ taught, exemplified, and inspires it in His people. Life a trust; all that life has for us, another’s; we ourselves stewards, not owners, required, aroused, and enabled to be faithful! Our Lord appeals to this very lust of possessing. We must wish to possess. Only the fool and the mammon-worshipper can be indifferent to the question, “Who will give you that which is your own?”—Vaughan.

“That which is another man’s … that which is your own.”—The parable of the Unjust Steward is admittedly hard to be understood. No other of our Lord’s parables has called forth so many and such a variety of comments as this. The words of Luk_16:12 supply the key to the mystery of this parable; they are the solution of its difficulties. What are the difficulties of interpretation which the parable presents? How very harsh and unusual appear such words as “And the lord commended the unjust steward.” What sort of a lord could he have been, to do thus? It relieves us to find that it was not our Lord, but the lord of the steward, who commended him for acting wisely, though dishonestly. The fact that he did so simply proves that the master was as bad as the man. They are “children of this world,” governed by the same principles, actuated by the same motives. The lord had suffered by the roguery of his servant, but could not withhold a tribute of admiration at the display of the same qualities which he himself possessed. This explanation removes some of the difficulties, but not all. Our Lord holds up something here as an example for us. What is there shown us in this picture which we may imitate? Not the principles governing the conduct of the Unjust Steward. They were wholly detestable. But the transaction itself is to be imitated, having respect to the relationship between our Master and His stewards. Here we have a man entrusted with the goods of another so using them as to obtain an advantage for himself. Are there any conceivable circumstances in which we might use goods entrusted to us by another for personal profit? Only under one condition, and that condition exists here. If that other person entrusted us with his property, with the express purpose, intent, command, so to use it as to get increase for ourselves, then, and only then, would this be right. While there are similarities between the relations of the lord and the steward in the parable and our Lord and His stewards, there are also differences; for the parable teaches by dissimilarities as well as by similarities. The lord entrusted his goods to the steward that he might trade with them for the master’s benefit, and the steward’s fidelity would consist in so doing. The relation between our Lord and His stewards is the reverse of this. He entrusts us with His goods to be used, not in enriching Him; that is impossible,—no conceivable trafficking of ours can increase His wealth,—but the use is to be for our own profit. “I say unto you”—I who am the Lord of all you possess—“make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” Faithfulness in that which is least will secure for us that which is much.

I. The further exposition, therefore, of this saying of our Lord’s depends on the interpretation put upon two of its phrases: “That which is another man’s,” and “That which is your own.” What are we to understand by these? No sooner do we begin to think about them than we find a great confusion of ideas. There is a very general reversal of the order of truth in the interpretation of these two phrases. What is “your own”? Most people, when they contemplate their own, fasten at once upon worldly possessions—houses, lands, businesses, accumulations, investments, worldly position, honours in society, dignities achieved. “These are my own,” say they, and in this territory they walk, imagining that here they are supreme. But these are the very things which are not your own. “Where,” say you, “is the man who can successfully question the validity of my title-deeds? Who is he that will challenge my right to these things? They were bequeathed by my ancestors, or they have been gotten by my own industry, or accumulated by my thrift. Surely these are my own!” And yet it is of precisely such things as these that Christ speaks when He uses the phrase “that which is another man’s.” But whose are they? Where is the other who can claim proprietorship in them? There is One whose presence fills eternity, in whose hands our breath is, and whose are all our ways. The Lord of Life and Being has endowed us with being and with all we possess. We ourselves are His. “The silver and the gold are His, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.” If I tell the truth as to all the things I “own,” I shall say, “The Lord Jehovah, all are His.” But you will say, “Oh yes, we admit all that. That is Theology.” Yet there are very few who are influenced by the considerations arising out of this admitted truth. But there are other men in question. It is not possible to acquire any earthly things of which we can say that we have the absolute proprietorship. Other men have claims and rights in them. We are but trustees for the common good. Worldly possessions are not “our own.” Surely to-day men are learning that property has its responsibilities as well as its rights, its obligations as well as its privileges. No man has the right to say, “This is for myself, and myself only.” He holds for his brethren in general. The solution of the social problems which perplex society lies in the recognition of this great Christian doctrine of trusteeship. Because these things are not our own is no reason for seeking, by an equal division of property, to adjust the rival claims of different classes in society. Nothing could be more absurd or unfaithful. Not in absolute proprietorship, nor by arbitrary divisions, nor by attempted communism, but by the doctrine that all we have we hold as trustees for the good of those by whom we are surrounded, shall we fulfil the Divine purpose in committing to our keeping “that which is another man’s.” I almost hear you say again, “Yes, we admit all this.” But how much unfaithful trusteeship there is, nevertheless! To bring the truth home to us we must reflect upon the fact that, in the most literal and absolute sense, these worldly things are not our own—they are “another man’s.” How soon the day will come to all of us when, willingly or reluctantly, we shall be compelled to part with earthly goods! In prospect of that hour we may already ask ourselves, in the words of the prophet, “Where will ye leave your glory?” It must be left. Where can it be left that we shall ever find it again? Then, when we are confronted with the death-summons, whose shall these things be which we have fondly imagined were “our own”? What wonderful ingenuity men display in their testamentary arrangements, in order to declare whose those things shall be. Alas! how futile their endeavours. Not for long in any case—often not even for a short period—can they say whose those things shall be, but into the hands of another, or of others, all must be surrendered. That inevitable “other man”; how he dogs our footsteps in life, ever following on our track!—a few short days or years and he will overtake us. Most certainly these things are not “our own.” They are “another man’s.” Ere long that other man will be examining our papers, operating upon our balance at the bank, and dividing our property—perhaps in the manner we should least desire. What, then, is our own? Is there in this changeful world anything we can so appropriate that it shall become in very deed our own? God, in His infinite goodness and mercy through Jesus Christ our Saviour, has made it possible for us to become possessed of true riches which shall be our heavenly portion, our eternal inheritance. Nothing external is really our own. But the moral qualities we possess, as the result of dealing with earthly things—these are our own: love of justice, mercifulness, truthfulness, humility, benevolence—these are the patrimony of man, made after the image of God, and in His likeness. Inwoven daily into the very texture of our spiritual being are qualities which become a part of ourselves. God sees, not only what we are, but what we may become. He sees the loftiest ideal for every human being, what we might be if the utmost possibilities were reached. This He has willed shall be our own, and has bidden us reach out to and obtain as much of these highest possibilities as we choose. In the formation of character we are acquiring that which shall be ours for ever. Unhappily, many make their own what God never intended should be theirs. The contrary qualities to those I have mentioned—the carnal, the sensual, even the devilish—may become ours. It is possible for men to become untruthful, unjust, unmerciful.

II. If we thus clearly understand what is “another man’s” and what is “our own,” then the teaching of the text becomes at once apparent. Only by faithfulness in the use of another’s can we become possessed of that which God intended should be ours. By our use of the things of earth we are obtaining the higher things that appertain to our character and destiny. Possessions in themselves base and carnal may be so employed that out of them we shall secure the spiritual and the heavenly. From the “unrighteous mammon” we may extract the “true riches”—from that which is least, that which is much; from the fleeting treasures of this life, the enduring wealth of eternity; from that which is “another man’s,” that which is “our own.” All the relations of our life here become thus invested with a vast importance. We cannot afford to despise the earthly: we cannot neglect its proper use, or fail in righteous dealing with it, but we beggar our real selves. Many scarcely reflect that their daily trafficking with worldly matters—their business, their gains, their losses, their ambitions, and their plans—are leaving indelible traces on their spiritual being. The material things they handle will perish in the using, but the noble qualities—the generosity, the unselfishness, the truthfulness, the mercifulness, the God-likeness—they have acquired in the sphere of worldly duty will abide with them for ever. The great truth thus inculcated has many applications. It is true of every temporal possession, of every earthly relationship, and of all talents, of whatsoever kind, with which we are entrusted. Its immediate and obvious application is to the use of money—and this was the application primarily intended by our Lord. It may be supposed that such a use of this great lesson will at once lead us to a discussion of the duty of Christian giving. We may come to this ultimately, but there are several other aspects of our dealing with that which is “another man’s” to be first considered. The mischief to some men’s characters is done before they come to the claims of charity; it is done in the process of getting and accumulating. They have already acquired a nature so sordid that they are “past feeling.” They cannot give because they have so much, or because they have got it by means dishonourable or destructive of their nobler nature. Years ago, when they were poorer and purer, if they had been told of some of the things they now do and say, they would have been ready to cry, “Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?” Nothing more surely corrodes and destroys the lofty nature that God intends should be our own than ill-gotten gain and the love of hoarding for its own sake. It cannot be too urgently impressed upon us that in our modes of getting money, and plans and purposes in accumulating it, we are moulding our characters. Men who would secure “their own” must sometimes be content to stand by with hands off when other people are eagerly gathering—they must allow some things to go past them, for the price of taking them is the sacrifice of their highest, truest manhood. The truth holds good, not merely in relation to great wealth and large transactions in business; it finds its illustration in all spheres—even the lowliest. The merchant or trader who leaves his counting-house or his shop when the day’s work is done leaves behind that which is “another man’s.” He leaves the interests, the claims, the rights of others which have been within his power, but inevitably he carries away something vastly more important to himself: insensibly, but continuously, he has been acquiring “his own,” and he goes from the manufactory or the warehouse morally a better or baser man. During every hour of the day he has been silently appropriating “his own” whilst handling that which is “another man’s.” And even so the workman, in his common tasks, is fashioning his own character and moulding his inner life. He builds into the unseen parts of an edifice with honesty, with truth and fidelity, and these qualities are at the same time strengthened and built up in his own being. Let there be base and false work at the forge and the loom, and he who has done it may suppose the transaction is ended when the fraud has passed undetected. Not so; the falseness he has perpetrated has become part of himself—he has made that “his own” which he supposed he had inflicted on “another man.” Nor is it merely in the modes of getting money, but in the purposes for which it is retained and used, that men mould their characters and destiny. For there are circumstances in which it is right, and indeed our duty, to retain wealth, that it may be wisely used as a fund for the good of others. God has given some men, not only large capital, but ability and opportunity so to lay it out that they may provide work and wages for others. In such cases the first duty of a capitalist is to take care of his capital. It is not “his own”; it belongs to others, and is entrusted to him that he may employ it for the common weal. We are all of us familiar with the spectacle of the miserable millionaire who has treated the great fund entrusted to him as if it were “his own.” He has employed it in great gambling speculations, that he might have the unhallowed excitements that have ended in a moral and, perhaps, mental and bodily paralysis. Instead of light and love and truth, he has for his own a great curse, extracted from his great capital. There is the opposite picture sometimes to be looked upon—the man who has so wisely and generously used his means that he has blessed thousands, and has himself grown more and more unselfish. He has cultivated the best things in his own spirit and character, whilst he has worked in the use of wealth for the good of others. But it is not given to all of us to find “our own” or lose “our own” in these larger spheres of duty. It is, however, certain that all of us are determining “our own” by the use we make of “another man’s” in the matter of Christian giving. Whether we have less or more of this world’s goods, in our response to the calls of charity we affect for good or evil our dispositions and our characters. And as to financial arrangements, let us look at our support of missionary and kindred institutions in the light of our Lord’s teaching in this parable. The call for money to carry on Christ’s work in distant fields is one of the tests—and one of the best tests—of our wisdom and fidelity in the use of “that which is another man’s.” In no other way can we more surely exchange the carnal things of earth into the currency of the heavenly world. Pounds, shillings, and pence will have no currency there—they will have lost their purchasing and commanding power; but ere we pass hence the treasures of earth may be exchanged for the true riches, the fleeting things of this world for the enduring wealth of eternity. The mammon of unrighteousness may be so used that at length they shall receive us to the everlasting habitations. Let us learn habitually to deal with the things of earth in the light of eternity.—Pope.

Luk_16:13. “No servant.”—In this verse Christ states what the fidelity is, which in this stewardship is required; it is a choosing of God instead of mammon for our lord. For in this world we are in the condition of servants from whom two masters are claiming allegiance. One is God, man’s rightful lord; the other is the unrighteous mammon, which was given to be our servant, to be wielded by us in God’s interests, and itself to be considered by us as something slight, transient, and another’s—but which has, in a sinful world, erected itself into a lord, and now demands allegiance from us, which if we yield, we can be no longer faithful servants and stewards of God. Therefore, these two lords have characters so opposite, it will be impossible to reconcile their service (Jas_4:4): one must be despised if the other is held to; the only faithfulness to the one is to break with the other, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”—Trench.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. The Parable of the Unjust Steward and its Application (Luk_16:1-13)

1And he said also unto his [the1] disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had [of having] wasted his goods. 2And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. 5So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. 7Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. And2 he said 8unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the [his3] lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in [in reference to, εἰς] their generation wiser than the children of light. 9And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail [it fails, V. O.4], they may receive you into [the] everlasting habitations [lit., tabernacles, σκηνάς].

10He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? 13No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the [om., the] one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk_16:1. And He said also.—The opinion that the Saviour uttered this parable on another occasion, and not in connection with the three former parables, is without any ground.—On the other hand, the well-known crux interpretum, the parable of the Unjust Steward, has the right light thrown upon it only when we assume that it was uttered before the same mixed audience of publicans and Pharisees, for whom also the parables of the Lost Sheep, of the Lost Coin, and of the Prodigal Son, were intended. A tolerably full catalogue of the latest theological literature upon Luk_16:1-9, is found in Meyer, ad loc., to which we add the Interprétation de la parabole de l’économe infidèle, par M. Ensfelder, in the Revue Theol. de Colani, 1852, iii. and Stölbe, Versuch einer Erklärung der Parabel vom ungerechten Haushalter, Stud. und Krit. 1858, iii., and among the Dutch exegetes, an important dissertation by the late Dr. B. Van Willes, 1842.—Here, also, in particular, we prefer to give, instead of a criticism of the various and exceedingly divergent views, a simple statement of our own opinion.

To the disciples.—Not to be understood of the apostolic circle, although this is by no means to be excluded, but of the followers and hearers of the Saviour, in a wider sense of the word. See Luk_14:26-27; Luk_14:33; Joh_6:66, and other passages, and comp. also Luk_17:1 with Luk_17:5. We have, therefore, to conceive the Saviour as surrounded by publicans, whom He had just been comforting, and by Pharisees, whom He had just put to shame. The former He wishes to remind of their high duty now, as His disciples, to make good as much as possible the guilt which they had formerly incurred by extortion and dishonesty; the others He wishes to bring back from their love to earthly good, by drawing their attention to the truth that they are only stewards, for whom a day of reckoning will come. Both, therefore, He desires to lead to that prudent foresight, the image of which He depicts in the narrative of the Unjust Steward.

A certain rich man.—Neither the Romans (Schleiermacher), nor the Roman Emperor (Grossmann), and as little the devil (Olshausen), and, on the other hand, not Mammon (Meyer)—the μαμμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικ. is, on the other hand, equivalent to the ὑπάρχοντα of the rich man, Luk_16:1—but God, who here is represented as the paramount owner of all which has been given to man only as a fief, and for use. By the οἰκονόμος we have to understand not exclusively the μαθηταί of the Saviour, but every man to whom the paramount owner has entrusted part of His goods.

A steward.—The wealth of the lord in the parable is visible from the circumstance that he needs an οἰκονόμος.—The property which this steward managed consists, however, not in ready money, but in allotments of land, which he has farmed out for such a price as he has thought fit, without every particular in the farm-contracts having been necessarily known to his lord. For we have here to represent to ourselves no modern steward, who every time gives a complete account, and has to decide nothing by his own full powers: on the other hand, it appears that his lord, who bestowed on him his full confidence, had not previously required any reckoning of him at all, until he, persuaded of the man’s dishonesty, had resolved to displace him. If the οἰκονόμος was clothed with so extensive powers, it is then also unnecessary to assume that he falsified the farm-contracts; in earlier times it was probably not at all necessary to lay these before the lord of the manor. But how had he squandered the ὑπάρχοντα? He had made the farmers pay more than he had stated and paid in to his lord as the rent: he demanded of them an excessive, and paid to him only the fair, amount, so that the difference between what he received and what he rendered constituted a clear gain to himself. He had, however, not enriched himself; for, with his deposition from his post, he sees himself brought at once to the beggar’s staff—he had lived sumptuously and wantonly on that which he had from time to time gained in this way, until his lord, we know not how, came on the track of his villainous transactions. His lord now summons him to the rendering of the definite account, to which he, as well known to him, is obliged (τὸν λόγον), and speaks at once of displacement. In the giving of this account, therefore, the papers, the farm-contracts, must for the first time be produced, and the displacement must naturally follow if the comparison of the rent with the sum accounted for reveals the cheat; it will, on the other hand, not be necessary, if from a thoroughly consistent account it appears that the suspicion conceived has been an ungrounded one. This must be kept distinctly in mind: the displacement is not yet irrevocably uttered, but only threatened; it does not precede the account, however this may turn out, but will only follow if the steward cannot justify himself. This appears, first, from the nature of the case, since his lord, by such a condemnation, without hearing him, and on a loose report, would have dealt quite as unjustly as the steward, which undoubtedly Jesus did not mean to represent; and, secondly, from the expression of the steward himself, who sought a secure maintenance only in case (ὅταν) he should lose his post, and who, it is true, foresees a displacement as being as good as certain, but yet ventures one more attempt to smooth over his accounts a little.

Luk_16:3. What shall I do?—Striking is the monologue in which the Saviour depicts to us the perplexity of the steward, especially striking, if we conceive these words as spoken in broken sentences—“What shall I do? for my lord takes away my stewardship from me:—I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.—Εὕρηκα—I know—I have discovered (ἔγνων) what I will do.” And what now does one expect of a man who is proposed for imitation with very particular reference to his prudence? he will seek a means either, if possible, to avert even yet the dreaded blow and to keep his place, or, in case he should not succeed in this, to provide for himself a comfortable old age.

Luk_16:4. They may receive me into their houses.—Not precisely into their families (Schultz), but yet οἶκος, regarded as the seat of the family-life into which he, out of thankfulness, hoped to be received. The whole monologue shows us the steward as a man of mature reflection. “For explanation these reflections are not intended, but for portrayal of the crisis.”

Luk_16:5. So he called.—Not (Brauns, a. o.) in the presence, but, of course, in the absence, of his exasperated lord; for the steward must certainly, if he were to give the required account, have time for it, and his lord has, therefore, gone away again. Neither can the speaking ἑαυτῷ, Luk_16:3, be easily explained otherwise than as taking place in solitude, and the phrase, Luk_16:5, καθίσας ταχέως γράψον, is plainly the language of a man who wishes to dispose of something quickly before his lord observes it. The opinion also that the steward makes up the fifty measures of oil and the twenty measures of wheat from his own means, is incompatible with his own assertion, Luk_16:3, that he must beg if he did not find a remedy. If the Saviour had here intended to depict a repentant Zaccheus, who with his dishonestly acquired treasures will even yet do some good (D. Schultz), he would without doubt have put in some way into the steward’s mouth an acknowledgment of his guilt.

How much owest thou?—We must conceive the matter thus: that he has all the farmers come at the same time to him, but that he talks with every one of them apart. His dealing with two of them is communicated, as an example, from which one can easily conclude how he dealt with the others also. He does not, as is commonly believed, have the farmers write a new bond with a smaller amount; this would have cost too long a detention, but simply set a smaller number instead of the former, either by the altering of a single letter in the old agreement, which the Hebrew numerals easily admit, or by the mere filling up of a new agreement already prepared. The numbers fifty and eighty, which he causes to be set down instead of the previous hundred, express the just amount which he had already given account of to his lord, and he gains by this alteration the advantage that the leases agree with the sums previously stated to his lord, who had never yet had a sight of the authentic papers. But the farmers, who, as they suppose, had been required to pay an exorbitant sum to the lord, can by this moderating of the price only feel themselves personally obliged to the steward, from whose hands this deduction is made to them, and who has perhaps represented this unexpected favor as a consequence of his intercession and of his influence with the lord of the manor.—One hundred baths.—The Hebrew בַּת is equivalent to the old μετρητής, the tenth part of a Homer; therefore for liquids, the same as the Ephah for dry substances.—A hundred Kor, the Hebrew כֹּו, according to Josephus, A. I. 15. 9, 2 =10 μέδιμνοι, about =15/16 of the Berlin bushel [11 1/9 English bush.]. See Winer, ad loc.

Luk_16:7. Write fourscore.—By the just-mentioned measure the steward has actually done all which in so critical a case could have been expected from a prudent man: for in the first place he makes good his former dishonesty, although only out of selfishness; in the second place, he makes it possible to give a correct account, so far as the leases are laid before the lord and compared with his ledger, and finally, in case the dreaded dismissal follows, nevertheless, he, by his kindness shown to the farmers, purchases for himself a comfortable maintenance for his old age. That he, after he had protected himself in this way, really remained in his office (Baumgarten-Crusius), the Saviour, it is true, does not say, but He is as far from saying also that he was actually removed (common view). This point, on the other hand, remains entirely conjectural, since it does not lie in the purpose of the Saviour to bring the narrative in and of itself to an end, but only to commend a very judicious course of reflection and mode of dealing, in a critical moment, for imitation in a certain respect.

Luk_16:8. And the lord commended the unjust steward.—It is, of course, understood that this lord was not the Lord Jesus (Erasmus), but the rich lord in the parable, who had soon learned in what way the οἰκονομος had helped himself out of the trouble. We have here to place ourselves entirely on the stand-point of worldly wisdom, and conceive the matter thus: that his lord does not commend the motive or the act of the steward in itself, but commends the cleverness of his Way of dealing, with which he had, while there was yet time, diverted from himself the threatening storm.—The unjust steward.—That this designation does not need absolutely to be brought into connection with his last-mentioned conduct, but may be referred as well to his earlier and now abandoned dishonesty, appears from similar usage. Mat_26:6; comp. Luk_7:37.

For the children of this world.—There is as little room to doubt that the Saviour designs to have represented the οἰκονόμος as a child of the world, as that He means him for imitation merely and solely in respect of his prudence. The grounds of the here-mentioned phenomenon are plain enough to be seen, “because the means which prudence manages are worldly, and are, therefore, foreign to the aims of the children of light, and because prudence belongs to the understanding and the experience of the world, while the children of light live in the Spirit.” De Wette.—Εἰς τὴν γεν. ἑαυτ.—that is, when they come into contact with such as, like themselves, are children of the present world. The children of the world are, therefore, happily designated as γενεά a family of similar characters. In their mutual intercourse these are wont to go to work with as well-considered plans as the Unjust Steward, and in this respect commonly far surpass the children of light when these have intercourse with one another or with others. Children of light the disciples of the Saviour are named, being those that are enlightened with the light of truth, and are accustomed to walk therein. See Joh_12:35; 1Th_5:5; Eph_5:8. As to the rest, the expression γενεὰ ἑαυτῶν is not to be referred to both-named classes of men (each in its own sphere), but exclusively to the υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, in contrast with whom the Saviour, Luk_16:9, addresses His disciples.

