top of page

Luke 16:1-13 - The parable of the unrighteous manager

Jesus said to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. So he summoned him and said to him, `What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.' Then the manager said to himself, `What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.' So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he asked the first, `How much do you owe my master?' He answered, `A hundred jugs of olive oil.' He said to him, `Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.' Then he asked another, `And how much do you owe?' He replied, `A hundred containers of wheat.' He said to him, `Take your bill and make it eighty.' And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.

"Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own? No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."


To best grasp the intent of Jesus telling this parable, one must see how Luke wrote the word “kai,” denoting importance that must be found is “advantageous for those disciples” (as “pros tous mathētas”). This parable is directed to those who followed Jesus, including more than the named twelve, as a story of his ministry. This means the individual highlighted in the parable is the “unrighteous manager” Judas Iscariot, who Jesus knew was the keeper of the purse for the ministry; and, that purse was losing funds due to mismanagement by a corrupt money handler. Still, while that immediate focus is calling Judas out amid his peers (without clearly being known), the implications go far beyond that one individual who cheated the group and all who gave to the ministry of Jesus, to every Christian organization existing from then until today (and beyond), as all have in their midst the same wolves in sheep’s clothing.

When Luke then wrote of a capitalized “Anthrōpos,” the capitalization elevates the meaning to a divine level equal to Yahweh, taking it well beyond the simplicity of “man, mankind, a human being or one of the human race.” As a capitalized “Man” the meaning is then the Son of Yahweh, where the Hebrew word “Adam” means “Man.” When Luke followed this with the words saying, “a certain one he existed” (from “tis ēn”), this not only implies the “Man” was of those considered to be the children of Yahweh (Jews), but it was a known “Man” that “existed” and known to be “rich.” Here, the word meaning “wealthy” must be seen as a “Man” in possession of that which Jews were known to seek; so, there was no shortage of ‘customers’ seeking the “Man’s” material offerings. This also means the “Man” was “rich” in friends who wanted to be close to such a “wealthy” person. Still, the deeper truth of “rich” is that the “Man” possessed the Spirit of Yahweh within his soul-flesh, which was the true product the “Man” offered that Jews sought – the truth of salvation and eternal life beyond death.

When Luke then wrote that the “Man” had a “manager,” the Greek word written (“oikonomon”) properly states “a manager of a household,” implying “a steward, guardian,” who was often a “freedman” that had once been a slave. While this makes one assume the “manager” was in some position as an accountant, Luke actually wrote (divinely inspired to read the truth): “kai he [the manager] had charges brought upon his soul according as squandering these possessions of his soul [of the Man]”. Here, the use of “possessions,” from “hyparchonta,”meaning “I begin, am, exist, am in possession,” this is less about things grown on a farm, because the source of the “Man’s wealth” is not stated. Here, the “possessions” is more intended to be read as a “freedman” being “possessed” by the “Man,” as a dutiful servant in his name, who “manages” the “wealth” of popularity the “Man” receives from Jews. The use of “kai” says it is important to realize the “manager” had ”squandered” the trust and responsibility given freely to him by the “Man.” As an asset to the “Man,” as one in his “possession,” the “manager” was expected to represent the “Man” on a high standard, as a “freedman,” but he instead failed to demonstrate his being so “possessed” by the “richness” of the “Man’s” Spirit.

Now, when we read that the “manager had charges brought against his soul (where “autō” equals “himself, with “self” representing a “soul”),” the assumption is some Jew came forward secretly and informed the “Man” that his “manager” was not representing him justly. When the capitalization of “Man” is seen to be the Son of Yahweh, the All-Knowing One God, then “the charges brought forth” is Jesus stating he knew Judas Iscariot was wrongfully representing Jesus, because the Father informed the Son through divine insight Jesus possessed. This means when the ”Man” “called” upon “the soul of the manager” (“his soul,” from “himself”) and asked, “What this I hear concerning you?” that heard was divinely stated, because Yahweh knew the soul of the “manager.” When nothing was said in response by the “manager,” his lack of defense becomes a statement that his soul could not lie in Judgment by Yahweh, spoken through the Son. Therefore, the responsibility held by the “manager” to represent Jesus was taken back, because his soul had proved unwilling to be “possessed” by the soul of Jesus, as an extension of the “wealth the Man possessed,” by the Spirit of the Father.

When we do hear the inner thoughts of the “manager” (from “Said then within his soul” – “Eipen de en heautō”), he said he was too weak to dig and too ashamed to beg.” In that, “to dig” means he was not strong enough spiritually to face the grave. Knowing he was not ready to die, he also said he was not about to “beg” for forgiveness. That means the “manager’s soul” was in denial of his due Judgment coming.

