Did you feel uncomfortable as you listened to this story? I imagine that you did. It is indeed a difficult passage.
Today we will come to understand this challenging teaching without stripping it of its raw social and historical power. The parable is dynamic and is sabotaged when treated as a moral lesson that fits neatly into our contemporary worldview.
To begin, let’s think about the cultural context when Jesus presented this story to his audience in Galilee. These people were living under Roman occupation subject to acute poverty, aggravated by excessive taxes, so survival was immediate not abstract. Key to economic survival were social networks and shrewd business dealings because wealth was gained and maintained through relationships. The idea of ‘investing in the Kingdom,’ is an abstract thought that wouldn’t have concerned those eking out a living in an impoverished society. Debts, favours, reciprocation of kindness, and the manipulation of resources was how people survived and if dealings were corrupt or virtuous was irrelevant, existing was all that mattered. To understand this passage, we must resist smuggling into the interpretation Western assumptions about morality and the idea of using resources for God. 1st century listeners would have understood this story in an entirely different way because for them the kingdom of God meant divine justice and overturning Roman oppression.
Attempting to turn the parable into a moral teaching misses the grit and immediacy of the context, so let me propose how this parable would have been understood. A rich man accuses his manager of wasting his resources and is going to sack him. The manager, who needs to live and support his family plans how his’s going to survive without his job. To secure the good will of his master’s debtors, he secretly reduces the amount each owes for the wheat and oil they bought - a strategic move that would have the audience thinking this guy is smart. But the story is confusing because the master praises him for being resourceful, and notice, dishonesty was not an issue.
Survival under Roman rule was a struggle and we can be sure those listening would have nodded approval because this guy was shrewd. Wealthy collaborators cheated, masters cheated, managers cheated, and an ordinary person losing their job could mean having to beg or starve on the streets. That the manager had a job up to this point was better than most men who hung out in the marketplaces waiting and hoping for work. If they were chosen, they toiled all day and were paid in the evening, but if they didn’t work, they likely didn’t eat – not a scenario the manager wanted to find himself in. Stripped of contemporary interpretations, we are left with a strikingly uncomfortable parable in which the manager cheats his master but is praised for his shrewdness.
The power of the story comes from its unflinching realism that the people could identify with, and while the parable is provocative, it would have struck a chord with listeners. The raw honesty in this strange parable happens when Jesus contrasts worldly savvy with spiritual naïveté - the ‘children of this world,’ he said, are more astute than the so called ‘children of light.” Pragmatic and subversive, Jesus’ teachings were not neat moral templates for Christians to live by.
Then he contrasts worldly wealth often acquired through greed and corruption, with true riches. What did true riches mean to the people Jesus was talking to? Did it mean heaven as a reward or something spiritual like today’s Christians think? No. True riches meant, land, animals and wealth that could not be taken away through taxes or any other means and food and wine in abundance. “Eternal dwellings in Aramaic (masknē) refers to lasting homes that could be passed from generation to generation. “Make friends,” meant be generous, feed the hungry, help neighbours, and forgive debts which create bonds of loyalty and reciprocity. The Kingdom of God is not a moral program and is better described as people building relationships and learning to relate to each other with joy and love. I tacked the joy and love on because although not in the parable, we know that’s what the Jesus story is all about.
Jesus didn’t soften his message by moralising. When dealing with the tension of moral compromise, people in every society wrestle with ethical tension and face conflicts of conscience. In the complexity of life there is always going to be compromise and people will act strategically even when their actions are questionable.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic which is a language full of wordplay, double meanings, and imagery that isn’t always carried across into Greek or English translations. The words ‘steward and manager,’ ‘rab bayta’ is an idiom but is revealing, the meaning blurred between the economic and the spiritual. ‘Wasting’ or to ‘scatter,’ ‘bazar,’ can mean both financial squandering and spiritual negligence. And ‘debt,’ ‘hoba,’ has a rich meaning which depending on the context could refer to financial debt, a moral failing, a sin, or can mean a bond of love or attachment.
So, while Jesus’ use of debt is economic on the surface there is more than financial conveyed to his listeners. ‘Shrewd’ or ‘wise,’ ‘hakim,’ doesn’t only mean ‘clever,’ it also implies practical wisdom or being street smart. The master praises his manager not for his dishonesty but for being quick-witted under pressure. “Making friends with unrighteous wealth,” meant generosity and hospitality, (even if by dubious means,) and building community that lasts when money does not. Wealth is temporary and when a person’s money is gone, as happens, acts of kindness and generosity are remembered, and meaningful relationships last. The punchline, “You cannot serve both God and money.” Still true today in Islamic communities, serving others was a way of worshipping God. But ‘serve,’ ‘abad, goes beyond performing tasks. Included in the meaning is allegiance, loyalty, and in a covenant relationship like marriage fidelity and commitment.
The parable carries at least three levels:
- A worldly story about a clever steward saving face and his economic security.
- A moral lesson about looking ahead and the wise use of resources.
- A spiritual echo concerning mercy (forgiving sins) and that generosity outlives money.
With Jesus’ audience kept off-balance throughout the telling, the parable is a snapshot of the social reality of the time. Preserving the parable’s integrity is crucial for this Luken story to bridge the centuries.
Throughout his short career, Jesus preached a radical kingdom, and by challenging the social order he was a voice for ordinary people living desperate lives. The point of the story is not that cheating is good, but that in life we face difficult choices in morally grey areas.
This world demands clever, ego-driven self-preservation skills, but focused on love and forgiveness Christians should guard against being too naïve, too trusting, obedient to a fault and lack strategic thinking. Luke 16:1-13 is not a tidy moral fable. It’s a provocative, uncomfortable parable that leaves Christians unsettled because it refuses to tell us how to live. And we are left with the uneasy tension of negotiating a greedy and self-focused world, while maintaining allegiance to Kingdom ethics in a complicated world.
The story doesn’t neatly relate to wealth or morality - it lands on personal action in a messy and morally ambiguous world and is a sharp reminder that we must all choose between what is expedient and what is right.