Luk_16:9. And I say unto you.—It is well known into what perplexity this precept has brought early and later expositors,—a perplexity which went so far that some have ventured the bold critical conjecture of causing the Saviour, by the insertion of a single little word, οὐ, to say exactly the opposite. What, however, He means by the phrase: Make to yourselves friends, is, if we only recollect the conduct of the steward, intelligible enough. The steward had made the farmers subordinated to him, his friends; even so, the Saviour means, should one make those who need help his friends, by bestowing on them benefits with and out of the same money which is so often acquired in an unrighteous manner and applied to shameful purposes. It is entirely arbitrary and against the spirit of the parable to understand here (Ambrosius, Ewald, Meyer) angels, who receive the pious man into heaven. The Saviour, on the other hand, represents the matter thus: that those to whom benefits have been shown, precede their benefactors to heaven, welcome them there, and thus exalt their joy. That the form of this promise is borrowed from the expression of the steward, Luk_16:4, is, of course, obvious. By the everlasting tabernacles, we may understand either heaven, or also (Meyer), according to the analogy, 1Es_2:11, the future Messianic kingdom, in which, however, we meet with the difficulty that then all the φίλοι whom one has gained with the mammon of unrighteousness are represented eo ipso as citizens of the Messianic kingdom. [Doubtless our Lord does not mean that any but such friends as do belong to His kingdom are to receive us into the eternal abodes.—C. C. S.] It is safest to understand, in general, a blessed locality where one can abide, in opposition to an earthly locality which one soon leaves.

Of the mammon of unrighteousness, ἐκ τοῦ μαμμ. τῆς ἀδικ.—’Εκ, the means by which one procures himself friends. Comp. Act_1:18. The application of the Mammon must have the consequence indicated by Jesus. Respecting the Mammon, see Lange on Mat_6:24.—Μαμ. τῆς ἀδικ.—Not because it is commonly acquired in an unlawful manner (Euthym. Zigab.), or because it is itself perishable and delusive (Kuinoel, Wieseler), or because the disciples of the Saviour were in an unrighteous degree very parsimonious therewith (Paulus); but in the same sense in which before an οἰκον. τῆς ἀδικίας. Luk_16:8, was spoken of. The ἀδικία is the inherent character of the Mammon, which is here represented as a personal being, and called unrighteous because money, as with the Steward, commonly becomes the occasion and the means of an unrighteous course of conduct; “the ethical character of its use is represented as cleaving to itself.” Meyer.

When it fails.—Ὅταν ἐκλείπῃ, so we believe that we must read with Tischendorf, on the authority of A., B., X. The Recepta ἐκλίπητε has probably arisen from the fact that by the mention of the Everlasting Tabernacles it seemed almost a matter of course to take the verb in the plural and to understand it of departure from this earthly place of abode. Therefore, also, the translation: cum defeceritis, with the accompanying thought of dying. With the reading defended by us, the sense becomes much simpler, as the Saviour now speaks of the Mammon τῆς ἀδικίας: cum Mammon defecerit, when the Mammon is exhausted. So did it fare with the Steward; so might it fare sooner or later with every one who places his confidence in his goods. We have, therefore, not to understand exactly the moment when Mammon leaves us in the lurch in death (Wieseler), but the day when it comes to an end, as with the Steward, Luk_16:4.

They may receive you, δέξωνται.—Not to be taken impersonally (Starke), or to be referred exclusively to God and Jesus (Schultz, Olshausen), and quite as little (Grotius) to be understood as if the φίλοι recipientes were here the means of effecting the reception into the σκηναὶ αἰώνιοι (efficiant, ut recipiamini), which would necessarily lead either to the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works or of the intercession of the saints; but it is to be understood of a reception on the part of the friends acquired with our money, as joyful as that upon which the Unjust Steward in the parable had supposed himself entitled to reckon. These friends are conceived as already present in the everlasting σκηναί, and as there coming to meet their benefactors, as it were, at the entrance, with the purpose of admitting them into their future abode (εἰς). Σκηνάς, “sic appellantur propter securitatem, amœnitatem et contubernii tanquam hospitii communicati commoditatem. Non additur: s u a, ut, Luk_16:4, domus suas, quia tabernacula sunt Dei.” Bengel. Comp. Joh_14:2.

The expressions thus explained must, in conclusion, be briefly vindicated from two perverted interpretations. The first is the Pelagian, as if the Saviour had meant to say that one might by beneficence, from whatever motives, buy himself a place in heaven, and that, therefore, those on whom benefits had been bestowed opened to their benefactors the everlasting tabernacles. For with the unrighteous mammon one may indeed make himself friends, yet these friends only receive their benefactors; they can assure them no place in the everlasting abodes, and to give even this reception they have no right in themselves, but only according to God’s will, if their benefactors have entered the way of faith and conversion, and this faith has borne fruits of love. [If Christ Himself could give no place of honor in His kingdom, except according to His Father’s will, much less may the saints assign any place whatever therein, except as God may will. Nevertheless, the truly beneficent use of wealth is a powerful means of grace, and so of salvation; and this our Saviour doubtless means to teach.—C. C. S.] We find thus no other moral here than Mat_25:34-40. And as respects the other interpretation, the Ebionitic coloring which has been found in this parable, the Tübingen school has, it is true, imagined itself to find in the μαμμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικίας a new proof for its darling theme, that the Gospel of Luke vindicates an Ebionitic contempt of riches and favoring of poverty (see Schwegler, l. c. ii. p. 59); but it strikes the eye at once that the Saviour so designates not the use and possession of earthly good in itself, as the source of unrighteousness, but only its prevalent misuse. If an Ebionitic spirit had here prevailed, we doubt very much whether Luke would have put in the Saviour’s mouth an admonition also to faithful administration of earthly treasures, and the assurance that this stands in connection with the eternal destiny of men. Had the Saviour really thought that earthly good, in and of itself, is something to be reprobated, He would at all events have withheld the admonition, Luk_16:9. Among the weapons which an impartial criticism has to avail itself of for the controverting of the Ebionitic interpretation of Luk_16:19-31, Luk_16:1-9 certainly do not occupy the least important place.

As respects, moreover, our interpretation of the parable itself, it offers, as we think, undeniable advantages;—it removes many otherwise obvious difficulties. In the first place, it sees in the Steward even greater prudence than those who assume that he sought nothing more than to secure betimes a good support; according to us, his piece hit the mark on two sides. Secondly, on this interpretation, the Saviour’s address is far more adapted for the two classes of His hearers; for the publicans now hear the making good of previous dishonesty commended as a work of true wisdom and prudence, while the avaricious Pharisees are shamed by the portraiture of a man who, although in no respect holy, yet stands far above them. In the third place, the objection is thus immediately set aside, which even the emperor Julian and others afterwards have, on the strength of this teaching, brought up against the character of our Lord, as if Christ had, at least to a certain extent, advocated the Jesuitical principle, that the end sanctifies the means. For although it is a thousand times repeated, that it is not the measure taken by the Steward in itself, but only his prudence in laying hold of a measure (in itself evil), which is proposed to the children of light for imitation, yet even in this there will something offensive remain as long as (common view) it is asserted that the Steward made good his former dishonesty by a new trick, and not (as we believe) by the compensation of the damage. How would it then be explicable, that even the Pharisees find in this no occasion for a new imputation? But if we assume, on the other hand, that the Steward out of self-interest abandoned his former crooked ways, we must, it is true, suppose that he acted only as a genuine child of the world (for of self-humiliation or confession of sin we read nothing); but then we can at all events comprehend that not only from his craftiness, but also from his mode of dealing itself, a weighty lesson was to be deduced for the publicans; for in how many respects could the Steward thus serve them as an example, by that which he had done from a purely worldly point of view! Finally, we learn on only this interpretation to understand the full force of the declarations, Luk_16:10-13.

Luk_16:10. He that is faithful in the least.—It is as if the Saviour foresaw the objection, that He put too high a value on the faithful application and administration of so worthless and superficial a good as earthly good. To cut off this objection, He adduces a general principle, which He in the following verse immediately applies. It is impossible at the same time to be really faithful in the greater things, and to be unfaithful in the lesser things. For true faithfulness has its ground not in the greatness of the matter in which it is displayed, but in the conscientious feeling of duty of him that exercises it. He therefore that lacks it in the lesser, will not show it even in weightier relations; he to whom it is really a pleasure to be faithful, such an one will account nothing, whether great or small, trifling or unworthy of his attention. Comp. Sirach 5:18. “All faithfulness in great things, without being accompanied with faithfulness in lesser things, is only a semblance; all micrology, which in straining at gnats can swallow camels; such is indeed no true heart-faithfulness. Consequently also the reverse: whoever will abide or become faithful in that which is great, let him be so principally and continually in the little circumstances which continually come up in the details that are everywhere occurrent; here is an indissoluble connection.” Stier.

Luk_16:11. If therefore ye.—What the faithfulness is which the Saviour in the application of the ἄδικος μαμμωνᾶς requires (see Luk_16:9), has appeared from the parable itself. It is exhibited when one, obedient to the precept of our Lord, makes friends with it, who receive us into the everlasting tabernacles. If His disciples were wanting in this faithfulness, if they were, in other words, like the Unjust Steward in his former dishonest course, but not in the prudence with which he, while there was yet time, made good again the evil he had committed, who should entrust to them the higher good, the true good? Τὸ ἀληθινόν is here a general designation of the benefits of the Spirit of truth and light, which in the Messianic kingdom are attainable for every one; benefits whose administration was first of all entrusted to the apostles, but then also to every believer in his sphere. They are called here by antithesis the true, because they are not, like the Unrighteous Mammon, untrustworthy and deceitful, but fully deserve the name of genuine and true good, whereby the highest ideal is realized. Comp. Joh_1:9; Heb_9:24.

Luk_16:12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s.—A repetition of the same thought, only in another form. The Mammon is here called the ἀλλότριον, since it is not the property of man, who can only be the οἰκονόμος of earthly treasures, but belongs to the paramount owner, who can at any moment demand it back. Money, as such, has then only a relative worth, and the ἀλλότριον is entirely equivalent to the ἐλάχιστον, Luk_16:11. In opposition to this stand the spiritual benefits which the Saviour, with reference to His disciples, calls τὸ ὑμέτερον, because they, once attained through faith, are destined in time and eternity to constitute their inalienable property. “That which belongs to your true nature, which was your own originally (in the Creator’s purpose), and shall in the redemption again become yours.” Von Meyer. In this sense, the Mammon can never be called our property, because it with every generation changes owners, and often unexpectedly takes to itself wings.

Luk_16:13. No servant.—Comp. Mat_6:24 and Lange, ad loc. A proverbial expression like this the Saviour could properly use repeatedly; and here also there is a psychological connection plain between this utterance and what precedes. Whoever was not faithful in the least, and did not apply the ἀλλότριον to the purpose stated in Luk_16:9, showed thereby that he was yet a wretched slave of Mammon, and by that very fact could not possibly be a servant of God, who will have us use money in His service, and thereby promote our reception into the everlasting tabernacles. It is precisely this service of Mammon which stands most in the way of its true use, that use which redounds to the glory of God. If perchance one of the Saviour’s hearers had inwardly thought that it was, for all this, possible to be in truth His disciple, even though one did not so literally follow His doctrine given in the foregoing parable, He here declares the union of that which is essentially incompatible to be impossible. It is obvious that the faithfulness praised in Luk_16:10-13, is at once the best manifestation of the prudence to which He, Luk_16:1-9, has admonished His hearers, and that therefore the whole instruction deserves the name of a well rounded whole.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. If the parable of the Unjust Steward, considered entirely by itself, has been a λίθος προσ κόμματος for many interpreters, it is rightly considered, taken in its true historical connection, as one of the most striking examples of the elevated didactic wisdom of our Lord. This appears particularly if we consider that this instruction also was given in the presence of Judas, who carried the purse, and for whom in particular the admonition ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ was of high importance. Indirect, yet intelligible enough, are the threatening and warning which he here hears, that persistence in the way of dishonesty must end with the utter loss of the apostleship, nay of his own soul. At the same time it deserves consideration, how remarkably adapted this whole delineation was for the case of the publicans and sinners, whom the Saviour had by the three previous parables been encouraging, and whom He now by this wished to lead to sanctification. Where He takes them under His protection, He is gentle in His consolations, but where He admonishes them, strict in His requirements. He shows, as it were, to the lost but now recovered sons of the house, how the father, it is true, at their return gives a feast, but how they now also, after having been refreshed and strengthened at the table, must return to an immediate and faithful fulfilment of the obligations imposed upon them. If they formerly had been only hirelings of the Romans, the Saviour will now have them consider themselves as stewards of God, to administer faithfully in their earthly treasure, His property. That He places before them an unrighteous steward as a model for imitation, can, after all that we have said, appear a matter of offence only if we, in opposition to the Saviour’s intention, press the comparison beyond the tertium comparationis. The parable is in this respect entirely equivalent to that of the Importunate Friend, Luk_11:5, and that of the Unjust Judge, Luk_18:1, and this also belongs to the Singularia Lucœ, that with Him alone a triad of parables appears, in which the cum grano salis more than elsewhere must be kept in mind, if one will not fall into absurdity.

2. The penetrating light which illumines the darkness of the whole parable, is to be found in the remark, Luk_16:8 : “The children of this world,” &c. It is visibly the Saviour’s intention that His disciples shall learn something of the children of the world, which for the most part is altogether too much lacking to them; and in fact this parable affords rich matter for antitheses which are very shaming for the children of light. The Steward, type of a genuine child of the world, does not for an instant conceal from himself the greatness of the danger threatening him. Without delay he thinks upon means and ways to assure to himself his future lot. The means that appear unsuitable he rejects, in order at once to consider better ones. He is inventive, and knows with great distinctness what he desires, namely, to gain his daily support in an easy and secure way. He does not stop with projects and plans, but all that he has resolved he carries out upon the spot, and chooses, in speaking and dealing, the form which promises the richest fruits for his own advantage. He so disposes himself that he in any case will be protected, whether he remain yet longer steward or not. What a distinction between the sluggishness, irresolution, want of tact, &c., shown by so many better-minded persons, who have infinitely higher interests to lay to heart! However, it scarcely needs an explanation that the Saviour here speaks of children of light, not in the ideal but in the empirical sense, and that the censure herein indirectly expressed, is applicable, as a rule, more to His incipient, than to His established, disciples.

3. It is a striking proof of the practical tendency of the Evangelical morality, that the Saviour has regarded the use and possession of earthly riches as a subject of sufficient weight to be particularly handled by Him in a triad of parables (Luk_12:15-21; Luk_16:1-9; Luk_16:19-31), not to reckon in a number of hints upon this, occurring here and there in His discourses. So much immediately appears from the comparison of the different passages: the Saviour does not disapprove the possession of wealth in itself, and is far from the one-sided spiritualism which denies the temporal, as such, almost any worth. But earnestly does He warn, and repeatedly does He draw attention to the truth, how greatly covetousness, no less than ambition and sensuality, renders difficult and hinders entrance into the kingdom of God. He does not repel the rich from Him, any more than He pronounces the poor blessed for the sake of their poverty, but only insists that earthly good, in comparison with something higher and better, should be viewed as the ἐλάχιστον and ἀλλότριον. Compare the beautiful homily of Basil, contra ditescentes. As to the rest, it is not capable of proof that in the apostolic writings, e.g. 1 Timothy 6., James 5., and elsewhere, we find a view of earthly riches different from that in the teachings of the Saviour Himself.

4. The purity of the faithfulness which the Saviour demands of His disciples is not in the least injured by the fact that He points them to the reward which is connected with the exercise of general philanthropy. The gospel is as far from favoring an impure craving for reward, as from the perhaps very philosophical, but certainly very unpsychological, hypothesis, that man must practise virtue purely for virtue’s sake. Only as a stimulus, not as a motive of action, does He propose that which love may hope as a gracious recompense in the future life, and thus the prospect which He here opens to the penitent publicans, is essentially no other than that which He, e.g., Mat_10:41-42, held up before His faithful apostles. Besides this, there exists also a natural connection between love and blessedness in the future world, which must by no means be overlooked. The thought of the eternal love of heavenly spirits, into whose fellowship we hope to enter, has also more attractions for the loving than for the selfish heart; and whoever really makes himself friends of the Unrighteous Mammon, shows thereby that he finds his highest joy, not in the attainment of selfish purposes, but in the happiness of others. Taking all this together, we should hardly be able to contradict Luther when he says on the following parable: “It is not works that win to us Heaven, but Christ bestows eternal blessedness out of grace, on those who believe and have proved their faith in works of love and right use of earthly good; since now all this is not the case with the rich man, faith was lacking to him, and the whole parable, Luk_16:19-31, is therefore directed against unbelief, in order to warn against it by its terrible consequences.” Here also the saying of the old father holds good: Amicœ sunt scripturarum lites, and the evangelical doctrines of grace and of reward contradict one another in no respect. It was, therefore, a miserable error, when they would in any way draw from this parable the conclusion, that one need only apply property gained in an unrighteous manner to beneficent and pious purposes, in order thereby to see one’s guilt removed, and that one, by a pious foundation at the approach of death, could buy his salvation. Upon this error, which crept very early into the Christian Church, there deserves to be compared August. Hom. 113, Opera v. pp. 396–398.

5. Upon nothing does the Saviour insist with more right, than unity and harmony in the inner life of His people. True prudence is inconceivable, if genuine faithfulness is lacking, but on the other hand genuine faithfulness is also inconceivable, if inward discord and division yet dwell in the soul. If the will of two masters is hostile to one another, obedience to one must necessarily lead to unfaithfulness towards the other. To Mammon also the admonition of the Apostle is especially applicable, 1Jn_5:21. When he who should serve rules, he who should command soon becomes a slave. There is scarcely a sin which so shrewdly and obstinately disputes with God the first place in the heart, as love to temporal good. Comp. the admirable discourse of Adolph Monod, L’ami de l’argent, found in the second part of his “Sermons.”

6. Whoever has comprehended in its whole depth the requirement of faithfulness in that which is least, which the Saviour places first with so much emphasis, has at the same time comprehended the hard and easy side of the Christian life, the simplicity and the infiniteness of the requirement of Christian perfection. The requirement of faithfulness in that which is least, is essentially no other than the requirement to be perfect with the Lord our God. Deu_18:13; Psa_51:6.

7. The right use of earthly treasures, as it is here commanded, leads of itself to the Christian communism, whose ideal we see realized most beautifully in the first Christian church, Act_4:32; Act_5:4. The distinction between this free manifestation of benevolence and the communistic fantasies of our century, is as great as that between selfishness and love.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

God, the Paramount Owner even of earthly treasure.—Man is called on earth to be the steward of God. As such he is: 1. Placed in a dependent position; 2. pledged to conscientious faithfulness; 3. to the rendering of a complete account.—“Give account of thy stewardship” (very excellent text for a sermon at the close of the year): 1. Account of the blessings received, children of prosperity! 2. account of the fruit of trial, members of the school of suffering ! 3. account of the time measured out to you, sons of mortality! 4. account of the message of salvation received, ye that are shined upon by that light which is most cheering!—Against God’s stewards on earth there are severe accusations preferred, and He who hears them all, will examine them all carefully to the very last one.—Life, a time of grace which precedes the day of reckoning: it Isaiah , 1. Short; 2. uncertain; 3. decisive.—“What shall I do?” the question: 1. Of painful uncertainty; 2. of well-considered reflection.—He who cannot dig, must not be ashamed to appear as a beggar before God.—“How much owest thou to my lord?” a fitting question also for the minister of the word to address to every member of his congregation individually.—“If the falsifying of human bonds is evil, how much more the presumptuous falsifying of God’s written word!”—Not all have an equally great debt to account for to the heavenly Owner.—Prudent people are praised by their like.—Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.—The phenomenon that the children of the world not seldom excel the children of light in prudence: 1. A continually recurring; 2. a seemingly surprising; 3. a fully explicable; 4. a justly shaming; 5. a powerfully awakening, phenomenon.—What the Christian can learn from the child of the world; compare: 1. The carefulness of the child of the world over against the carelessness of the children of light: “What shall I do?” 2. the clear recognizing of danger by the one, over against the self-deceiving of the others: “My lord taketh away the stewardship from me;” 3. the inventiveness in the choice of remedies with the one over against the spiritual sluggishness of the others; 4. the resoluteness and versatility of the Steward over against the continual loitering and procrastination of so many Christians.—“The children of this world are wiser,” &c.: 1. This is Song of Solomon 2. but it must be made different.—Earthly treasure, well applied, is a means to heighten the joy of heaven.—With gold we can buy no place in heaven, but we may prepare ourselves a good reception in the heaven already open to faith.—Even when earthly treasure fails, the rents of it may be saved.—Faithfulness in that which is great and in that which is small inseparably coupled.—The infinite excellence of heavenly treasure above earthly: 1. The earthly small, the heavenly great; 2. the earthly illusive, the heavenly genuine; 3. the earthly another man’s capital, the heavenly an inalienable property of the disciples of the Lord.—Faithfulness in the earthly and zeal for the heavenly calling most intimately united in the Christian.—The indispensable necessity of unity in principle and action.—“How long halt ye between two opinions?” 1Ki_18:21.—The intimate connection of the various requirements of the Lord: 1. No true prudence without faithfulness; 2. no faithfulness without steadfastness in resolve; 3. no steadfastness in resolve without sacrifice; 4. no sacrifice without rich compensation.

Starke:—Quesnel:—If we do not apply the gifts of God to His honor, to our neighbor’s good, and to our own necessity, this is the same as to destroy and dissipate them.—Brentius:—The heathen held it unjust to condemn any one when his cause was unheard; much less should that be done in Christendom.—J. Hall:—Let no one deal with entrusted goods as his own property.—The great day of reckoning and examination impends over every one, 2Co_5:10.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Upon unfaith fulness there follows inevitable punishment, deposition, and condemnation.—Laziness and pride are the two evil sources of the so-common craftiness.—One is oft ashamed when he should not be ashamed and on the other hand, he is often not ashamed, when he ought to be ashamed before God.—There is a sad fact even in the Christian world,—the most of worldly people are wise enough to do evil, but how to do good they will not learn.—For ungodly men it is not enough that they sin for themselves, but they draw others also into their sinful net.—What one owes the lord belongs not to the servant.—Canstein:—It would not be easy for one child of the world to ask any evil of another, that the latter would not be ready to do.—One may praise even in a bad man what is good in him.—Brentius:—A broad fertile intelligence is a precious gift of God, and so far laudable.—Zeisius;—Be wise to that which is good, and simple concerning evil, Rom_16:19; 1Co_14:20.—The children of light have indeed the light in them, but they have also their natural darkness, which makes them slothful.—J. Hall:—Whoever does good soweth to the Spirit, Gal_6:8.—Canstein:—Whoever will do good, must do it especially to those who will come into the eternal tabernacles, and are therefore true members of Christ.—Let no one say: I can do with mine what I will, 1Co_4:7—God all or nothing.

