The Parable of the Unjust Steward: A Perspective

[Anonymous]

As we talk about tithing during this financially festive season….I’m reminded of the parable of the Unjust Steward (at the end of this post). This is a story about a man who was about to lose his job, and apparently, was unable to do manual labor either. He appears to feel that he had no alternatives other than be a manager, or accountant — a situation which I think he considered hard to find if unemployed. So, while still in “office”, so to speak, he goes to the clients of his employer, and gives them discounts on the amounts they owe his boss. Apparently, he hopes that these concessions will make him attractive to the debtors, potentially landing him a job after his current employment is terminated.

The Lord commends the steward for his foresight and planning, indicating that even “the children of light” don’t look consider the future with such foresight.

When I read this parable, it makes me question the wisdom of tithing when you are not self-reliant first — the payment of tithing seems almost irresponsible, and lacking the kind of planning and foresight the Lord commends.

Given the parable, to me, it seems almost irresponsible to give away large sums of money when you are not first self-reliant. The Church even teaches we should have a year’s supply of money, so why pay out our tithing when that reserve isn’t even built up yet? Financial management specialists (like Financial Peace University) advise that the first thing you do is build up a reserve after you get your financials in order. In Mormon America, when N. Eldon Tanner took over (or was it Reuben J. Clark?) managing Church finances, he halted all investment in buildings until the Church could build up a reserve — then resumed building/spending after the financials were in order.

I find it hard to accept that we must throw out the logic in the Parable, and the example set by the Church in the 1950’s and 1960’s when it comes to our personal payment of tithing. It seems irresponsible to me to give such large sums away when a person has not yet achieved a level of self-sufficiency they are comfortable with. Self-sufficiency that makes them reasonably at peace with their ability to handle life’s calamities like unemployment, health problems, etcetera.

It also bothers me that we preach self-reliance, building reserves, saving etcetera, but we throw all that out the window when we talk about tithing. It’s darn confusing to me, this inconsistent logic. It seems logical to me that the steward who builds up his reserve first, and then pays tithing second is wiser than the “children of light” who give today, with no thought for the future.

Here is the parable as a refresher.

Quote:

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.

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

3 Then 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.

4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

5 So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?

6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.

7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.

8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

[Anonymous]

I find this parable confusing and unethical. I am not sure what to do with it.

[Anonymous]

I have a VERY different take on this parable, but it will take me some time to write about it. I will try to do so tomorrow or Sunday.

[Anonymous]

OK, here goes the resident parser:

Quote:

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.

The “steward” is a manager – someone who has stewardship over (responsibility for) something. This manager had been given control over the handling of some of the rich man’s goods – and had failed miserably. In fact, it appears he had lost everything with which he had been entrusted – since the goods had been “wasted”.

Quote:

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.

Iow, the rich man said, “Tell me what you’ve done with my goods. You’re in danger of being fired.”

Quote:

3 Then 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.

This wasn’t a “poor man” naturally; he wasn’t even necessarily a poor man until he was threatened with being fired. (It appears he had no other marketable skill and relatively little physical strength – and he also was a proud man. It also is implied that he knew there was no way he could keep his job, since he knew “my lord taketh away from me the stewardship”.)

Quote:

4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

He said, essentially, “There is no doubt I will be fired, so I better ingratiate myself into the good graces of those who owed money to the rich man while I can (before I am fired officially and still have the authority to make a deal).”

Quote:

5 So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?

6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.

7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.

These verses simply say that he cut deals with the debtors, so they would appreciate him and be more likely to hire him when we was fired.

Quote:

8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

There is nothing in this verse whatsoever that even implies the man kept his job with the rich man. There is nothing in this verse that says anything the steward did was “right” or “good” from a moral standpoint. There is nothing in this verse that says the rich man approved of the steward himself (since he still called him “unjust”) or that the rich man kept the steward on as an employee (that isn’t stated anywhere). All it says is that the rich man “commended” the “unjust” steward for doing wisely – BUT it doesn’t say toward what the commendation for doing wisely was directed. Iow, it doesn’t say WHY the rich man commended the steward, other than that there was something “wise” about his actions.

