betterdaze - Jesus never identifies the FDS. He makes no promises. He asked his followers a question because men speaking twisted things would indiscreetly identify themselves as his brothers. Today we know those men as the Watchtower Society.
Thanks for making a clearer and more concise summary of that text.
The only correction I would ask you to re-consider is what you say about the IF and what it refers to in the parable.
A master, rich ruler, or person of rank is consistently used in Jesus story telling with a long absence and then a return. In ancient times this was typical of nobles and kings who went off on campaigns that may have lasted years even a decade or two. Their return was when it happened and with little or no advanced notice. Jesus was still drawing on the same story line here. Even the prodigal son parable uses the long absence to examine the characters in the drama at the moment of return.
The IF does not connect in this verse with the return, but with the Slaves dispensing of his duties. If the slave fed his other domestics, took care of the household properly and did not let it go to his head then the master upon returning would naturally be impressed with the good report and bestowed a blessing.
Diligence in the absence of supervision is just not typically what happens. Look at what dubs have done in secret. They are not scared of being seen by God, Christ or the angels, they are afraid of being caught by the elders!
Even today when company owners like myself who went on a 3 year hiatus and left my company in the hands of a qualified employee with a minor stake (steward who was and still is a dub). Upon my return this man who had embezzled a considerable amount of money during that time and had alienated all of the other employees and salesman as well as putting that company in financial straights forcing me to put it in receivership. I did what was natural, I threw him out. The only thing that caused me to not involve the police was he was a "brother" and I thought a friend. Nor did I take him to the elders. Had I found the company in a good condition, I was ready to give him a large share in it, in essence "appointing him over all my belongings" as they related to this company.
In the receivership I ended up giving the customers and much of the remaining inventory and good will to an employee who conducted himself much more honorably.
Is it any wonder why many millionaires have left their fortunes to the Butler or even a family cat or dog instead of family or others who expected it?
Hope that casts another angle on your view of the text, while your assessment of the Watchtower arrogance is spot on!
Frank75