Luke 16 has the parable of the unjust steward or clever steward – it has various names. It is a challenging teaching wrapped in an unusual parable. The character of the steward appears to be quite unattractive. On first blush he reads like a rogue. What possible lesson could Jesus be teaching using such a person? Or are we missing the point? Is the steward a dear little kind-hearted soul who is just misunderstood? Have we missed some important clues on the real background to this parable?

Looking at various commentators it is obvious there is a massive variety of interpretations and clever suggestions made about the parable’s meaning. Among the meanings which have been derived are:

An argument for charity
An analogy for urgent action to secure the kingdom
Acting now to secure your future
Warning of an impending crisis
Forgiving interest in line with God’s standards
God’s gracious acceptance of our actions
An ironic condemnation (or test) of the rich
Jesus remitting people’s debts to God
A comic condemnation of the rich Pharisees
A symbolic rejection of economic laws

This wide variety of conclusions is perhaps understandable when the main character appears to be an unlikely hero, and details on the parable’s meaning are sparse in the record. There is certainly room left for speculation. However an answer should be obtainable as Snodgrass notes:

A parable with such an unclear and uncompelling message would not have been remembered, much less given a prominent place in the Gospel narrative. Whatever else we say, we must remember that Luke thought this parable was of major and compelling significance[1]

Luke says in Luke 1:3 that he was making a deliberate orderly account of the benefit of his mysterious reader Theophilus. John 21:25 says

There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

Ie there is a specific acknowledgement that John’s gospel (and all of them) are merely selective recordings of events to suit the theme and message the writer wished to convey. That is obvious you say. Exactly. So when we come to this parable that Luke alone records, we should ensure our interpretation would be reasonable derived by Theophilus.

Theophilus means “friend of God” and while probably a pseudonym it was most likely a real person and a believer. The dedication follows the standard formula of the time to address a wealthy Greek or Roman patron – which suggests Theophilus was likely a prominent person who would have assisted the distribution of Luke’s material beyond his personal consumption[2]. This dedication and intended audience likely accounts for the consciously Gentile inclusive nature of Luke as well as the higher focus on use of wealth than other gospels.

Fitzmyer proposes four questions are the key to deriving meaning from the parable[3]

In what way was the manager dishonest?
What was the Palestinian economic situation behind the parable?
Why does the master praise the manager’s actions?
What is the point of the comparison in the parable?

A Crisis and a Cunning Plan Luke 16v1-4

We are introduced to a certain rich man who had a wasteful steward or manager. Technically the Greek for steward according to the Complete Word Study Dictionary means:

An administrator, a person who manages the domestic affairs of a family, business, or minor, a treasurer, a chamberlain of a city, a house manager, overseer, steward.[4]

The explanation goes on to note that the position was usually, but not always, a slave. In this instance the steward is probably not a slave. As Snodgrass notes if the man was a slave he would be punished not sacked[5] and he certainly wouldn’t be moving to another employer as he plans in v4. So we have a free man who has a job managing a large estate, one that the later details will suggest is likely 20 times larger than the average farmer’s plot[6].

Some people the rich man trusts report to him that the steward is wasting his assets. The word broadly translated as wasting is graphic it is an intensive word which means to scatter or disperse and metaphorically means to squander[7].

So the steward has been wasting the estate, squandering the assets throwing them to the wind if you like. The same word is used in the previous chapter.

After a few days, the younger son gathered together all he had and left on a journey to a distant country, and there he squandered his wealth with a wild lifestyle Luke 15:13

It is unlikely to be an accidental use of the same word in the previous parable. We might suspect the steward was pocketing a little too much commission on deals and living the good life himself out of the estate’s finances.

The master demands the steward come to him with the accounts, the Greek is Logos which usually means an intelligent word, purpose, idea but also has the idea of to give a rational explanation or account for a thing[8]. For example in the parable of the unforgiving debtor the king wishes to settle up his accounts with his subjects Matt 18:23 or in the parable of the talents the servants have to logos – give account of the state of the cash they were assigned in Matt 25:19

The steward now has a moment of reckoning. From the later context of the parable he isn’t just turning up to provide a verbal account – he needs to turn over the paperwork of the estate. Detailed books of account were kept for business ventures in the Ancient Near East. On clay tablets in much of the region except for the Egyptians who used papyrus. A tremendous number of clay tablets dug up from the region record commerce transactions. You kind of hope to get insight into people’s lives and what you get half the time is a grocery receipt or complaint about a noisy neighbour.