Heubner:—The man who does wrong has always his accuser before God.—Without religion, riches are a very ruinous instrument.—Three things make death frightful to the earthly-minded: their evil conscience, the Divine judgment, and the loss of everything earthly.—Earnest consideration always finds a way.—Heavenly blessedness is the true, the eternal property.

The Pericope.—Heubner:—The Christian order of salvation: 1. Repentance for our stewardship (Luk_16:1-3); 2. belief in God’s judgment (Luk_16:3-4); 3. sanctification—holy use of all (Luk_16:5-9).—The earnest reminders which Christianity gives the rich man.—The threefold prudence: 1. Of the lord of the manor; 2. of the steward; 3. of the Christian.—The obscurities or apparent difficulties in the parable of the Unjust Steward.—Lisco:—Of the prudence of the citizens of the kingdom.—Arndt:—Wisdom unto the kingdom of God.—Zimmermann:—The children of the world, our teachers in this, that they: 1. Consider the future; 2. use the past; 3. control the present.—The Christian a servant of God, a lord over Mammon.—F. W. Krummacher:—A sermon in the Sabbath-Glocke, 1. pp. 140–151.—Ahlfeld:—1. What in the Unjust Steward have we to shun? 2. what to learn from him?—Couard:—What belongs to Christian prudence, in the care for our everlasting salvation?—Rautenberg:—How do we secure to ourselves a reception into the everlasting tabernacles?—Tholuck:—What is true of a faithful steward?—Wolf:—The Unjust Steward about to pass the border of his earthly fortune.—Our refuge when we fail.—Steinhofer:—The connection of prudence and faithfulness In a steward of God; there is a character: 1. Where there is neither prudence nor faithfulness; 2. where there is prudence without faithfulness; 3. where there is faithfulness without prudence; 4. where prudence and faithfulness are united.—Burk:—The great faithfulness of God, even with man’s great unfaithfulness.—Florey:—The prudence of the steward in the kingdom of God, Luk_16:8.

Footnotes:

[1]Luk_16:1.—On the authority of B., D., [CoφThis is sod. Sin.,] L., αὐτοῦ should be expunged.

[2]Luk_16:7.—The καί of the Recepta should be omitted, as by Tischendorf.

[3][Luk_16:8.—The article before κύριος having its continually recurring possessive sense.—C. C. S.]

[4]Luk_16:9.—See Exegetical and Critical remarks.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 16

1. The Unjust Steward. (Luk 16:1-12)

2. The Impossible Service. (Luk 16:13)

3. The Deriding Pharisees Answered. (Luk 16:14-17)

4. Concerning Divorce. (Luk 16:18)

5. The Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luk 16:19-31.)

Luk 16:1-12

Let us notice that this story was spoken to the disciples. It contains a number of difficulties. It has well been said “there are knots in it which perhaps will never be untied, until the Lord comes again. We might reasonably expect that a book written by inspiration, as the Bible is, would contain things hard to be understood. The fault lies not in the book, but in ourselves.” The story of the unjust steward is used to teach wisdom in the use of earthly things. What the steward did was an unjust thing, but he acted wisely. “The lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely.” Then our Lord makes the statement that “the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” But what is the application? “And I say unto you, Make yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when it (not ye) fails, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” Pages could be filled with interpretations which have been given of this statement. Many of these have been made at the expense of the grace of God, which alone fits a sinner for glory. (Godet gives a novel interpretation: “May not the disciple who reaches heaven without having gained here below the degree of development which is the condition of full communion with God, receive the increase of spiritual life, which is yet wanting to him, by means of those grateful spirits with whom he shared his temporal goods here below?”) Heaven cannot be bought by the rightful use of earthly things. Man as God’s steward has failed and has wasted His goods. But the disciple is to use earthly things, the mammon of unrighteousness, to a wise and advantageous purpose. The Lord’s word may be paraphrased in this wise: “Use the temporal things, the mammon of unrighteousness with an eye to the future, as the steward did his, so that it will be like friends you have made.” “That they may receive you” is indefinite and must be regarded to signify rather “Ye may be received.” We leave this difficult passage by quoting a valuable comment on it: “On the one hand let us beware of opposing that by any use of money we can purchase to ourselves God’s favor and the pardon of our sins. Heaven is not to be bought. Any such interpretation of the verse is most unscriptural. On the other hand, let us beware of shutting our eyes against the doctrine which the verse unmistakably contains. That doctrine plainly is, that a right use of our money in this world, from right motive, will be for our benefit in the world to come. It will not justify us. It will not bear the severity of God’s judgment, any more than other good works. But it shall be an evidence of our grace, which shall befriend our souls. There is such a thing as ‘laying up treasure in heaven,’ and ‘laying up a good foundation against the time to come.’ (Mat 6:20; 1Ti 6:19.)”--Bishop Ryle. That the whole story has a meaning connected with the elder son the Pharisee in the preceding parable must not be overlooked. The Pharisees were avaricious. After the Lord had declared the impossible service, not alone then, but in all times, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” the Pharisees, who heard all these things and who were covetous, derided him.

Luk 16:19-31

A solemn paragraph closes the chapter. Avoid the use of the word “parable” in connection with these verses. The Lord said, “There was a certain rich man.” It is history and not a parable. The derision of the Pharisees on account of the Lord’s words about the unjust steward must have been based upon their trust in the law and the promise of the law, that temporal blessings and riches were in store for all who keep the law. The story our Lord relates is aimed once more at the sneering, unbelieving, self-righteous Pharisees.

The rich man had great riches. But his riches were not the evidences of divine favor and blessing. Lazarus, the poor man, had no earthly possessions. Was his poverty an evidence of divine displeasure? Then the Lord, the omniscient Lord, draws aside the veil and reveals what is hidden from the sight of man. Both die. Lazarus is carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. He had no means to make friends for himself by using the mammon of unrighteousness, so as to be welcomed in the everlasting habitations. And yet he is there. God had in His infinite grace carried him so high. Lazarus’ name means “God is Helper.”

The rich man also died and is in Hades (not in hell; the lake of fire opens after the judgment). He is in torment and sees Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom. He hears that there is no relief, no hope. An impassable gulf is fixed, which separates forever the lost and the saved. Not a ray of hope is given by the Lord, that there is the slightest possibility after death for another chance. Death fixes forever the eternal condition of every human being. Whoever meddles with this solemn truth, whether a Russellite, or Restorationist or whatever name he may bear, rejects the testimony of the Son of God and charges Him with not having spoken the truth. We cannot follow the solemn story in all its details. Future punishment of the wicked, the future conscious punishment of the wicked, the future conscious and eternal punishment of the wicked is denied and sneered at today by the majority of professing Christians. But the Lord Jesus, the friend of sinners, the One who came to seek and to save what is lost, teaches beyond controversy in this solemn story, the future, conscious and eternal punishment of the wicked.

Of late one hears much that the story is a parable, that the rich man typifies the Jew, his torment, their persecutions; the poor man is the Gentile. It is an invention. The story must be forced to mean this. The careful student will soon see how impossible such an application is. Nor is the view new. It was taught by many errorists of past generations.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 13

THE UNJUST STEWARD

Luk 16:1-13. “And He continued to speak to His disciples, There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and he was falsely accused to him as wasting his goods.”

a. The word here dieblethe, “accused,” E. V., is the strongest word in the Greek language for false accusation. Yet he could not help himself, but was forced to face his landlord, and abide his destiny as if he had been ever so guilty.

b. “And calling him, he said to him, What is this I hear concerning you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you are not able to be steward any longer.” We should all profit by this incident, considering the fact that we are God’s stewards, every one of us, and liable every minute to be called into His presence to give an account of our stewardship as when we pass out of this world we can be stewards no more.

c. “The steward said within himself, What shall I do? because my lord taketh my stewardship away from me. I am unable to dig; I am ashamed to beg.” The truth of it is, the man had held the office so long, and thus accustomed to mental labor only, that he had lost his ability, hardihood, and aptitude to rough work and hard manual toil, so that he was actually unable to make a living if put out of his office; while, of course, he was ashamed to turn beggar. It seems that the man had used all of his salary as fast as it came due, so that he had actually accumulated nothing, and would consequently be utterly destitute of a living if turned out of his office.

d. “I know what I shall do, in order that when I may be removed from my stewardship they may receive me into their houses.” He now proposes to do something in order to make favor with the people, so they will show him kindness, and extend him their hospitality, after he is thrown out of office. “Calling each one of the debtors of his lord, he spoke to the first, How much do you owe my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said to him, Take thy accounts, and sitting down, quickly write fifty.”

Of course this was a private transaction in his office, known only to himself and the recipient. “And then he said to another, How much do you owe? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. He says to him, Take out thy accounts, and write eighty.” So the steward doubtless went through the entire curriculum of indebtedness to his lord, meeting each debtor privately, and confidentially making these liberal donations to each one, thus bringing them under great financial obligation, so they would be ready in any emergency to reciprocate the favor. Consequently the steward would have so many people thus brought under obligations to him, that when thrown out of employment and tramping round, he would have plenty of homes and friends, and find an abundance of kind hospitality among the people to whom he had made these liberal donations.

e. “And the lord praised the unjust steward, because he acted shrewdly.” Of course, the landlord in a case of that kind would find out this extensive depletion of the accounts; but as the business was all in the hands of this steward, who was his legal and responsible agent, and authorized to sign his name to the papers, he could neither disentangle the matter nor have recourse so as to rectify the mutilations. Consequently while he could not help himself, seeing through the problem involved, and recognizing the fact that this man had brought quite a lot of his customers under lasting financial obligations to him, he said to the people, “He is a sharp, shrewd fellow, thus ingeniously managing to subserve his own interest when forced to resign his office.” Now you see this landlord emblematizes God. N.B. —

He did not praise the man for his rascality, but for his shrewdness, which is an exceedingly commendable trait. We must not apply our Savior’s metaphors indefinitely, as the illustration is generally confined to some isolated salient fact. Much confusion in Biblical interpretation arises from the misapplication of the tropes and figures used by the Holy Ghost to bring Divine truth within our comprehension. “Because the sons of this age are wiser in their generation than the sons of light.” The meaning of this is very plain. People, as a rule, provide much better for this life than that which is to come. O how difficult it is to get Christians so filled and dominated by the Holy Spirit as to subordinate time to eternity, earth to heaven, and the people to God! O how few are actually living for heaven, with an eye single to the glory of God! When the things of this world are so fleeting and transitory, how strange that even Christians do not more faithfully obey the Savior’s commandment: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust do corrupt, and thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupt, nor thieves break through nor steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also!”

f. “I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, in order that when it may fail you, they may receive you into eternal habitations.” The “mammon of unrighteousness” is money, the “unrighteousness” signifying the fraudulent manner in which it is so frequently obtained, the word here being inserted in continuation of the preceding narrative, where the steward acted fraudulently, and yet very wisely, his lord commending his wisdom, but not his fraud. Now the answer to the above question simply involves the solution of the problem by which we can all make money our friend. We frankly admit that money is a wonderful power. Why does England, a small island in the Atlantic Ocean, girdle the world with her commerce, overawe the time-honored nations with her gunboats, and constrain all the powers of earth to recognize her as “Mistress of the Seas?” The principal reason is because she has been piling up gold in the Bank of England a thousand years. Hence her money-power solves the problem. When mammon gets you by the throat, she is almost certain to drag you into hell. There is a way by which you can make money your friend, instead of permitting it to be your enemy. What is that way? It is none other than entire sanctification. The truly sanctified man has made money his friend, ready to go at his bidding and come at his beck, so that he rules it, sending it on missions of love and mercy, to shine the light of truth and holiness into the dark hovels of poverty, sin, and misery; causing prisoners to rejoice, and hell-dens to be transformed into heavenly vestibules, and missionaries to cross the great oceans and light the antipodean continents with the glory of God; and bring heaven down to bless the sable children of Ham as they tread the burning sands of the Dark Continent; cause the wild sons of Esau to rejoice in the glorious benedictions of Abraham’s God, the red men of the Orient to turn away from their dumb idols and glorify the God of Israel, and the almond-eyed Chinaman and the wild Tartar hordes to hail with joy the glorious coming King, turn evangelists, and roll the celestial fire from arctic mountains to equatorial seas. Now we are well assured that we will all soon fail in this world, when we must go into eternity. This man, through the instrumentality of money, brought many people under obligation to him, so that when turned out of his stewardship, to abide his destiny a penniless tramp, he had so many people thus indebted to him that he actually found it more comfortable tramping than performing the duties of his office, as doors were thrown open on all sides, and a hearty welcome extended from many homes to come and abide with them indefinitely, without money and without price. When we die, we all surrender up our stewardship. Now, do you not know that many poor widows, beggars, invalids, and especially the heathens, who have been saved by your money, whose names you have never heard, will get to heaven, in all probability, before you are called to give up your stewardship? Do you not know that all the saints have guardian angels, whether in America, Africa, Asia, or the islands of the sea? Thee guardian angels are posted about our relations either to other. Now the end has come, and it is said, “You can be steward no longer;” i.e., “You die today.” Do you not know that the guardian angels around your dying bed will wing their flight to heaven, and there notify the beneficiaries of your philanthropy that you are coming? Do you not know that they will ring the bells of heaven, blow the jubilee trumpets, come sweeping out through the gate in shining platoons, calling your name, with a long, loud “Welcome home!” thus actually verifying this promise of Jesus to receive you into eternal habitations?

g. “He who is faithful in little is faithful in much; and he who is unjust in little is unjust in much.” So if you are faithful, industrious, frugal, and economical in the little things of temporal life, it is demonstrative proof, as a rule, that you are faithful in the great things of God and heaven. This is an awful argument against laziness and carelessness appertaining to temporal things. As a rule, indifference, indolence, and neglect of house, farm, books, education, and all phases of temporal interest, are indices of a corresponding indifference and depreciation in the great things of the kingdom. Hence it is exceedingly difficult for a lazy person to be a Christian. “If therefore you are not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will intrust to you the true? There is a woeful blindness among Christians, and even holiness people, on this very subject of industry, economy, and frugality. So many would like to go to the Holy Land, but stagger when those who have been there testify that it is impossible to make the trip on less than one thousand dollars, while it is unsafe to start with less than twice that amount. All that is true, if you sail first-class and eat at tables. I very recently traveled through England, France, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and the Holy Land, seventeen thousand miles, on four hundred dollars, sailing second class, and when on land buying my own edibles, and thus boarding myself, living elegantly everywhere I went, in Europe, Asia, Africa, as well as America, on fifteen cents a day, and always having money to give the poor beggars and help the missionaries in all of my travels, which is no small matter in the Old World. Well has the poet said,

“Man wants but little here below, Nor wants that little long.”

It takes so little to live on in this world that any person who has the use of bodily organs can not only make a living, but have much more to contribute for the glory of God in the amelioration of soul and body than the small pittance requisite to his fleeting life. A girl in New England, only twelve years old, made and sold maple-sugar and built stone fence to the amount of ninety dollars, every cent of which she gave the missionary cause, as she lived with her parents and did not need the money. “If you are unfaithful in another’s business, who will commit to you your own?” This life is so complicated “that no man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself,”

our affairs being so identified with the interest of others that, either directly or indirectly, we are working for one another. Not so in spiritual things. Every tub stands on its own bottom. You can go to heaven if all your neighbors go down to hell, et vice versa. So if you are not faithful, true, reliable, industrious, economical, and frugal in temporal things, can you expect God to entrust to you the priceless investment of glory and immortality? The presumption is, you would fail.

h. “No servant is able to serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other, You are not able to serve God and mammon.” You see from our Savior’s conclusion of this notoriously mysterious parable (as generally considered), while temporal things are indices of spiritual, and as a rule both are appreciated or neglected together, yet we must not forget that making the best we can of all temporal things, as God’s faithful stewards we are to subordinate them indiscriminately to the glory of God. If we permit a competition to rise between the things of this world, here emblematized by mammon, and the things of God, His claims upon us, our duties and responsibilities, we will end in wreckage. God made the material world, and gave us these mortal bodies, vehicles of probation, and requires us to appreciate, appropriate, and utilize the elements of earth, air, and water for His glory; meanwhile all temporal labors, enterprises, and achievements are to be subordinated to the will of God, and utilized with an eye single to His glory in the amelioration of humanity and the salvation o£ the world. John Wesley’s maxim is here exceedingly appropriate: “Make all you can, save all you can, and give all you can.” You see, the final evolution of this mysterious parable culminates in that full and perfect sanctification which alone can make mammon your friend, submissive to your mandamus, meekly wheeling into line, and becoming your most potent ally in the salvation of the world. If your life does not thus culminate in complete and perfect victory over money and all temporal things, so that you can ungrudgingly and joyfully subordinate them to the sweet will of God in every respect, you still leave a handle for Satan to take hold of, divert you from the narrow way, and drag you down to endless woe.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16:1 a certain rich man who had a manager: Wealthy landowners commonly put managers over their estates.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 16:1. Μαθητὰς, disciples) These disciples here are not inclusive of those Twelve who had left their all, and were rather to be accounted among those who were to be made friends of [with the mammon of unrighteousness, Luk 16:9]: but are those who had been publicans [ch. Luk 15:1]. And accordingly the Lord now speaks more weightily and sternly with the disciples, who had been publicans, than He had spoken for them (in their behalf) to others. The (prodigal) son, who has been recovered with joy, is not to have daily ‘music’ [in celebration of his recovery, ch. Luk 15:25, συμφωνίας], but is here taught to return to duty.—διεβλήθη) The verb has a middle force.[164] Information was given against the steward, and that on true grounds, whatever may have been the spirit that influenced the informer.—διασκορπίζων, [wasting] squandering) The Present, but including also the past. The same verb occurs, ch. Luk 15:13 [said of the prodigal, who “squandered [wasted] his substance with riotous living”]. The parable does not refer to all stewards: inasmuch as they rather, throughout the whole time of their stewardship, are bound to show fidelity, 1Co 4:2; but to those stewards who, in a long period of their stewardship, have mismanaged their business (abused their trust). The whole system of the world’s conduct, in the case of their external goods, is a squandering or waste, since their goods are not laid out (bestowed and deposited) in their proper places; although very many of the unjust [worldly stewards of God’s goods] seem to gather together [rather than to squander or scatter]. [For, indeed, whoever evinces alacrity in scattering abroad (in charity), he gathers together treasure in heaven.[165]—V. g.]

[164] Sometimes said of a true, sometimes of a false accusation. Unless Beng. means the sense of the Middle Voice, he got himself accused; i.e. by his bad conduct he brought himself into being accused before his master.—E. and T.

[165] Luk 12:33; Pro 11:24; Psa 112:9.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_16:1. After Jesus has given, as far as Luk_15:32, the needful explanation to the Pharisees and scribes in reference to their murmuring at His associating Himself with the publicans and sinners, He now turns also (δὲ καί) to His disciples with the parabolic discussion of the doctrine how they were to use earthly possessions in order to come into the Messiahs kingdom. For according to Luk_16:9 nothing else is the teaching of the following parable, which consequently is, even in its vocabulary (Köstlin, p. 274), similar to the parable at Luk_12:16 ff. Every other doctrine that has been found therein has first been put there. The ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος is Mammon, comp. Luk_16:13; the οἰκονόμος represents the μαθηταί. Just as (1) the steward was denounced for squandering the property of his lord, so also the μαθηταί, maintaining in Christ an entirely different interest and a different purpose of life from that of collecting earthly wealth (Mat_6:19 f.; Luk_12:33; Luk_18:22), must needs appear to the enemies, the rather that these were themselves covetous (Luk_16:14), as wasteful managers of the riches of Mammon (Mat_6:24), and as such must be decried by them, Luk_16:1. As, further, (2) the steward came into the position of having his dismissal from his service announced to him by the rich man, so also it would come upon the μαθηταί that Mammon would withdraw from them the stewardship of his goods, i.e. that they would come into poverty, Luk_16:2 f. As, however, (3) the steward was prudent enough before his dismissal, while he still had the disposal of his lords wealth, to make use of the latter for his subsequent provision by making for himself friends therewith who would receive him into their houses, which prudence the rich man praised in spite of the dishonesty of the measure; so also should the μαθηταί by liberal expenditure of the goods of Mammon, which were still at their disposal, provide for themselves friends, so as subsequently to attain in their impoverishment provision for eternity, the reception into the Messiahs kingdom. The more detailed explanation will be found on the special passages. The text in itself does not indicate any definite connection with what has preceded, but is only linked on externally, without any mention of an internal progress in the discussion: but He said alsoas the foregoing to the Pharisees, so that which now follows to His disciples.[178] But Jesus very naturally comes direct to the treatment of this theme, because just at that time there were very many publicans among His μαθηταί (Luk_15:1) on whom, after their decision in His favour, devolved as their first duty the application of the goods of Mammon in the way mentioned (Luk_12:33). It is just as natural that, at the same time, the contrast with the Pharisees, just before so humiliatingly rebuked, those covetous ones (Luk_16:14) to whom the ποιεῖν ἑαυτοῖς φίλους ἐκ τ. μαμ. τῆς ἀδικίας was so extremely foreign (Luk_11:41, Luk_20:47), helped to urge to this theme. Other attempts to make out the connection are arbitrary, as, for instance, that of Schleiermacher (besides that it depends on an erroneous interpretation of the parable itself), that Jesus is passing over to a vindication of the publicans, so far as they showed themselves gentle and beneficent towards their people; or that of Olshausen, that He wishes to represent the compassion that in ch. 15. He has exhibited in God, now also in ch. 16 as the duty of men. But there is no reason for denying the existence of any connection, as de Wette does.

πρὸς τ. μαθητ. αὐτοῦ] not merely the Twelve, but the disciples in the more extended sense, in contrast with the opposition which was likewise present. Comp. Mat_8:21; Luk_6:13; Luk_7:11; Luk_19:37, and elsewhere. The parable had the first reference to the publicans that happened to be among them (Luk_15:1), but it concerned also, so far as there were generally still wealthy people among them, the disciples in general. See above.

ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν πλούσιος] not to be defined more particularly than these words themselves and Luk_16:5-7 indicate. To think of the Romans (Schleiermacher), or the Roman Emperor (Grossmann[179]), in the interpretation, is quite foreign to the subject. Moreover, it is not, as is usually explained, God[180] that is to be understood; with which notion Luk_16:8 would conflict, as well as the circumstance that actually the dismissal from the service of the rich man brings with it the same shelter to which, in the application, Luk_16:9 corresponds,[181] the reception into the everlasting habitations. But neither is it the devil, as ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, as Olshausen[182] would have it, that is meant, since in the connection of the parable the relation to the κόσμος[183] in general, and its representatives, is not spoken of, but specially the relation to temporal wealth.[184] Hence its representative, i.e. Mammon, is to be understood; but we must not, with de Wette, give the matter up in despair, and say that the rich man has no significance, or (Ebrard) that he serves only as filling up (comp. also Lahmeyer); he has the significance of a definite person feigned, who, however, as such, was well known to the hearers (Mat_6:24), and also at Luk_16:13 is expressly named. The concluding words of Luk_16:13 are the key of the parable; hence, also, it is not to be maintained, with Köster, that a rich man is only conceived of with reference to the steward.

οἰκονόμον] a house steward, ταμίης, who had to take the supervision of the domestics, the stewardship of the household, the rental of the property, etc. Comp. Luk_12:42, and see Heppe, p. 9 ff.; Ahrens, Amt d. Schlüssel, p. 12 ff. Such were usually slaves; but it is implied in Luk_16:3-4 that the case of a free man is contemplated in this passage. To conceive of the οἰκονόμος as a farmer of portion of the property, is neither permitted by the word nor by the context (in opposition to Hölbe). In the interpretation of the parable the οἰκονόμος neither represents men in general, nor specially the wealthy (thus most interpreters, following the Fathers), nor yet the Israelitish people and their leaders (Meuss), nor sinners (Maldonatus and others), not even Judas Iscariot (Bertholdt), also neither the Pharisees (Vitringa, Zyro, Baumgarten-Crusius[185]), nor the publicans (Schleiermacher, Hölbe), but the μαθηταί, as is plain from Luk_16:9, where the conduct analogous to the behaviour of the ΟἸΚΟΝΌΜΟς is enjoined upon them. The ΜΑΘΗΤΑΊ, especially those who were publicans before they passed over to Christ, were concerned with temporal wealth, and were therefore stewards, not of God, but of Mammon.

ΔΙΕΒΛΉΘΗ ΑὐΤῷ] he was denounced to him (on the dative, com p. Herod. v. 35, viii. 22; Plat. Polit. viii. p. 566 B; Soph. Phil. 578; Eur. Hec. 863, and thereon, Pflugk; elsewhere also with εἰς or ΠΡΌς with accusative). Although the word, which occurs only in this place in the New Testament, is not always used of groundless, false accusations, though this is mostly the case (see Schweighäuser, Lex. Herod. I. p. 154), yet it is still no vox media, but expresses, even where a corresponding matter of fact lies at the foundation (as Num_22:22; Dan_3:8; Dan_6:25; 2Ma_3:11; 4Ma_4:1, and in the passages in Kypke, I. p. 296), hostile denunciation, accusation, Niedner, p. 32 ff. Comp. the passages from Xenophon in Sturz, I. p. 673. See also Dem. 155. 7, where the διαβάλλοντες and the ΚΌΛΑΚΕς are contrasted. So also here; Luther aptly says: he was ill spoken of. Vulg.: diffamatus est. There was some foundation in fact (hence, moreover, the steward does not defend himself), but the manner in which he was denounced manifested a hostile purpose. Thus, moreover, in the relation portrayed in that of the μαθηταί to temporal riches, as the unfaithful stewards of which they manifested themselves to the covetous Pharisees by their entrance into the Christian conversion, there lay at the foundation the fact that they had no further interest in Mammon, and were no longer φιλάργυροι. Compare the instance of Zacchaeus. Köster says wrongly that the hitherto faithful steward had only been slandered, and had only allowed himself to be betrayed into a knavish trick for the first time by the necessity arising from the dismissal. No; this knavish trick was only the path of unfaithfulness on which he had hitherto walked, and on which he took a new start to get out of his difficulty. Against the supposition of the faithfulness of the steward, see on Luk_16:3.

ὡς διασκορπίζων] as squandering (Luk_15:13), i.e. so he was represented.[186] Comp. Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 23 :διέβαλλον ὡς λυμαινόμενον, and thus frequently; Jam_2:9. It might also have been ὡς with the optative; Herod. viii. 90, and elsewhere. Erroneously, moreover, in view of the present, the Vulg. reads (comp. Luther): quasi dissipasset.

τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ] therefore the possessions, the means and property (Luk_11:21, Luk_12:15; Luk_12:33, Luk_19:8), of his lord.[187]

[178] Not as Wieseler will have it, beside the Pharisees, to His disciples also.

[179] He finds in the οἰκονόμος a Roman provincial governor, who, towards the end of his oppressive government, has adopted indulgent measures, in order to earn for himself the favour of the inhabitants of the province. He says that thence Jesus, ver. 9, draws the doctrine that as such a one in worldly things behaved himself wisely for an earthly end, so in divine things prudence should be manifested, in order to attain eternal life. Schleiermacher thinks that the rich man represents the Romans, the steward the publicans, the debtors the Jewish people, and that Christ intends to say, that if the publicans in their calling show themselves gentle and beneficent, the Romans, the enemies of the people, will themselves praise them in their hearts; and thus also have ye every cause to concede to them, even in anticipation of the time when this relation ceases (according to the reading ἐκλίπῃ, ver. 9), the citizenship in the βασιλείᾳ τ. θ.

[180] Observe that this interpretation proceeds on an a priori basis, and is therefore improbable; because in both the other passages, where in Luke ἄνθρωπός τις πλούσιος is the subject of a parable (Luk_12:16, Luk_16:19), the rich man represents a very unholy personality, in which is typified the service of Mammon and of luxury.

[181] The usual interpretation (substantially followed also by Wieseler, Bleek, Köster) is in its leading features that of Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus: that the possessor of earthly wealth is not the actual proprietor, that being God, but only the steward. If he has not used the wealth according to Gods will, he is accused, but dismissed by death. Hence he should be prudent enough, while there is still time, to apply the wealth entrusted to him charitably according to Gods will, in order to get into heaven. Comp. Ewald, p. 299: Every rich man, since he must again surrender all earthly riches at least at death, is yet only placed over them as a steward by God, as by a lord who is far removed, but who one day will claim a reckoning; and he is certainly wise and prudent not to allow the riches to lie useless, but rather, by his effectual application of them, to make to himself friends for the right time; but one ought only to gain for himself friends with his riches for the purpose that in the moment when he must, at least as constrained by death, give them up, he should be received by them into the everlasting tabernacles of heaven. Baur, Evang. p. 450 ff., proceeding from the fundamentally Ebionitic view, says that the rich man is God in His absolute dominion over all; that in the steward is represented the αἰὼν οὗτος, whose doings, however, are determined by the adequate relation of the means to the end; that this prudence is a quality which even the children of light need, since they must know how to set the αἰὼν οὗτος in the right relation to the αἰὼν μέλλων, and hence to be willing to renounce all that pertains to the former in order to attain the latter; that ver. 9 means that he is not at all to trouble himself with Mammon, but entirely to rid himself of wealth, and hence to use it for an object of beneficence, because the αἰὼν οὗτος and the αἰὼν μέλλων reciprocally exclude one another. To this Ebionitic view of wealth, as of a benefit in itself unlawful and foreign to the kingdom of God, Hilgenfeld also recurs.

[182] His view is that the publicans may be conceived of as being, by their external relations, in the service of the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου. According to ver. 13, God was to be regarded as the other true Lord who stood opposed (as the representative of the δεχόμενοι εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς, ver. 9) to this οἰκοδεσπότης. It was just the prudent διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πλουσίου, who in a right manner serves this true Lord; he despises the one in order wholly to belong to the other; he labours with the possessions of the one for the purpose of the other. But in opposition to his true advantage, therefore not prudently, does he act who, like the Pharisees, seeks to place the service of the one on an equality with that of the other. See, in opposition to Olshausen, Schneckenburger, l.c.

[183] Midway between Olshausens interpretation and mine (of Mammon, see subsequently), Schegg makes the rich man mean the personified κόσμος. But the idea of κόσμος is here too wide, the point in the subject is definitely the being rich; hence also at ver. 14, φιλάργυροι. Schenkel also has adopted the interpretation of the rich man as of Mammon. Comp. Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 391, III. p. 463.

[184] This also in opposition to H. Bauer, l.c. p. 529 ff., who finds in the rich man the theocratic chiefs of the people, whose chief wealth was the theocracy itself. The οἰκονόμος must have been the Jewish Christians; the debtors, the ἁμαρτωλοί and ἐθνικοί, to whom the primitive community more and more conceded a share in the Messianic blessings. The dismissal of the οἰκονόμος was the excommunication of the primitive church; the friends were the Gentiles, to whom a portion of the legal claims had been remitted by the Christians. The digging and begging must be a new subjection under the chiefs of Israel, with which the primitive church will no longer exchange their free position! The δέχεσθαι εἰς οἴκους probably points to the necessity of restoring a perfect living intercourse with the converted Gentiles! An arbitrary exercise of ingenuity, making an ὕστερον πρότερον of the parables of Jesus, by which they are wrenched away from the living present and changed into enigmatical predictions. According to the Sächs. Anonymus, the steward is even held to be Paul, who disposed of the wealth of salvation for the benefit of the Gentiles.

[185] According to Zyro, the meaning of the parable is: Ye Pharisees are stewards of a heavenly treasurethe law; but ye are unfaithful stewards, indulgent towards yourselves, strict towards others; nevertheless, even ye are already accused, as was he in the parable; and even your power and your dignity will soon disappear. Therefore, as ye are like to him in your ἀδικία, be ye also like to him in your φρόνησις, strict towards yourselves, benevolent towards others, and that at once. According to Baumgarten-Crusius, Christ desiresdisapproving of the disposition and conduct of the Pharisees in respect of the works of loveto direct the disciples to appropriate to themselves something thereof in a better manner. That, namely, which the Pharisees did as sinners in order to cover their sins, and in so-called good works, the disciples were to do, not as sinners, but in order to smooth by sympathetic beneficence the inequality of the relations of life. Bornemann also explains the οἰκονόμος of the Pharisees. See on ver. 9. Weizsäcker similarly distinguishes, as in the parable of the prodigal son (see on Luk_15:11), the primitive meaning (according to which the steward was a heathen functionary who oppressed the Jews, but afterwards took their part) from the meaning attached to it by the compiler, according to which the steward was a type of the unbelieving rich Jews, who might receive a reversion of the kingdom of heaven if they took up the cause of their fellow-believers who had become Christians. This is a sort of double meaning, which neither in itself nor in its twofold contents has any foundation in the text.

[186] To gather from ὡς that the indebtedness was unfounded (Hölbe) is unjustifiable. ὡς might also be used in the case of a well-founded διαβάλλεσθαι, and hence in itself decides nothing at all. Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 263 [E. T. 307].

[187] Therefore not the possessions of the debtors, to which result van Oosterzee comes, assuming that the steward had made the debtors (who were tenants) pay more than he had given up and paid over to his lord; in the alteration of the leases he had only the right sums introduced which he had hitherto brought into account.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 16:1-7 . The parable of the unjust steward .

Luk 16:1 . ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ : the same formula of transition as in Luk 14:12 . The καὶ connects with ἔλεγε , not with πρὸς τ . μαθητὰς , and points not to change of audience (disciples now, Pharisees before) but to continued parabolic discourse. μαθητάς , disciples, quite general; might mean the Twelve, or the larger crowd of followers (Luk 14:25 ), or the publicans and sinners who came to Him (Luk 15:1 , so Schleiermacher, etc.). διεβλήθη , was accused, here only in N.T., often in classics and Sept [133] ; construed with dative here; also with εἰς or πρὸς , with accusative. The verb implies always a hostile animus , often the accompaniment of false accusation, but not necessarily. Here the charge is assumed to be true. ὡς διασκορπίζων , as squandering, that the charge; how, by fraud or by extravagant living, not indicated; the one apt to lead to the other.

[133] Septuagint.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPS. Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:31

This section forms a great episode in St Luke, which may be called the departure for the final conflict, and is identical with the journey (probably to the Feast of the Dedication, Joh 10:22) which is partially touched upon in Mat 18:1 to Mat 20:16 and Mar 10:1-31. It contains many incidents recorded by this Evangelist alone, and though the recorded identifications of time and place are vague, yet they all point (Luk 9:51, Luk 13:22, Luk 17:11, Luk 10:38) to a slow, solemn, and public progress from Galilee to Jerusalem, of which the events themselves are often grouped by subjective considerations. So little certain is the order of the separate incidents, that one writer (Rev. W. Stewart) has made an ingenious attempt to shew that it is determined by the alphabetic arrangement of the leading Greek verbs (ἀγαπᾶν, Luk 10:25-42; αἰτεῖν, Luk 11:1-5; Luk 11:8-13, &c.). Canon Westcott arranges the order thus: The Rejection of the Jews foreshewn; Preparation, Luk 9:43 to Luk 11:13; Lessons of Warning, Luk 11:14 to Luk 13:9; Lessons of Progress, Luk 13:10 to Luk 14:24; Lessons of Discipleship, Luk 14:25 to Luk 17:10; the Coming End, Luk 17:10 to Luk 18:30.

The order of events after ‘the Galilaean spring’ of our Lord’s ministry on the plain of Gennesareth seems to have been this: After the period of flight among the heathen or in countries which were only semi-Jewish, of which almost the sole recorded incident is the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (Mat 15:21-28) He returned to Peraea and fed the four thousand. He then sailed back to Gennesareth, but left it in deep sorrow on being met by the Pharisees with insolent demands for a sign from heaven. Turning His back once more on Galilee, He again travelled northwards; healed a blind man at Bethsaida Julias; received St Peter’s great confession on the way to Caesarea Philippi; was transfigured; healed the demoniac boy; rebuked the ambition of the disciples by the example of the little child; returned for a brief rest in Capernaum, during which occurred the incident of the Temple Tax; then journeyed to the Feast of Tabernacles, in the course of which journey occurred the incidents so fully narrated by St John (Joh 7:1 to Joh 10:21). The events and teachings in this great section of St Luke seem to belong mainly, if not entirely, to the two months between the hasty return of Jesus to Galilee and His arrival in Jerusalem, two months afterwards, at the Feast of Dedication;—a period respecting which St Luke must have had access to special sources of information.

For fuller discussion of the question I must refer to my Life of Christ, II. 89–150.

Luk 16:1-13. THE UNJUST STEWARD

1. ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ … Jesus now passes from the sin of hypocrisy to the cognate sin of cupidity, as in Mat 6:18-19. The whole series of parables is anti-pharisaic. In interpreting the two following parables it is very necessary to bear in mind the tertium comparationis, i.e. the one special point which our Lord had in view. To press each detail into a separate dogmatic truth is a course which has led to flagrant errors in theology and even in morals.

τις ἦν πλούσιος ὅς εἶχεν οἰκονόμον. The rich man and the steward are both men of the world. It is only in one general aspect that they correspond to God and to ourselves as His stewards (Tit 1:7) who are ‘required to be faithful,’ 1Co 4:1-5. No parable has been more diversely and multitudinously explained than this. For instance, in the steward some have seen the Pharisees, or the publicans, or Judas Iscariot, or Christ, or Satan, &c. To enter into and refute these explanations would take up much space and would be quite fruitless. We cannot be wrong if we seize as the main lesson of the parable, the one which Christ Himself attached to it (8–12), namely, the use of earthly gifts of wealth and opportunity for heavenly and not for earthly aims.

διεβλήθη. Vulg[294] diffamatus est. In Classic Greek the word means ‘was slandered.’ Here it has the more general sense (see LXX[295] Dan 6:24), but perhaps involves the notion of a secret accusation.

[294] Vulg. Vulgate.

[295] LXX. Septuagint.

ὡς διασκορπίζων. He not only ‘had wasted’ (i.e. squandered on himself) his lord’s goods, but was still doing so. The Vulg[296] quasi dissipasset misled the translators of the A.V[297]

[296] Vulg. Vulgate.

[297] A.V. Authorised Version.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

16:1-8.] Parable of the unjust steward. Peculiar to Luke. No parable in the Gospels has been the subject of so much controversy as this: while, at the same time, the general stream of interpretation is well defined, and, in the main, satisfactory. It would be quite beyond the limits of a note to give any thing like a recension of the views respecting it: the principal ones which differ from that which I have adopted, will appear in the course of my remarks.

1.] ἔλεγεν δὲ καί—a continuation, I believe, of the foregoing:—certainly closely connected in subject with it, as is the second parable in this chapter also: see below.

πρὸς τ. μαθ., not to the Twelve only, but to the multitude of the disciples; and more immediately perhaps to the Publicans, whose reception by Him had been the occasion of this discourse. I say this because I believe them to hold a place, though not a principal or an exclusive one, in the application of the parable which follows.

ἄνθρ. τ. ἦν πλοίσ.…] The history in this parable is, in itself, purely worldly. The master is a υἱὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, as well as his steward: bear this in mind:—the whole parabolic machinery is from the standing-point of the children of this world.

In the interpretation, this rich man is the Almighty Possessor of all things. This is the only tenable view. Meyer, who supposes him to be Mammon (defending it by the consideration that dismissal from his service = being received into everlasting habitations, which it does not,—see below), is involved in inextricable difficulties further on. Olshausen’s view, that he = the Devil, the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, will be found equally untenable. Schleiermacher’s, that the Romans are intended, whose stewards the Publicans were, and that the debtors = the Jews, hardly needs refuting;—certainly not more refuting, than any consistent exposition will of itself furnish.

οἰκονόμον, a general overlooker—very much what we understand by an agent, or ‘a man of business,’ or, in the larger sense, a steward. They were generally of old, slaves: but this man is a freeman, from vv. 3, 4. This steward = especially the Publicans, but also all the disciples, i.e. every man in Christ’s Church. We are all God’s stewards, who commits to our trust His property:—each one’s office is of larger or smaller trust and responsibility, according to the measure entrusted to him. I say, especially the Publicans, because the Twelve, and probably others, had relinquished all and followed Christ, and therefore the application of the parable to them would not be so direct: and also because I cannot but put together with this parable, and consider as perhaps prompted by it or the report of it, the profession of Zacchæus, ch. 19:8. Other interpretations have been—the Pharisees (Vitringa, and more recently Zyro, Theol. Stud. und Krit. for 1831)—but then the parable should have been addressed to them, which it was not,—and this view entirely fails in the application:—Judas Iscariot (Bertholdt), of the vindication of which view I am not in possession, and therefore can only generally say, that it is perfectly preposterous:—Pontius Pilate &c. &c.

διεβλήθη—not wrongfully, which the word does not imply necessarily—but maliciously, which it does imply: see Dan 6:24. The reason why it has come so generally to signify ‘wrongful accusation,’ is, that malicious charges are so frequently slanderous. The steward himself does not deny it.

Meyer (see above) in carrying out his view, would interpret this charge as an accusation by the Pharisees against the disciples that they wasted the goods of Mammon by entering the service of Christ:—but then (1) this other service never once appears on the face of the parable; and (2) surely it would hardly be within the bounds of decorum that this διασκορπίζειν should = the entering Christ’s service;—this would bring a train of false interpretations with it, and even hold up the ἀδικία of the steward, as such, for imitation.

διασκορπίζων—not that he had wasted (E. V.), but was wasting, his goods, ὡς διασκορπίζων = ὅτι διεσκόρπιζεν. So διέβαλλον ὡς λυμαινόμενον τὴν πολιτείαν, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 23. In this charge (spiritually) we may see the real guilt of every man who is entrusted with the goods of our heavenly Father. We are all ‘scattering His goods.’ If some one is to be found to answer to οἱ διαβάλλοντες, the analogy of ὁ διάβολος, ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ is too striking to escape us.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16:1-31. On the Use of Wealth. This is taught in two parables, the Unrighteous Steward (1-8) and the Rich Man and Lazarus (19-31). The intermediate portion is partly supplementary to the first parable (9-13), partly introductory to the second (14-18). The first is addressed to the disciples (ver. 1), but is felt by the Pharisees who heard it to apply to them (ver. 14). The second appears to be addressed directly to the Pharisees. Both of them teach that riches involve, not sin, but responsibility and peril. They are a trust rather than a possession; and the use made of wealth in this world has great influence upon one’s condition in the great Hereafter. The steward seems to illustrate the case of one who by a wise use of present opportunities secures a good condition in the future; while the rich man exhibits that of one who by misuse of his advantages here ruins his happiness hereafter.

Attempts have been made to connect these two parables with the three which precede, and also with the three which follow. A connexion in fact with what precedes cannot be established. There is no clear intimation of a break, but there is intimation of a fresh start, which may or may not be upon the same occasion. But in thought a connexion may be admitted. These two parables, like the previous three, are directed against special faults of the Pharisees. The former three combated their hard exclusiveness, self-righteousness, and contempt for others. These two combat their self-indulgence. It is still harder to establish a connexion in fact between these two and the three which follow; but Edersheim thinks that the thought which binds all five together is righteousness. The five run thus: the Unrighteous Steward, the Unrighteous Owner (Dives), and the Unrighteous Judge; the Self-righteous Pharisee and the Self-righteous Servant (L. & T. 2. p. 264). Milligan gives a somewhat similar grouping (Expositor, August, 1892, p. 114).

