Luke 16: The Unjust Steward: Passing by Nehushtan

Luke 16 and the Unjust Steward: A Somewhat New Takeaway

This site is called a Prophetic Think Tank. What that means is a test site for the application of a particular presupposition about the meaning of Christ exclusively through the prophetic revelation of him.

A lot of the articles are not structured in such a way that you would expect from dependence on and regurgitation of current or historical interpretation. Here, it’s often a free-flow of my continuous thought processes birthed in a single sitting over one piece of scripture. This can be off-putting, but I think its really a good example of what we all should be doing before going out and writing things that from the outset we take for granted as settled and distributing them. I think we should just once pause and think: what if I’m wrong about everything and, if so, what is most fundamental about the preaching of Christ that I would be missing if I were missing it?

So I hope you will just think along with me on this and give me your kind input because I think we are on to something here.

Liefeld’s commentary on Luke never broaches the symbolism here. Instead, he gives its meaning over to general functions:

Clarifies the time of the Kingdom of God.
Realistically portrays the coming rejection and future return of the Lord.
Delineates the role of a disciple in the time between the Lord’s departure and his return.
Makes a unique contribution to Luke’s narrative.¹

He is almost there, at least recognizing that the parable is about the prophetic of Jesus. With that in mind, I will first comment on the incident with Zacchaeus at the beginning of the chapter as a prelude to the rest.

Zacchaeus and His Money

I prefer to build on Tertullian’s foundation instead of the shifting sand of all later generations. There is no reason to believe that the conferral on Zacchaeus of salvation is done despite his naivete or ignorance of the OT scriptures. Why would we assume this? We also like to do with Matthew and I have read it applied to all of the disciples. Of course, the reason is that we want their faith to mirror our own horrible self-actualized faith.

But on the contrary, is it is obligatory that we assume that Zacchaeus was fully informed of the messianic oracles and saw Jesus as their fulfiller. Zacchaeus’ climbing the tree is an expression of his doggedness to see the Oracle, Jesus, clearly and without obstruction, just as he would searching the scriptures by obtaining a view as far above culture as possible. Jesus recognizes this in Luke 19:5:

“And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.”

That is, ‘you have seen me, you have understood me as Messiah. Now come down from your search for me in your place of high above the heads of the pedestrian religion and I will come right into your spirit and tell you the rest.”

The people murmuring in the complaint that he was a sinner and should not be so accepted by Jesus is a figure of those who murmured in the Wilderness against God’s promise of provision and his fulfillment of it (manna, quail: esp. Exo 16). This is feigned as a serious complaint, feigned because it is done under the cover of religion and not the direct admission of the Truth. Zacchaeus as a sinner and holding his salvation can only come through his external performance and God himself, not some man.

But sin is of the heart, with our outer works expressing it. Those outer works are but a relatively superficial signal that can be deceptive. This is especially true for righteousness. The complaining people are no more aware of the true place and nature of righteousness in Jesus than they are of sin. Jesus was “despised and rejected,” “he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa 53:2). “His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.” (Isa 52:14). Jesus is more than he appears, as was God’s promise, as was the manna, and so is Messiah, and sin is the sin of not repenting of a false faith grounded on appearances, non-messianic motivations.

Exodus 16:15: “And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.”

Certainly, Zacchaeus, by the standard of the heart is not a sinner by profession. But, most importantly for the coming parable were looking at, this Zacchaeus thing also represents a complete misunderstanding of the Law as being not more than it appears.

True, Zacchaeus was in an occupation that presented a bad social image of what he was looking for and wanted to know and believe. But ever here, perhaps in a way we never thought of. The tax he was collecting was not paid out of a personal conviction of the exclusive worship due to Caesar, but was forced. But the payment due Christ is a different kind of payment with a different kind of currency and the currency is the same as that which speaks of Him as an ultimate moral figure and praises Him.

It was incumbent upon Zacchaeus on occasion of changing his mind as to the truth of Christ and the extent of his obligation to him that he change this his way of work. Although a direct call by Jesus for him to leave entirely the job of Publican was not given, it is strongly implied. Zacchaeus’ action describes an immediate give back of half of all the wealth he has to the poor. But it’s not a call to primarily give back his carnal wealth, He gives back his biblical knowledge of the mysteries of Christ. Its called evangelism. Whatever you do after than to support yourself that is going to be your main occupation.

