(Matthew 18:12-14)
All the tax collectors and other sinners.The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law were dissatisfied with each other:
– He communicates with sinners and eats with them.
Then Jesus told them a parable:
“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep, and one of them gets lost. Will he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go looking for the lost one until he finds her?And when he finds her, he will happily take her on his shoulders.And when he comes home, he will call his friends and neighbors and say to them: “Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost sheep!”I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one repentant sinner than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent.
Parable of the Lost Coin
Or if a woman has ten silver coins and loses one of them, won't she light a candle and sweep from every corner until she finds it?And when she finds it, she will call her friends and neighbors and say: “Rejoice with me, I have found my lost coin.”So I tell you that God's angels rejoice over even one repentant sinner!
Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal Son
Jesus continued:
– One man had two sons.The younger said to his father: “Father, give me that part of the inheritance that is due to me.” And the father divided the property between his sons.A few days later, the youngest son collected everything he had and set off for a distant country. There he squandered all his funds, leading a dissolute life.When he had nothing left, a severe famine began in that country, and he found himself in need.Then he went and hired himself to one of the inhabitants of that country, and he sent him to his fields to graze pigs.He was so hungry that he was glad to fill his stomach with at least the pods that were fed to the pigs, but even those were not given to him.
And, coming to his senses, he said: “How many hired workers are in my father’s house, and they have food in abundance, and here I am dying of hunger!I’ll go and return to my father and tell him: “Father! I have sinned against Heaven and against you.I am no longer worthy to be called your son, treat me like one of your farmhands."And he got up and went to his father.
When he was still far away, his father saw him, and he felt sorry for his son. He ran to meet him, hugged him and began to kiss him.The son told him: “Father! I have sinned against Heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son."But the father said to his servants: “Go quickly, bring the best clothes and dress him. Put a ring on his finger and put sandals on him.Bring the fatted calf and slaughter it, we will have a feast and have fun.After all, my son was dead, and now he is alive again! He was lost and found!” And they started having fun.
And the eldest son was in the field at that time. When he approached the house, he heard music and dancing in the house.He called one of the servants and asked him what was happening.“Your brother came,” he answered him, “and your father killed the fatted calf, because his son returned safe and sound."The eldest son got angry and did not want to go into the house. Then his father came out and began to persuade him.But the son replied: “All these years I have worked for you as a servant, and have always done what you said. You never even gave me a kid so I could have fun with my friends.But when this son of yours, who had wasted your property with harlots, came home, you killed the fatted calf for him!”“Son,” the father said then, “you are always with me, and everything I have is all yours.But we should rejoice and rejoice, because your brother was dead and is alive, was lost and is found!”
Blessed Theophylact, the exponent of ancient patristic interpretations, gives the following explanation of the parable:
“Every parable (he says) is hidden and figuratively explains the essence of some object, but it is not in all respects similar to the object it is taken to explain. Therefore, all parts of the parable should not be explained to the point of subtlety, but, having used the subject as decently as possible, the other parts should be omitted without attention, as being added for the sake of integrity of the parable, but having no correspondence with its subject. For, if we undertake to explain everything in fine detail, who is the steward, who put him in charge, who denounced him, who are the debtors, why one owes oil and another wheat, why it is said that they owed a hundred... and If we explore everything else with excessive curiosity, then we will obscure our speech and, forced by difficulties, may even end up with ridiculous explanations. Therefore, we must use this parable as much as possible.”
“The Lord (continues Blessed Theophylact) here wants to teach us how to manage well the wealth entrusted to us. And, firstly, we learn that we are not lords of property, for we have nothing of our own, but that we are stewards of someone else’s property, entrusted to us by the Master so that we manage it as He commands. The will of the Lord is such that we use what has been entrusted to us for the needs of our fellow servants, and not for our own pleasures. Unrighteous is the wealth that the Lord has entrusted to us to use for the needs of our brothers and co-workers, but we keep it for ourselves. When they inform on us and we have to be removed from the management of the estate, that is, expelled from this life here, when it is we who will give an account of the management of the estate, we learn that on this day we cannot work (for then it is not the time to do) , nor to ask for alms (for it is indecent), since the virgins who asked for alms were called stupid (). What remains to be done? To share this property with our brothers, so that when we move from here, that is, we move from this life, the poor will accept us into eternal abodes. For the poor in Christ have been assigned eternal abodes as their inheritance, into which they can receive those who have shown them love here through the distribution of wealth, although wealth, as belonging to the Master, first had to be distributed to the poor.”
“The Lord also teaches that faithful in small things, that is, who managed well the property entrusted to him in this world, and largely true(), that is, in the next century he is worthy of true wealth. Small calls earthly wealth, since it is truly small, even insignificant, because it is fleeting, and to many - heavenly wealth, since it always abides and increases. Therefore, whoever turned out to be unfaithful in this earthly wealth and appropriated what was given for the common benefit of his brothers to himself will not be worthy of even that a lot, but will be rejected as infidel. Explaining what has been said, he adds: If you have not been faithful in unrighteous wealth, who will trust you with the true?(). He called unrighteous wealth the wealth that remains with us: for if it were not unrighteous, we would not have it. And now, since we have it, it is obvious that it is unrighteous, since it was detained by us and was not distributed to the poor. So, whoever manages this estate poorly and incorrectly, how can he be entrusted with true wealth? And who will give us what is ours when we mismanage someone else’s, that is, property? Our destiny is heavenly and divine wealth, for there is our dwelling. Until now, the Lord has taught us how to properly manage wealth. And since the management of wealth according to the will of God is accomplished only with firm impartiality towards it, the Lord added this to His teaching: You cannot serve God and mammon(), that is, it is impossible for someone to be a servant of God who is attached to wealth and, out of addiction to it, retains something for himself. Therefore, if you intend to properly manage wealth, then do not be enslaved to it, that is, do not have attachment to it, and you will truly serve God.”
So, according to Blessed Theophylact, any wealth in general that is retained by its owner for his own benefit is called unrighteous wealth. Distributing such wealth to the poor is the way indicated by the Lord of acquiring friends who can introduce their benefactor to eternal abodes.
That all earthly riches belong to God as the only Owner of everything that exists in the world, and that people who possess such riches are only temporary stewards, bailiffs, obliged to give an account to their Master - there can be no doubt about this. But that the stewards were obliged to distribute to the poor every last thread of the wealth entrusted to their management, leaving nothing for themselves, it is permissible to doubt this. Christ never condemned the use of earthly goods as gifts sent by God. He only demanded that we not consider ourselves complete masters and unaccountable stewards of these benefits. He demanded that we recognize these blessings as God’s property and, while managing them, do not forget His commandments about love for our neighbors and that good They created for them to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the wanderers, clothe the naked, visit those in hospitals and prisons... (). The evil vinedressers (; ; ) were condemned not for using the fruits of the vineyard given to them to manage, but for not giving those sent from the Master the fruits that He demanded - because they wanted to appropriate the vineyard for themselves. The Lord could not oblige us to give to the poor everything we have, leaving nothing for ourselves and our family. Therefore, the opinion of Blessed Theophylact that any wealth (and therefore part of it) retained by its owner for his own benefit should be considered unrighteous wealth can hardly be considered correct; and it seems to me that this is not even his direct opinion, it is simply an omission, something unspoken, which is confirmed by one expression of his “to share this estate with his brothers”; to divide with one’s brothers means to leave one’s share to be divided (for a detailed explanation on this issue, see below, pp. 702–707).
In addition, the explanation of Blessed Theophylact does not answer the most important questions that arise when reading the parable of the unfaithful steward: was the steward worthy of praise? Why did the Lord set him up as an example to follow? And why did He command to make friends with unrighteous wealth, if wealth in itself cannot be considered either righteous or unrighteous, but is called unrighteous either because of the criminality of its acquisition, or because of the criminality of the goals for which it is used, or because of a special attachment to him, by admiration for him, as before an idol, an idol? And could the Lord even say that the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven can be opened by unrighteous wealth? We do not find an answer to all these questions in the interpretation of Blessed Theophylact.