My take is quite simple:

When he heard about the wasted goods, the rich man knew what kind of man the steward was. He also knew that, given the way the steard had “wasted” the goods, he was unlikely to get much, if anything, from his debtors once the steward was fired. (Again, “wasted” carries that connotation – that there appeared to be no getting anything of worth out of them.) So, even as the rich man fired the steward he commended him for at least getting as much as possible out of an otherwise wasted situation – for minimizing his losses and putting himself in a position to get work once he left the rich man’s service, even if such an approach was “unjust” – which simply means “not in accord with a normal understanding of what is right or lawful”. Iow, he didn’t demand justice, but rather, in order to get what he could, he extended mercy – thus getting more by being merciful than he could by sticking strictly to the letter of the law.

(Contrast this parable to the one where the man who owed his master money threw people in jail who couldn’t pay him what they owed him in order to get out of his own debt. That man was condemned for being totally “just” – while this “unjust steward” was commended for not adhering strictly to the demands he could have made. Those “just” demands would have put others in jail, not done the rich man any good in the process and reduced the steward himself to death – since he had no other option, given his unwillingness to beg.)

Iow, the steward apparently learned an important lesson from his previous failure and successfully carried out a plan to minimize the damage to both himself and his “lord”. He started to turn his life around (by being merciful, getting the most out of a bad situation and positioning himself to have another shot at it with someone else) and gave himself an opportunity to somewhere else what he had been tasked to do in the first place.

As to the tithing analogy, honestly, I just don’t see it in this parable.

This man was not “self-reliant”. His entire existence was contingent upon the mercy of someone whose goods he managed. He didn’t risk poverty by paying any kind of money to his boss; he risked poverty and death by “wasting” that over which he had been entrusted. I don’t see any relevance, personally, to tithing in this instance – unless I equate wasting money over which we’ve been given stewardship by the Lord (as some people see tithing) by not making sure the Lord actually gets it. Iow, the only analogy I can see is if someone “wastes” the money they should have paid in tithing and then does everything possible to pay as much as possible by getting money from others to make it right. I don’t see that as a solid analogy, personally.

I don’t think there’s a “higher” moral to this story than the obvious one – that it’s better to tackle mistakes and bad judgments head-on and try to change your future in the here and now than to leave yourself unable to function in the world as a result of past mistakes (or to rely on the mercy of someone whose “goods” you’ve wasted). I think the point is just:

Quote:

Do the best you can to make the past and the future right – even if you’ve wasted your stewardship up to this point. Get out of the clutches of those who have claims over you and start fresh with a clean slate – and do a better job with your second chance than you did with the first.

or, iow:

Quote:

Repent and be merciful toward others, and God will commend you for your efforts.

[Anonymous]

I dunno. My take on the entire parable is “WTF?”

Outlines of Doctrinal Theology wrote:

Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance. Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement. Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment. Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.

So…as instant and unqualified acceptance of this ‘teaching of god’, to what do I agree? That it’s ok to defraud my employer if I’m about to be fired? I don’t get it at all.

Articles 11 and 12 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy wrote:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

Here is falsehood, fraud, and deceit big time. How does this work?

[Anonymous]

If you have a copy of Jesus the Christ, talmage addresses this parable in detail. I remember it being about preparing for the future — that was his interpretation of what was “good” in the actions of the unrighteous steward. He may have been unrighteous in wasting his master’s goods, but when the dirt hit the fan, he showed foresight in at least preparing for the day when he wouldn’t have a job.

What seems to confuse people is the unethical deals he cut with this boss’ debtors. You have to ignore that part of it, and focus on the fact that he was preparing for the future. Maybe in the wrong way, but at least he was thinking ahead, positioning himself as best he could, taking a longer term perspective.

I look at self-reliance, tithing, and prudent use of one’s resources the same way.

I also like the scripture in the New Testament about “what man, when about to build a building, counteth not the cost so he has enough to finish it?”. i look at raising a family and a life on this earth the same way. When one looks at the cost of building a family that is self-sufficient etcetera, one needs to count the cost of this happening — to just give it all away before you have a reserve, contingency funds, etcetera, to an organization that doesnt’ need it just doesn’t make sense to me for the time being….

[Anonymous]

SD,

I agree that we should not get into debt to pay tithing or anything ridiculous like that.