The poor are the messianic faith flock that is mistreated by the rich, the powerful, the religious authorities, who hold back such true wealth from them. All the carnal wealth that Zacchaeus had could have been given up by him, but this is not condemned by Jesus. If you know anyone who is a serious student of the Bible, and especially an academic, what you give is but a relatively small portion of the whole when you tell people about your reasons for faith. There are all kinds of stuff in there, not all of which is meant for public consumption. You give the amount that can be counted into that which can be received by the poor to salvation, being only necessary to distribute those understandings of yours that can be received with joy by others at the start of their faith. You need only give some, and if you give all then you surely have a lot to give to the greatest effect.

Money

I think its the figure of money that is most important here.

John Gill calls this money a figure in the Parable of the Unjust Steward as “gifts and abilities.” He does not speciate these, which is the same conservatism that renders the meaning of the symbolic figures either the same as they are given (money = money) or as diffuse, unspecialized categories (money = talents). To get anywhere near the truth we have to go all the way back to such as Tertullian in his Prescription Against Heretics. He says that it is quite obvious from this parable that one should “not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest, a single pound, that is, one word of His.” This is a word that is taught and preached, being “the word of God and the mystery of Christ.”²

That is an insight, and an insight ignored in almost all the churchy interpretations of this parable. As with Zacchaeus’ money, I want to take this to its logical conclusion, beginning with the parallel in Luke 19:

Luke 19:12-26 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

There can be no doubt that the currency that is expected to be increased is messianic knowledge and not “abilities” and “talents.”

This money must be seen as a kind of knowledge that, like physical money, will be taken from one’s stores, depleting it in some sense, but can be increased, and given to another. The total money held is one’s total knowledge and understanding of the OT that begins under one application: to oneself rather to others. The stewards are the Jewish intelligentsia and religious authorities that were ordained by Jehovah to cultivate the OT Scriptures for Messiah.

It starts as un-specialized knowledge of a messiah that is either misconceived or of a general nature. If this money is thought as reapplied and distributed messianic knowledge which is given from ones total amount in one’s storehouse of knowledge of the OT scriptures, given to Messiah and his “poor” on account of a fundamental change in understanding and commitment to it, there is only a certain amount taken from it the entire applicable knowledge because only a certain amount can be explained according to one’s ability and understanding. Depletion is an application, which is not a depletion of truth except in the sense of taking a learned truth out of the endless whole which is the Biblical revelation of Christ and giving it to others. You give what you know. Sometimes it’s because of stinginess, for you to remain the King of biblical knowledge in your circle, but even if that is the reason you are still giving out the truth (Phil 1:15). The remainder is left in place for oneself, or for another opportunity in the future, as one’s spiritual growth permits, to understand and commit fully. Jesus’ parable is simple, but the moral of the story is something more here about holding back or giving out this money in which the stewards are entrusted.

Luke 19:21-22: “For I feared thee, because thou art an austere [Thayer: harsh, rough, rigid]man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow?”

The idea that God is being harsh is possible in two senses, one corrupt and one righteous.

One, God is a cruel and inflexible God, who requires obedience to unexplained commands stricture any deeper reason for obedience and, two, harsh because of his inflexible expectation that those receiving the truth are obligated to know it deeper. It is clear that the one steward in question believes the first, not the second. “Out of thine own mouth” is an example of how the content of your complaint of being judged as unrighteous can be used by God as a means of your conviction if it can serve as evidence of knowledge that you knew but refused to honestly apply.

The nobleman has an inflexible expectation of production, whose wealth comes from the work of others in increasing what he has given them. He did not sow for an increase, others did for him. That is, he did not sow (search, cultivate the Torah) for Truth (spiritual riches), he gives it, and his servants sow for him out of Christ’s Truth (spiritual riches). Christ takes up more than what he explicitly laid down by the righteous exegetes who find him in the OT.

The scriptural ground that is cultivated is out of the Law and the Prophets and given back to Christ in its application to him increased. The impetus of this cultivation is by the force of the truth of Messiah alone within the steward to move it into learning, discovery, and illumination. If one holds back in this work, this is a confession of one’s lack of confidence in that authority and confidence in its progress to knowledge. The steward who held back should have not kept the knowledge he was initially given and remained with the same amount of knowledge he started out with. This is not for fear of losing it, but because of his lack of confidence in the power of what he had, that it could be increased or that the effort would produce a result. It is a faith problem.

The steward wrongly looked at the spiritual currency given him as a religious token, a holy object, an object of use in a command religion that has no deeper application and future of revelation. The exchangers or Bank (Luke 19:23) are those who teach and increase messianic knowledge, but the steward had that same lack of confidence in that method of increase. The steward having nothing to show for this conferral of authority. It will be taken from him and given to another to increase his, meaning that in this case, the Jews will lose their position of being scriptural authorities and it given to another unless they are honest about what they read there.