1-8. § The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward. The difficulty of this parable is well known, and the variety of interpretations is very great. A catalogue of even the chief suggestions would serve no useful purpose: it is sufficient to state that the steward has been supposed to mean the Jewish hierarchy, the tax-collectors, Pilate, Judas, Satan, penitents, S. Paul, Christ. Here again, therefore, we have absolutely contradictory interpretations (see on 14:33). But the difficulty and consequent diversity of interpretation are for the most part the result of mistaken attempts to make the details of the parable mean something definite. Our Lord Himself gives the key to the meaning (ver. 9), and we need, not go beyond the point to which His words plainly carry us. The steward, however wanting in fidelity and care, showed great prudence in the use which he made of present opportunities as a means of providing for the future. The believer ought to exhibit similar prudence in using material advantages in this life as a means of providing for the life to come. If Christians were as sagacious and persevering in using wealth to promote their welfare in the next world, as worldly men are in using it to promote their interests here, the Kingdom of God would be more flourishing than it is. We may put aside all the details of the parable as mere setting. Every parable contains details which are not intended to convey any lesson, although necessary to complete the picture, or to impress it upon the memory. In this parable the proportion of such details is larger than in others. It should, however, be noticed that the steward provides for his future by means of goods which are not his own, but are merely entrusted to his care. The wealth out of which the Christian lays up treasure in heaven is in like manner not his own, but is held in trust. The method of the parable is very similar to that in the parable of the Unrighteous Judge (18:2). In both we have an argument à fortiori. In that case the argument is, If an unrighteous judge will yield to the importunity of a stranger, how much more will a righteous and loving Father listen to the earnest prayers of His own children? Here the argument is, If an unrighteous steward was commended by his earthly master for his prudence in providing for his future by a fraudulent use of what had been committed to him, how much more will a righteous servant be commended by his heavenly Master for providing for eternity by a good use of what has been committed to him? But see the explanation given by Latham in Pastor Pastorum, pp. 386-398. The literature on the subject is voluminous and unrepaying. For all that is earlier than 1800 see Schreiber, Historico-critica explanationum parabolæ de improbo œcon. descriptio, Lips, 1803. For 1800-1879 see Meyer-Weiss, p. 515, or Meyer, Eng. tr. p. 209.

1. Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ πρὸͅ τοὺͅ μαθητᾴ. For ἔλεγεν δέ of a new start in the narrative see 18:1. The meaning of the καί is that at this time He also said what follows, and it was addressed to the disciples. The latter would include many more than the Twelve. Note both δὲ καί (15:28, 32) and πρόͅ.

Ἄνθρωπόͅ τιͅ ἦν πλούσιοͅ. The rich owner is almost as variously interpreted as the steward. The commonest explanation is God; but the Romans, Mammon, and Satan have also been suggested. Grave objections may be urged against all of these interpretations. It is more likely that the owner has no special meaning. We are probably to understand that he lived in the town while the steward managed the estate. Note the τιͅ.

οἰκονόμον. Here he is a superior person to the one mentioned 11:42. There the steward is a slave or freedman, left in charge of other slaves, corresponding on the whole to the Roman dispensator or villicus. Here be is a freeman, having the entire management of the estate, a procurator. Comp. Si mandandum aliquid procuratori de agriculturâ aut imperandum villico est (Cic. De Orat. i. 58, 249). But the Procurator was often a slave, and perhaps in some cases was not superior to the dispensator or the villicus. See D. of Ant.3 pp. 496, 957. Vulg. has villicus here and dispensator 12:42 (where see note) and arcarius Rom 16:23.

διεβλήθη αὐτῷ. This use of διαβάλλειν of hostile information presumably true is not common in class. Grk. It probably implies accusing behind a person’s back (Dan 3:8, Dan 6:24 (Theod.); 2 Mal 3:11; Mal_4 Mal 4:1; Hdt. 8:110.; Thuc. iii. 4. 4); but ἐνδιαβάλλειν is used Num 22:22 of mere hostility. Eusebius (perhaps quoting Papias) says of the woman, who may be identical with the woman taken in adultery, διαβληθείσῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου (H. E. iii 39, 16). Vulg. here has diffamatus est; Beza, delatus est; Luther, der ward berüchtiget. The ᾡ by no means implies that the charge was false (Jas 2:9), but is in accordance with the best authors, who use it after κατηγορεῖν as well as after διαβάλλειν. The steward does not deny the charge.

ᾡ διασκορπίζων. Not quasi dissipasset (Vulg.), “that he had wasted” (AV.); but “as wasting” or “as a waster of” For τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ see on 8:3. The epithet τὸν οἰκονόμον τῇ ἀδικίᾳ (ver. 8) does not refer to this culpable neglect and extravagance, but to the fraudulent arrangement with the creditors. Nevertheless there is no hint that his fraud was a new departure.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This piece contains: 1 st. The parable of the unjust steward, with accompanying reflections (Luk 16:1-13); 2 d. Reflections forming an introduction to the parable of the wicked rich man, and the parable itself (Luk 16:14-31). Those two portraits are evidently the counterparts of one another. The idea common to both is that of the relation between the use made of earthly goods and man’s future beyond the tomb. The steward represents the owner who is able to secure his future by a wise use of those transitory goods; the wicked rich man, the owner who compromises his future by neglecting this just employment of them.

1 st. Luk 16:1-13. The Unjust Steward.

Is there a connection between this lesson on riches and the preceding? The formula ἔλεγε δὲ καί, and He said also (Luk 16:1), seems to indicate that there is. Olshausen supposes that the disciples (Luk 16:1) to whom the parable is addressed are publicans brought back to God, those recent converts of chap. 15, whom Jesus was exhorting to employ wisely the earthly goods which they had acquired unjustly. But the expression: to His disciples (Luk 16:1), refers naturally to the ordinary disciples of our Lord. In the sense of Olshausen, some epithet would require to have been added. The connection is rather in the keeping up of the contrast between the life of faith and pharisaic righteousness. The two chief sins of the Pharisees were pride, with its fruit hypocrisy, and avarice (Luk 16:14). We see in the Sermon on the Mount, which was directed against their false righteousness, how Jesus passes directly from the one of those sins to the other (Mat 6:18-19). This is precisely what He does here. He had just been stigmatizing pharisaic pride in the person of the elder son. Now this disposition is ordinarily accompanied by that proud hardness which characterizes the wicked rich man, as the heart broken by the experiences of faith is naturally disposed to the liberal actions of the unjust steward. Hence the form: He said to them also.

And first the parable: Luk 16:1-9.

In this portraiture, as in some others, Jesus does not scruple to use the example of the wicked for the purpose of stimulating His disciples. And in fact, in the midst of conduct morally blamable, the wicked often display remarkable qualities of activity, prudence, and perseverance, which may serve to humble and encourage believers. The parable of the unjust steward is the master-piece of this sort of teaching.

The rich man of Luk 16:1 is a great lord living in the capital, far from his lands, the administration of which he has committed to a factor. The latter is not a mere slave, as in Luk 12:42; he is a freeman, and even occupying a somewhat high social position (Luk 16:3). He enjoys very large powers. He gathers in and sells the produce at his pleasure. Living himself on the revenue of the domain, it is his duty to transmit to his master the surplus of the income. Olshausen alleges that this master, in the view of Jesus, represents the prince of this world, the devil, and that only thus can the eulogium be explained which he passes (Luk 16:8) on the conduct of his knavish servant. This explanation is incompatible with the deprivation of the steward pronounced by the master, Luk 16:2, and which, in the view of our Lord, can only denote death. It is not Satan who disposes of human life. Satan is not even the master of riches; does not God say, Hag 2:8: “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine”? Comp. Psa 24:1. Finally, it is not to Satan, certainly, that we shall have to give account of our administration of earthly goods! Our Lord clearly gives out Himself as the person represented by the master, Luk 16:8-9: The master commended...; and I also say unto you. Again, could we admit that in Luk 16:12 the expression: faithful in that which is another man’s (your master’s), should signify: “faithful to that which the devil has committed to you of his goods”? Meyer has modified this explanation of Olshausen: the master, according to him, is wealth personified, mammon. But how are we to attribute the personal part which the master in the parable plays to this abstract being, wealth? The master can only represent God Himself, Him who maketh poor and maketh rich, who bringeth low and lifteth up. In relation to his neighbour, every man may be regarded as the proprietor of his goods; but in relation to God, no one is more than a tenant. This great and simple thought, by destroying the right of property relatively to God, gives it its true basis in the relation between man and man. Every man should respect the property of his neighbour, just because it is not the latter’s property, but that of God, who has entrusted it to him. In the report made to the master about the delinquencies of his steward, we are to see the image of that perfect knowledge which God has of all human unfaithfulness. To waste the goods of God, means, after having taken out of our revenue what is demanded for our maintenance, instead of consecrating the remainder to the service of God and of His cause, squandering it on our pleasure, or hoarding it up for ourselves. Here we have the judgment of Jesus on that manner of acting which appears to us so natural: it is to forget that we are but stewards, and to act as proprietors.

The saying of the master to the steward (Luk 16:2) does not include a call to clear himself; it is a sentence of deprivation. His guilt seems thoroughly established. The account which he is summoned to render is the inventory of the property confided to him, to be transmitted to his successor. What corresponds to this deprivation is evidently the event by which God takes away from us the free disposal of the goods which He had entrusted to us here below, that is, death. The sentence of deprivation pronounced beforehand denotes the awakening of the human conscience when it is penetrated by this voice of God: “Thou must die; thou shalt give account.” Φωνήσας is stronger than καλέσας: “speaking with the tone of a master.” In the phrase τί τοῦτο, τί may be taken as an exclamation: “How happens it that I hear this!” or interrogatively, with τοῦτο in apposition: “What do I hear of thee, to wit this?” The accusation which we should expect to follow is understood.

The present δύνῃ, in some Alex., is that of the immediate future.

The words: he said within himself, have some relation to those of Luk 15:17: when he came to himself. It is an act of recollection after a life passed in insensibility. The situation of the man is critical. Of the two courses which present themselves to his mind, the first, digging, and the second, begging, are equally intolerable to him, the one physically, the other morally. All at once, after long reflection, he exclaims, as if striking his forehead: I have it! ῎Εγνων, I have come to see (Luk 16:4). He starts from the sentence as from a fact which is irrevocable: when I am put out. But has he not those goods, which he is soon to hand over to another, in his hands for some time yet? May he not hasten to use them in such a way that he shall get advantage from them when he shall have them no more, by making sure, for example, of a refuge for the time when he shall be houseless? When man thinks seriously of his approaching death, it is impossible for him not to be alarmed at that deprivation which awaits him, and at the state of nakedness which will follow. Happy if in that hour he can take a firm resolution. For some time yet he has in his hands the goods of his divine Master, which death is about to wrest from him. Will it not be wisdom on his part so to use them during the brief moments when he has them yet at his disposal, that they shall bear interest for him when they shall be his no more?

This steward, who will soon be homeless, knows people who have houses: “Let us then make friends of them; and when I shall be turned to the street, more than one house shall be open to receive me.” The debtors, whom he calls to him with this view, are merchants who are in the habit of coming to get their supplies from him, getting credit probably till they have made their own sales, and making their payments afterwards. The Heb. βάτος, the bath, contains about 60 pints. The gift of 50 of those baths might mount up to the sum of some thousands of francs. The κόρος, corus (homer), contains 10 ephahs; and the value of 20 homers might rise to some hundreds of francs. The difference which the steward makes between the two gifts is remarkable; it contains a proof of discernment. He knows his men, as the saying is, and can calculate the degree of liberality which he must show to each to gain a like result, that is to say, the hospitality he expects to receive from them until it be repaid. Jesus here describes alms in the most piquant form. Does a rich man, for example, tear up the bill of one of his poor debtors? He only does what the steward does here. For if all we have is God’s, supposing we lend anything, it is out of His property that we have taken it; and if we give it away, it is with His goods (that which is another’s, Luk 16:12) that we are generous in so acting. Beneficence from this point of view appears as a sort of holy unfaithfulness. By means of it we prudently make for ourselves, like the steward, personal friends, while we use wealth which, strictly speaking, is that of our Master. But differently from the steward, we do so holily, because we know that we are not acting without the knowledge and contrary to the will of the divine Owner, but that, on the other hand, we are entering into His purposes of love, and that he rejoices to see us thus using the goods which he has committed to us with that intention. This unfaithfulness is faithfulness (Luk 16:12).

The commendation which the master gives the steward (Luk 16:8) is not absolute. It has a twofold limitation, first in the word τῆς ἀδικίας, “the unjust steward,” an epithet which he must certainly put in the master’s mouth, and then in the explanatory phrase: “because he had done wisely.” The meaning of the commendation, then, is to this effect: “Undoubtedly a clever man! It is only to be regretted that he has not shown as much probity as prudence.” Thus, even though beneficence chiefly profits him who exercises it, God rejoices to see this virtue. And while He has no favour for the miser who hoards His goods, or for the egoist who squanders them, He approves the man who disposes of them wisely in view of his eternal future. Weizsäcker holds that the eulogium given by the master should be rejected from the parable. Had he understood it better, he would not have proposed this suppression, which would be a mutilation.

It is with the second part of Luk 16:8 that the application begins. “Wisely: Yes, adds Jesus, it is quite true. For there is more wisdom found among the children of this world in their mode of acting toward the children of the generation to which they belong, than among the children of light in their conduct toward those who belong to theirs.” Αἰών οὗτος, this age (world); the period of history anterior to the coming of the kingdom of God. Φῶς: the domain of the higher life into which Jesus introduces His disciples, and in which the brightness of divine wisdom reigns. Both spheres have their own population, and every inhabitant of the one or the other is surrounded by a certain number of contemporaries like himself, who form his γενεά or generation. Those belonging to the first sphere use every means for their own interest, to strengthen the bonds which unite them to their contemporaries of the same stamp. But those of the second neglect this natural measure of prudence. They forget to use God’s goods to form bonds of love to the contemporaries who share their character, and who might one day give them a full recompense, when they themselves shall want everything and these shall have abundance. Luk 16:9 finishes the application. The words: and I also say unto you, correspond to these: and the Lord commended (Luk 16:8). As in chap. 15 Jesus had identified Himself with the Father who dwells in heaven, so in this saying He identifies Himself with the invisible owner of all things: and I. Jesus means: Instead of hoarding up or enjoying,—a course which will profit you nothing when, on the other side of the tomb, you will find yourselves in your turn poor and destitute of everything,—hasten to make for yourselves, with the goods of another (God’s), personal friends (ἑαυτοῖς, to yourselves), who shall then be bound to you by gratitude, and share with you their well-being. By a course of beneficence, make haste to transform into a bond of love the base metal of which death will soon deprive you. What the steward did in his sphere in relation to people of his own quality, see that you do in yours toward those who belong like you to the world to come. The Alex. reading, ἐκλίπη (μαμωνᾶς), would signify: “that when money shall fail you (by the event of death).” The T. R.: ἐκλίπητε, when ye shall fail, refers to the cessation of life, embracing privation of everything of which it is made up.

The friends, according to Meyer and Ewald, are the angels, who, affected by the alms of the beneficent man, are attached to him, and assist him at the time of his passing into eternity. But according to the parable, the friends can only be men who have been succoured by him on the earth, poor here below, but possessing a share in the everlasting inheritance. What service can they render to the dying disciple? Here is perhaps the most difficult question in the explanation of the parable. Love testified and experienced establishes between beings a strict moral unity. This is clearly seen in the relation between Jesus and men. May not the disciple who reaches heaven without having gained here below the degree of development which is the condition of full communion with God, receive the increase of spiritual life, which is yet wanting to him, by means of those grateful spirits with whom he shared his temporal goods here below? (Comp. Rom 15:27 and 1Co 9:11.) Do we not already see on the earth the poor Christian, who is assisted by a humane, but in a religious point of view defective, rich man, by his prayers, by the overflowing of his gratitude, and the edification which he affords him, requiting his benefactor infinitely more and better than he receives from him? Almsgiving is thus found to be the most prudent investment; for the communication of love once established by its means, enables him who practises it to enjoy provisionally the benefits of a spiritual state far superior to that which he has himself reached. A similar thought is found in Luk 14:13-14. But if this explanation seems to leave something to desire, we must fall back on sayings such as these: “He that hath pity upon the poor, lendeth unto the Lord.” “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” It is Jesus, it is God Himself, who become our debtors by the assistance which we grant to those who are the objects of their love. And would such friends be useless in the hour of our dissolution? To receive is not to introduce. On the contrary, the first of these two terms assumes that admission is already adjudged. Faith, which alone opens heaven, is supposed in the hearers whom Jesus is addressing in the parable: they are disciples, Luk 16:1. Conversion, the fruit of faith, is equally implied, Luk 16:3-4. And since the disciple whom Jesus describes has chosen believers as the special objects of his liberality, he must to a certain degree be a believer himself.

The poetical expression eternal habitations (tents) is borrowed from patriarchal history. The tents of Abraham and Isaac under the oaks of Mamre are transferred in thought to the life to come, which is represented under the image of a glorified Canaan. What is the future of poetry but the past idealized? It is less natural to think, with Meyer, of the tents of Israel in the desert. We may here compare the πολλαὶ μοναί, the many mansions, in the Father’s house, Joh 14:3.

There remains to be explained the phrase ὁ μαμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικίας, the mammon of unrighteousness. The word μαμωνᾶς is not, as has often been said, the name of an oriental divinity, the god of money. It denotes, in Syriac and Phoenician, money itself (see Bleek on Mat 6:24). The Aramaic name is מָמוֹן, and, with the article, מָמוֹנָא. The epithet unrighteous is taken by many commentators simply to mean, that the acquisition of fortune is most frequently tainted with sin; according to Bleek and others, that sin readily attaches to the administration of it. But these are only accidental circumstances; the context points to a more satisfactory explanation. The ear of Jesus must have been constantly offended with that sort of reckless language in which men indulge without scruple: my fortune, my lands, my house. He who felt to the quick man’s dependence on God, saw that there was a usurpation in this idea of ownership, a forgetfulness of the true proprietor; on hearing such language, He seemed to see the farmer playing the landlord. It is this sin, of which the natural man is profoundly unconscious, which He lays bare in this whole parable, and which He specially designates by this expression, the unrighteous mammon. The two τῆς ἀδικίας, Luk 16:8-9, correspond exactly, and mutually explain one another. It is therefore false to see in this epithet, with De Wette, the Tübingen School, Renan, etc., a condemnation of property as such. Man’s sin does not consist in being, as one invested with earthly property, the steward of God, but in forgetting that he is so (parable following).

There is no thought more fitted than that of this parable, on the one hand, to undermine the idea of merit belonging to almsgiving (what merit could be got out of that which is another’s?), and on the other, to encourage us in the practice of that virtue which assures us of friends and protectors for the grave moment of our passing into the world to come. What on the part of the steward was only wise unfaithfulness, becomes wise faithfulness in the servant of Jesus who acts on acquaintance with principle. It dare not be said that Jesus had wit; but if one could be tempted to use the expression at all, it would be here.

Of the many explanations of this parable which have been proposed, we shall merely quote some of the most prominent. Schleiermacher takes the master to be the Roman knights who farmed the taxes of Judaea, and sublet them to needy publicans; the steward, to be the publicans whom Jesus exhorted to expend on their countrymen the goods of which they cleverly cheated those great foreigners. Henri Bauer sees in the master the Israelitish authorities, and in the unfaithful steward the Judeo-Christians, who, without troubling themselves about theocratic prejudices, should strive to communicate to the Gentiles the benefits of the covenant. According to Weizsäcker, in the original thought of the parable the steward represented a Roman magistrate, who, to the detriment of the Jews, had been guilty of maladministration, but who thereafter strives to make amends by showing them gentleness and liberality. No wonder that from this point of view the critic knows not what to make of the eulogium passed by the master on his steward! But according to him, the sense and the image were transformed, and the description became in the hands of Luke an encouragement to rich and unbelieving Jews to merit heaven by doing good to poor Christians. The arbitrary and forced character of those explanations is clear as the day, and they need no detailed refutation. We are happy that we can agree, at least for once, with Hilgenfeld, both in the general interpretation of the parable and in the explanation of the sayings which follow (Die Evangel, p. 199).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Seeing that men oftentimes purchase friendship to themselves, by other men’s costs, it is a shame for us, if with a free and liberal bestowing of the goods which the Lord hath given us to that purpose, we do not please him, nor procure the good will of our neighbors, seeing that by this only means, riches, which are oftentimes occasions of sin, are turned to another end and purpose.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER XVI.

The parable of the unjust steward, 1-8.

Christ applies this to his hearers, 9-13.

The pharisees take offence, 14.

Our Lord reproves them, and shows the immutability of the law,

15-17.

Counsels against divorce, 18.

The story of the rich man and the beggar, commonly called

Dives and Lazarus, 10-31.

NOTES ON CHAP. XVI.

Verse 1. A steward] οικονομος, from οικος, a house, or οικια, a family, and νεμω, I administer; one who superintends domestic concerns, and ministers to the support of the family, having the products of the field, business, c., put into his hands for this very purpose. See Clarke on Lu 8:3.

There is a parable very like this in Rab. Dav. Kimchi's comment on Isaiah, Isa 40:21: "The whole world may be considered as a house builded up: heaven is its roof the stars its lamps; and the fruits of the earth, the table spread. The owner and builder of this house is the holy blessed God; and man is the steward, into whose hands all the business of the house is committed. If he considers in his heart that the master of the house is always over him, and keeps his eye upon his work; and if, in consequence, he act wisely, he shall find favour in the eyes of the master of the house: but if the master find wickedness in him, he will remove him, מן יפקדתו min pakidato, from his STEWARDSHIP. The foolish steward doth not think of this: for as his eyes do not see the master of the house, he saith in his heart, 'I will eat and drink what I find in this house, and will take my pleasure in it; nor shall I be careful whether there be a Lord over this house or not.' When the Lord of the house marks this, he will come and expel him from the house, speedily and with great anger. Therefore it is written, He bringeth the princes to nothing." As is usual, our Lord has greatly improved this parable, and made it in every circumstance more striking and impressive. Both in the Jewish and Christian edition, it has great beauties.

Wasted his goods.] Had been profuse and profligate; and had embezzled his master's substance.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

XVI.

(1) 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 till they can be compared with this.

