No part of Scripture is isolated, every part being related to its context, and no interpretation can be

thoroughly reliable which avoids the illumination that comes from observing the setting, atmosphere, and

relation of any one part with other parts of the same book.

In Luke 16 occur two related sayings, both introduced by the words, "There was a certain rich man".

Now some have regarded these words in "The rich man and Lazarus" as proving that the Lord was not

speaking in a parable, but actually recording a literal fact. This, however, would be equally true in the

case of the parable of the Unjust Steward, and is quite unnecessary. In fact this argument applies to the

parable of the Good Samaritan, for that opens with the words, "A certain man", just as the two in Luke 16

just referred to. Or again, Peter's question in Luke 12:41, `speakest Thou this parable unto us, or even to

all?" shows that the words of verse 39, which commence with "And this know, that if the good man of the

house had known", etc., is a parable, even as the Lord's words about the faithful and wise steward that

immediately follow (verses 42-48). We shall therefore speak of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus

without further explanation, and hold that the language of all parables, being figurative, must always give

place to those passages that teach plain doctrine.

Luke has several parables where the truth is found by realizing that the Lord is instituting a contrast.

Take for example, the parable of the Unjust Steward. His prudence is commended by the lord referred to

in the parable, but does that justify anyone following the example of this unjust steward? All will agree

that no one would be justified in copying the example of this man, even though commended by the lord of

the parable. One may ask, Are we then left without guidance from the Lord Jesus as to what His

intentions are in this parable? and our answer is most emphatically, We are not, for the Lord has most

definitely repudiated the whole attitude of the unjust steward. Thanks to the translators and their

traditional interpreters, the truth lies buried and Christians have been given the awful instruction to "Make

to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" in spite of 2 Corinthians 6:14 "What fellowship

hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" or Peter's repudiation, "Thy money perish with thee" (Acts

Some things which stand as positive statements in the A.V. are better rendered as questions, e.g., the

marginal reading of the R.V. of Romans 8:33,34. A consultation of the great commentaries will reveal

that honest and godly men have felt the difficulty of taking the despicable action of this steward as in any

sense an example, or as justifying the use of anything so unrighteous as mammon in the service of the

Lord, particularly when it is remembered that at the end of the parable the Lord most definitely says, "Ye

cannot serve God and mammon" (Luke 16:13). The trouble is all man-made. If we but take the Lord's

words in Luke 16:9 to be a question demanding a negative answer, we shall see that He utterly repudiates

the attitude of mind manifested by the unjust steward, and follows with what He does enjoin upon His

followers, in contrast:

"And do I say unto you, Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when

ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations?".

The answer demanded is, No, I teach no such thing; this is what I teach you, in contrast:

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is

unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will

commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's,

who shall give you that which is your own?".

A similar misconception arising out of the same fault is found in Matthew 23:1-4, where it reads:

26