According to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, “the true meaning of the parable is determined by the following features. The bailiff manages someone else's estate. Likewise, every person in real life uses wealth and other gifts of God’s creation and providence not as an independent possessor, obligated to no one; reporting, but as an overseer, obliged to report to God, to Whom alone everything originally and essentially belongs. The bailiff must finally leave the department and give an account to it; similarly, every person with the end of earthly life must leave what he disposed of on earth and give an account of his actions to the Court of God. The dismissed bailiff sees that he will remain poor and homeless; Likewise, those who depart from earthly life see that they are poor in deeds and virtues that would open for them one of the heavenly abodes. What should the poor bailiff do? What's a meager soul to do? The steward has the hope of being accepted into the homes of those to whom he has done a favor out of the abundance of management entrusted to him. The soul, despite the lack of perfection, has the hope that the needy and mourning, to whom it gave help and consolation from its earthly well-being, through the grateful prayer of faith will help it to open the door of eternal shelter, which they open for themselves through faithfulness in the feat of patience. Of course, the word of the parable clearly shows that, using worldly wisdom in the semblance of spiritual wisdom, it does not confuse them at all: the sons of this age are more perceptive than the sons of light in their generation(). That is: what a pity that the children of worldly wisdom have enough skill, in the midst of destruction, to arrange their temporary well-being by dark means, but the children of light, students of divine wisdom, often do not use enough care to, with its light, with its power, equalize and make your way to eternal shelters! To explain the meaning of the words - (), or, as stated in the Slavic translation, , Metropolitan Philaret says that “the Syrians had an idol called mammon and was superstitiously revered as the patron of wealth. From this the same name is transferred to wealth itself: mammon. The Lord, of course, not without reason, instead of the simple name of wealth, used the word mammon, in which the concept of idolatry is combined with the concept of wealth; and another reason for this can be proposed, as the one that I wanted to mean not just wealth, but wealth collected with passion, possessed with passion, becoming an idol of the heart. This is how the meaning of the whole expression is determined: mammon of untruth. This means wealth, which through addiction to it has become unrighteous or vicious; for in sacred language, untruth can mean vice in general, just as truth can mean virtue in general. What, then, does the instruction mean: make yourself a friend from the mammon of untruth? This means: wealth, which through addiction easily becomes for you a mammon of untruth, a substance of vice, an idol, turn into good acquisition through doing good to the poor and gain in them spiritual friends and prayer books for you. As for those rich who are not only not free from the untruth of addiction to wealth, but are also burdened by the untruth of ill-acquired wealth, they look in vain for an easy way to cover up their untruth in the parable of the unrighteous steward. But if they want true instruction that actually applies to them, they will find it in the instruction of the tax collector Zacchaeus.”
The final part of this interpretation is quite correct; but, unfortunately, the saint did not explain why this conclusion should be considered a necessary conclusion from the meaning of the entire parable. The unfaithful manager of the parable was burdened not by the “mammon of untruth” that the saint speaks of, but by that very “untruth of evil acquisition,” which, according to his own statement, cannot be covered up in the manner indicated in the parable. Therefore, the saint’s very conclusion cannot be considered a logical conclusion from the parable itself, if we understand it the way he understood it. Moreover, this interpretation does not answer the most important questions and perplexities that arise when reading the parable.
Some interpreters believe that a sinful person, who has not done anything good to justify his sinful life, who is rich, so to speak, only in sins, can use this unrighteous wealth to his advantage and gain friends with it, people who pray for him before God. If he realizes all the sinfulness of his life and, instead of hiding his sins, will reveal his sinful soul to everyone, present to them all the horror and all the destructiveness of such a life and thereby warn them against imitating him and sinners like him, then many will abstain from sin ; With such a warning, such a salvation for them, an outspoken sinner will do a good deed for them and make friends in them, and these friends will beg the Heavenly Father for his forgiveness. There is no doubt that such a sinner sincerely repents of his sins if he brings nationwide repentance for them; for such repentance he may deserve forgiveness, like the prodigal son of the parable; and if by his open repentance he still keeps others from sin, then he does a good deed towards them, that is, he creates fruit worthy of repentance, and therefore can be accepted into the eternal abodes, despite the multitude of sins. Thus, this interpretation is completely consistent with the spirit of Christ’s teaching, but, unfortunately, it cannot even be called an interpretation of the parable we are considering. An unfaithful steward, who accepted many sins on his soul during the management of his master’s estate, if he repented, it was only before God and his conscience; He did not confess his sins to any of the people, did not expose his sin-wounded soul to anyone, and did not warn anyone against a sinful life. Therefore, the proposed interpretation cannot be considered correct.
There are many interpretations of the parable of the unfaithful steward; but since none of them gives a clear, leaving no doubt, answer to the above questions, I will not present them here; I will limit myself only to the most widespread opinion among theologians about the meaning and significance of this parable.
It is believed that by the tributary image of a lord who had a manager, one must understand God Himself; under an unfaithful steward - people who use the wealth given to them by God not in accordance with the will of God proclaimed to them, that is, they do not help their neighbors in need. The master of the parable’s demand for an account from his steward is equivalent to God’s demand for an account from every person who has moved into eternity. By debtors we mean all those in need of outside help, and by friends who receive a retired steward into their homes - angels and saints of God.
For reasons that will be expressed below, I believe that this interpretation also leaves many perplexities unexplained.
Recently an explanation of the parable of the unfaithful steward by Professor Archpriest T. Butkevich appeared in the press (see Church Gazette, 1911, nos. 1–9).
Explaining this parable, Professor T. Butkevich asks the question: why did the master of the parable not only not bring his unfaithful steward to justice, but even praised him?
In order to answer this question, Professor T. Butkevich first speaks, and in great detail, about the Jewish rich and their managers: “It must be recognized as a fact beyond doubt that Jews have always exhibited passions more than other peoples.” greed and covetousness. Beginning with Moses, all the Old Testament and God-inspired writers, especially David, Solomon, Jesus son of Sirach and the prophets, agree that many ancient Jews, having forgotten Jehovah and His commandments, often did not disdain any means for their enrichment: they did not disdain deception, theft, even robbery and robberies of merchant caravans. But profiteering in trade and usury were especially widespread among Jews: a 100% loan did not seem to be arranged on difficult terms. If five talents were given by other five talents, this did not surprise the Jew; but he strove to ensure that one mina would bring him ten minas (;). The loan was secured not only by a receipt and pledge of the debtor, but also by the guarantee of other persons. If the debtor’s property was not enough to repay the debt, the creditor could throw the debtor into prison or turn him and his entire family into eternal slavery.”
“By the time of the earthly life of our Lord Jesus Christ, the simple Jewish people, burdened with heavy Roman taxes and taxes on the temple, tithes in favor of the priests and Levites, oppressed by self-interested creditors and tax collectors, generally lived in great poverty and need. But the poorer the people were, the more pronounced their poverty was, the more striking were those few faces who owned great wealth and surrounded themselves with purely oriental luxury.”
The Jewish rich people contemporary to Christ were known as the “princes of Jerusalem,” lived in Jerusalem in their own palaces, the structure and luxury of which resembled the palaces of the Roman Caesars, and they also set up country dachas for summer holidays and entertainment. They owned rich fields sown with wheat, as well as vineyards and orchards of olive trees. But their main income came from trade and industry. The “prince’s” own ships brought him silver from the richest Spanish mines, and the caravans he sent to the east brought silk fabrics and various spices. In all the coastal cities before Gibraltar, the “princes of Jerusalem” had large trading warehouses, banking offices and agents.
“It goes without saying that the “princes of Jerusalem” could not personally conduct all their complex trade affairs and manage their estates. Imitating the Roman emperors, they, dressed in purple and fine linen, feasted brilliantly every day (), and in every estate, in every office, on every ship they had their trusted agents or stewards And bailiffs.
Receiving from his master only general instructions regarding the prices of goods or rental [ The original spelling has been preserved. - approx. scan author] payments for gardens and fields, the managers themselves rented fields and vineyards to the poor residents; they themselves entered into contracts with tenants and kept these contracts with them; They themselves carried on trade. The “prince” considered it humiliating for himself to personally check the money delivered to him by agents and managers to the chief treasurer, who was always at his house. He completely calmed down when the treasurer reported to him that the stewards were promptly delivering from the estates what was assigned to them.”
The “prince” set a certain rent for his gardens, vineyards and fields, but the manager rented them out at a higher price and turned the surplus to his own benefit; In addition, tenants usually paid rent not in money, but in products, and the manager sold them and presented them to his master in cash. All this gave the managers complete scope for abuse, and they, taking advantage of their position, oppressed the poor tenants and profited at their expense.
Having characterized the Jewish rich and their managers in this way, Professor Butkevich says that when the master of the parable announced to his manager that he could no longer manage his estate and demanded that he submit a report, the manager, reasoning with himself, looked for a way out of his difficult situation. provisions. Left after his dismissal from service without any means of subsistence, he foresaw that he would have to either take on menial work, that is, dig soil in orchards and vineyards as a laborer, or beg for alms. But (speaks) I can’t dig, I’m ashamed to ask(). Finally, he found the outcome and calls the debtors, that is, the tenants, to his master. That these were really tenants of gardens and fields is clear from the fact that in the receipts their debts are indicated not in money, but in agricultural products (olive oil, wheat). Although agricultural products were often sold on credit, in such cases the debt was always indicated in receipts as money, not food.