The word “steward” had, we must remember, been already used by our Lord in Luk_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-labourers as “stewards of the mysteries of God.” He has learnt, may we not say, from the parable, that “it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (1Co_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 of 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 “house-holder” in other parables, can be none else 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, calumnious 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 were 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 some one accuser had been named, the answer is found in the fact that the one great Accuser has many mouth-pieces, diaboli acting under the diabolos (the Greek word stands for “false accusers” in Tit_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 Luk_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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

Ver. 1. A certain rich man which had a steward] Masters had need look well, 1. To the choosing of their servants. Solomon saw Jeroboam, that he was industrious, and therefore, without any respect at all to his religion, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, but to his singular disadvantage. 1Ki 11:28; cf. Luk 12:3; Luk 2:1-52. To the using of them; most men make no other use of their servants than they do of their beasts; while they may have their bodies to do their service, they care not if their souls serve the devil. Hence they so often prove false and perfidious.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

There was a certain rich man, &c. By this parable, our Saviour advises his disciples to accompany their penitential works with deeds of mercy to the poor. (Ven. Bede) --- There is a certain erroneous opinion, that obtains pretty generally amongst mankind, and which tends to increase crimes, and to lessen good works: and this is, the foolish persuasion that men are not accountable to any one, and that we can dispose as we please of the things in our possession. (St. John Chrysostom) --- Whereas we are here informed, that we are only the dispensers of another’s property, viz. God’s. (St. Ambrose) --- When, therefore, we employ it not according to the will of our Master, but fritter and squander it away in pleasure, and in the gratification of our passions, we are, beyond all doubt, unjust stewards. (Theophylactus) --- And a strict account will be required of what we have thus dissipated, by our common Lord and Master. If then we are only stewards of that which we possess, let us cast from our minds that mean superciliousness and pride which the outward splendour of riches is so apt to inspire; and let us put on the humility, the modesty of stewards, knowing well that to whom much is given, much will be required. Abundance of riches makes not a man great, but the dispensing them according to the will and intention of his employer. (Haydock) --- The intention of this parable, is to shew what use each one ought to make of the goods which God has committed to his charge. In the three former parables, addressed to the murmuring Scribes and Pharisees, our Saviour shews with what goodness he seeks the salvation and conversion of a sinner; in this, he teaches how the sinner, when converted, ought to correspond to his vocation, and preserve with great care the inestimable blessing of innocence. (Calmet) --- A steward, &c. The parable puts us in mind, that let men be ever so rich or powerful in this world, God is still their master; they are his servants, and must be accountable to him how they have managed his gifts and favours; that is, all things they have had in this world. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Hierom of old thought this parable was very obscure; and Julian and other apostates, together with some of the heathen philosophers, took occasion from it to reproach the doctrine of Christ, as teaching and commanding acts of unrighteousness. But there will appear no such difficulty in it, nor cause of reproach to Christ and his doctrine from it, if we consider what I have before hinted, that it is no more necessary to a parable that all the actions in it supposed be just and honest, than that all the parts of it be true in matter of fact, whether past or possible to be; for a parable is not designed to inform us in a matter of fact, but to describe to us our duty, under a fictitious representation: nor doth every part of a parable point at some correspondent duty to be done by us; but the main scope for which it is brought is principally to be attended to by us, and other pieces of duty which may be hinted to us, are to be judged of and proved not from the parable, but from other texts of holy writ where they are inculcated. The main things in which our Saviour seemeth desirous by this parable to instruct us, are,

1. That we are but stewards of the good things God lends us, and must give an account to our Master of them.

2. That being no more than stewards intrusted with some of our Master’s goods for a time, it is our highest prudence, while we have them in our trust, to make such a use of them as may be for our advantage when we give up our account.

Thus we shall hear our Lord in the following verses expounding his own meaning. To this purpose he supposed a rich man to have a steward, and to have received some accusation against him, as if he embezzled his master’s goods committed to his trust. Upon which he calleth him to account, and tells him that he should be his steward no longer. He supposes this steward to be one who had no other means of livelihood and subsistence than what his place afforded him, a than not used to labour, and too proud to beg. At length he fixed his resolution, to send for his master’s debtors, and to abate their obligations, making them debtors to his master for much less than indeed they were; by this means he probably hoped, that when he was turned off from his master he should be received by them. He supposes his master to have heard of it, and to have commended him, not for his honesty, but for his wit in providing for the time to come. What was knavery in this steward, is honest enough in those who are the stewards of our heavenly Lord’s goods, suppose riches, honours, parts, health, life, or any outward accommodation, viz. to use our Lord’s goods for the best profit and advantage to ourselves, during such time as we are intrusted with them. For though an earthly lord and his steward have particular divided interests, and he that maketh use of his lord’s goods for his own best advantage cannot at the same time make use of them for the best advantage of his master, yet the case is different betwixt our heavenly Lord and us. It hath pleased God so to twist the interest of his glory with our highest good, that no man can better use his Master’s goods for the advantage of his glory, than he who best useth them for the highest good, profit, and advantage to himself; nor doth any man better use them for his own interest, than he who best useth them for God’s glory. So as here the parable halteth, by reason of the disparity betwixt the things that are compared. And though the unjust steward could not be commended for the honesty, but only for the policy, of his action, yet we who are stewards of the gifts of God, in doing the like, that is, making use of our Master’s goods for our own best profit and advantage, may act not only wisely, but also honestly; and indeed Christ in this parable blames men for not doing so:

The children of this world (saith he) are wiser in their generation than the children of light. By the children of this world, he meaneth such as this steward was, men who regard not eternity or the concerns of their immortal souls, but only regard the things of this life, what they shall eat, or drink, or put on. By

the children of light, he meaneth such as live under the light of the gospel, and receive the common illumination of the gospel; though if we yet understand it more strictly, of those who are

translated out of darkness into marvellous light, it is too true, they are not so wise, and politic, and industrious for heaven, as worldly men are to obtain their ends in getting the world. He saith,

the men of this world are wiser in their generation, that is, in their kind, as to those things about which they exercise their wit and policy, than the children of God.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Unjust Steward. The Rich Man and Lazarus

1-13. Parable of the Unjust Steward (peculiar to Lk). The details of this somewhat difficult parable are probably not significant. It is intended to illustrate the proper use of wealth. Christians should use it so well here on earth, by expending it not selfishly on their own pleasures, but unselfishly for the good of others, and for the advancement of God's kingdom, that instead of hindering them from reaching heaven, it will help them to enter there. The prudence (foresight) of the steward is commended in this parable, not his dishonesty.

5-7. Tenants in the East pay their rent in kind, not in money. The landlord provides them with seed, and they return him at harvest-time a certain proportion of the yield.

6. An hundred measures] lit. 'baths,' the 'bath' being a Heb. liquid measure = 9 gallons.

Bill] RV 'bond.'

7. Measures] lit. cors, the cor being a Heb. dry measure = 11 bushels.

8. And the lord] RV 'his lord,' i.e. his master. Many readers wrongly imagine that Jesus is the speaker here. Because he had done wisely] i.e. 'prudently.' The master praised not the morality of the transaction, but its far-sighted prudence, and it is just this that Jesus holds up for imitation. For the children (sons) of this world (i.e. worldly people) are in their generation (i.e. in dealing with other worldly people) wiser (i.e. more prudent and far-seeing) than the children of light (i.e. than the spiritually enlightened are in making provision for their heavenly welfare).

9. Make to yourselves] i.e. make to yourselves friends in heaven by means of a prudent use of your wealth (viz. by hospitality, alms-deeds, etc.), that when ye fail, i.e. die (or, according to the RV, when 'it,' i.e. your wealth, 'fail'), the angels may receive you into the eternal habitations. Of] RV 'by means of.' Friends] i.e. either 'the poor,' who by their prayers obtain your admission to heaven, or, more probably, 'the angels,' who become the friends of those who give alms, and at the last carry their souls to heaven. The mammon of unrighteousness] A common rabbinical expression. It occurs in the pre-Christian book of Enoch. It does not here mean wealth unrighteously acquired, but simply 'deceitful wealth.' So we speak of 'filthy lucre,' not meaning unjust gain, but gain in general: see Mat_6:24. So rightly Calvin: 'By giving this name to riches, he intends to render them an object of our suspicion, because for the most part they involve their possessors in unrighteousness.'

10. 11. Luk_16:11 explains Luk_16:10. If you are unfaithful in such an unimportant matter as money (i.e. if you do not spend your incomes to the glory of God), God will not entrust you with those spiritual gifts, graces, and virtues which are much more important.

12. If you do not spend your money rightly, you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Money is here called that which is another's, because Christians are to regard it not as their own, but as a trust for which they must one day give account. That which is your own is the joy of heaven, 'the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'

13. See on Mat_6:24.

14-18. The Pharisees mock Jesus. His reply. The connexion of Luk_16:16-17, Luk_16:18 is difficult, and it may be that they do not properly belong here, but it is also possible that our Lord's discourse is abridged, the connecting links being left out.

14. Covetous] RV 'lovers of money'; see on Mar_12:40.

15, 16. See on Mat_11:12, Mat_11:13. The connexion (if such is to be sought) is this: Before Christ began to preach, it was comparatively easy for the Pharisees to justify themselves before men, but now that the deeper morality of the Gospel is widely accepted, men are beginning to find out the deficiencies of the Pharisees.

17, 18. See on Mat_5:18. Here the sense is: The Pharisees, however, object to be tried by the standard of the Gospel, and demand to be tried by the standard of the Law. But even according to this (which is still in force in its spiritual sense), they are found to be deficient, for, while observing it in trivial matters, they break it in matters of weight, e.g. (Luk_16:18), whereas the Law forbids divorce except for adultery, the Pharisees, or most of them, allow it for every cause: see on Mat_5:32.

19-31. The rich man and Lazarus: peculiar to Lk, and full of that sympathy with the poor which characterises his Gospel. It does not, however, as Strauss maintains, assert that the mere possession of wealth is wrong, or that mere poverty justifies. On the contrary, the rich man is condemned, not because he was rich, but because he was callous, and Lazarus justified, not because he was poor, but because he was poor in spirit. The callousness of the rich man was due to his scepticism. He consumed his wealth in selfish luxury, sparing none of it for the poor, because he did not really believe in God or a future life. If he had so believed, he would have acted differently. The parable may perhaps be directed against the Pharisees, who were 'lovers of money' (Luk_16:14); but inasmuch as their covetousness did not take the form of sumptuous living, it seems better to regard it as a warning addressed to Christians generally against luxury, worldliness, selfishness, and unbelief.

19. Rich man] conveniently called 'Dives' (Lat.). He represents all those who in the enjoyment of wealth forget God and the world to come, and neglect all acts of charity and love. Purple] i.e. a rich material dyed with the liquid obtained from the shellfish 'murex,' formed the rich man's upper garment, and fine linen his under garment, or shirt; both were exceedingly costly.

20. Lazarus] = Eleazar, i.e. 'He who has God for his help.' His name expresses his character. Prom Lazarus is derived lazar = leper. Desiring] but not obtaining his desire.

21. The dogs] Since the dog was in the East an unclean animal, the licking was an aggravation of the poor man's misery.

22. By the angels] The rabbis said: 'None can enter Paradise but the just, whose souls are carried thither by angels.' 'When an Israelite departs to his eternal home, the angel in charge of the garden of Eden, who receives every circumcised son of Israel, introduces him into the garden of Eden.' 'When the just depart from the world three companies of angels go before them in peace. The first says, “Let him come in peace” the second says, “Let them rest in their beds” the third accompanies him.' Abraham's bosom] A Jewish name, not of heaven, but of the intermediate state of bliss, in which the souls of the just await the resurrection. E.g. 'Ada bar Ahavah sits today in Abraham's bosom': cp. 4Ma_13:17. 'When we have thus suffered, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us.' Other equivalent names are 'Paradise,' 'the garden of Eden,' and 'under the throne of glory.'

23. In hell] RV 'in Hades.' Hades is here used in a wide sense for the intermediate state of all souls, just and unjust, between death and judgment. In this sense both Dives and Lazarus were in 'Hades,' though the one was comforted and the other tormented. This usage of the word is quite common. 'Hades, in which the souls both of just and unjust are detained' (Hippolytus). 'In the lower world are both torment and refreshment. There a soul is either punished or tenderly cherished, as a foretaste or rehearsal of the final judgment' (Tertullian). The rich man was not in 'hell' (Gehenna), because no one is sent there until after the Last Judgment.

In torments] Spiritual torment or punishment must be meant, for Dives was now a disembodied spirit. Seeth Abraham] The rabbis placed Paradise in sight of the place of torment, and were familiar with the idea of conversations among the dead: see on Luk_16:26. There is a rabbinical story not unlike this parable: 'There were two partners in crime in this world, one of whom repented before his death, but the other did not. After death the one was carried away and placed in the company of the just; the other in the company of the wicked. The latter saw the former, and said, “Woe is me, for there is respect of persons in this matter. He and I robbed together and murdered together, and now he stands in the congregation of the just, and I in the congregation of the wicked.” They answered him, “Thou fool, it was in thy power also to have repented, but thou didst not.” He said to them, “Let me go now, and become a penitent.” But they said, “Thou most foolish of men, dost thou not know that this world in which thou art is like the sabbath, and the world from which thou earnest, like the eve of the sabbath? If thou providest nothing on the sabbath-eve, what wilt thou eat on the sabbath?” And he gnashed his teeth and gnawed his own flesh.'

In his bosom] The figure is not taken from reclining at a banquet (Joh_13:23), because the great banquet would not take place, according to Jewish ideas, till the coming of the Messiah (Mat_8:11), but from children quietly resting in their parents' lap or bosom.

24. Father Abraham] He spoke as a Jew, thinking that Abraham had power over the fires of Hades, and would help his own descendants. The rabbis said, 'The fire of Gehenna has no power over the sinners of Israel, for Abraham descends and rescues them from it.'

25. Thy good things] i.e. thy wealth and pleasures. Dives was punished, not for his wealth, but for his abuse of it. Lazarus was justified, not for his poverty, but for his patience and humility.

26. Beside all this] better, 'in all these regions of the dead.' A great gulf fixed] Somewhat different from the representations of the rabbis, who said (see Ecc_7:14), 'God hath set the one against the other, i.e. Hell and Paradise. How far are they distant? A hand's breadth. Rabbi Jochanan saith, A wall is between. But the rabbis say, They are so even with one another, that you may see out of one into the other': cp. Rev_14:10.

29. Moses and the prophets] These would give them sufficient light and guidance.

30, 31. Our Lord disbelieved the power of signs and wonders to produce repentance, and here declares that even the sign of His own Resurrection will leave many hard hearts unmoved.

The pains of Dives being those of Hades, not of Gehenna, many recent commentators regard his release from them as possible, and see in his new-born anxiety for the welfare of others (Luk_16:27) an indication that his punishment is producing its intended purifying effect: see on Mat_12:32.

Additional Note

The chief interest of this parable to modern readers is the light that it throws, or seems to throw, upon the state of departed souls between death and judgment. As to its significance in this respect, expositors are not entirely at one. Some regard all its statements on the subject as teaching definite doctrines binding on Christians, others regard them as only the poetic framework of the parable, embodying conventional Jewish ideas, and therefore as having no significance for Christians. Both extremes are to be avoided. On the one hand, the parable is plainly intended to inculcate, as against the unbelief of worldly and sensual men, the doctrine of future rewards and punishments beginning immediately after death, and to be so far a serious doctrinal statement. On the other hand, the thoroughly Jewish cast of the phraseology warns us against taking its details too literally. The essence of the teaching is thus expressed by Luckock: 'The souls of the departed in the intermediate state are possessed of consciousness, memory, and sensibility to pain and pleasure; the life of all men, whether good or bad, is continued without interruption after the separation of soul and body; and retribution commences between death and judgment. These conclusions are in direct antagonism to the theory that the soul falls asleep when the body dies, and will not wake again till the resurrection of the dead.'

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he said also to his disciples - Not only to the scribes and Pharisees to whom he had hitherto been speaking, but to all the younger as well as the elder brethren: to the returning prodigals who were now his disciples. A certain rich man had a steward - Christ here teaches all that are now in favour with God, particularly pardoned penitents, to behave wisely in what is committed to them.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Parable of the Unjust Steward and Its Lessons.

The accusation of unfaithfulness:

v. 1. And He said also unto His disciples, There was a certain rich man which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that lie had wasted his goods.

v. 2. And he called him and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

The three parables of the previous chapter had been addressed to the Pharisees and scribes, probably in the presence of the publicans and sinners, and surely in the presence of the disciples. The parable of the steward is spoken to the disciples, but the Pharisees were still present. Disciples includes not only the Twelve, but all the followers of Jesus. There is a hint even here. A certain man there was, and he was rich, so rich that he personally did not attend to the clerical work and to his finances, leaving all this to a steward and putting him in full charge, as trusted officer. But the steward was accused, an accusation was brought against him to the master, that he was wasting the goods entrusted to his care, that he was squandering his master’s money, either by fraud or by extravagant living. The definiteness of the accusation caused the master to assume that the charge was true, and so he summoned the steward before him. He wanted him to give an account of himself and his work: What is this that I hear of thee? He orders him to produce his books, to render an account in detail of his stewardship before his position terminates. For if the books showed a discrepancy between the rents or debts that had been due in the past and the money that should be on hand, the loss of his position would naturally follow. There was still some chance for the steward, if he could prove or furnish apparent proofs of his innocence.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 16:2

We are God’s stewards our whole life long: each day of our lives, therefore, claims its own account; each year, as it passes, suggests to us naturally such reflections, since we reckon our life by years. To many thoughtful men their own birthdays have been days of solemn self-examination. To many, the last day of the civil year brings a like reminder. Indeed, popular language recognises in it something of this power.

I. While our life is full of vigour, such anniversaries, however, invite us to look forward as well as backward. The end of an old year is the beginning of a new one. To look back is for a Christian to repent, since the best of us is but a sinner before God; but repentance should bear fruit in new life. And if we have abused God’s gifts in the past year, the approaching festival of Christmas with the whole train of holy seasons that follow one after another, and bringing manifold reminders of God’s love to man, tells us that there is help in heaven, help ready for us on the earth, if we will even now turn to God and amend our lives. Advent, Christmas, Passiontide, Easter, Ascension Day, are not only thankful commemorations before God of glorious things done for us in past time; they are not only settings forth before man of great events of which we might neglect to read, or read carelessly, in Scripture. They serve to remind us also of a God, ever-living and ever-present, able and willing to renew to us daily those great blessings which our Lord lived and died on earth to win for us all.

II. But as anniversaries multiply upon us, as the years behind us are many, the years to come few in comparison, my text has a meaning for us which deepens continually—a meaning which cannot but force itself on the attention of those who avoid generally serious thoughts. The end of life is in very deed the end of our stewardship. We know little of the existence appointed for us between death and judgment. Little has been told us, except in brief and momentous outline of that which is to come after the Judgment Day. But we have no reason to think that in either there will be room for further probation for use or misuse of gifts and opportunities. As we draw near to the end of this earthly life our thoughts are apt to retrace the space which we have crossed. We find that we have done little, far less than we might have done, because our own indolence made us decline the task, or private aims warped and marred our public action. And yet another question remains which we put to ourselves as we look back on our past life. How have we done our duty to God in it? Ability to know God and to serve Him is one portion assuredly of our stewardship; and as we draw near to the end of life, we cannot but ask ourselves how we have used it. We alone know—I do not say that we ourselves know perfectly—whether we have sought to draw near to God, to know, serve, and love Him in real earnest. In the retrospect of which I have been speaking, there is more of sadness and less of hope. Little time, little opportunity, remain for amendment. But there is hope for us still. God’s love, God’s mercy, is inexhaustible. Humbly, trustfully, lovingly, we must cast all our sins before the throne and commit ourselves to God’s mercy in the Name of Him who heard and accepted the thief upon the cross.

Archdeacon Palmer, Oxford and Cambridge Journal, Dec. 4th, 1879.

References: Luk 16:2.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv., No. 192; E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. i., p. 64; F. O. Morris, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 276; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 91; H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The Life of Duty, vol. ii., p. 77; H. P. Liddon, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxii., p. 353. Luk 16:3.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 111. Luk 16:5.—J. M. Neale, Occasional Sermons, p. 132. Luk 16:5-7.—Ibid., Sermons in a Religious House, 2nd series, part i., 231.

Luk 16:8

I. It is a remarkable story told by the poet Cowper of himself, that, when he was a young man, and living in London, where his companions were not only persons of profligate life, but of low and ungodly principles, they always had a great advantage over him when arguing upon the truth of Christianity by reproaching him with the badness of his own life. In fact, it appears that his life at that time was quite as bad as theirs, and they used to upbraid him for it; telling him that it would be well for him if they were right and he wrong in their opinions respecting the truth of the Gospel; for if it were true, he certainly would be condemned upon his own showing. These men, like the unjust steward in the parable, had at least the merit of acting wisely upon their own view of the matter; they made the mammon of unrighteousness—that is, the riches and enjoyments of the world—serve their turn for all that they believed them capable of yielding. And therefore Christ makes their conduct a reproof to Christians, who do not make the world yield to them that fruit which, according to their professed belief, it might afford them.

II. The lesson which the parable of the unjust steward is designed to teach us is, that nothing is more unworthy, nothing more ruinous, than to be a Christian by halves; to begin to build, and not be able to finish. Salt is good, but the salt that has lost its savour is good neither for the land nor yet for the dunghill, but men cast it out; and even so vile and worthless is that Christian, in name only, who does not live according to his own principles but in defiance of them—who, with a journey to an eternal state opened before him, plays away his time on the road, and makes no provision for the end of his pilgrimage.

III. This one parable of our Lord’s is to many a stumbling-block and to few so useful as it ought to be. To make to ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, an English reader naturally understands to mean to make the mammon of unrighteousness, or unrighteous riches, our friends; whereas the real meaning of the words is: "Make to yourselves friends with, or by, the mammon of unrighteousness; that is, so use the riches and other advantages of this world that they may gain you friends hereafter—friends that will stand by you, when the riches themselves have perished. I need hardly add what these friends are—the record of good done upon earth, of misery relieved, of folly enlightened, of virtue encouraged and supported—the record of their thankful voices, who, having received from us good things in this world, shall welcome us with thanks and blessings, when we all stand together before Christ’s judgment-seat.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 205.

Luk 16:8-9

The Unjust Steward.

I. It is impossible to read this parable, and our Lord’s remark upon it, without being struck by the broad assertion that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. The children of light are those who have been called to a knowledge of the Gospel, and who have given ear to that call, at least in some measure. The child of this world, on the other hand is one who, like Gallio, the Roman governor, cares for none of these things. Now of these two men, our Lord says, the child of this world is wiser in his generation, mind; that is, wiser in his own time. He who chose his path like a fool, walks along it like a wise man, he who chose his like a wise man, walks along it like a fool. The true child of this world is thorough-going, active, persevering. When he has made up his mind that this or that thing is desirable, he sets his heart upon having it. Mammon is the god he has chosen for himself, and he serves his god, as a god ought to be served, with all his heart, with all his mind, and with all his strength. He is wise, therefore, in his way.

II. Turn now to the children of light, and tell me whether you can see the like marks of wisdom in them. We profess to make heaven the object of our lives; are we really and earnestly following after it? Too certain it is, that we serve our God, the great Maker and Ruler of the world, with less zeal, with less affection, with less heartiness, with less truth, than the man of business his mammon, or the man of pleasure his Belial. This is the fault and frailty of our Christian life. We do our work by halves. Seeing that we do believe in Christ, seeing that we do hope and wish for heaven, let us take a lesson from the enemy, and learn the wisdom of the serpent. Let us imitate the zeal, the perseverance, the prudence, the courage, the unweariableness—in a word, the wisdom—which the children of this world show in the pursuit of their vain and perishable, of their ruinous and deadly objects. Let us be as active and as determined to please God as they are to please themselves. Then on the great day, the God who for His Son’s sake will vouchsafe to accept our services and to look with favour on imperfect attempts to employ the mammon of unrighteousness in His service, will receive us into everlasting habitations.

