About the unjust steward' s parable from Lk 16

peter2 · Jan 9, 2026

com7fy8 said:
Well, a point Jesus makes could be how we all have been guilty and undeserving of forgiveness. And so, who am I to suddenly decide I do not have to forgive someone, as if only that one is so wrong so the person can not be forgiven?

Idem : it's got some consistency, yes, but it looks to me not covering all aspects of the parable and its following

com7fy8 said:
Even if ones say someone like Adolph could not be forgiven . . . well, there were mothers and fathers who called for the crucifixion of Jesus. Respectable and religious people were in on that. So, we might be wise not to self-righteously condemn anyone as being unforgivable.

Idem

peter2 · Jan 10, 2026

Another way they could think of the whole thing is at which behavior do each of the protagonists rejoice ? :

In my interpretation indeed :
The rich man doesn't care if the steward is actually wasting his goods. What'd only matter for him would be to look cheated by the steward.
The steward doesn't care if he's or if he's not actually wasting his master's goods. What'd only matter for him would be to look cheating him.
The steward doesn't care if he's or if he's not actually corrupting debtors. What'd only matter for him would be to look doing so.
The rich man doesn't care if the steward is actually corrupting debtors. What'd only matter would be to look more again cheated by the steward.

And this would be the reason why the parable speaks of "shrewdness", which would not be an evangelical virtue for which the master commends the steward , but a worldly ability for which he would be doing so.

Thus the whole parable looks to me like a dissecting of the world's common practices

Please, does my explanation seem clear for you ? I admit it's a bit complicated, but i tried my best to make myself explicit

peter2 · Jan 15, 2026

peter2 said:
Another way they could think of the whole thing is at which behavior do each of the protagonists rejoice ? :

In my interpretation indeed :
The rich man doesn't care if the steward is actually wasting his goods. What'd only matter for him would be to look cheated by the steward.
The steward doesn't care if he's or if he's not actually wasting his master's goods. What'd only matter for him would be to look cheating him.
The steward doesn't care if he's or if he's not actually corrupting debtors. What'd only matter for him would be to look doing so.
The rich man doesn't care if the steward is actually corrupting debtors. What'd only matter would be to look more again cheated by the steward.

And this would be the reason why the parable speaks of "shrewdness", which would not be an evangelical virtue for which the master commends the steward , but a worldly ability for which he would be doing so.

Thus the whole parable looks to me like a dissecting of the world's common practices

Please, does my explanation seem clear for you ? I admit it's a bit complicated, but i tried my best to make myself explicit

Two examples for my interpretation of the rich man's parable might be :

1. Herod => rich man
John the Baptist => He that denounces the steward (Herodias)
Herodiad => steward.
The goods => worldly morality
The debtors = > Herodias'daughter, the nobles, the high officers, and the chief men of Galilee
Indeed, Herod looks cheated by Herodias. He also looks just through his keeping his oath before those who sat with him, while having the innocent John beheaded

2. Pilate => rich man
Jesus => He that denounces the merchandising of the Temple
High priest => steward
The goods => Worldly merchandising
The debtors => the faithfuls made sinners
Indeed, Pilate looks cheated by the High Priest. He also looks just through his washing his hands, while allowing them to behave according to how they interpret the Law

peter2 · Jan 16, 2026

peter2 said:
In my interpretation indeed :
The rich man doesn't care if the steward is actually wasting his goods. What'd only matter for him would be to look cheated by the steward.
The steward doesn't care if he's or if he's not actually wasting his master's goods. What'd only matter for him would be to look cheating him.
The steward doesn't care if he's or if he's not actually corrupting debtors. What'd only matter for him would be to look doing so.
The rich man doesn't care if the steward is actually corrupting debtors. What'd only matter would be to look more again cheated by the steward.

And this would be the reason why the parable speaks of "shrewdness", which would not be an evangelical virtue for which the master commends the steward , but a worldly ability for which he would be doing so.

