Governments have always needed a source of revenue to administer their territory, but many years ago, tax collection was not done as it is today.  The gathering of taxes was farmed out to men who contracted to deliver a certain sum of money to the king or governor.  These men then collected the money from their fellow citizens, often as tolls from travellers or those bringing goods to market in the towns and cities.  They made sure they collected enough to pay what they had contracted to the king, plus enough to provide their own livelihood.

Typically, the amount collected for their own livelihood seemed over generous to their fellow citizens.  This was especially so in a place like Judea 2,000 years ago where the tax gatherers, or publicans, were making a very good living by raising money for the hated Roman conquerors.

This use of the term “farmed out” was the original meaning of “farm.”  In many countries, for a large part of history, the land was in the hands of large landowners, often called dukes or earls, or some such title of nobility.  These landowners then farmed out the land to peasants who would cultivate the land to raise crops.  A farmer was originally someone who rented land to till to raise a crop.  The word did not carry any connotation of owning the land that he farmed.  They generally paid the rent with the product of the land.

The lord, earl, duke, count or marquis who owned the land did not involve himself in the actual farming out of the land.  Even though the rent from his lands was generally his sole source of income, he had much more important affairs to look after to maintain himself in the favour of the king or lord who was over him.

The business of farming out the land was delegated to a steward, who operated much like the tax gatherers.  He would find out how much income the lord needed and then farm out the land on terms that would provide the revenue needed for the lord and some extra for himself.  This was the steward’s sole source of income.  He was not paid a salary.  Frequently, the steward had the second biggest home in the realm of his lord.  In other words, the steward was careful to look out for his own needs.

I’m afraid that the common idea of stewardship among people who call themselves Christians is very much like that.  We want to get the highest price possible when we sell something and pay the absolute rock bottom price when we buy something, because “it’s only good stewardship.”  Are we really doing this out of a concern for the welfare of our Lord’s Kingdom, or is it more out of a concern for our own welfare?

I’m afraid that many preachers and Bible commentators are so fully caught up in a selfish understanding of stewardship that they cannot understand the plain words that they read in Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward in Luke 16.  Let’s just follow the sequence of events described by Jesus.  Verses 1-2: the steward is accused of wasting his lord’s goods; Verses 3-5: the steward faces reality and realizes that he must do things differently than he has done heretofore; Verses 6-7: he calls on each renter of his lord’s lands and tells them to reduce the amount they had agreed to pay;  Verse 8: the lord of the steward commends him for acting wisely.

Now, if the lord who owned the land was pleased that the steward had marked down the amount of the rent that the farmers needed to pay, why do preachers and commentators condemn the man for doing it?  The reality here is that he had negotiated these agreements himself in the first place (that was his job as steward) and the amount that he now struck off each farmer’s rent was the amount that he had been taking for himself.  In some cases he was getting almost as much as his lord.  This was the unjust action for which he was accused.  His subsequent actions did not reduce the amount going to his lord, it just eliminated all that he had been taking for himself.

(By the way, it is quite likely that the steward was no longer a young man, this was not a task for someone young and inexperienced.  There is no need to question his statement in verse three that he was no longer able to till the soil himself.)

Jesus’ words in verses 9 to 14 instruct us to follow the example of this steward.  In the beginning he was acting as the servant of his lord, but he was also serving Mammon in trying to heap up treasures for himself to the detriment of the farmers of his lord’s lands.  In the end, he takes nothing for himself, bringing himself down to the level of the common people and trusting in their good will to receive him into their homes if he was in need.

Does that fit with our idea of stewardship?  I have the distinct impression that Jesus told this parable to turn our idea of stewardship upside down, to instruct us that it is more important to deal justly with our fellow men than to make sure that we always get the best of a deal.