A. W. Hare, The Alton Sermons, p. 228.

Reference: Luk 16:8.—E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. ii., p. 174; C. Kingsley, All Saints’ Day, p. 385; Homilist, new series, vol. i., p. 503; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xi., p. 141; J. Armstrong, Parochial Sermons, p. 201; Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 105; H. P. Liddon, Ibid., vol. xxvi., p. 97; I. Taylor, Saturday Evening, p. 161. Luk 16:8-12.—Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 277.

Luk 16:9

The Earthly Life and Heavenly Training.

I. Every circumstance of man’s life may become a training for immortality. The tenth and eleventh verses of this chapter imply two great principles on which this possibility is founded: (1) The eternity of God’s law; (2) the perpetuity of man’s character.

II. Observe the practical application of the words of our text. (1) They are a call to action. (2) They contain a lesson of encouragement.

E. L. Hull, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 144.

References: Luk 16:9.—J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 193; Church of England Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 138; Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. ix., p. 305; J. P. Waldo, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 84; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 257; G. Moberly, Parochial Sermons p. 296. Luk 16:9-11.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 280.

Luk 16:10

Living to God in small Things.

I. Notice how little we know concerning the relative importance of events and duties. We use the terms great and small in speaking of actions, occasions, or places, only in reference to the mere outward look and first impression. We are generally ignorant of the real significance of events, which we think we understand. Almost every person can recollect one or more instances where the whole after-current of his life was turned by some single word, or some incident so trivial as scarcely to fix his notice at the time. The outward appearance of occasions and duties is, in fact, almost no index of their importance, and our judgments concerning what is great and small are without any certain validity. These terms, as we use them, are, in fact, only words of outward description, not words of definite measurement.

II. It is to be observed that, even as the world judges, small things constitute almost the whole of life. The great days of the year, for example, are few, and when they come they seldom bring anything great to us. And the matter of all common days is made up of little things, or ordinary or stale transactions.

III. It very much exalts, as well as sanctions, the view I am advancing, that God is so observant of small things. He upholds the sparrow’s wing, clothes the lily with His own beautifying hand, and numbers the hairs of His children. The works of Christ are, if possible, a still brighter illustration of the same truth. Notwithstanding the vast stretch and compass of the work of redemption, it is a work of the most humble detail in its style of execution. When perfectly scanned, the work of Christ’s redemption, like the created universe, is seen to be a vast orb of glory, wrought up out of finished particles.

IV. It is a fact of history and of observation, that all efficient men, while they have been men of comprehension, have also been men of detail.

V. It is to be observed that there is more of real piety in adorning one small than one great occasion. The piety which is faithful in that which is least is really a more difficult piety than that which triumphs and glares on high occasions.

VI. The importance of living to God in ordinary and small things is seen in the fact that character, which is the end of religion, is in its very nature a growth. And, accordingly, there never has been a great or beautiful character which has not become so by filling well the ordinary and smaller offices appointed of God. Private Christians are instructed by this subject in the true method of Christian progress and usefulness. If it is your habit to walk with God in the humblest occupations of your days, it is very nearly certain that you will be filled with the Spirit always. Why is it that a certain class of men, who never thrust themselves on public observation by any very signal acts, do yet attain to a very commanding influence, and leave a deep and lasting impression on the world? They are the men who thrive by constancy and by means of small advances, just as others do who thrive in wealth. They live to God in the common doings of their daily life as well as in the more extraordinary transactions in which they mingle. And their carefulness to honour God in humble things is stronger proof to men of their uprightness than the most distinguished acts or sacrifices. Such persons operate principally by the weight of confidence and moral respect they acquire, which is the most legitimate and powerful action in the world. If a Christian of this stamp has not the talents or standing necessary to lead in the most active forms of enterprise, he will yet accomplish a high and noble purpose in his life. The silent savour of his name may, perhaps, do more good after he is laid in his grave, than abler men do by the most active efforts.

H. Bushnell, The New Life, p. 191.

Luk 16:10-12

This Life our Trial for Eternity.

I. It is a great and awful thought which is put before us in these words by the Saviour and Guide of our souls; the great importance, namely, of every part of our behaviour here in this present world, seeing that, from beginning to end, we are here upon our trial. The Lord and Head and Father of the family tries and proves us His children and servants whilst we are here by the little things of this world, whether we are fit to be entrusted with the great things of the world to come. The life in which we now are is our place of education, our school, our apprenticeship, which, if we get through well, we shall be ready for that which God hath prepared for us in the eternal life by-and-by. The little, short, passing affairs in which the Lord employs us now, are to us in one way great, and enduring, and eternal—for, by them, and by our behaviour in them, He would have us to become ready for the good, the true, the eternal things.

II. The true riches, given through God’s mercy in Christ as a reward for our faithfulness in these mean, earthly things, are the very joy and glory of heaven itself, that joy and that glory of which it is written, that when He was rich in it, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich. Nothing here can be truly called our own; it is only lent for a short time, just to see how we will employ it; how can it be our own, indeed, seeing we must so soon part from it? We may call it ours as little children call things their own which are put into their hands as playthings for a time; but really and truly that only is ours which we shall meet with in the other, the eternal, part of our being; that which we have committed in faith and love to the keeping of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is ours, and will be so for ever. Our time, our money, all that we will call ours, is in reality His time and money, to whom we ourselves belong. To Him we must account for all. None of them have passed away for ever; they will one day surely find us out.

J. Keble, Sermons for Sunday’s after Trinity, part i., p. 283.

I. From the highest point of view true faithfulness knows no distinction between great and small duties. From the highest point of view, that is, from God’s point of view, to Him nothing is great, nothing small, as we measure it. The worth and the quality of an action depend on its motive only, and not at all on its prominence, or on any other of the accidents which we are always apt to adopt as the tests of the greatness of our deeds. Nothing is small that a spirit can do. Nothing is small that can be done from a mighty motive. "Large" or "small" are not words for the vocabulary of conscience. It knows only two words, right and wrong. This thought binds together in a very terrible unity all acts of transgression, and in a very blessed oneness all acts of obedience.

II. Faithfulness in small duties is even greater than faithfulness in great. We may legitimately adopt the distinction of great and small, a distinction which is founded upon truth, in regard to the different kinds of duties which devolve upon us in our daily life, if only we remember that all such distinctions are superficial; that the great and the small, after all, run down into one. Remembering that we may, then, fairly measure our different actions by two standards: one is the apparent importance of the consequences and the apparent splendour of the act, the other is the difficulties with which we have to contend in doing it;—I think it is quite true that it is a great deal harder, in ordinary cases, for us to go on doing the little things well, than for us to do the great things well. The smallest duties are often harder, because of their apparent insignificance, because of their constant recurrence, than the great ones. Be faithful in that which is least, and the accumulation of minute faithfulnesses will make the mighty faithfulness of a life.

III. Faithfulness in that which is least is the preparation for, and secures our having, a wider sphere in which to obey God. Every act of obedience smooths the road for all that shall come after. To get the habit of being faithful wrought into our life, and becoming part of our second and truer self, that is a defence all but impregnable for us when the stress of the great trials comes, or when God calls us to lofty and hard duties.

A. Maclaren, Sermons preached in Manchester, 1st series, p. 274.

How the Little may be used to get the Great.

I. Consider that strange new standard of value which is set up here. On the one side is placed the whole glittering heap of all material good that man can touch or handle, all that wealth can buy of this perishable world; and on the other hand there are the modest and unseen riches of pure thoughts and high desires, of a noble heart, of a life assimilated to Jesus Christ. The two are compared in three points: (1) As to their intrinsic magnitude; (2) as to their quality; (3) as to our ownership of them.

II. Notice the other broad principle that is laid down in these three verses, as to the highest use of the lower good. Whether you are a Christian man or not, this is true about you, that the way in which you deal with your outward goods, your wealth, your capacity of all sorts, may become a barrier to your possessing the higher, or it may become a mighty help. The world thinks that the highest use of the highest things is to gain possession of the lowest thereby, and that truth and genius and poetry are given to select spirits, and are wasted unless they make money out of them. Christ’s notion of the relationship is exactly the opposite: that all the outward is then lifted to its noblest purpose when it is made rigidly subordinate to the highest; and that the best thing that any man can do with his money is so to spend it as to purchase for himself a good degree, laying up for himself in store a good foundation that he may lay hold on eternal life.

III. One word as to the faithfulness which thus utilises the lowest as a means of possessing more fully the highest. You will be faithful if through all your administration of your possessions there runs (1) the principle of Stewardship; you will be faithful if through all your administration of your earthly possessions there runs (2) the principle of Sacrifice; you will be faithful if through all your administrations of your earthly possessions there runs (3) the principle of Brotherhood.

A. Maclaren, A Year’s Ministry, 1st series, p. 341.

References: Luk 16:10.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xv., p. 106; W. M. Punshon, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 104; Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 372; Ibid., vol. xvii., p. 115; Ibid., vol. xxxi., p. 140; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 239; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, part i., p. 283; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 3rd series, p. 68. Luk 16:11.—Ibid., 4th series, p. 18. Luk 16:11, Luk 16:12.—J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, part i., p. 274. Luk 16:12.—Homilist, 3rd series, vol. x., p. 346.

Luk 16:14

Consider the conduct of the Pharisees, whose weak point had been touched by our Lord’s teaching; they adopted the fool’s course of mocking at that which they could not deny to be true, but whose truth they did not like to follow into its consequences, namely, into the practical result of a godly, self-denying life. Concerning this mode of dealing with rebuke, I have two remarks to make.

I. In the first place, I remark that however foolish a mode it may seem, and however much people may feel ashamed of it, when they see what it really is, yet it is very common and, in the usual sense of the word, very natural. It is natural to turn into ridicule any exhortation or rebuke which has been felt to touch ourselves, and because it is natural, therefore it is also common. In the Book of Proverbs a fearful light is thrown upon the subject of mockery when wisdom is represented as eventually adopting the same course herself, mocking those who had once mocked her, laughing at their trouble, showing in such an awful manner the folly of such conduct by a terrific kind of retaliation.

II. The second remark which I have to make is that this method of derision is not only foolish and empty, but is also positively mischievous. The Pharisees in the text, for example, were morally injured by their conduct towards the Lord; they were less fit than they were before to receive impressions for good; their covetousness was fixed more firmly, and all their other evil habits also. For this is the special characteristic of deriding what is good, that the whole moral sense suffers, the edge of the conscience is blunted; the man is less open to conviction than before, not only with regard to the particular subject which called forth his derision, but with regard to every subject. Indeed the surest method which Satan can adopt, to ruin in the end a Christian’s character, is to tempt him in the beginning to deride the persons from whom he hears solemn instruction and warning, or the books in which he reads the same.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 5th series, p. 233.

References: Luk 16:14.—J. P. Gledstone, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 181. Luk 16:15.—C. G. Finney, Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 347.

Luk 16:17

I. My text is true of the Bible as a Book divinely inspired. Since John wrote in his cell at Patmos, and Paul preached in his own hired house at Rome, the world has been turned upside down—all old things have passed away, all things on earth have changed but one. Rivalling in its fixedness and more than rivalling in its brightness the stars that saw our world born and shall see it die, that rejoiced in its birth and shall be mourners at its funeral, the Word of our God stands for ever. Time that weakens all things else has but strengthened its position. And as, year by year, the tree adds another ring to its circumference, every age has added its testimony to this truth, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of the Lord shall endure for ever.

II. In practical application of my text I remark: (1) It can be said of the threatenings of the word, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. If there are more blessed, there are more awful, words in the Bible than in any other book. It may be compared to the skies which hold at once the most blessed and the most baneful elements—soft dews to bathe the opening rose, and bolts that rend the oak asunder. In its threatenings, as much as in its promises, heaven and earth shall sooner pass, than one tittle of the law shall fail. (2) In regard to its promises. The traveller in the desert has heard that, far across the burning sands, a river rolls. He has seen or heard, or read of those who have sat on its willowy banks, and quenched their thirst and drunk in life there, and bathed their fevered frames in its cool crystal pools. So, though with bleeding feet, and sinking limbs, and parched throat and dizzy brain, led on by hope, and already in imagination quenching his thirst, he stoutly fights a battle for life and reaches the brink at length. Alas, what a sight meets his fixed and stony gaze! He stands petrified; no wave glittering in the sunbeams ripples on the shore, and invites the poor wretch to drink. The channel is full, but full of dry white stone. It saved others; him it cannot save. Victim of the bitterest disappointment, he lies down to expire, losing life where others found it. To such an accident, to hopes so fair but false, none are exposed who, rising to the call, "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink," seek life in Jesus—salvation in the grace of God. There is not one promise in the Gospel which is not as good and true as on the day it was made.

T. Guthrie, Family Treasury, Nov. 1861.

Reference: Luk 16:17.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 200.

Luk 16:19-20

I. It is very important to observe that, in this parable, we have not before us the entire character either of the rich man or Lazarus. The luxurious self-indulgent habit of living is the assumed scriptural characteristic of an unrenewed, worldly mind; and when it is associated with indifference to the suffering that everywhere abounds around us, it is itself a proof that, in such a manner as the love of God is wanting, the spirit of Christ does not dwell. The rich man was not cast into prison because he was rich, but because he had abused his riches to pride and selfishness and worldly-mindedness, and forgetfulness of God. Still more important it is to observe that we have not the whole character of Lazarus. He was poor, he was afflicted, he was neglected and cast off by men; but so have many been who yet when they died found no entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Worldliness of spirit may be as confirmed, and disaffection towards God and holiness as inveterate and deep, under an outside of poverty and sores, as under a covering of fine linen and purple. It was not because he was poor that Lazarus was carried into Abraham’s bosom. The real state of the heart towards God was the test applied, so that if Lazarus had not been patient as well as poor, resigned as well as afflicted, he would have been as rejected a suitor for a drop of water in the next world as he had been for a few falling crumbs of bread in this; for in Christ Jesus neither riches avail anything, nor want of riches, but a new creature.

II. The leading design of the parable is to show the inveterate stubbornness of unbelief, and the utter inadequacy of all conceivable means for its removal, where the ordinary appliances of revelation fail. "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Unbelief is a disease of the heart. Evidence cannot reach it; miracle cannot reach it, it can be reached only, can be cured only, by the enlightening and transforming power of the Spirit of God.

D. Moore, Penny Pulpit, No. 3,371.

References: Luk 16:19.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 200; C. C. Bartholomew, Sermons Chiefly Practical, p. 131. Luk 16:19, Luk 16:20.—H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The Life of Duty, vol. ii., p. 9. Luk 16:19-31.—R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables, p. 453; H. Calderwood, The Parables, p. 347; A. B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 376; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 117; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., pp. 102, 190; Ibid., vol. vi., p. 91; Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 265; W. Hubbard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 372. Luk 16:22.—Ibid., vol. vi., p. 200; L. Campbell, Some Aspects of the Christian Ideal, p. 175. Luk 16:22, Luk 16:23.—G. Calthrop, Words spoken to My Friends, p. 223. Luk 16:22-31.—S. A. Tipple, Echoes of Spoken Words, p. 163.

Luk 16:23-24

Prayer to Saints, and Purgatory. These are two points of doctrine, upon which I think that we may regard this parable as throwing light, without straining its words to purposes for which they were not intended.

I. The first doctrine to which I allude is that of prayer to saints. (1) I observe that the description of the resting-place of the blessed, as "Abraham’s bosom," is the adoption of a merely Jewish figure for the condition of the departed. To be taken to that place in which Abraham, the head and father of their race, was, and to remain in his society, was to the mind of a pious Jew the fulfilment of all his soul’s hopes; and the Lord, not desiring to raise the veil which hides the mysteries of the unseen world, adopted a description of the regions of the departed which at once explained itself to those whom He addressed, inasmuch as they were Jews. (2) Even if we do look upon the prayer of the rich man to Abraham as an example of a prayer to a saint, still that prayer was not answered. Abraham, without saying whether he had or had not the power to grant the request, shows why it would be wrong that it should be granted. The five brethren were in the hands of the Judge of all the earth, who would assuredly do right; and therefore it would be useless for him to interfere in a matter which was in God’s own hands. This seems to point out the immorality of all prayers made to saints. For why are not the prayers made to God Himself? The conduct of Abraham seems to show that prayers to saints must either be unanswered and therefore vain, or else answered at the expense of interfering with the all-wise government of a just and jealous God.

II. The doctrine of purgatory. The rich man seems to me to be himself the best evidence we can have of the entire impossibility of changing the condition of those whose time of trial has terminated, and whose time of retribution has come; for those reasons which prevented the prayer offered to Abraham from being answered, though it is true that that prayer was one offered by a sinner in his torment, are quite as cogent when they are applied to prayers offered upon earth by the friends who have been left behind. The parable shows us, not only the futility of the prayers of the dead for their surviving friends, but also the emptiness of the prayers of surviving friends for the dead. There is a great gulf fixed; the saint cannot pass it to help the sinner, neither can the sinner pass it to claim the company of the saint.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 5th series, p. 276.

Luk 16:25

Memory in Another World.

"Son, remember." It is the voice, the first voice, the perpetual voice, which meets every man when he steps across the threshold of earth into the presence-chamber of eternity. All the future is so built upon and interwoven with the past, that for the saved and for the lost alike this word might almost be taken as the motto of their whole situation, as the explanation of their whole condition. Memory in another world is indispensable to the gladness of the glad, and strikes the deepest note in the sadness of the lost.

I. Memory will be so widened as to take in the whole life. We believe that what a man is in this life he is more in another, that tendencies here become results yonder, that his sin, that his falsehood, that his whole moral nature, be it good or bad, becomes there what it is only striving to be here. Whether saved or lost, he that dies is greater than when yet living; and all his powers are intensified and strengthened by that awful experience of death, and by what it brings with it. In this life, we have but the island memories heaving themselves into sight, but in the next the Lord shall cause the sea to go back by the breath of His mouth, and the channels of the great deep of a human heart’s experience and actions shall be laid bare. "There shall be no more sea," but the solid land of a whole life will appear when God says "Son, remember."

II. Memory in a future state will probably be so rapid as to embrace all the past life at once. We do not know, we have no conception of, the extent to which our thinking and feeling and remembrance, are made tardy by the slow vehicle of this bodily organization in which the soul rides. From the mountain of eternity we shall look down and see the whole plain before us. The memory shall be perfect—perfect in the range of its grasp, and perfect in the rapidity with which it brings up all its objects before us at every instant.

III. There will be a constant remembrance in another world.

IV. Memory will be associated in a future life with a perfectly accurate knowledge of the consequences, and a perfectly sensitive conscience as to the criminality of the past.

A. Maclaren, Sermons preached in Manchester, p. 111.

References: Luk 16:25.—Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 294; vol. xxviii., p. 123; R. Duckworth, Ibid., vol. xxii., p. 264; M. Dix, Sermons Doctrinal and Practical, p. 257.

Luk 1:26

The Great Gulf.

Consider the lasting distinction between the condition of the rich man and of Lazarus which the text brings before us. Abraham says that between the rich man and Lazarus a great gulf was fixed, so that none could pass from one side to the other. A great gulf fixed; observe, it is no slight interval, no trifling difference, but it is a chasm, a gulf and a wide one; and, moreover, it is fixed, the word in the original Greek is quite as strong as that which our English version has given, perhaps stronger; it means that this gulf or chasm has been firmly and durably established, that it is no slight or accidental difference which it may be hoped that time will blot out, but that it is a deep wide gap which no reasoning can hide, and no time can ever heal. It is most necessary that, as this is our Saviour’s own description, we should take His words in all the fulness of their meaning, of course not straining them beyond their intention, but, also, not cutting off from them any of their strength.

I. What I conceive, then, that our Lord asserts in the text is this,—that there is a great impassable gulf fixed between the spiritual condition of those whom He represents by the rich man, and those whom He represents by Lazarus. The great gulf is not between the rich and the poor, not between those who have been favoured by God in this life and those who have been chastened by Him, but it is between those who have so used this world as to starve their spirits, those who have fixed their eyes so firmly on the things of time and sense that they could not see the realities of a future world, those who have become carnal and sensualised because they must needs give all their efforts to feed their bodies, and have been content to leave their souls uncared for.

II. And without pretending to go into the deep mystery of the other world, yet this, at least, is enough to show us the greatness of the gulf, and why it is so firmly fixed; the joys of heaven are spiritual, there is no pleasure there for a man who has no fear of God, no pleasure in obeying Him; and therefore he who by a long course of carelessness and self-indulgence and neglect of God has hardened his soul, has thereby put a gulf between heaven and him. The mere possibility of doing so should make all of us ask ourselves earnestly and with trembling, how far we are improving our opportunities. Even this is the seed-time of a long existence, and he who does not sow good seed, or having sown it does not water it and weed it, may not complain if his crop fail in the end.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 2nd series, p. 216.

References: Luk 16:26.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ix., No. 518; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, part i., p. 20; Homilist, vol. vi., p. 25.

Luk 16:27-28

I. The Scriptures distinctly reveal future punishment.

II. In a future state punishment will completely arouse memory. "Son, remember."

III. The punishment of hell will be regulated by the previous conduct and character of the punished. Hell is a grave in which God places what is not fit to be elsewhere, and from which is absent all but the process of corruption and the workings of destruction.

S. Martin, Westminster Chapel Pulpit, 3rd series, p. 165.

References: Luk 16:27.—C. C. Bartholomew, Sermons Chiefly Practical, p. 143. Luk 16:27, Luk 16:28.—Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. ii., p. 189; R. S. Candlish, Scripture Characters and Miscellanies, p. 522; Homilist, vol. iv., p. 47.

Luk 16:30

The Future Results of Present Indifference.

I. Many read this parable, and are staggered at finding that so little is said against the rich man. What was it by which he so grievously offended? and which caused his being cast into that fire which shall never be quenched? We can only say, from what we read in the parable, that there was in this rich man a complete unmindfulness of others—that he was swallowed up in himself. The sick beggar lay at his gate, where he could not have been wholly unobserved; but he took no notice, and ordered no relief. This was a grievous inhumanity. I do not mean that the rich man was a cruel and hard-hearted man, but he was thoroughly selfish and devoted to his own pleasures and enjoyments; he did not give even a passing thought to the necessitous and the suffering among his fellowmen. Surely we ought to gather a more startling lesson from this than had the rich man been charged with what the world regards as enormous crime.