Face with this moment of truth the steward demonstrates he is capable of honesty with himself at least! He was facing unemployment. His options looked grim, he wasn’t strong enough to dig. The office boy wasn’t cut out for heavy work! Nor was begging an option due to his pride.

It is clear from the commentary of Jesus in v10-12 that the actions of the steward are unfaithful and he demonstrated he was untrustworthy. There is no commendation of the morality of the steward in Jesus’ words. However the steward is clear eyed about his situation and his limited options. He is in a crisis as regards his future and has to act right now before his window of opportunity closes. But what to do???

V4 starts in English with the rather dull “I know what to do” (NET) which fundamentally understates the rather difficult to reproduce Greek tense. The NET notes state the Greek construction creates a disconnect to the previous verse and then a sudden realisation[9]. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament says:

A difficult tense to reproduce in English. I knew, I know, I have known, all miss it a bit. It is a burst of daylight to the puzzled, darkened man: I’ve got it, I see into it now, a sudden solution[10]

You beauty, I’ve got it! A flash of a great idea! The steward comes up with a cunning plan based very much on the cultural reality of patronage. The only people who know about his impending change of employment is himself and the master. He can still act as the manager and by providing substantial relief from debts owed by his soon to be ex master he will provide a deed of benefaction which will create an obligation on his master’s debtors to look after him. He is essentially buying their favour knowing how the local culture works[11].

Note that in v4 he states he hopes to be welcomed into the homes of others. Nolland suggests that he was looking for temporary accommodation[12], however given the man was being sacked and clearly expresses he has a need for future employment (ie he couldn’t retire just yet!) finding a new employer (as part of their household) seems more likely. Staying in someone’s house temporarily wasn’t really a long term solution that he needed. Given part of Jesus’ lessons from the parable is to use wealth to gain eternal security it seems most likely that secure temporal employment is what he means.

Debt Reductions Luke 16:5-7

So with the clock ticking our cunning hero (question mark) springs into action and calls the debtors together individually in v5 and makes them an offer they cannot refuse.

The first owes 100 baths of oil. Right so now we have to jump into that economic background thing. How much is 100 baths of oil? Well it depends.

According to Josephus it was around 9 gallons per bath so 900 gallons (as reported by Fitzmeyer in the AYB commentary[13]. Other commentators (like Marshall) note the exact measure varied over time and place – the Romans had a lower vale of around 5 gallons (so we would have 500 gallons here[14]. As the NET notes have[15] – the value of 900 gallons is around 1,000 denarii[16] – so circa 3 years working man wages. This is an enormous sum. Given Josephus is supporting the 900 gallon value, I think we can use that and say it was around 3,000 or so litres of oil or 3 years wages for a labourer.

The next debtor owes 100 measures or cors of grain. Again according to the NET notes this is around 39,000 litres of grain – the produce of around 100 acres and circa 2,500 to 3,000 denarii[17]. So 8-9 years of wages easy. But Fitzmeyer notes that Josephus is inconsistent in his explanation of the measure of a cor – which is frustrating. He states the actual quantum could have been 50% higher[18].

So what are we dealing with here?

Rich people. We are dealing with rich people. The level of produce suggests an estate some 20 times the size of the average family plot[19].

The oil debtors owed let’s say 1,000 denarii – 3 years wage. The grain debtor owned around 3,000 denarii – 9 years wages.

As Snodgrass notes:

The parable tells of fairly large business dealings. None of the people involved are poverty-stricken peasants or even people with average incomes. Most likely the parable assumes that the debtors have contracted to farm the master’s land and give him a portion of the produce. Alternatively, the debtors could be wholesalers, but this seems less likely.[20]

For way of comparison in Ezra 7:22 the king Artaxerxes provided annual supply to run the temple of

up to 100 talents of silver, 100 cors of wheat, 100 baths of wine, 100 baths of olive oil, and unlimited salt.

The steward is dealing with big players who can provide opportunity for him later when he is unemployed as he said in v4. They will need a shrewd business manager and he is creating an obligation on them to do him a favour.

Interestingly he offers them what seem to us to be different deals. The oil debtor gets a 50% reduction and the grain debtor only gets a 20% discount. Why?

The answer seems to lie in the market value. A 50% reduction on the oil is a 500 denarii discount. The larger grain debt gets a 20% reduction – a circa 600 denarii mark down. Snodgrass points to this similar quantum of financial reduction as significant[21]. Rather than a discount on the quantity of produce he is offering them a roughly equivalent financial discount of around 1.5 years of wages for a working man. That should be enough to win some serious favour!!

What was the Steward doing?

There are at least three main options for understanding the discount happening here. Was the steward:

Defrauding his master? or
Removing illegal interest from the deals? Or
Reducing his personal commission?