Having called the tenants, each separately, the manager invites them to rewrite their rental receipts and reduce the amount of their debts in new ones. The manager could have completely destroyed the receipts and thus especially endeared himself to the tenants, but he did not do this. Why? Of course, not because he was afraid of responsibility. If the manager’s act is considered criminal, then does it really matter whether he is held accountable for the waste of all the entrusted property or part of it? There was nothing to pay, and criminal liability is the same in both cases.
Having thus the opportunity to completely destroy the rental receipts, the manager limited himself to reducing the debts of the tenants. And for this, the gentleman not only did not put him on trial, but even praised him. This praise proves that, by reducing the amount of tenants’ debts, the steward did not cause any damage to his master and did not commit anything criminal. But what did he do? Harassing the tenants when renting fields and gardens to them, he took from them a rent higher than the amount that was assigned by his master, and took all the excess for himself. Now, looking for a way out of his difficult situation, he remembered the tenants whom he oppressed; his conscience spoke to him, he repented and wanted to make amends for his sin before them with a good deed. He called them and forgave them only those excess rents that he negotiated from them in his favor, and since these surpluses were unequal, he forgave one 50% of his debt, and the other only 20%.
“With this explanation, it becomes clear why the master of the parable did not put his steward on trial, but praised him. The owner got his; his interests were not harmed; Why could he be angry with his manager? But he could praise him, for his steward, who had previously been a bad man, now turned out to be not only prudent but also honest, noble, who refused to take advantage of what belonged to him according to human justice, but not according to conscience.”
The Russian translation of the Gospel says that the master praised the steward, that shrewdly entered; Meanwhile, “the Greek word Frokhotsos is found nowhere in ancient Greek literature in the sense ingenuity it means: judicious, wise, prudent, insightful. Therefore, the Gospel text should be translated as follows: “And the lord praised the unfaithful steward, prudently entered". The Slavic translation is more accurate than the Russian one; there is a word there "wise", and not “smartly.”
“Some interpreters who recognize the steward’s act as immoral point out that even after this act the Savior calls the steward unfaithful. On this Fonk answers quite rightly: the manager here is called unfaithful not because with his last act he showed injustice to a particularly high degree, but because this act already belonged to him due to his previous behavior.” Factual evidence can also be found in favor of this explanation: Apostle Matthew forever remained with the nickname publican, Apostle Thomas - incorrect, Simon – leper".
Continuing the explanation of the parable, Prof. T. Butkevich says: “The Savior, having told how the master praised the unfaithful steward, added from Himself: for the sons of this age are more shrewd than the sons of light in their generation(). The Lord called the sons of this age those people who, like publicans and the rulers of the “princes of Jerusalem,” are primarily occupied with worldly concerns and their own personal sensual interests. But who should be understood by “sons of light”?”
All interpreters of this parable by “sons of light” mean true followers of Christ, the righteous and saints of God. “But (says Prof. T. Butkevich) it’s hard to think that the righteous and saints of God, who can only be called “sons of light” (for in whom sin reigns, he is not yet a son of light), are less prudent than sinners, thieves, rogues, swindlers and generally people standing far from the light. It is difficult to recognize the holy Apostles as people who do not mind being cunning and borrowing external cunning from the sons of this age. For the sons of light, the righteous, eternal abodes have already been prepared by the Heavenly Father (); What else can the sons of this age give them? Why do they need worldly agility and resourcefulness? Such questions involuntarily come to mind, and it seems to us that we need to look for another explanation.
During His public ministry, Jesus Christ repeatedly called the Pharisees blind(). But the Pharisees thought of themselves differently: as experts in the Old Testament writings and fatherly traditions, they only considered themselves sons of light, but they could only recognize all others, especially publicans and sinners, as sons of darkness and this age. Therefore, it is very natural to assume that when pronouncing a parable, seeing among your listeners publicans And Pharisees, The Savior called the first the sons of this age, and the last (ironically, of course) the sons of light, as they called themselves. Then His saying: the sons of this age are more prudent than the sons of light, It will be clear and simple: publicans are more prudent than the Pharisees, which the publicans have repeatedly proven in practice. Our assumption finds special confirmation in the fact that in this verse Jesus Christ does not speak about the sons of light in general, but only about the sons of light of a kind, just as in Russian they say, for example, about a police watchman: the authorities of a kind or in their own way.”
Having given such excellent explanations of the above two essentially important questions and proving with references to the Old Testament books that in Scripture wealth is often called “unrighteous wealth,” Professor T. Butkevich moves on to the final words of the Savior: And I say to you: make friends for yourself with unrighteous wealth, so that they, when you became poor, accepted you into eternal abodes ().
“What is this “unrighteous wealth” or, more precisely, “wealth of unrighteousness” with which the Lord commands us to gain friends, and through them eternal abodes? So that we can truly understand this instruction, Jesus Christ, of course, not by accident, but with intention, replaces the word “wealth” with the name of the Syrian idol of wealth mammon, that is, with the concept wealth connects the concept idolatry, because He wanted to mean not just wealth, but wealth collected with passion, becoming an idol of the heart. Therefore, the words of the Savior - make friends with unrighteous wealth - cannot be explained solely by the requirement to return stolen or plundered property and not to use it; These words mean that in order to gain friends, and through them, eternal abodes, that is, to achieve our salvation, we must not follow the path followed by covetous people, misers and misers who own unrighteous wealth only for themselves, and for this we first of all We must suppress the passion of covetousness in our souls, and then devote ourselves to matters of Christian charity, as required of us by the absolute Owner of everything that exists - God, who taught us how we should manage the earthly goods temporarily entrusted to us. Under friends we must understand the beggars, the poor and those in need in general, that is little brothers Christ, who prepares places in the many abodes of His Father for all His followers. Eternal Abodes- this is the Kingdom of Heaven, for there is nothing eternal on earth. In many ancient manuscripts, instead of the Greek word, translated into Russian by the word impoverish, is a word meaning you will die. All interpreters agree that we are talking about death here; when you die, as it should have been translated into Russian from the Bible instead of the expression “when you become poor.”
In conclusion of his explanation of the parable of the unfaithful steward, Professor T. Butkevich says that “a rich man who has an unfaithful steward is an influx of God Himself; the unfaithful steward is the image of every sinner. Like the steward, the sinner enjoys for a long time the earthly goods given to him for a time; but he lives the same way as the steward, carelessly, dissolutely, not thinking that the hour will come when he will need to leave the earth and appear before the face of the Judge, from whom he received in his life all the gifts necessary for salvation and whose will was announced to him in a timely manner. The manager, called to the master, learned his irrevocable decision about his removal and thought about the question - what to do? Likewise, the Lord attracts the sinner’s heart to Himself and awakens in him the confidence in the need to leave the earthly vale and move beyond eternity. Hearing the decisive voice of God, the sinner’s conscience comes into extreme confusion and anxiety; the fatal question arises - what to do? Are there any earthly means of salvation? But, alas! Nothing can save a person from death. There is only one thing left: to submit to the will of God. The steward began by destroying in the receipts of his master's debtors that part of the payment that was intended to be his property. The repentant sinner must also begin the work of his salvation with this. He knows the will of God: if you forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. So, we must first of all be reconciled with our neighbors, forgive them all their sins against us and ask ourselves for forgiveness of our sins against them. The inflowing debtors are our neighbors; they are all sinners before God and therefore are called His debtors. The debtors of the parable are never called debtors of the steward, but only debtors of his master, although a significant part of their debt should have gone to the steward. With these features, the Lord revealed to His listeners the truth that before people, our neighbors, we are only relative debtors, and only before God alone are we debtors, that is, sinners, in the proper sense. The commandment to love our neighbors was given by God, and therefore, when we sin against our neighbors, we first of all sin against God Himself and His commandments. Therefore, just by fulfilling the commandment to love one’s neighbors, without fulfilling the commandment to love God, one cannot achieve the Kingdom of Heaven. Love for God is manifested in fulfilling His commandment to do good to the poor and needy. Angels and saints of God, as friends of a repentant sinner, intercede for him before God and thereby prepare for him an eternal home in the Kingdom of Heaven. Material wealth, although it is unjust in its method of acquisition and use, when disposed of in a manner pleasing to God, can assist a person in achieving the highest moral goals.”
This is Professor T. Butkevich’s explanation of the parable of the unfaithful steward.
It seems to me that Professor T. Butkevich, with his excellent explanation of the meaning of the steward’s act and the words “sons of light in their own way,” came very close to revealing the true meaning of the Savior’s words about making friends with unrighteous wealth; but, apparently, he was guided by the desire not to contradict generally accepted interpretations, and this diverted him away from the path he had paved; therefore, his explanation of Christ’s final words does not eliminate the perplexities that arise when reading the parable of the unfaithful steward.
