Luke 16:1

ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ … Jesus now passes from the sin of hypocrisy to the cognate sin of cupidity, as in Matthew 6:18-19. The whole series of parables is anti-pharisaic. In interpreting the two following parables it is very necessary to bear in mind the tertium comparationis, i.e. the one special point which our Lord had in view. To press each detail into a separate dogmatic truth is a course which has led to flagrant errors in theology and even in morals.

τις ἦν πλούσιος ὅς εἶχεν οἰκονόμον. The rich man and the steward are both men of the world. It is only in one general aspect that they correspond to God and to ourselves as His stewards (Titus 1:7) who are ‘required to be faithful,’ 1 Corinthians 4:1-5. No parable has been more diversely and multitudinously explained than this. For instance, in the steward some have seen the Pharisees, or the publicans, or Judas Iscariot, or Christ, or Satan, &c. To enter into and refute these explanations would take up much space and would be quite fruitless. We cannot be wrong if we seize as the main lesson of the parable, the one which Christ Himself attached to it (8–12), namely, the use of earthly gifts of wealth and opportunity for heavenly and not for earthly aims.

διεβλήθη. Vulg[294] diffamatus est. In Classic Greek the word means ‘was slandered.’ Here it has the more general sense (see LXX[295] Daniel 6:24), but perhaps involves the notion of a secret accusation.

[294] Vulg. Vulgate.
[295] LXX. Septuagint.

ὡς διασκορπίζων. He not only ‘had wasted’ (i.e. squandered on himself) his lord’s goods, but was still doing so. The Vulg[296] quasi dissipasset misled the translators of the A.V[297]

[296] Vulg. Vulgate.
[297] A.V. Authorised Version.