All three options are supported in various commentaries[22]. One of the challenges in coming to a decision is you can kind of make a credible argument and a good parable life lesson from each of the three options! However presumably only one is correct. So what are some other key facts?

In favour of defrauding his master, ie falsifying the amounts to rip off his master are the following points :

The Steward arranges private meetings suggesting something nefarious is underway v5
His actions are characterized by haste v6
The steward gets the debtors to write the new note v6 – meaning it wasn’t in his hands, it would appear legitimate. Furthermore this was making the debtors part of the scheme, meaning they would hardly expose the steward
He is called an unrighteous steward in v8

While I disagree with Bailey who wants to make much of the master’s character and particular the masters grace I don’t find any evidence for this in the text. I do think Bailey makes a valid point that the steward is making the debtors his co-conspirators[23]. While they didn’t know he was fired they should have realised something was up. The steward is betting they won’t confess to the reductions if the master asks them about it and insist on paying the original sum…they will maintain the fraud.

In favour of the steward removing illegal interest are the following points (all from Fitzmyer AYB Commentary unless noted)[24]:

Interest was frequently hidden in a grossed up debt value.
The Gk word means a writing, receipt[25] [3] rather than an interest-bearing debt note although Josephus uses the word of an IOU or promissory note
The evidence as to the rates seems to trace back to the work of one scholar JDM Derrett who claims perishables had up to 50% interest whereas grain was more like 25-30%

However the evidence for these interest rates – particularly for the 50% – appears a little thin and is based on recent (19^th century) Indian examples rather than 1^st century Judean material. Snodgrass notes there is contrary evidence that the actual contemporary interest rates were lower than the claimed by Derrett[26]. This may explain why this reading hasn’t been widely accepted. If the discount were the removal of a usurious charge it influences the meaning of the parable but the usury is by no means certain….and the consistency of the discount – circa 500 denarii – suggests option 1 or 3

The final major option is the steward was removing his personal commission which was built into the promissory notes.

The fact that the value of the deduction/discount is about the same monetary value does provide some support for this suggestion (albeit it doesn’t remove the first option). In contrast to the first two options where the master is losing money (albeit illegal money for the interest in option 2), option 3 attempts to align the steward with the concluding teaching of Jesus in v9 – use your own mammon to prepare your future

However if this suggestion was correct it means the debtors would hardly be happy on finding out how much the steward was skimming from them. Further if he was taking this sort of commission he should have been in reasonably solid financial position already personally and not at immediate risk without employment.

Conclusion Occam’s Razor

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. As Snodgrass says (quoting du Plessis’ work ““Philanthropy or Sarcasm? Another Look at the Parable of the Dishonest Manager”:

As du Plessis notes, “the reader can never be left in ignorance without paying the price of ending up with a warped interpretation.… Without any other information from the text the reader has to accept that the manager acted dishonestly^{^[27]}

The steward was dishonestly marking down funds owed to the owner.

The Perfect Crime

The narrative flow of the story and the revealed facts demonstrate to a reasonable level that the unrighteous steward discounted the master’s income. The master has been outplayed. The debtors are complicit in the plan and will not testify against the steward. Furthermore they know they owe the steward a favour – they have an obligation to do something for him.

The master rightly suspects foul play but all the accounts, all the records are in order and no-one will talk. He might know something has happened, the ink is too fresh, the debtors too happy but there is nothing he can prove.

The word shrewdly only occurs here in the NT and has the mean of prudent, wise or shrewd[28]. The master can do little but recognize that the steward has outsmarted him. He praises the shrewd cunning nature of his unrighteous steward.

The parable is not there to glorify the ethics of the steward as Bailey notes:

we must take the purport of the [final] speech to be; ‘This is a fraud; but it is a most ingenious fraud. The steward is a rascal; but he is a wonderfully clever rascal[29]

Jesus’ immediate conclusion Luke 16:8b-9

In Luke 16:8 onwards we reach the conclusion of the parable. While some commentators place all of v8 as the commentary of Jesus I think the natural change is in the middle of v8 which means Jesus provides two preliminary conclusions:

For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their contemporaries than the people of light.

And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by how you use worldly wealth, so that when it runs out you will be welcomed into the eternal homes.

So Jesus is pointing to two lessons here:

The people of the world might be wicked or shrewd but they understand and react to a crisis – believes should do the same; AND
Use wealth wisely with a view to your eternal reward

This is kind of the final piece of the puzzle to answer what is the parable about.