None of the believers can doubt that God is the only and unconditional Owner of everything that exists; He gives us material benefits only for temporary use or management, in accordance with His will, as well as spiritual gifts, so that we strive to achieve the goal of our earthly life indicated by Him; He will demand an account from us when, having completed our earthly journey, we move into eternity. Therefore, by the image of the influx master, who gave his property to his steward for temporary management, one could mean God Himself, if other words of the parable did not contradict such a comparison. The contradiction is seen in the following: the master of the parable’s demand from his manager for an account cannot be compared to God’s demand for an account from people who have died and moved into eternity. Ruler of the Parable before had to give a report, and Then leave the management of the estate, and the person moving into eternity at first with his death leaves the management of the estate entrusted to him, and Then gives a report. The manager of the parable had enough time to arrange his affairs and ensure his future earthly existence; for the sinful soul that appears before the Judge to give an account, everything is over: posthumous repentance will not save it (), but doing good deeds in fulfillment of the Lord’s commandment outside of earthly life is impossible.
Professor T. Butkevich, as if anticipating such an objection, says that “The Lord, through His inscrutable destinies and means not always accessible to our understanding, attracts the heart of a sinner to Himself and awakens in him confidence in the need to leave the earthly vale and move beyond eternity, and therefore, such a sinner, submitting to the will of God, must be reconciled with his neighbors, forgive them and ask for their forgiveness, and then through good deeds in favor of the poor and needy, earn forgiveness of sins from God.”
Yes, the merciful Lord often leads sinners to think about the future afterlife, about the need to repent in advance, correct themselves and atone for their sins with good deeds. But such bringing a sinner to repentance cannot be called a demand for an account: an account will be demanded and given in a future life, there, and not here. The report will be required from all people in general; The insight, long before death, into the idea of the need to give a timely report is not granted to everyone.
Thus, it turns out that there is no way to compare the master of the parable’s demand for an account from his steward to God’s demand for an account from all people. The impossibility of such a comparison does not give us the right to understand God Himself as the image of the master of the parable. Further, Professor T. Butkevich, in one place in his explanation of the parable, understands the steward’s friends as our neighbors, and in another – angels and saints of God. But I think that if it is possible mammon of untruth to make friends among people living on earth, then this is hardly possible in relation to the angels and saints of God. The position that angels and saints of God intercede before God with their prayers for all repentant sinners does not give us the right to liken them to the influx friends of the steward, for angels and saints of God, intervening before God with their prayers for sinners, hardly limit their intercession only to repentant sinners . If our Lord Jesus Christ went to unrepentant sinners and brought them to repentance with His word, then we must assume that both the angels and the saints of God who moved into eternity pray to God for unrepentant sinners, asking to bring them to repentance. Consequently, if we consider them “friends” of people, then we must consider all people in general as friends, and not just those who repent, and not only those like the ruler of the parable.
The master of the parable praised his steward for acting wisely; similarly (says Professor T. Butkevich) God not only forgives a sinner who has repented and made amends for his sins with good deeds, but also honors him with praise, that is, the highest bliss in eternity.
It seems to me that this comparison is also impossible. The manager of the parable forgave his master's debtors only for what he bargained with them in his favor; he only refused to further commit evil, but did not commit positive good. If the master of the parable could praise him for this, then for the mere renunciation of evil, without creating good, it is unlikely that the Lord will honor the repentant sinner higher bliss in Eternal Life. The manager of the parable refused to further harass the tenants by rewriting their contracts; but from the parable it is not clear that he returned to the tenants the rent payments he had received in excess in the past; therefore, he did not complete the matter, did not fully realize his good intentions. And if the master of the parable could praise his steward for such resourcefulness, insight or wisdom, then such a steward can hardly be rewarded by God not only higher bliss, but even simple praise. And this again proves that by the image of the master of the parable one cannot understand God Himself.
Starting, for my part, to explain the parable of the unfaithful steward, I find that not all the parables of the Lord have an allegorical (allegorical) meaning. For example: the parables about the rich man to whom God sent a bountiful harvest, about the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, about the Good Samaritan do not contain any allegory. I think that in the parable of the unfaithful steward there is no allegory and that all the failures in interpreting it occurred from an indispensable desire to explain: who should be understood by the influx of images of the master, the steward, debtors and friends.
So, we will not look for another meaning of this parable, but will try to explain it as an example given by the Lord, for the purpose of edification, from the life of the Jews of His time.
To accurately understand the meaning of this parable and, mainly, the meaning of the Savior’s final words, one must first of all find out to whom and on what occasion it was spoken.
Evangelist Luke begins his narrative about the four parables spoken by Jesus Christ, including the parable of the unfaithful steward, with the following words: All the tax collectors and sinners approached Him to listen to Him. The Pharisees and scribes grumbled, saying: He receives sinners and eats with them (). Earlier, with the same reproach and condemnation, the Pharisees turned to the disciples of Jesus when He was reclining with tax collectors and sinners at the table of the publican Levi (or Matthew): why does your Teacher eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners? And the Lord answered them then: It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (; ; ).
So, this was the second time that the Pharisees and scribes openly condemned Jesus for associating with sinners. In the first case, the Lord limited himself to a brief indication of the purpose of His coming; now, with the repetition of the reproach and condemnation, He considered it necessary to admonish the Pharisees and scribes with parables. That with the first three parables - about the lost sheep, about the lost coin and about the prodigal son - Christ turned not to publicans and sinners, but to the Pharisees and scribes, can be seen from the words of the Evangelist Luke: The Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: He receives sinners and eats with them. But He said them(that is, the Pharisees and scribes) next parable(). Of course, these parables were heard by all the tax collectors and sinners around Jesus at that time; It was them, as those seeking their salvation, that the Lord had in mind in His parables; but still, with the first three parables, He addressed the Pharisees and scribes, answering them to their reproach.
With these parables, Christ clearly showed the Pharisees and scribes who reproached Him how the merciful God, without any call or prayer from sinners who accidentally strayed from the true path, Himself comes to their aid and leads them out of this environment where they could perish; and how He comes to meet even such sinners who deliberately walked along the sinful path, who wanted to sin, but then came to their senses, condemned their past and decided to live not as they wanted, but as God commanded. If God Himself acts this way with sinners, then, of course, Christ, Who was sent by Him into the world not to judge, but to save sinners, cannot act differently.
These three parables, told by the Pharisees and scribes, were supposed to please the tax collectors and sinners who surrounded the Savior, they were supposed to convince them that salvation was possible for them, the rejected and despised. But where to start? How to earn forgiveness of sins?
In response to these questions, which undoubtedly now occupied the publicans and sinners, the Lord spoke the fourth parable (about the unfaithful steward), addressing them directly, as if they had already been prepared by the first three parables to understand it.
One man was rich and had a steward, against whom it was reported to him that he was wasting his property. From the explanations of this parable by Professor T. Butkevich, it is clear that the steward did not squander his Master’s estate, but only lived luxuriously, living off the unauthorized taxes he collected from the tenants. He probably lived in a way that it was impossible to live on the allowance he received from his master; and this gave reason to assume that he is not content with his salary, but spends on himself the income that follows his master. That is why it was reported about his wastefulness.
The gentleman believed the denunciation, perhaps because the informer deserved special trust. And calling him(that is, the manager), said to him: What is this I hear about you? give an account of your management, for you can no longer manage(). Having unconditionally believed the denunciation, the gentleman not only demanded that the manager submit a report, but also announced to him his decision to dismiss him from office.
The ruler did not make excuses because he was aware that he appropriated part of the rent he received and squandered it. Although this part of the rent was in excess of that assigned by his master, however, by submitting a report and attaching rental contracts to it, he would thereby expose himself to the fact that he represented to his master the income not in the amount in which it came from the tenants, but in less. In a word, if he had handed over all the original contracts during the report, then the denunciation against him would have been confirmed and he would not have escaped responsibility.
Placed in such a difficult position, the manager became thoughtful. Apparently, he lived off everything he received and did not save anything for himself for a rainy day, because, in his own words, he was destined to be either a laborer, digging soil in orchards and vineyards, or a beggar, holding out his hand for alms. He did not want to come to terms with such a sad future: he could not dig the ground, probably because such unusual work for him was beyond his strength; he was ashamed to ask for alms, because (as Professor T. Butkevich explains) for Jews there was no greater shame than to beg, holding out his hand for a piece of stale bread. What should I do? - that was the question that occupied him now.
A person who has suffered misfortune often begins to remember his past, wanting to understand what exactly led him to his distress. He regrets that his life turned out this way and not otherwise; he repents that he did not live as he should have. Repentance is followed by a desire to do something to make the trouble go away, a desire to find the best way out of one’s situation. Likewise, the unfaithful steward, looking back at his past, probably remembered how he offended the tenants, oppressing them and extorting from them a rent that was excessive compared to the rent assigned by the owner, and how he squandered this money, which was not easy for the unfortunate workers. And he might have a desire not only to justify himself to the owner, but also to make amends for his unseemly actions to the tenants; and he found a way out of his difficult situation. In order to draw up a report on the management of the estate in accordance with the will of the master, it was necessary to attach to the report such lease contracts, which would show the rent in the amounts prescribed by the master himself, and for this it was necessary to rewrite all contracts and significantly reduce the rent in them. By doing this, the manager could not only justify himself to his master, but also win over the tenants, who will now have to pay significantly less rent than before. By doing this a great service to the tenants, the manager hoped that they would be grateful to him for this and would not refuse him financial assistance when he was removed from management.