I believe in tithing… especially for the poor, as instructed in scriptures from several angles.

Some consider the “law of attraction” – that as you give, you get… but all things in wisdom (ie budget lol).

The part of that parable that puzzles me is where the lord commended the unjust steward… Maybe it’s one of those scriptures that was twisted by one of the many corrupt political powers like Constatine.

It seems to be explaining the rules of 2 games… the game of the world/people & the game of God… & whichever game we play, to play well.

Maybe it’s like the scripture, don’t be luke warm or you’ll be spit out… be hot or cold.

Then again, maybe it’s about character… what our real priority is.

If you read on a few scriptures after the parable of the unjust steward… verse 13 (in Luke 16) reads, “No servant can serve 2 masters: for either he will hate the one, & love the other; or else he will hold to the one, & despise the other. Ye cannot serve God & mammon.”

Do we want to do what’s right & do God’s will in the big picture… or do we want to please others & ourselves for the moment?

[Anonymous]

I think everyone here knows I’m not a Biblical apologist who thinks the scriptures (including the uniquely Mormon ones) are inerrant. I don’t have to believe this parable actually was taught, and I don’t have to believe it’s message is divine in some way. However, I think there are lessons that can be taken from it without “wresting” it in any way.

I think there are two main issues that have to be addressed in order to do so:

1) I think we modern people get hung up on the word “unjust” – and I don’t see the steward’s actions in the parable as “unethical” in any way. The dictionary definitions of “unjust” are:

Quote:

a) not just; lacking in justice or fairness;

b) unfaithful or dishonest.

I found this definition enlightening, when viewed in the context of this parable:

Quote:

not in accordance with accepted standards of fairness or justice

In the parable in question, one person paid 50% of what he owed, while the second person paid 80% of what he owed. (My guess is the difference was due to the ability of each person to repay the debt immediately – that the steward got as much from each person as was possible in a lump sum at the time.) The steward wasn’t being “fair” – since he wasn’t applying the same terms of repayment – or “just” or “faithful” – since he wasn’t collecting for his boss what was owed to the boss – but he also wasn’t being “dishonest” in any way. (See point #2 below for more about that.)

That’s smart money management, IF the purpose is to get as much NOW as possible – for whatever reason. That was the steward’s objective. Lenders do it all the time, now and all throughout history. If they have lent money and face the real probability that the borrower won’t be able to pay it back in full, they work out a compromise, partial payment – and the terms often are “everything you can pay”. It’s not “unethical” at all – but, technically, it is “unjust”. We don’t bat an eye at the “unjustness” of it (especially if we are the beneficiaries) – and we generally commend the lenders who understand and try to work out alternate payment options. Otoh, we generally castigate lenders who don’t even try to understand exceptional circumstances and work with borrowers who need to rework their debt payments.

2) It’s easy to forget that the steward still was responsible for the distribution of the rich man’s goods and the payments for them. That was his job. He did a lousy job of it, but it still was his job. He hadn’t been fired yet at the time the parable relates. He had the authority to do whatever he wanted to collect his lord’s debts – and he chose to exercise that authority in an “unjust” but totally “ethical” way. He got the rich man as much as could be expected before he was fired, so the rich man understandably commended him for that – even though (I think) he still was fired for wasting his lord’s goods.

I don’t know exactly what the original point was for this parable, but I can see very good lessons that can be taken from it. I personally don’t see tithing as related, but I’m not saying it isn’t related. I’m just saying it’s not a parallel I can make personally.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

That’s smart money management, IF the purpose is to get as much NOW as possible – for whatever reason. That was the steward’s objective.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the steward actually performed better at his job now that he was properly motivated. But even if that was the intent of the parable it does nothing to inspire me. “Close outstanding accounts and tie off loose ends before leaving an employer” while perhaps sound advice, just doesn’t sing to me.

I can imagine Jesus telling us, “Yeah, I was having an off day.” Then looking at us quizzically before adding, “What? Did you expect everything out of my mouth to be a winner?” :crazy:

[Anonymous]

😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: 😆 :clap:

Nice, roy – although I still say the idea of repenting, trying to minimize the effect of past mistakes and starting fresh is a good message, if that’s what the message was supposed to be.

[Author]

Posts