As Harry Whittaker wrote:

what Jesus put before his disciples for emulation was not the unscrupulous scheming of the steward, but the assiduity with which he purposefully followed the path of personal profit. ‘If only you, my disciples, would show the same business-like efficiency in pursuing what is, after all, your own self-interest! And how should you do it? By using mammon-money, and anything else which this world can offer-as a means of furthering your own standing with God[30]

Further teaching on wealth Luke 16:10-13

The NET translates the phrase in v 9 as “worldly wealth” but to many of us the old KJV language is hard to shake and there it is rendered “the mammon of unrighteousness”. The Gk literally is unrighteous wealth or mammon. However individual word studies (or two words in this case) are very dangerous and using Strongs to understand the Bible is like having a toolkit comprised mainly of hammers. As Craig Blomberg notes:

The objectionable clause “make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon” has received important clarification from discoveries at Qumran which reinforced the view that “unrighteous mammon” was simply a stock idiom for all money, much as one might today use the expression “filthy lucre.” It is not a command to use ill-gotten gain for one’s own interest. This explanation also does away with the need to interpret verse 9 in some ironic or sarcastic fashion, or as a rhetorical question.[31]

Further on the word mammon the Anchor Yale Dictionary says (along with basically every source) that mammon is an Aramaic (rather than Hebrew) word which was transliterated into the Greek of Luke (and Matthew’s) gospel. Mammon is used in Mishna (it’s Hebrew form anyway) and the Qumran material as more akin to wealth than money per se[32]. It was not necessarily wicked. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament speculates that the transliteration may reflect mammon becoming a general loan word in the Greek of Syria[33].

Occasionally you may run into a suggestion that Mammon was a Syrian god or demon even Hasting’s bible dictionary dated around 1900 (depending on the volume) says:

there is no reason to suppose that there was a Syrian deity Mammon in NT times. Such an idea owes its currency to Milton[34]

The first 7 bible dictionaries (before getting to Hastings) I looked in didn’t even mention the idea to reject it.

The interesting piece through v9-12 is the wordplay going on in Aramaic – the language Jesus was speaking. The same root word – essentially amen, something you trust in – is the basis of what is translated by the Greek pistos, faith, trustworthy, true and mammon. Bailey sets this out very clearly.

If you have not been amin [faithful]

in the unrighteous mammon [your material possessions]

the amuna [the truth]

who will ja’min ith kun [entrust to you].

The root amn, which appears in the word amen, is used here four times. It makes the point that anyone who cheats on his or her taxes will never understand the gospel. Those who have been unfaithful before God with material possessions cannot expect God to reveal his greater treasure to them, which is the truth of God[35]

Interestingly v13 is almost word for word with Matt 6:24 which is in the context of the sermon on the mount – suggesting Luke might have moved this saying to the end of this section as it is thematically linked. This chapter certainly has a predominant wealth focus, and we should bear in mind that in Luke 1:2-4 the author stated they were writing a self-consciously deliberate account. In addition to the Matt 6 similarity, the Greek word for servant in v13 is NOT the same Greek as steward in the parable, removing what might otherwise have linked the passages together. Luke is making the concluding point I suspect just using Jesus’ words from another occasion.

Jesus’ pointed teachings on wealth

So if v8b to v9 contained the immediate conclusion, v10-13 is Jesus (and then maybe Luke’s) follow up conclusion or points.

The parable of the unjust steward presents a clever rogue in v8a the master commends or praises the dishonest manager for his shrewd action.

We need to use money, wealth wisely as v9 emphasizes. The steward understood his temporal position was coming to an end and action was required. Do we understand in a practical – do something sense – that the clock is ticking on our comfortable reality? The money the wealth we have is over – have we used it wisely to secure an eternal future?

But Jesus and Luke are ensuring we don’t misunderstand the parable. The point is taking action in the face of a crisis NOT being dishonest. So there are some correctives, or counters, to possible misunderstanding.

“The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” Luke 16:10

This makes it clear that when we follow the instruction of v9 to use mammon wisely to build a future eternal benefit it should NOT be dishonestly – contrary to the bad steward. Money appears to be a big deal but it is not. It is the little things compared to salvation. But when it comes to things that distort our values – money surely makes it to the 5! Are we going to be generous? Honest to a fault? That’s the character Jesus is looking for. Are we a loophole grabber, a finder’s keepers, a little selfish with our cash?

It’s a challenging parable to be talking about personally when the rubber hits the road on these things. But Jesus was pushing his audience and us.

If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own? Luke 16:11-12

The wordplay of trust and mammon is in full swing – we need to be consistent but there is a bit more here. What is v12 saying suggesting we have someone else’s property?