Thus the whole parable looks to me like a dissecting of the world's common practices

Thus, any potential truthlover might easily believe the rich man is someone truly good, whereas this latter is not. He is only shrewd in commending the steward, for the sake of his appearing good and forgiving. i guess you are growing aware of the whole thing, if you were not, already.

FireDragon76 · Sunday at 5:23 AM

The parable of the Unjust Steward or the Shrewd Manager traditionally has thought of the owner as God, the manager as the lot of humanity. It's also possible Jesus was using the parable as a critique against the religious establishment of his time. That they should be less interested in settling or adjudicating accounts and more interested in making friends with "ill gotten mammon". Neither interpretation is wrong, one just gives context to the other one.

However, the idea that the Devil is involved in the parable doesn't really make alot of sense, and doesn't fit with the cultural context. Peasants knew that the structures of power didn't favor them, so somebody that uses money shrewdly as a benefactor or philanthropist wouldn't have been seen as evil so much as clever. The manager is putting the money to a better use than merely settling accounts, he's being generous towards the people he will depend on later.

peter2 · Sunday at 6:37 AM

FireDragon76 said:
However, the idea that the Devil is involved in the parable doesn't really make alot of sense, and doesn't fit with the cultural context. Peasants knew that the structures of power didn't favor them, so somebody that uses money shrewdly as a benefactor or philanthropist wouldn't have been seen as evil so much as clever. The manager is putting the money to a better use than merely settling accounts, he's being generous towards the people he will depend on later.

I don't know if the adjective “shrewd” can be used to describe something as fair. My feeling, admittedly subjective, about the French equivalent (habile) is that it is often used to highlight manipulation. This adjective is frequently associated with the word “politics” (we say “a skilled politician,” we talk about “skill in politics,” etc., meaning respectively: “shrewd politician,” “shrewdness in politics”).
We can interpret the word “manipulation” however we wish, but whether it is a pejorative idea or not, I find that this word clearly illustrates the version I attribute to the parable, and that this version, with the devil or a manipulative man in the role of the rich man, provides an explanation where there is no longer any contradiction, whereas in the classic versions, the contradictions remain, if only in the title of the parable, which suggests that God would praise the steward by turning a blind eye to his injustice.
Shrewdness, moreover, does not seem to be listed as a Christian virtue.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

FireDragon76 · Sunday at 3:14 PM

peter2 said:
I don't know if the adjective “shrewd” can be used to describe something as fair. My feeling, admittedly subjective, about the French equivalent (habile) is that it is often used to highlight manipulation. This adjective is frequently associated with the word “politics” (we say “a skilled politician,” we talk about “skill in politics,” etc., meaning respectively: “shrewd politician,” “shrewdness in politics”).
We can interpret the word “manipulation” however we wish, but whether it is a pejorative idea or not, I find that this word clearly illustrates the version I attribute to the parable, and that this version, with the devil or a manipulative man in the role of the rich man, provides an explanation where there is no longer any contradiction, whereas in the classic versions, the contradictions remain, if only in the title of the parable, which suggests that God would praise the steward by turning a blind eye to his injustice.
Shrewdness, moreover, does not seem to be listed as a Christian virtue.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

To understand some of Jesus parables, you have to look at them "from below" , from the point of view of peasants. This isn't about being fair in the sense of liberal Enlightenment values. This is about being wise, not about being fair in the usual sense.

If this seems scandalous to you, just go read some of the Old Testament stories. YHWH is a God of covenant promises, not cosmic order, unlike many pagan gods of the time (Egypt), and is frequently involved in subverting expectations of power and birthright. Jacob takes Esau's inheritance through shrewdness, not through fairness, and yet God honors that nonetheless.