In verse four it is important to see the scheme devised by the outcast “manager.” The Greek written by Luke states: “dexōntai me eis tous oikous heautōn,” which translates into English as this: “they may welcome me into these dwelling of their souls”. To assume that the “manager” has been living at the “dwelling” of the “Man,” as the “manager” of his “wealth,” this in reality states the soul of the “manager” has been claiming to be filled with the Spirit of Yahweh, through the “richness” of Spirit the Father allowed to His Son. Once the soul of Jesus announces to the irresponsible “manager” that his soul no longer “dwelt” with Yahweh’s Spirit, the device crafted by the “manager” is to join his corrupted soul with those who were like he had been, their souls also “dwelling” with the Spirit of Yahweh, through the “wealth” of the “Man” they followed. This announces the “manager” as having been possessed by demon spirits, making him be cast out by Jesus from his midst. The plan was then to merge his demon soul with those who likewise were not as committed to serving Yahweh as they put on.

In verse five, Luke began with a capitalized “Kai,” which denotes great importance needs to be understood in his writing, “having called to his soul [the outcast manager] one each of these debtors of this of lord of his soul [each debtor]”, this is greatly important to grasp as a demon spirit visiting a soul that has sins that need to be paid. The “master” or “lord” is then the “Man” who is “rich” with the Spirit of the Father. Each sinner – as regularly described in the Gospels as tax collectors, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, high priests, lepers, blind, sick, frail, etc. – has come to the “Man” and received free offerings of the “wealth” of Spirit he has been given by the Father to give. As such, their debts of sin have been paid by the “Man,” as a ‘loaner’ Baptism of Spirit. Each will be expected to honor this debt of cleansing of worldly ailments when the “Man” has his soul released and it is then free to totally possess a debtor soul after that soul marries Yahweh, is made pure by the Spirit, and is then the virgin womb in which the soul of Jesus is then resurrected, so that soul-flesh can enter ministry for the Father, in the name of Jesus. This great importance must be understood in this part of the parable.

In verse five, Luke then has the outcast “manager” ask, “How much you owe to this master (or lord) of my soul ?” Here, the Greek word “Poson” is capitalized, elevating the meaning to a divine level that equals Yahweh. This means the question posed is relative to asking “How much” the first debtor’s soul was worth, as far as sins set aside until later, when spiritual payment would come due. To then say, “you owe to the master of my soul,” the question is then a challenge to have the demon spirit that was the “lord” over the outcast “manager’s” soul become the new spirit to whom the first debtor would owe later. This becomes relative to the conclusion, where Jesus spoke of being unable to serve two masters. The demon spirit that had overtaken the soul of Judas Iscariot, turning his soul away from Jesus (while he pretended to still serve him and Yahweh), was offering to do the same to a spiritual debtor whose past sins had been partially forgiven, pending the release of Jesus’ soul, at his physical death. This means the question asked here and in verse seven to the second debtor is relative to Satan asking, “How about I let you keep some sins, without asking you to pay for them in Judgment, if you will allow my lord to become your lord too?”

In the two debtors asked, thy responded seemingly in physical products that they had received freely, which they were expected to pay for in full later. The first is an amount of “oil,” which is understood to be “olive oil.” The second is an amount of “wheat” or “grain,” with both amounts much more than one person would consume himself. Here, the “olive oil” should be seen as the first debtor being given the ability to anoint others with the blessed “oil” of the “Man,” much as a priest or minister in a Christian church will routinely do, as a way of marking souls as promised to Yahweh in spiritual marriage. The second is then the spiritual food that was given by the “Man,” so the second debtor could feed the spiritually poor in the name of the Son. When the outcast “manager” offered to allow half of the “oil” to be wasted, where no souls would be marked as saved, while the other half would believe the “oil” marked them for salvation, keeping them devoted to the “Man” and the Father, the suggestion is for two “masters” to be in play: one blessing “oil,” with the other blessing nothing. As for the spiritual food, the offer to reduce the meaning of Scripture by twenty percent says half-truths would be offered to all, with only a portion served the partial truth being led to seek the missing truth. This has to be seen as the way churches that are led by false shepherds (like the Temple in Jerusalem), taught poorly by hired hands (like the rabbis in synagogues beholding to their master in Jerusalem) would result in a watered down version of religion, keeping souls from finding salvation, accepting the promise of half-truths as the path to righteousness.

In verse eight, after the “manager” has cheated the “Man” and his “debtors,” Luke wrote another capitalized “Kai” to denote more great importance needed to be found following. Here, Luke wrote that the “master praised, commended, or applauded” (from “epēnesen”) the “manager” for having become in the possession “of this of unrighteous,” where the Genitive case is stated in “tēs adikias,” implying the “manager” was “applauded” for acting “unjust” and “hurtful” against the “master” and his “debtors.” The “applause” was then stated to be “because wisely, prudently, and/or sensibly” his “acts” had been.

This is of great importance because it says the “manager” had “acted” secretly, rather than sit down with both the “Man” and his “debtors” to negotiate openly a discount in debts owed. While the “manager acted” privately, letting no one know he had been dismissed from his service as the “manager” of his “master’s wealth,” nothing his soul did, which involved the souls of others related to the “master” went by unknown. This says that Yahweh knows all sins, from all times; and, it says that all sins of all kinds are motivated by thoughts from a fleshy brain, which perceives one’s own soul as “wise, prudent, and sensible.”