In a sense we are the stewards of God’s estate, meaning the wealth we have is actually God’s. This totally contradicts our Western “work to get ahead”, “my own hard work” ethic. We have a strong sense of controlling our destiny – making our future and all of that. The locus of control in our culture is typically internal v the external locus more consistent with faith – recognizing God is in control. So the question arises if our wealth is actually God’s (not ours) are we handling it in line with his values? Or are we wasting His assets to quote v1?

V13 is the final kicker. A further general warning on the danger of wealth, it cannot be our master says the Lord (nor our love says Paul in 1 Tim 3:3, 6:10). We know these words well – perhaps too well. Perhaps they lack some of the challenge. But we all make a choice as Bock notes:

A person in this world is faced with a fundamental choice of allegiance…The moment will come when the servant must choose which one gets the service… If the resources we receive are a stewardship from God to be used in service to him and to others, then to serve God is to give our resources to meet the needs of those around us^[36]

Jesus teaching on wealth is confronting – there is no doubt about that. The Pharisees responded to the parable and teaching by ridiculing Jesus in Luke 16:14 because for all that they were religious (and I credit that many of them actually were) the reality is as Luke says in an aside – they loved money.

The challenge of this section is high and ends in a simple black and white reality. We are very good at creating exceptions for ourselves or thinking we can handle complexity. No says Jesus. Not with money. It is one or the other. The wealth you have is entrusted by God are you going to be trustworthy?

A point will come when you will be challenged. Not necessarily in a crisis. More likely just in the boring incremental everyday. The drip drip drip of living. But a choice is made. We vote for wealth or we vote for God.

Again we excuse, we point to complexity, we all sorts of things. Jesus says no. It is simpler and way more confronting than we want it to be. Who are we really devoted to?

Conclusion

The parable should leave us with some challenging questions. Uncomfortable questions.

Am I fair dinkum about the kingdom coming and ordering my life as a result? Doing what I can now to secure my future? Am I treating the return of Jesus as a life changing crisis that demands the full engagement of my heart mind and strength?
Am I faithful with the small stuff – money – all the time?
Do I perceive my resources as God’s and myself as a steward to work towards his objectives? Or do I think my bank balance is my doing and there for my use?
Are we trying to quietly rationalize away the dichotomy of Jesus words and thinking we can kind of serve wealth and God? Because Jesus is emphatic. There is really only two options. God wants us to take a view consistent with his generosity and love. To see wealth as a given by him and to be used in his service. Or there is the world’s perspective – characterized by self. We cannot do both

The unjust steward is an interesting and unusual character to star in a parable. Jesus uses him to demonstrate that the unscrupulous operators of the age know how to respond to a life changing situation. We have an eternal opportunity – are we seizing the day with the same clarity, the same singleness of purpose and determination that they show?

Yes God is gracious. Yes God is love. But yes we need to be awake to the reality of our amazing situation and act with faith and prudence.

by Daniel Edgecombe

[1] Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 409.

[2] Robert F. O’Toole, “Theophilus (Person),” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 511–512.

[3] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Semitic Background of the New Testament: Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK; Livonia, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Dove Booksellers, 1997), 171.

[4] Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

[5] Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 406.

[6] David E. Garland, Luke, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 645.

[7] Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

[8] Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

[9] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

[10] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Lk 16:4.

[11] deSilva, D. A. (2012). Honor, patronage, kinship & purity: unlocking new testament culture. Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[12] John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, vol. 35B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1993), 798.

[13] Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 28A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1100.

[14] Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 618–619

[15] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

[16] Richard C. Blight, An Exegetical Summary of Luke 12–24, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 167.

[17] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

[18] Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 28A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1101.

[19] David E. Garland, , Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 645.

[20] Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 406.

[21] Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 406.

[22] Richard C. Blight, An Exegetical Summary of Luke 12–24, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 169.

[23] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 341–342.

[24] Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 28A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1101.

[25] Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000). AND also Franco Montanari, ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015).

[26] Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 410–411.

^[27] Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 410.

[28] Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

[29] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 341.

[30] Whittaker, H. A. (1989). Studies in the Gospels.

[31] Blomberg, C. (1990). Interpreting the parables (p. 246). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[32] Max Wilcox, “Mammon,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 490

[33] Friedrich Hauck, “Μαμωνᾶς,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 388.

[34] William Henry Bennett, “MAMMON,” ed. James Hastings et al., A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology (New York; Edinburgh: Charles Scribner’s Sons; T. & T. Clark, 1911–1912), 224.

[35] Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (p. 379). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

^[36] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 420–421.

Luke 16 – the Parable of the Unjust Steward