Pour comprendre certaines paraboles de Jésus, il faut les regarder "d'en bas", du point de vue des paysans et des gens ordinaires. Il ne s'agit pas d'être juste au sens des valeurs libérales des Lumières—cette notion moderne d'équité abstraite et universelle. Il s'agit plutôt d'être sage, rusé, capable de naviguer dans un monde où les structures de pouvoir sont profondément inégales. La sagesse dont il est question n'est pas la "justice" au sens habituel, mais la capacité de survie et d'action stratégique dans un système qui ne favorise pas les pauvres.

Si cela vous semble scandaleux, il suffit de lire certaines histoires de l'Ancien Testament. YHWH est un Dieu d'alliance et de promesses, pas un dieu de l'ordre cosmique comme beaucoup de dieux païens de l'époque (par exemple en Égypte). Il intervient fréquemment pour renverser les attentes concernant le pouvoir et le droit d'aînesse. Jacob prend l'héritage d'Ésaü par la ruse, non par la justice ou l'équité, et pourtant Dieu honore cela. Ce n'est pas que Dieu approuve la tromperie en soi, mais qu'il se range du côté du plus faible, de celui qui doit user de stratagème pour survivre dans un monde injuste. La "shrewdness" (l'habileté, la ruse) devient une forme de résistance, pas simplement de la manipulation vide.

Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4.5 has this to say about the parable:

In the honor-shame culture Jesus was addressing, the distinction between "appearing generous" and "being generous" would have collapsed in a way that feels foreign to our modern, internalized notion of authenticity.

In that cultural context, the manager is helping the debtors precisely by creating the social reality of reduced debts and putting them in his debt (literally and socially). The performance is the reality. When he reduces their obligations, he's creating real reciprocal bonds, real social capital, real patron-client relationships. There's no meaningful gap between "looking like a benefactor" and "being a benefactor" because benefaction was fundamentally a public, relational act.

Dans la culture d'honneur et de honte à laquelle Jésus s'adressait, la distinction entre "paraître généreux" et "être généreux" se serait effondrée d'une manière qui semble étrangère à notre notion moderne et intériorisée de l'authenticité.

Dans ce contexte culturel, l'intendant aide les débiteurs précisément en créant la réalité sociale de dettes réduites et en les mettant dans sa dette (littéralement et socialement). La performance est la réalité. Lorsqu'il réduit leurs obligations, il crée de véritables liens réciproques, un véritable capital social, de véritables relations patron-client. Il n'y a pas d'écart significatif entre "avoir l'air d'un bienfaiteur" et "être un bienfaiteur.

peter2 · Sunday at 7:12 PM

Hello FireDragon,

Thank you for the French translation, but I think it would be inappropriate for me to express myself in French. For my part, I prefer to continue in English.

I understand your approach, but it seems to allow everyone to be corrupted in terms of righteousness in your interpretation, from the one who originated it (the steward) to his master who endorses it, including all the debtors.

FireDragon76 said:
To understand some of Jesus parables, you have to look at them "from below" , from the point of view of peasants. This isn't about being fair in the sense of liberal Enlightenment values. This is about being wise, not about being fair in the usual sense.

In some respects, your interpretation makes sense.

But if we look at the parable from the beginning, we may wonder about the significance of the first two verses. Why this staging? Why these threats to dismiss the manager if you are right? What is the point of the rest of the parable? From the first verse, the master could have chosen to check the steward's accounts without threatening to remove him from his position, since he ends up praising him without further threats for reasons similar to those for which he is accused: squandering his property.

If the master is a good master, either he would not have reacted so harshly to his steward's denunciation (Luke 16:2), or he would have reacted in the same spirit as this verse, namely, not to squander his property. Otherwise, I think we could conclude that the master has a split personality.

FireDragon76 said:
If this seems scandalous to you, just go read some of the Old Testament stories. YHWH is a God of covenant promises, not cosmic order, unlike many pagan gods of the time (Egypt), and is frequently involved in subverting expectations of power and birthright. Jacob takes Esau's inheritance through shrewdness, not through fairness, and yet God honors that nonetheless.

