Next comes the question, What was the business position of the steward? It agrees best both with the circumstances before us and with such extraneous information as we possess, to suppose that the functionary, called here steward, managed absolutely his master’s property, and that he was paid by a poundage on the net receipts, or by some similar method, so that his interest and his master’s would, generally speaking, coincide. There is no allegation against him of fraud or corrupt bargaining, and indeed, his being in danger of beggary shews that he is not supposed to have made himself a purse. He is charged with having “wasted the goods,” but this may mean in the way of over leniency with creditors or of unproductive outlay, not in that of personal appropriation. He was clearly not treated as though he were liable to criminal prosecution. It is of course meant to represent him as a _bad steward_, and the word here construed _unjust_ sometimes means little more than _bad_, as will be seen from Archbishop Trench’s note, in the sense of being ineffective and unsatisfactory to his employers. Dr Edersheim observes as follows:(298) “It must be borne in mind that he is still steward, and as such has full power of disposing of his master’s affairs. When, therefore, he sends for one after another of his master’s debtors, and tells each to alter the sum in the bond, he does not suggest to them forgery or fraud, but, in remitting part of the debt, whether it had been incurred as rent in kind or as the price of produce purchased, he acts, although unrighteously, yet strictly within his rights.” His master praised his astuteness, he had kept within the law and so long as this was done the current code of morality was satisfied. It is a point to be noted that no bargain is made with the debtors, he trusts to their gratitude to receive him into their houses.