Thus, the manager resolved the issue that worried him, and immediately began to put his plan into execution. He calls the debtors (tenants) of his master, each separately, and orders them to rewrite the lease contracts, significantly reducing the amount of rent payments due from them. He does not tell them the reasons for such unexpected mercy and, of course, makes a strong impression on them, causing them to feel the deepest gratitude to their benefactor. The tenant manager is calling apart because he shows them unequal mercy: to one he reduces the rent by 50 percent, to another by 20. If he had called them all together, then, by showing them unequal mercy, he could have caused murmurs from those to whom he gave less; and in order to eliminate this murmur, he would have to explain to them the true reason for such unequal mercy towards them, which was not at all part of his calculations.
No matter how much the manager hid his plans from the tenants and his master himself, the master found out everything. Receiving a report from the manager and finding it drawn up correctly and supported by supporting documents, the master could be perplexed: if the manager’s affairs are all in order, if there is no embezzlement, then that means the denunciation was false? The informer was threatened for this, at least, by the master's disfavor; and in order to justify himself, he was forced to find out for certain what the manager did in order to avoid responsibility for wastefulness; Having found out the whole truth, he, of course, hastened to report everything to the master (the Gospel does not say how the master found out about the act of his steward, and everything I said is only my assumption, however, very plausible).
The manager of the parable did not cause any harm; he presented the report with supporting documents in great order; there was no legal basis to hold him accountable; It was possible to praise for insight or wisdom. And the lord praised the unfaithful steward for acting wisely(). The parable does not say whether the master fired his steward after the report was presented; but we must assume that he did not fire him because he recognized the manager’s actions as worthy of praise.
What did the Lord mean by this? Accepting the excellent explanation of Professor T. Butkevich, it should be recognized that the Lord by “sons of this age” meant sinners who cared only about their earthly well-being, and by “sons of light of a kind" - the Pharisees and scribes, whom he more than once called “blind leaders,” while they themselves considered themselves righteous and boasted of their imaginary righteousness.
Consequently, the Savior’s thought, as far as we can comprehend it, can be expressed as follows: the unfaithful steward, a sinner, repented and reconciled with those whom he had offended, for which he received the praise of his master. But the Pharisees and scribes, these blind leaders of the people, consider themselves righteous and do not want to repent. Therefore, sinners like this unfaithful steward are sons of this age, turn out to be more prudent, wiser, smarter scribes and Pharisees, these so-called sons of light in their own way.
Somewhat later, during His last stay in the Temple of Jerusalem, the Lord expressed the same thought in the following parable, with which He addressed the scribes and Pharisees: One man had two sons; and he, approaching the first, said: son! Go today and work in my vineyard. But he answered: I don’t want to; and then, repenting, he left. And going up to the other, he said the same thing. This one said in response: I’m going, sir, but I didn’t go. Having told this parable, the Lord turned to the Pharisees and scribes with a question: Which of the two fulfilled the will of the father? They answered: first. Then Jesus said to them: Truly I say to you, tax collectors and harlots are going ahead of you into the kingdom of God ().
Yes, publicans and all sinners in general, who at one time refused to fulfill the will of God, but at the same time did not consider themselves righteous, can still come to their senses, repent and begin to live as God commands; and whoever of them takes this first step towards salvation undoubtedly deserves praise for his prudence. But among sinners there are many who consider themselves righteous, sons of light in their own way. Blinded by their imaginary righteousness, they do not see, do not notice their sins and therefore consider repentance unnecessary, and work in God’s vineyard is completely useless for them. So what comes out of this? Sinners who have recognized their sins and taken the path to salvation will go far from the imaginary righteous who mark time in one place and therefore do not move forward a single step; yes, the sons of this age are smarter(wiser, more prudent) sons of light in their own way.
Continuing the parable of the unfaithful steward, Christ said to the publicans and sinners around Him: And I say to you: make friends with unrighteous wealth, so that when you become poor(you will die) received you into the eternal abodes ().
With these words, the Lord undoubtedly answered the publicans and sinners around Him to the questions that now occupied them. Following the Savior, who called everyone to repentance, and already considered His disciples, publicans and sinners were aware of their sinfulness (cf.), but, due to the abundance of their sins, they could not hope for salvation from responsibility in the future life. Now, having listened to the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and, especially, the prodigal son, they realized that salvation was possible for them too. Delighted by this, they were perplexed: where to begin in order to be worthy of forgiveness of sins?
This is the question that the Lord answers. Where to begin? Begin where the unfaithful steward began: make peace first with those whom you have offended; give it back to them All, received unjustly from them; use this unjust wealth as a means of reconciliation with them, and by this you unrighteous wealth You will gain friends in their person who will pray to God to have mercy on you. Words - so that they... accept you into eternal abodes- cannot be taken literally, since everyone understands that only God can accept into His Heavenly Kingdom, and if the Lord used such an expression, then it should be considered as a figure of speech, often used in conversation.
In His Sermon on the Mount, Christ said: if you bring your gift to the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (). Christ spoke about the altar and sacrifice because the Jews of His time, repenting of sin and asking God for forgiveness, always offered the sacrifice for sin legalized by Moses; in essence, here we are talking about the sinner turning to God with a prayer for the forgiveness of his sins. And so, to such and such a sinner the Lord says: before asking Me for forgiveness of your sins, go and make peace with your brothers whom you have offended! Give them everything you unjustly received from them.
Continuing His instructions to tax collectors and sinners, the Lord said (you know this saying): “ He who is faithful in a little is also faithful in much, and he who is unfaithful in a little is also unfaithful in much.(). You understand that you cannot entrust a larger matter to someone who turned out to be unfaithful and dishonest in even the smallest things. You are seeking the salvation of your souls; do you want to receive much, therefore be faithful in little things, be faithful in the unrighteous wealth which you possess; act with him according to My instructions, and only then can you count on receiving true wealth, the bliss of eternal life. And if it turns out that you're in this were not faithful to unrighteous wealth, That who will believe you to be true?"
With this, Christ ended His instructions to publicans and sinners about the need to return, according to their ownership, unjustly acquired wealth. But He could not stop there, since fulfilling this instruction is only the first (after repentance) step towards salvation; He could not leave His listeners in the dark about what to do next, having taken this first step? He, undoubtedly, had to illuminate for them the entire path leading to the eternal abodes; and He really illuminated it, as evidenced by His final words about the incompatibility of serving God and mammon.
In the Russian Synodal translation of the Gospel, in verses nine and eleven of the 16th chapter of the Gospel of Luke, it speaks of unjust wealth; in the translation into Church Slavonic, in verse nine, instead of words - make friends with unrighteous wealth- said: make yourself a friend from the mammon of untruth. When comparing these two translations with the Greek text of the Gospel of Luke, the translation into Church Slavonic turns out to be correct. In the same way, that is, in accordance with the Greek text, the eleventh verse should also be translated, for it also says about mammon of lies, but both in our Russian translation and in Church Slavonic, in the eleventh verse, the words “in the mammon of unrighteousness” are translated by the words: “in unrighteous wealth” and “in unrighteous estate.”
“Mammon” is a Syrian idol, a pagan god of covetousness, to whom they prayed and made sacrifices. It is clear that only an evil spirit could inspire people that there is a God who protects covetousness. And therefore, Jesus Christ, not without intention (as Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow says), called unrighteous wealth mammon of untruth. By calling it that, He thereby expressed that unjustly acquired wealth is the wealth of the devil, satanic, from which one must quickly get rid of, so as not to remain a servant of Satan.
So, the Lord commanded publicans and sinners to quickly free themselves from mammon of lies, to be faithful fulfillers of this commandment regarding the unrighteous wealth that weighs on them. Proceeding then with instructions on what to do next, the Lord could not help but draw the attention of His listeners to the wealth, no matter how small it may be, which they acquired and are acquiring in honest, righteous ways, which will remain with them after the return of everything unrighteously acquired. .