In Matthew 25 there is the same story, nigh into Jerusalem and the Cross. In Luke 16 we have the steward that is our main subject, the steward of Christ’s wealth.

Luke 16:1-13 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. 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. 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. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. 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. 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. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He 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. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

This is quite a bit more complex but it is no more difficult. Most of the problems interpreting this parable come from the idea of mammon as an evil, but mammon simply means carnal wealth. I would like to cut right to what seems the most difficult portion.

Luke 16:9: And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

Can we say that going to Heaven, “everlasting habitations,” can be though making friends with the people of this unrighteous mammon? No. Again, this is directly convertible. It means that if you are a leader in the religion and can’t perform your duties to faithfully interpret the Law to Messiah you should abandon that position and become like a layman, and if you expect to enter heaven you will not by your work as a responsible leader. Its the same figure as Jesus saying that if the right eye offends, cut it off because at least you will be saved, even if you are demoted. It’s almost identical to the figure in the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, with the son’s resignation as a religious leader and desire to become one of the hired servants. It differs because that son is recorded as having repented and fully restored to his former place and this Unjust Steward no.

For the Unjust Steward, Jesus says that at least he knew that he should no longer be such a leader, and for this reason, such a one of this world is wiser in his generation than the Children of Light (that is, than the practical thinking of the carnal world over those that claim to have light, the Pharisees and Sadducee’s and Scribes, but don’t). All through this don’t fail to interpose the Oracles of Christ and their understanding specifically, as applied to Jesus, before “light.” These are not parables about ministry failure for any reason the religious culture tells you, they are parables about the revelation of a certain kind of motivational reason for such failure, which is identical scripturally to Christ himself.

So, mammon is carnal wealth that is a symbol for the religious wealth of the Pharisees, in a righteous form after being rightly converted for the “true riches” of messianic prophecy of Jesus. If the steward is “wasting” the goods of their owner, he is accepting an amount of payment from the Law either less than its messianic truths are worth, or over-charging them, which is a demand of religious works (a hyper-valuation for the purpose of onerous Law, equivalent of the Judaizing described in Galatians) in exchange for truth. However, the associates of the currency employed are those who exchange it for goods of messianic truth alone, are in debt to the steward for it as a teacher, taking truth from the steward on loan, or on a promise to be paid in full at a future date with an increase.

The steward, for his unfaithfulness, reasons within himself that he can likewise convert himself, as an important agent and leader of Messiah’s truth, by at least being in good graces with those who believe in that truth. He can at least admit himself equal to a layman, and still, in the end, enter heaven, albeit diminished as a minister of Messiah.

It is wise for the steward to believe that it is better for him to lower himself to become like one of the needy faithful and truth-seekers than to work in the position of a steward who is not and cannot be faithful in that position. This is a direct salvo aimed at the Pharisees:

Luke 16:10-13 He 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. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

“Least” is the OT Law. If you understand the symbol of Christ in the Law, the least, and accept it as such and not put the symbol over its inner signification, you will be faithful in “much,” the truth of Jesus Messiah that it represents. If you are unjust in this “least,” and refuse to convert it, you are unjust in this its vital truth. If you refuse to be faithful with the symbol, how can you be entrusted with its ultimate meaning? If you can’t be trusted with God’s truth property, his riches, how can you be given your own riches in the Kingdom? You can’t serve God (Messianic truth, symbolic signification) and mammon (a carnal take on its revelational source in the Law) together. If you try to serve both you will become a fetishist of the unconverted Law, or hold to it out of mere tradition, effectively hating or despising what it’s supposed to signify, or else become someone that is so enamored or committed to the mammonic revelation of subjective experiences, learning, dreams, tradition, feeling, philosophy and things to only titillate the ear that you will hate and despise that Great symbol of the Truth.

Please see the articles below”

What is the Word of God?: Passing by Nehushtan

When I Survey the Wondrous Nace, part 1: Passing by Nehushtan

Romans 1: Apostasy of the Gospel of the General Revelation

Liefeld, Walter L.;Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 8, in Luke, by Walter L. Liefeld, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Regency, 1984. ↩
Tertullian. Anti-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3, in On Prescription Against Heretics, by Tertullian, edited by Alexander Roberts, & James Donaldson, translated by A. Cleveland Coxe, 255. Peabody: Henrickson, 2004. ↩