The wisdom “applauded” by the “master” is then said to be “because these sons of this age to this more intelligent than these sons of this light into this generation this of their souls they exist.” In this, the repetition of “sons” (in the lower case) needs to be understood as a statement of souls (which are eternal and spirit, thus of masculine essence – as “sons”) that are born into bodies of flesh, where all are “descendants” of Yahweh’s breath of life. Those who are “sons of this age” is then a statement about the wisdom and intellect that the flesh projects into a fleshy brain, based on external worldly stimuli, to be discerned to fit the wants and needs of the enslaved soul within. On the other hand, the “sons of this light,” or “radiance” that was Jesus, as the Son of Yahweh in the form of a “man,” were souls that rejected the external influences of false “wisdom,” instead being led by the ”light” of truth within, coming from their soul being merged with the soul of this “man of wealth” from the Father. The “existence” that comes into “sons of this light” is a dual soul sent into them by Yahweh, which makes their past sins be washed clean, creating within their souls a debt that must be repaid in service to Yahweh, through the Son.

This is then followed by Luke beginning verse nine with another capitalized “Kai,” denoting great importance that needs to be in the next statement by the “master” to his former “manager.” Here, the “master” spoke as Yahweh, as “egō” is a statement about “I AM,” who then spoke “to your souls,” which were both those swayed by the “unrighteous manager” to reduce their expectations of debt repayment, willing to cheat the “man” who was the “master of the wealth” of eternal life. Yahweh then said, “to your souls you cause beloveds from out of wealth of this of unrighteousness.” In that, the Genitive case – “of wealth of this of unrighteousness” – is a statement of demonic spirit possession by the lesser (and worldly) god Mammon (as Luke wrote “mamōna” as a statement of “wealth”). The Greek word is actually derived from Aramaic, where it means “riches, money, possessions, property,” while implying “mammon.” This says their souls have sought “to trust” (implied by the word “mammon”) in “unrighteous possession” of worldly things, rather than seek to fully repay Yahweh for His Spirit making it possible for their souls to gain an everlasting reward.

Following a comma mark of separation, Luke then had Yahweh say to their souls, “so that whenever it comes to an end they may welcome your souls into these age-lone dwellings.” This is a strong statement that says when the flesh in which they put so much “trust” “fails” and “comes to an end,” then those released souls “might be welcomed” back into the world of “mammon,” where the “sons of the age” live according to the flesh, not the “light” of truth. This says reincarnation is what many Christians perceive as ‘Hell.’

Verse ten then begins with a capitalized “Ho,” which places a divinely elevated focus of “This,” which is the punishment of reincarnation that “unrighteous” souls must suffer, time and time (or age and age) again. As a condolence to this foreseen state of misery, where past sins never repaid are heaped higher and higher in a karmic debt that demands a soul seek to be “sons of this light.” As such, the world is always to be a place where “very little faith within” souls can be expected. However, importantly (from a “kai” written) each reincarnated soul has “within” it the capability to find “many faithful existing.” These are the ministers in the name of Jesus who will still be paying off their erasure of past debts, speaking the truth from the “light” within their souls. This will be the kindling of fire that can set the seekers of redemption into either those of “very little unrighteousness,” or importantly “very much unrighteousness existing,” continuing to condemn their souls to reincarnation into a world of hurt.

This then led Yahweh to ask the question of condition, “if therefore within to this belonging to another , faithful not your souls have been , this your souls who will give to your souls ?” This written includes a symbol that is not translated into meaning. It is a “left right arrow,” which says “if that to the left is true, then that to the right is true.” Conversely, “if that to the left is false, then that to the right will equally be false.” When Yahweh says, “within to this belonging to another,” that refers to submission of one’s soul to Yahweh in divine marriage. That cleanses one’s soul of past sins (from the Baptism by Spirit), which allows the soul of Jesus to resurrect as “this belonging to another.” Submission to Yahweh then submits to the soul of Jesus as the Lord over one’s soul and flesh. The “if” scenario then askes, “if this is not one’s soul’s act of “faithfulness,” then to “who does one give one’s soul?” If one choses a self-sacrifice to “unrighteousness,” then “your soul” will reincarnate once again. If one chooses self-sacrifice to the “righteousness” of Jesus, the Son of Yahweh, then “your soul” will gain eternal life.

The ”if” scenario is then a statement that says self-sacrifice can only be made to one, not to two. Thus, verse thirteen states the ‘moral of the parable story,’ where a soul “cannot serve two masters.” This becomes a “love-hate” relationship, where trying to serve two “masters” leads one to choose one over the other. This then says a soul becomes “devoted” – a statement of spiritual union, as “beloveds” – where one is welcomed within one’s soul, while the other is cast out and rejected. In the final statement, the translation of “money” misses the point of the Greek written, which is again “mamōna,” meaning “Mammon.” Whereas the “riches” of the world are quite easily seen through things of value, like “money,” the truth of the options of service has Yahweh state, “you cannot serve God kai Mammon.”

Recent Posts

See All


별점 5점 중 0점을 주었습니다.
등록된 평점 없음

평점 추가
bottom of page