If mammon of untruth, that is, property obtained through unclean ways, we can rightly call the wealth of the devil, watered with the tears of innocent victims of covetousness, which was acquired by evil and in the name of evil, then, on the other hand, any honest earnings can be called God's property. Although everything that exists belongs to God alone and therefore everything that is in our possession is for us someone else's but this word “alien” is especially applicable to property that has been righteously acquired: it was acquired by us by the grace of God, it was given to us by God for temporary management, and we must manage this “alien” property in accordance with the will of its Owner, that is, God. It is God’s will that we feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter strangers, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison... (), in a word, provide assistance to our neighbors in need, whom Christ called His lesser brothers (). We need to manage this strangers property so that, as a reward for it, you receive yours, that which alone can belong to man, that is, the bliss of eternal life. On earth we are temporary wanderers; Living an earthly life, we only pass the path leading to eternity; and therefore everything earthly is not ours, someone else's; is our– where we are going.
These concepts are about our And stranger were known to all the disciples of Jesus Christ, that is, to all those who followed Him and learned from His word, since this is the basis of the teaching of Christ. Of course, the publicans and sinners who now surrounded the Lord knew this, so there was no need to repeat to them these truths, generally known to all the Lord’s disciples. And therefore, commanding them to rule God, that is, strangers for them, property in accordance with the will of the Master God, and promising them for this that which constitutes the only property of people, the Lord warns them: If it turns out that V this you were not faithful to someone else, who will give you what is yours??
Be faithful in this foreign thing; remember that you are only stewards, servants of God and must serve God alone; remember that no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be zealous for one and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. You cannot indulge in your passion of covetousness; You cannot love perishable wealth, surrendering to it with all the strength of your soul, idolatry before it, and at the same time serve God, for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also(). So, if you want to be saved, then first of all, return according to your belongings everything you have acquired unrighteously and make peace with everyone you have offended; then look at that part of your wealth that you honestly acquired as God’s property, to which you are assigned as temporary stewards, obligated to give an account of the management. Do not make an idol out of it, but manage it in accordance with the will of God; do not refuse all possible help to those in need; be faithful stewards of someone else's property entrusted to you, no matter how small it may be, and then you will receive your true riches in the eternal abodes of your Heavenly Father.
This is the meaning of the parable of the unfaithful steward. With this parable, Christ showed the path to salvation for covetous people who had accumulated wealth in unrighteous ways. Preaching that salvation is possible for all sinners, no matter what level of moral decline they stand at, the Lord could not, of course, leave without hope of salvation such sinners as tax collectors, who were despised by everyone and rejected by everyone. And so, encouraging them, He teaches them with His parable where they should begin and how to continue their march along the path to the Kingdom of Heaven. This parable cannot have any other meaning, and if we want to look for any other meaning, we will inevitably get confused in our vain searches.
The publicans and sinners who surrounded the Savior did not ask for an explanation of it, and therefore understood it. It must be assumed that the path to salvation indicated in it became known to other tax collectors who had not personally heard it. Zacchaeus, the chief of publicans, convinces us of this, who, soon receiving Jesus Christ in his house, said to Him: God! I will give half of my property to the poor, and if I have offended anyone, I will repay him fourfold.(). Zacchaeus decided not only to return according to his ownership everything he had unjustly acquired, but also to reward those offended by him, giving them four times more than what he received from them; not limiting himself to this, he pledged to use half of his estate for charitable causes, to help his neighbors in need.
This is how all covetous people who have unjustly become rich should act. Unfortunately, we often see how rich people, who have made their fortune through unclean means, devote insignificant particles of their unrighteous wealth to charitable causes, while they themselves “feast brilliantly” (see). And such rich people think to save their sinful souls with these handouts. But they don’t give their own, but someone else’s, and therefore cannot atone for their sins even with widespread charity at someone else’s expense. They will not be saved if they do not act according to the instructions of our Lord Jesus Christ. Return, covetous people, everything you have acquired dishonestly, reconcile with those who have been offended and disadvantaged by you, and then do charity from your own pocket with money honestly earned. Give to those offended by you All what was taken from them is unjust; do not hide anything to yourself; and don’t make the excuse that you don’t know all those you have offended and therefore cannot return to them what you have appropriated! If you really don’t know them, if you can’t reconcile with each of them so that they have nothing against you, then at least don’t use what you have acquired dishonestly, but give everything to the poor! And when you are cleansed of the satanic wealth that weighs on you, then do good at your own expense; and only then can you hope that the Lord will accept your pure gift, no matter how small it may be, and will open His eternal abodes to you.
Yes, the publicans and sinners who surrounded the Lord understood this parable, and, undoubtedly, joy shone on their faces. Only the Pharisees and scribes, who reproached Jesus for communicating with sinners, did not understand it. They expressed their misunderstanding of the meaning of the parable of the unfaithful steward very boldly: they laughed at Jesus Christ. The Evangelist explains the reason for their impudent laughter by their love of money.
These money-loving scribes and Pharisees were the true exponents of the views of most Jews of their time on wealth. Wealth is the golden idol that they worshiped and served. Jews were distinguished by their love of money from ancient times, and then, taken into captivity in Babylon and, upon release from captivity, not returning to the promised land, but scattered throughout all countries of the world (only 42,000 returned), the Jews were strangers everywhere, guests, and, moreover, very unwanted. Realizing their alienation from the whole world, they became even more money-loving, since they saw all their strength only in money. They remembered the prediction of Moses: The Lord your God will set you above all the nations of the earth... and you will lend to many nations, but you yourself will not borrow (). And they turned all their efforts to accumulating silver and gold and passed on these distinctive traits of their character to their descendants, who to this day sacredly keep the behests of their ancestors.
It is clear that the money-loving scribes and Pharisees found Jesus’ teachings about returning according to their ownership everything unrighteously acquired ridiculous. Return money, even if it was acquired dishonestly, when all the power, and, consequently, all the happiness of such imaginary righteous people as these scribes and Pharisees lies in it? Yes, this is funny! And they started laughing.
The Lord meekly answered them to their impudent laughter: You show yourself to be righteous before people; you try to deceive them with your supposed righteousness; but God knows your hearts(). You consider money and wealth in general to be an earthly force that elevates people; but know this What wealth that you think is so high, so powerful among people, before God- nothing, abomination, preventing many from achieving the bliss of eternal life. You reassure yourself that you strictly observe all the rituals established by Moses and the tradition of the elders, and through this you will enter the Kingdom of the Messiah, as if prepared for you. But you are mistaken: by fulfilling the will of God, expressed in the law and prophecies, people were saved only before the appearance of John. With his coming The Kingdom of God is preached, and every effort(and not belonging only to the family of Israel) enters it ().
Jesus, preaching to the people, said: "See that you beware of covetousness, for a man's life does not depend on the abundance of his possessions." Then He told them a parable: “A certain rich man had a good harvest in his field, and he reasoned with himself: “What should I do? I have nowhere to gather my fruits.” And he said: “This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and I will gather there all my grain and all my goods, and I will say to my soul: soul! You have a lot of good things for many years: rest, eat, drink, be merry!" But God said to him: "You fool! this night your soul will be taken from you; Who will get what you have prepared?" This is what happens to those who store up treasures for themselves and are not rich in God. Jesus goes on to say: "So do not seek what you can eat or what you will drink, and do not be anxious, because that all this is what the people of this world are looking for; but your Father knows that you have need; Seek above all else the Kingdom of God, and all these things will be added to you. Fear not, little flock! For your Father has been pleased to give you the Kingdom. Sell your property and give alms. Prepare for yourselves sheaths that do not wear out, a treasure that does not fail in heaven, where no thief approaches and where no moth destroys; For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
LUKE 12:15-21, 29-34
This parable of Jesus talks about two people whose lives were very different. One person lived richly, but unrighteously, the other - in poverty, but righteously. “There was a certain rich man, dressed in purple and fine linen, and every day he feasted brilliantly. There was also a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate covered in scabs and wanted to feed on the crumbs falling from the rich man’s table, and the dogs came and licked his scabs The beggar died and was carried by the Angels to Abraham's bosom; the rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, being in torment, he raised his eyes, saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his bosom and, crying out, said: “Father Abraham! have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame." But Abraham said: "Son! remember that you have already received your good in your life, and Lazarus received your evil; now he is comforted here, and you suffer; and above all this, a great gulf has been established between us and you, so that those who want to cross from here to you cannot, nor can they cross from there to us.” Then he said: “So I ask you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers; let him testify to them, so that they do not come to this place of torment." Abraham said to him: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them." He said: "No, Father Abraham! but if someone comes to them from the dead, they will repent." Then Abraham said to him: "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then even if someone were raised from the dead, they will not believe." What is interesting about this parable is that in it the rich man is exposed nameless, and the poor man is called Lazarus. This seems to confirm that names once famous on earth are forgotten, and the righteous, unknown to the world, are glorified in heaven. From the parable it is clear that death, interrupting a person’s earthly existence, opens the beginning of life in eternity. The way we lived on earth will predetermine our future eternal life.
LUKE 16:19-31
Parable of the Lost Sheep.