II. Consider the rich man’s entreaty that Lazarus might be sent to warn his five brothers, lest by living the same life they should incur the same doom. It seems inconsistent with the thorough selfishness of Dives that we should suppose him at all actuated in making this request by compassion towards his brethren. Probably, as a selfish being still, he dreaded the coming spirits as those of ministers of vengeance who would overwhelm him with reproaches and execrations, as having encouraged them by his example in the broad way of ruin. Dives shrank from the presence of his brethren. Come any companions rather than these.

III. Consider the reasons on which Abraham refused so earnest a petition. The parable put into the mouth of Abraham may be vindicated by the most cogent, yet simple, reasoning. The effect of a messenger threatening us with punishment unless we repent, depends chiefly on our assurance that it is actually a messenger from God. Now which is the stronger, the evidence which we have that the Bible is God’s Word, or that which we could be supposed to have that the grave has given up its tenant, and that the spectre has spoken to us truth. The man who is not persuaded by Christ and the Apostles, might be expected to remain unpersuaded by the spectre. It would give a solemnity, an awful unearthliness, to the ministry of the word if it were conducted by a visitant from the separate state; but the pleasures and business of this life would produce gradually the same effect as now, obliterating the impression made by the solemn discourse. If they hear not Christ and His Apostles, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No., 1,496.

Reference: Luk 16:30, Luk 16:31.—J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 63.

Luk 16:31

Let us ask what was the cause which brought on the rich man so terrible a fate? It was not simply his wealth, and it was something from which an observance of the precepts of the Jewish religion would have saved him. What, then, is the character of the rich man as drawn in the parable? It is drawn in two strokes—his ordinary life, and his treatment of Lazarus. (1) His daily life was luxurious. But most certainly we have no right to condemn him for that. With the Jewish nobility in practice, as with the Jewish law in theory, luxurious living does not seem to have been thought to involve any sin whatever. (2) Lazarus is, then, the type of the poor generally. The treatment which Lazarus received is to be regarded as a fair specimen of the rich man’s behaviour to the poor generally. The portrait of the rich man, as drawn by Christ, is that of a man luxurious and selfish—habitually careful of the gratification of his own appetite, and habitually careless of the suffering which was around him, even at his doors. And from this selfish disregard of human misery, "Moses and the prophets," had he listened to them, would certainly have saved him. There was no point on which they spoke more plainly. Love to his kindred the rich man certainly had, and his anxiety, in the midst of his own suffering, to save from the same fate the brethren whom he had left behind is almost sublime. The charity which is so often said to begin at home—the love which, strong but narrow, expends itself wholly upon the small circle of relatives and friends—that he had. The love that looks more widely, not refusing pity and aid, because the applicant is a stranger—that he had not.

J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son and Other Sermons, p. 15.

I. What the chief sins of the rich man were, although not expressly stated in the parable, may yet be understood from attending to two or three of its circumstances. First, his heart seems to have been too much set upon the good things of this life, instead of seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Secondly, as Lazarus desired to be fed with the crumbs that fell from his table, and as we do not read that he was fed, we may guess that the rich man took no notice of him, but let him lie and languish without relief. Here are two grievous sins, worldly-mindedness and hard-heartedness, justly punished with God’s wrath and damnation. Let us look to ourselves, that we be not guilty of the same sins, and liable to the same punishment.

II. Let no man complain as if he had not enough made known to him by Almighty God concerning his duty. For if even in the time of Moses and the Prophets, and before one rose from the dead, they were inexcusable, whoever they were that sinned, much more we, if we do despite unto the Spirit of grace, and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing—as we plainly do if we sin wilfully after we have come to a knowledge of the truth. For unto us that hath happened which alone this man thought needful to make any sinner repent, to us One hath come from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord, who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification. Let us therefore hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, knowing that if we break or reject this covenant, there remaineth no other.

III. Finally, if ye know these things, ye are but the more unhappy except ye do them. It is not your calling yourselves Christians, nor even your believing the Gospel when you happen to think of it, that will make you worthy to be carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom, if your heart be not with God—if your thoughts, words, and actions be not governed by His Commandments.

J. Keble, Sermons Occasional and Parochial, p. 29.

I. The radical defect in this rich man, that which was the root of all his sin and the cause of all his woe, was, that he did not use his advantages, he despised Moses and the Prophets, he had a talent given him and he buried it in a napkin. And this being the case, we shall not be so much surprised at the words of the text, if we think well upon them; for the Books of Moses and the Prophets told the rich man of his duty quite as clearly as Lazarus could have done if he had returned from the dead. They told him that he was to love God above all things and his neighbour as himself; and they told him also that God was a jealous God, and One who would in no wise spare the guilty. And if he shut his ears to this, what reason have we to think that a man returned from the dead would have greater powers of persuasion? For it is not as though there were something of which a man had to be convinced, and of which a resurrection from the dead would be a proof: there is a voice within every man, which tells him what is right and condemns what is wrong, and when this is stifled by selfishness and sin, no voice from the grave can supply its place.

II. Some advantages we all have in common: we have all the public prayers of the Church; we have all the Holy Spirit striving within us, and convincing us of sin and of righteousness; we have all our Bibles, which we can read; we may all partake, if we will, of the Holy Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. These, and such as these, are our "Moses and the Prophets;" they are the voice of God speaking to us, and telling us of the beauty of holiness, the ugliness of sin, of the glories of heaven and the horrors of hell. Do we want any other voice? Nay, if we shut our ears to these, a voice from the grave would be in vain. The same message of repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ has come to us all, and it is for us to attend to it; and if we shut our ears and harden our hearts to such messages as this, we have put ourselves into an attitude of resistance to God, and have so injured our own perceptions of right and wrong, have so blinded our eyes to that Light which lighteth every man who comes into the world, that no miracle, not even a resurrection from the dead, will have any power to convince.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 1st series, p. 209.

I. Consider how we are to understand this declaration of Abraham. There is at first sight something very startling in the principle here enunciated, more especially if we remember from whom it came. Are these, it may be asked, indeed the words of the Founder of Christianity? Is it thus He speaks of the value of miracles, who Himself repeatedly appealed to His own marvellous works as a convincing evidence of His Divine mission? To understand what the thought really is, we must inquire what additional proof of the truth of His religion or incentive to its practice, would have been given to one who had in his hands the writings of "Moses and the Prophets," by the re-appearance of man after death. We must note here that scepticism with regard to the marvellous events of their own history does not seem to have been prevalent among the Jews of that time, and was certainly not the fault of that class, the Pharisees, to whom this parable was more immediately addressed. The Divine mission of Moses—a mission attested and enforced by miracles—was quite generally accepted as a truth. So far, then, the thought seems to be, "On you, who have already in your hands the recorded miracles of the Mosaic Dispensation, no seen miracle could produce, in enforcing the same truths, any appreciable results."

If this were all, the passage which I have taken for my text would not present any great difficulty. But there is something still behind. Does the Author of this parable mean to say that the doctrine of a future life would be destitute of moral effect on those who were deaf to the teaching of Moses? I answer that whatever of obedience to positive law could be obtained by a system of temporal rewards and punishments—by the promise or bestowal of earthly prosperity—by the threat or infliction of earthly suffering—all that had been done by the Mosaic Dispensation. And I cannot read the words of Christ to mean less than this: that if you alter the Mosaic system merely by super-adding to the hopes and terrors of this life the hopes and terrors of the life to come, you will effect nothing. If that system has failed, yours will not succeed. If such promises and threats fail to obtain the result, you will not obtain it merely by changing the scene of their fulfilment from this world to the next.

J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son and Other Sermons, p. 30.

References: Luk 16:31.—H. P. Liddon, Church of England Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 1; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii., No. 143; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 225; G. Moberly, Parochial Sermons, p. 47; R. L. Browne,’ Sussex Sermons, p. 141; R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 2nd series, p. 186; T. T. Lynch, Three Months’ Ministry, p. 169; R. Scott, University Sermons, p. 210. Luke 16—F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, p. 246.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our Lord begins this chapter with the parable of the rich man’s steward, who being called upon by his master to give up his accounts, in order to his being discharged from his office, casts about with himself what course he had best take to provide for his subsistence, when he should be turned out of his employment: at last he resolves upon this course; that he will go to his lord’s debtors, and take a favorable account of them, writing down fifty for an hundred, that by this means he might oblige them to be kind to him in his necessity; this is the sum of the parable.

Now the scope and design of it is this: To exhort all men that are intrusted by God here with estates, honors, and authority, to make use of all these unto spiritual ends, the glory of God, and the benefit of others; for we are not proprietors and owners, but stewards only, of the manifold gifts of God, and must be accountable unto him for all at last; but in the mean time to use, employ, and improve our Lord’s goods to the best advantage for ourselves, while we are entrusted with them; this is the scope of the parable.

Now the observations from it are these:

1. That all persons, even the highest and greatest of persons, are but stewards of the good things of God.

2. That our stewardship must and shall have an end; we shall not be always, no, we shall not be long, stewards.

3. That when we are put out of our stewardship, we must give an account of our carriage therein; and the greater our trust was, the heavier will our reckoning be.

4. That therefore it will be our highest prudence, while we are entrusted with our master’s goods, so to use and improve them, as may make most for our comfort and advantage, when we give up our account.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XCII. E. Parable of the Unrighteous Steward].

XCII. SECOND GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES. (Probably in Peræa.) Subdivision E. PARABLE OF THE UNRIGHTEOUS STEWARD. cLUKE XVI. 1-18.

c1 And he said also unto the disciples [If we remember that many publicans were now taking their stand among Jesus' disciples, we will more readily understand why Jesus addressed to them a parable about an unjust man. They would be more readily affected by such a story], There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. ["Wasting" of this verse and "wasted" of Luk_15:13 are parts of the same verb. The attitude of the two brethren to their father's estate, as set forth in the previous parable, introduced thoughts as to the proper relation which a man bears to his possessions, and these relations Jesus discusses in this parable. While no parable has been so diversely explained, yet the trend of interpretation has been in the main satisfactory. In Luk_16:8 the Lord himself gives the key to the parable, which is that the children of light, in the conduct of their affairs, should emulate the wisdom and prudence of the children of the world in the conduct of their affairs. The difficulty of the parable is more apparent than real. The whole parabolic machinery is borrowed from worldly and irreligious life, where dishonest cunning and rascality are freely tolerated. The child of light is equally shrewd and wise in the management of his affairs; using, however, only those means and methods which are permissible in his sphere of action. God's word, of course, nowhere teaches the absurdity [506] that sinful methods are permitted to him whom it calls to lead a sinless life. While the steward's conduct teaches valuable lessons, the steward himself is condemned as an "unrighteous" man in Luk_16:8.] 2 And he called him, and said unto him, What is this that I hear of thee? [an indignant expression of surprise arising from abused confidence] render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward. [Ordinarily the stewards were slaves; but this was evidently a free man, for he was neither punished nor sold, but discharged.] 3 And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord taketh away the stewardship from me? I have not strength to dig [Being too weak in body because of my luxurious living. Digging refers generally to agricultural labor]; to beg I am ashamed. [Being too strong in pride because of my exalted manner of life.] 4 I am resolved what to do [a way of escape comes to him in a sudden flash of discovery], that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they [my lord's debtors] may receive me into their houses. 5 And calling to him each of his lord's debtors, he said to the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6 And he said, A hundred measures of oil. [The measure mentioned here is the Hebrew bath, which corresponded roughly to a firkin, or nine gallons.] And he said unto him, Take thy bond [literally, writings], and sit down quickly and write fifty. [The amount remitted here--450 gallons of olive oil--represented a large sum of money. Such a reduction would put the debtor under great obligation to the steward.] 7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. [The measure here is the Hebrew cor, which contains ten baths, or ephahs, or, more exactly, eighty-six and seven-tenths gallons.] He saith unto him, Take thy bond, and write fourscore. [The amount remitted was about 267 bushels, and the debtor himself altered the writing, that he might be in no uncertainty about it. Scholars disagree as to whether these debtors were tenants or traders; i.e., [507] purchasers of produce who had given their bonds or notes for the same. Meyer, Trench, Godet, and others favor this latter view, but the language used and the customs of the land rather indicate that the former is correct. In the East rents are in proportion to the crop, and hence they vary as it varies. It was natural, therefore, that the steward should ask the amount of the rent; and also natural, since rents were thus payable in kind, that the tenant should answer as to the very thing owed. A trader would have been held, not for the purchase, but for the price, and would rather have specified the money due than the quantity or thing bought. Since the price of produce varies, it has been the immemorial custom everywhere to fix the amount to be paid for it at the very time it is purchased, and this amount becomes the debt.] 8 And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely [shrewdly]: for the sons of this world are for their own generation [their own clan or class] wiser than the sons of light. [That is to say, the steward, a worldly-minded rascal, knew better how to deal with a worldly-minded master above him and dishonest tenants beneath him, than a son of light knows how to deal with the God over him and his needy brethren about him. The verse contrasts the sons of two households: the children of the worldly household exercise more forethought and prudence in gaining among their brethren friends for the day of need, and in expending money to that end, than do the children of the light. The "devil's martyrs," in their skillful prudence, often shame the saints. If the latter showed a wisdom in their affairs analogous to that which the unjust steward employed in his affairs, God would commend them as the lord commended the steward.] 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness [see Mat_25:35-40, where our Lord altogether identifies himself with his poor and unfortunate disciples, and returns on their behalf a heavenly recompense for any kindness which has been shown them on the earth. Only in this secondary and subordinate sense can those whom the Christian has benefited receive him into heaven. Nor does the passage teach that their is any merit in almsgiving, since the thing given is already the property of another ( Luk_16:12). Almsgiving is only a phase of the fidelity required of a steward, and the reward of a steward is not of merit but of grace-- Luk_17:7-10, Mat_25:21.] 10 He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. [God does not judge by the magnitude of an act, but by the spiritual principles and motives which lie back of the act. A small action may discover and lay bare these principles quite as well as a large one. In the administration of small properties entrusted to us on the earth we reveal our disposition and temper as stewards quite as well as if we owned half the universe.] 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true i riches? [The word "unrighteous" is here used to mean deceitful, as opposed to true. Worldly riches deceive us by being temporal and transitory, while the true riches are eternal-- 2Co_4:18.] 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? [We are all God's stewards, and the perishing possessions of earth are not our own ( 1Ch_29:14), but that which is given us forever is our own-- 1Co_3:22.] 13 No servant can serve two masters [ Gal_1:10, Jam_4:4]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and [509] mammon. [See Luk_23:35). This was a new phase of their opposition, and showed that they no longer feared Jesus as formerly, being assured that he aimed at no earthly dominion. Because of his poverty they may have regarded him as prejudiced against wealth. At any rate, they regarded themselves as living contradictions of this to them ridiculous statement that a man could not be rich and yet religious.] 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: dor that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. [The Pharisees lived in such outward contrast to the publicans and made such pretensions and claims that men esteemed them righteous, but they were none the less abominable in God's sight. God approves righteousness when inward, but despises the mere outward show of it.] 16 The law and the prophets i were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it. [See p. 283.] 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than one tittle of the law to fall. [See page 236. The law and the prophets had been used of God to set up the old dispensation, and it had been so perverted and abused that in it the Pharisees could pass for righteous men, though abominable according to its true standard. Since the days of John the old dispensation has been merging into the new, and this also has been subjected to violence. But despite all the changes made, approved, and justified by men, the God-given law had never changed. Its smallest letter could no more be eliminated than the universe could be obliterated. But of course the Lawgiver could with notice modify his law.] 18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery. [See p. 242. This precept is inserted here as [510] an illustration of a flagrant violation of the law of God both countenanced and practiced by these Pharisees.]

[FFG 506-511]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Luke Chapter 16

In chapter 16, the effect of grace on conduct is presented, and the contrast that exists (the dispensation being changed) between the conduct that Christianity requires with regard to the things of the world, and the position of the Jews in that respect. Now this position was only the expression of that of man made evident by the law. The doctrine thus embodied by the parable is confirmed by the parabolic history of the rich man and Lazarus, lifting up the veil that hides the other world in which the result of men’s conduct is manifested.

Man is the steward of God (that is, God has committed His goods to man). Israel stands especially in this position.

But man has been unfaithful; Israel had indeed been so. God has taken away his stewardship; but man is still in possession of the goods to administer them, at least, in fact (as Israel was at that moment). These goods are the things of earth-that which man can possess according to the flesh. Having lost his stewardship by his unfaithfulness, and being still in possession of the goods, he uses them to make friends of his master’s debtors by doing them good. This is what Christians should do with earthly possessions, using them for others, having the future in view. The steward might have appropriated the money due to his master; he preferred gaining friends with it (that is, he sacrifices present to future advantage). We may turn the miserable riches of this world into means of fulfilling love. The spirit of grace which fills our hearts (ourselves the objects of grace) exercises itself with regard to temporal things, which we use for others. For us it is in view of the everlasting habitations. “That they may receive you” is equivalent to “that you may be received”-a common form of expression in Luke, to designate the fact without speaking of the individuals that perform it, although using the word they.

Observe that earthly riches are not our own things; heavenly riches, in the case of a true Christian, are his own.

These riches are unrighteous, in that they belong to fallen man, and not to the heavenly man, nor had any place when Adam was innocent.

Now, when the veil is lifted from the other world, the truth is fully brought to light. And the contrast between the Jewish dispensation and the Christian, is clearly unfolded; for Christianity reveals that world, and, as to its principle, belongs to heaven.

Judaism, according to God’s government on earth, promised temporal blessing to the righteous; but all was in disorder: even the Messiah, the head of the system, was rejected. In a word, Israel, looked at as set under responsibility, and to enjoy earthly blessing on obedience, had entirely failed. Man, in this world, could no longer, on that footing, be the means of bearing testimony to the ways of God in government. There will be a time of earthly judgment, but it was not yet come. Meanwhile, the possession of riches was anything rather than a proof of God’s favour. Personal selfishness, and alas! indifference to a brother in distress at his door, was, instead, the characteristic of its possession among the Jews. Revelation opens the other world to our view. Man, in this world, is fallen, wicked man. If he has received his good things here, he has the portion of sinful man; he will be tormented, while the other one whom he had despised will find happiness in the other world.

It is not a question here of that which gives title to enter heaven, but of character, and of the contrast between the principles of this world and the invisible world. The Jew made choice of this world; he has lost this and the other also. The poor man whom he had thought contemptible is found in Abraham’s bosom. The whole tenor of this parable shews its connection with the question of Israel’s hopes, and the idea that riches were a proof of the favour of God (an idea which, false as it may be in every case, is intelligible enough if this world is the scene of blessing under the government of God). The subject of the parable is shewn also by that which is found at the end of it. The miserable rich man desires that his brethren might be warned by some one who had risen from the dead. Abraham declares to him the uselessness of this means. It was all over with Israel. God has not again presented His Son to the nation who rejected Him, despising the law and the prophets. The testimony of His resurrection met with the same unbelief that had rejected Him when living, as well as the prophets before Him. There is no consolation in the other world if the testimony of the word to the conscience is rejected in this. The gulf cannot be crossed. A returning Lord would not convince those who had despised the word. All is in connection with the judgment of the Jews, which would close the dispensation; as the preceding parable shews what the conduct of Christians should be with regard to things temporal. All flows from the grace which, in love on God’s part, accomplished the salvation of man, and set aside the legal dispensation and its principles by bringing in the heavenly things.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–7. There was a certain rich man. The three parables of the last chapter, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son, are a rebuke to the self-righteousness of the Pharisees: the two of this chapter are directed against their covetousness. Had a steward. An officer who had charge of his estates. Eliezer was the steward of Abraham; Joseph that of Potiphar (Gen 24:2–12 and 39:4). A man of business to take charge of the property is still common in the Old World on large estates. The Christian, to whom God has entrusted the earthly care of property that belongs to the Creator, is thus described (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–27). Wasting his goods. Dishonest; an embezzler.

Give an account. All will be called to such an account, at death, or sooner. Sometimes, because we have proved faithless, God takes the property out of our charge sooner. Dismissal from God's service, whether at death or sooner, is the consequence of wasting the Lord's goods.

I cannot dig. He was not accustomed to, or willing to come to, hard labor. To beg I am ashamed. He ought to have been more ashamed to prove faithless to his trust.

I am resolved. “All at once, after long reflection, he exclaims, as if striking his forehead: I have hit it.”—Godet. Many a rich man reaches a similar resolve when about to die. That they may receive me. He will put his Lord's debtors under such obligations to him that they will give him a home.

He called every one. The debtors; those that owed rent or on account.

A hundred measures of oil. Olive oil, one of the commonest products of Palestine. The measure contained about sixty pints. Take thy bond. The contract. Sit down quickly. In great haste, lest the dishonest transaction might be interrupted. Write fifty. The throwing off of fifty measures would be equivalent to several hundred dollars.

Hundred measures of wheat. The wheat measure was about eleven bushels; the twenty remitted would be 220 bushels.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus begins telling another parable. It is about a master and the manager of his debtors. This is still the same part of the story and the same day that began in Luke 15:3. (See: Parables)

Jesus also said to the disciples

The last section was directed at Pharisees and scribes, though Jesus' disciples may have been part of the crowd listening.

There was a certain rich man

This introduces a new character in the parable. (See: Introduction of New and Old Participants)

it was reported to him

This can be stated in active form. AT: "people reported to the rich man" (See: Active or Passive)

wasting his possessions

"foolishly managing the rich man's wealth"

What is this that I hear about you?

The rich man uses a question to scold the manager. AT: "I have heard what you are doing." (See: Rhetorical Question)

Give an account of your management

"Set your records in order to pass on to someone else" or "Prepare the records you have written about my money"

translationWords

Jesus

disciple

manager

possess

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

Steward [οικονομον] . From oikov, a house, and nemw, to distribute or dispense. Hence, one who assigns to the members of the household their several duties, and pays to each his wages. The paymaster. He kept the household stores under lock and seal, giving out what was required; and for this purpose received a signet - ring from his master. Wyc., fermour, or farmer. Here probably the land - steward.

Was accused [διεβληθη] . Only here in New Testament. From dia, over, across, and ballw, to throw. To carry across, and hence to carry reports, etc., from one to another; to carry false reports, and so to calumniate or slander. See on devil, Mt 4:1. The word implies malice, but not necessarily falsehood. Compare Latin traducere (trans, over, ducere, to lead), whence traduce.

Had wasted [ως διασκορπιζων] . Lit., as wasting. Rev., was wasting; not merely a past offense, but something going on at the time of the accusation. See ch. Luk 14:13.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.