In my interpretation, God does not honor Jacob's cunning shrewdness.
He is simply keeping his promise.
Between two men who were claiming an inheritance, Jesus too seems unconcerned (Luke 12:13-14).
I am not sure that keeping his promise means for God to honor Jacob's shrewdness.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

FireDragon76 · Sunday at 7:24 PM

peter2 said:
Hello FireDragon,

Thank you for the French translation, but I think it would be inappropriate for me to express myself in French. For my part, I prefer to continue in English.

I understand your approach, but it seems to allow everyone to be corrupted in terms of righteousness in your interpretation, from the one who originated it (the steward) to his master who endorses it, including all the debtors.

Righteousness here has nothing to do with being "legally correct" in the sense of modern deontology (Immanuel Kant for instance, his notion of universal moral duties), and everything to do with what we would call "relational responsibility". Both the Steward and the Master benefit from the Steward's shrewdness, because he has enhanced the honor of the Master as well as himself. The Steward has turned a situation that would have merely been a financial loss into something more important, relational and reputational gain.

La justice ici n'a rien à voir avec le fait d'être "légalement correct" au sens de la déontologie moderne (Emmanuel Kant par exemple, sa notion de devoirs moraux universels), et tout à voir avec ce que nous appellerions la "responsabilité relationnelle". L'intendant et le maître bénéficient tous deux de l'habileté de l'intendant, parce qu'il a rehaussé l'honneur du maître ainsi que le sien propre. L'intendant a transformé une situation qui n'aurait été qu'une perte financière en quelque chose de plus important : un gain relationnel et de réputation.

peter2 · Sunday at 7:39 PM

FireDragon76 said:
Righteousness here has nothing to do with being "legally correct" in the sense of modern deontology (Immanuel Kant for instance, his notion of universal moral duties), and everything to do with what we would call "relational responsibility". Both the Steward and the Master benefit from the Steward's shrewdness, because he has enhanced the honor of the Master as well as himself. The Steward has turned a situation that would have merely been a financial loss into something more important, relational and reputational gain.

So, you extrapolate from the parable that the master changed his tune. From being careful not to squander his wealth, to the point of wanting to dismiss the steward, he became adept at squandering it, for the sake of his reputation.
I'm not sure that the parable shows us such a turnaround on the part of the master.
PS I know very little on philosophy, Kant, etc..

FireDragon76 · Sunday at 7:43 PM

peter2 said:
So, you extrapolate from the parable that the master changed his tune. From being careful not to squander his wealth, to the point of wanting to dismiss the manager, he became adept at squandering it, for the sake of his reputation.
I'm not sure that the parable shows us such a turnaround on the part of the master.
PS I know very little on philosophy, Kant, etc..

Jesus explains the parable further in 16:9, "I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.". The parable's situation is not meant to be taken literally, but point to a deeper truth, that the "children of this world" are being wiser in material things than the Pharisees, who see themselves as "children of light". Everybody understands the value of a good reputation in Jesus' day, and Jesus is saying "look, by being stingy with mercy, you are not honoring God, you are merely being stingy, and you won't inherit anything in the age to come".

peter2 · Sunday at 8:01 PM

FireDragon76 said:
Jesus explains the parable further in 16:9, "I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.". The parable's situation is not meant to be taken literally, but point to a deeper truth, that the "children of this world" are being wiser in material things than the Pharisees

i agree

FireDragon76 said:
the Pharisees, who see themselves as "children of light".

This i'm not sure, for i've got no hindsight as regard this terminology

FireDragon76 said:
Everybody understands the value of a good reputation in Jesus' day, and Jesus is saying "look, by being stingy with mercy, you are not honoring God, you are merely being stingy, and you won't inherit anything in the age to come".

Yes, if such is what Jesus means, but i don't see what more contribution it makes

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

About the unjust steward' s parable from Lk 16

Ordinary life contemplative

Ordinary life contemplative

Ordinary life contemplative

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Ordinary life contemplative

Similar threads