Jesus loved the human race so much that he left the glory of heaven and came to earth to seek and save those who perished in their sins, those who had apostatized from God and those who had forgotten Him. He, like the Good Shepherd, is always looking for the lost sheep. In one of His parables, Jesus said: “Which of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it? And when he has found it, he will take it on his shoulders with joy and When he comes home, he will call his friends and neighbors and say to them: “Rejoice with me: I have found my lost sheep.” I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent. ". There will be great joy in heaven when even now one of the readers who has not yet accepted Jesus into his heart turns to Him with a heartfelt prayer of repentance. Jesus will understand, hear, forgive, give peace and tranquility to the soul.
LUKE 15:3-7
“Which of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it? And having found it, he will take it on his shoulders with joy and, having come home, calls together his friends and neighbors and he will say to them: Rejoice with me, I have found my lost sheep! I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance" (Luke 15:1-7) .
The parable of the lost sheep explains that, as the ap. Paul (1 Timothy 2:4), God "wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." In this parable, the shepherd's compassion for the lost sheep was especially evident in the fact that He took her to your shoulders B and brought it back. The meaning of the parable is “that God cares about the conversion of sinners, and rejoices over them more than over those established in virtue” (Blessed Theophylact). The parable also explains that a person may (at least sometimes) not want to live with God and that when this happens, God "does many things" to "bring that person back." The parable makes it very clear that if ever the “lost sheep” thinks, “I don’t want to sin anymore, I want to live with God,” that person will be gladly taken back: in fact, this is exactly what God wants , and what God expects, and what He hopes for.
Given the parable's emphasis on God's interest in and love for each individual, it is interesting to note that in the Gospel of Thomas the stray sheep is presented as the "greatest" (and especially worthwhile) in order to look for it). At the same time, the meaning of the story is completely lost: “[The shepherd is looking for a sheep not because of its high value, but simply because it belongs to him and that without his help it will not find its way back"
Saved
This is a quote from a post by Googuenot Original post Parable of the Lost Sheep “Which of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it? And when he has found it, he will take it on his shoulders.. .
"/>CHAPTER 31. Parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin. Parable of the Prodigal Son. Parable of the Unfaithful Steward
The murmur of the Pharisees and scribes against Jesus for His association with sinners
Wherever Jesus went, countless crowds of people gathered around Him. In the crowd there were always Pharisees and scribes who came to tempt Him, as well as publicans and sinners who gathered to listen to Him and repent of their sins. The Pharisees were proud of their imaginary righteousness; they were confident that, having made the established sacrifices and observed all the rituals, they no longer needed the teachings of Jesus, much less repentance. The spiritual mood of tax collectors and sinners was expressed in the prayer: “God! Be merciful to me, a sinner.”
Christ, who came not to call the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance, always went towards everyone who was aware of their sinfulness and wanted to change their way of life; if it was necessary to go to his house to save a sinner, He went; if it was necessary to lie down with him at the dinner table, He did not hesitate to eat with him. But such His treatment of sinners, such His mercy outraged the Pharisees and scribes; they considered it humiliating to their dignity not only to lend a helping hand to a fallen brother, but even to simply touch him, since touching a sinner was considered desecration and caused cleansing ablutions and sacrifice; in their opinion, only sinners could have fellowship with sinners, and therefore if Jesus did not disdain them, then, consequently, He Himself was a sinner, and if He is a sinner, then why do the people follow Him? This outraged them, and they openly expressed their indignation.
Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin
“Are you accusing Me (Christ said) that I accept sinners who have fallen behind God, even go to them, bring them to repentance and, saving them from destruction, return them to God? But you also do the same in relation to what is dear and close to you. Which of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it? (Luke 15:4). Or what woman, having ten drachmas, if she loses one drachma, does not light a candle and sweep the room and search carefully until she finds it (Luke 15:8). If you do this, losing your property, then why do you reproach Me when I save people who have fallen behind God their Father? The good shepherd, having found a lost sheep, does not punish it for falling behind the flock, does not even drive it to the flock, but out of joy that he has found it, takes it on his shoulders and carries it home, calls his friends and neighbors and tells them : Rejoice with me: I have found my lost sheep. I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent (Luke 15:6-7). So I rejoice when I return to God the lost sheep of His flock.”
Disarmed by these words, the Pharisees and scribes remained angrily silent; if they were capable of recognizing their errors, they would be ashamed. But were they the only ones Jesus shamed with his parables? Are we not guilty of the same pharisaism? Do we also avoid communicating with fallen brothers for fear of humiliating our dignity? Do we not treat them with the same arrogant contempt that was the hallmark of the Pharisees? Let us be ashamed of such similarity and follow Christ; Let us go with Him to those who need our help, no matter how low they may have fallen; Let us turn to them not with reproach, not with dry edification, but let us warm them with affection and all-conquering love; Let us look at them as sick people who need not punishment for their illness, but caring treatment, despite the fact that they are sick through their own fault, and if we manage to save the dying man and lead him to the straight path, then we will understand that the joy that Christ rejoiced in bringing sinners to sincere repentance; we will understand that we are called to serve not to increase the joy of people who are happy without us, but to deliver from sin, grief and despair those who have nothing to rejoice at.
Some interpreters ask questions: how could the good shepherd, saving one lost sheep, leave his entire flock in the desert? And who should be meant by the ninety-nine sheep that were not lost and the nine drachmas that were not lost?
The answer to the first question is this: the shepherd left his flock not to the mercy of fate, not in the wild desert, but on a vast pasture, considered deserted only because of its desolation and safety from thieves and robbers.
There are different opinions on the second question. Some interpreters believe that by ninety-nine sheep and nine drachmas we must mean angels and the souls of dead righteous people who have no need for repentance. Others think that here we are talking about those imaginary righteous people, such as, for example, the Pharisees, who are not aware of their sins and therefore reject any attempts to save them. Both one and the other explanation can hardly be considered correct: the angels and souls of the dead righteous cannot form a single herd with sinners living on earth, one in the exact meaning spoken of in the parable; It is also impossible to consider the Pharisees and similar imaginary righteous people as unlost sheep and unlost drachmas, since they are completely lost both for the Kingdom of God on earth and for the Kingdom of Heaven.
With all such failures in explaining the secondary words of any parable of Christ, it should be borne in mind that Christ, taking examples for His parables from the everyday life of His listeners, explained His teaching only with the main idea of the story, and not with its petty details, which sometimes had no direct meaning. relationship to the main idea. If we assume this situation, then it will be useless to try to interpret, at any cost, all the details of each parable without exception; chasing them, you can miss the main idea; you can, as the proverb says, miss the forest for the trees.
Parable of the Prodigal Son
Continuing his denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees and at the same time teaching the rest of His listeners, Christ uttered the parable of the prodigal son. A certain man had two sons; the youngest was tired of being under the care of his father, he wanted to live a cheerful, wild life away from his parents’ home; for this purpose, he asked his father to allocate him, and when he received the allotment, he, having collected everything that fell to his share, went to a distant place and there squandered all his wealth, living dissolutely. The onset of need, and then hunger, forced him to take a job herding pigs. Throughout his dissolute life, he never thought about his father, and only now, when he reached a desperate situation, when he had to die of hunger, he remembered him and, hoping for his mercy, said: I will get up and go to my father and say to him: Father! I have sinned against heaven and before you(Luke 15:18). He got up and went to his father. And the father, as soon as he saw his son approaching him in rags, immediately understood everything, took pity on the unfortunate man, did not wait for him to reach him and respectfully ask for forgiveness, he himself ran towards him, hugged him, fell on his neck and kissed him, and then ordered him to be dressed in his best clothes and to slaughter a fatted calf: Let's eat and have fun! For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. And started having fun(Luke 15:23–24). His eldest son, returning from the field and learning the reason for his father’s joy, was offended, angry and did not go to his father and brother, and when his father came out to call him, he said reproachfully: I have served you for so many years and have never violated your orders, but you never gave me even a kid so that I could have fun with my friends; and when this son of yours, who had wasted his wealth with harlots, came, you killed the fatted calf for him (Luke 15:29-30). The indignation of the eldest son was so great that he did not want to call the culprit of the fun his brother, but said contemptuously: this son is yours. The feeling of love for a brother, even one who had fallen and therefore needed support, was alien to him; he loved only himself and was ready to sacrifice the fate of his brother to his selfishness; such a son, who squandered his fortune with harlots, should, in his opinion, be driven away, and not accepted with open arms; let him die! It's your own fault! There is no point in feeling sorry for him!
This is how we often reason and act this way, too, sinners, when a brother who has sinned against us in repentance asks us for forgiveness. We consider it our special duty to first show him all his sins, often even exaggerate their significance, mock him, irritate all his heart wounds and only forgive him after such moral torture is over. By doing this, we justify ourselves by saying that we are doing all this for the benefit of the sinned brother, that by doing this we bring him to repentance and awareness of his sin. But is it? After all, the one who asks for forgiveness, who says - I have sinned against heaven and before you,- he has already recognized his sin, repented and, therefore, does not need to bring him to repentance.
