There was a rich man
The phrase introduces a parable, a common teaching method used by Jesus. The "rich man" in the parable represents someone with significant resources and influence. In the cultural and historical context of first-century Judea, wealth was often seen as a sign of God's favor, but Jesus frequently challenges this notion by highlighting the responsibilities and moral obligations that come with wealth. The Greek word for "rich" is πλούσιος (plousios), which can imply abundance and prosperity, setting the stage for a lesson on stewardship and accountability.

whose manager
The term "manager" is translated from the Greek word οἰκονόμος (oikonomos), which refers to a steward or overseer responsible for managing the household or business affairs of the rich man. This role was crucial in ancient times, as it involved significant trust and responsibility. The manager's actions and decisions directly impacted the wealth and well-being of the household, making integrity and faithfulness essential qualities for the position.

was accused
The Greek word for "accused" is διαβάλλω (diaballō), which means to bring charges against or to slander. This implies that the manager's actions were brought to the attention of the rich man, possibly by other servants or community members. The accusation sets the stage for the unfolding drama of the parable, highlighting themes of accountability and the consequences of one's actions.

of wasting his possessions
The word "wasting" comes from the Greek διασκορπίζω (diaskorpizō), meaning to scatter or squander. This suggests that the manager was not merely negligent but actively mismanaging or misusing the resources entrusted to him. The "possessions" refer to the wealth and assets of the rich man, emphasizing the gravity of the manager's actions. In a broader scriptural context, this phrase invites reflection on the stewardship of God's gifts and the importance of using resources wisely and faithfully.

(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 Luke 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" (1Corinthians 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 Titus 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 Luke 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. . . .

(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.

Parallel Commentaries ...