This is not how the Merciful God acts. It is enough for a sinner to come to his senses, come to his senses, look back at his past, condemn himself, in repentance, even if forced, remember the mercy of God, say - I'll go toTo my fathermy, and really go; and the Merciful Lord will joyfully accept His prodigal son, who was dead and came to life, was lost and was found.
How often do we shy away from God only because, due to the severity of our sins, we recognize ourselves as unworthy of forgiveness! How often do we say: “My sins are so great that God will not forgive me, no matter how much I pray to Him; therefore it is useless to pray.” Reasoning this way, we attribute to God our shortcomings, our imperfections: we ourselves would not forgive our brother, who sinned just as much against us, and therefore we think that God will not forgive us if we turn to Him. But a careful reading of the parable of the Prodigal Son should convince us of the boundless love and boundless mercy of God. Let us remember this parable more often and, no matter how sinful we may be, let us not despair; Having realized the severity of our sins, let us turn away from the sinful path, remember that we have a Father who grieves for us and awaits our return to the path of Divine truth; let's say: I'll go toTo my father my! And let us go to Him boldly, hoping for His mercy. But, counting on God’s mercy, let us ourselves forgive all who have sinned against us, remembering the words of Jesus Christ: if you do not forgive people their sins, then your Father will not forgive you your sins(Matt. 6:15); and let us forgive not with malice, but with joy, because the one who sinned against us recognized his sin and, therefore, was almost freed from it, with the same joy with which the father of the parable forgave his prodigal son.
The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin speak of God's mercy towards people who accidentally fall out of the rut and take the slippery path of sin. Such people have not yet died, are not lost to the Kingdom of God: they can still be brought back. And so, the Lord comes to them, sending them some kind of test that makes them come to their senses in time, repent and return to the straight path, and when they return to the flock of Christ, He does not punish them for falling behind him, but with accepts them with joy. The parable of the prodigal son speaks of God’s mercy towards a sinner who consciously gave himself up to a sinful, dissolute life and longed to enjoy this life; but when, on the verge of death, this sinner remembered God and went to his Father in repentance, then God joyfully accepted and forgave such a prodigal son. Love for a son, even a prodigal one, makes the Father rejoice that the missing one has been found, that the dead one has come to life, and these two feelings - love and joy - do not even allow for the possibility of any punishment or retribution; they lead only to unconditional forgiveness, complete oblivion of the entire past...
After finishing the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus spoke the parable of the unfaithful steward.
Parable of the Unfaithful Steward
One man was rich and had a steward, against whom it was reported to him that he was wasting his property; and calling him, he said to him: What is this I hear about you? give an account of your management, for you can no longer manage. Then the steward said to himself: What should I do? my lord takes away the stewardship of the house from me; I can’t dig, I’m ashamed to ask; I know what to do so that they will accept me into their homes when I am removed from managing the house. And calling his master’s debtors, each one separately, he said to the first: How much do you owe my master? He said: one hundred measures of oil. And he said to him: take your receipt and sit down quickly, write: fifty. Then he said to another: how much do you owe? He answered: one hundred measures of wheat. And he said to him: take your receipt and write: eighty. And the lord praised the unfaithful steward for acting wisely; for the sons of this age are more perceptive in their generation than the sons of light. And I say to you: make friends for yourself with unrighteous wealth, so that when you become poor, they will receive you into eternal abodes. He who is faithful in a little is also faithful in much, and he who is unfaithful in a little is also unfaithful in much. So, if you have not been faithful in unrighteous wealth, who will trust you with what is true? And if you have not been faithful in what belongs to others, who will give you what is yours? No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be zealous for one and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
This parable is considered the most difficult to interpret, so difficult that some interpreters completely refuse to explain it and think that the final saying of the Lord could have been distorted by copyists.
Without rejecting the difficulty of interpreting this parable, I still cannot agree with the opinion that the text is damaged, since this opinion is not based on anything. If we explain all the difficulties that we encounter when reading the Gospel by distorting the text during correspondence, then we will come to deny the authenticity of the Gospel, that is, the accuracy of the lists we have with the manuscripts of the Evangelists themselves. I think that if we don’t understand something, we should, without any hesitation, admit it; when looking for the cause of misunderstanding, we must look for it in ourselves, and not in the subject that is incomprehensible to us. After all, everything that we understand and know is an insignificant drop in comparison with the ocean of what is unknown to us.
Therefore, without accusing the scribes of distorting the Gospel, but on the contrary, considering the text of our lists to be correct with the manuscripts of the Evangelists, let us begin, with God’s help, to explain this most difficult parable to interpret.
The saying of the Lord - and I say to you, make friends with unrighteous wealth.(Luke 16:9) - was misinterpreted by many covetous people back in the first centuries of the spread of Christianity. Based on it, they said that it was enough to give the poor a portion of the stolen and robbed, and these poor, benefited by the criminal, would introduce, that is, beg the Lord to introduce him into the Kingdom of Heaven. Interpreting the saying of Jesus Christ in the same sense, Julian the Apostate mocked the entire teaching of the Lord.
But the Fathers of the Church, such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others, always rebelled against such a misinterpretation.
This is how John Chrysostom attacked such interpreters in his fiery speech:
“Listen to you (he said), who think to do good to your neighbors by murder and take the price of human souls! These are Jewish alms or, better said, satanic. There are, indeed, there are still those today who, having robbed quite a lot of people, consider themselves completely right if they throw away ten or a hundred pieces of gold. The prophet says about them: you make the altar of the Lord wet with tears(Mal. 2, 13). Christ does not want to eat the fruits of covetousness; He does not accept such food. Why do you insult the Lord by bringing unclean things to Him? It is better not to give anything than to give someone else's. Tell me, if you saw two people, one naked and the other clothed, and, having undressed the latter, clothed the first, would you not have acted wrongly?” (St. John Chrysostom Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. 85, 3).
Blessed Theophylact, the exponent of ancient patristic interpretations, gives the following explanation of the parable:
“Every parable (he says) is hidden and figuratively explains the essence of some object, but it is not in all respects similar to the object it is taken to explain. Therefore, all parts of the parable should not be explained to the point of subtlety, but, having used the subject as decently as possible, the other parts should be omitted without attention, as being added for the sake of integrity of the parable, but having no correspondence with its subject. For, if we undertake to explain everything in fine detail, who is the steward, who put him in charge, who denounced him, who are the debtors, why one owes oil and another wheat, why it is said that they owed a hundred... and if all If we explore everything else with excessive curiosity, then we will obscure our speech and, forced by difficulties, perhaps we will end up with ridiculous explanations. Therefore, we must use this parable as much as possible.”
“The Lord (continues Blessed Theophylact) here wants to teach us how to manage well the wealth entrusted to us. And, firstly, we learn that we are not lords of property, for we have nothing of our own, but that we are stewards of someone else’s property, entrusted to us by the Master so that we manage it as He commands. The will of the Lord is such that we use what has been entrusted to us for the needs of our fellow servants, and not for our own pleasures. Unrighteous is the wealth that the Lord has entrusted to us to use for the needs of our brothers and co-workers, but we keep it for ourselves. When they inform on us and we have to be removed from the management of the estate, that is, expelled from this life here, when it is we who will give an account of the management of the estate, we learn that on this day we cannot work (for then it is not the time to do) , nor to ask for alms (for it is indecent), since the virgins who asked for alms were called fools (Matthew 15:8). What remains to be done? To share this property with our brothers, so that when we move from here, that is, we move from this life, the poor will accept us into eternal abodes. For the poor in Christ have been assigned eternal abodes as their inheritance, into which they can receive those who have shown them love here through the distribution of wealth, although wealth, as belonging to the Master, first had to be distributed to the poor.”
“The Lord also teaches that faithful in small things, that is, who managed well the property entrusted to him in this world, and largely true(Luke 16:10), that is, in the next century he is worthy of true wealth. Small calls earthly wealth, since it is truly small, even insignificant, because it is fleeting, and to many - heavenly wealth, since it always abides and increases. Therefore, whoever turned out to be unfaithful in this earthly wealth and appropriated what was given for the common benefit of his brothers to himself will not be worthy of even that a lot, but will be rejected as infidel. Explaining what has been said, he adds: If you have not been faithful in unrighteous wealth, who will trust you with the true?(Luke 16:11). He called unrighteous wealth the wealth that remains with us: for if it were not unrighteous, we would not have it. And now, since we have it, it is obvious that it is unrighteous, since it was detained by us and was not distributed to the poor. So, whoever manages this estate poorly and incorrectly, how can he be entrusted with true wealth? And who will give us what is ours when we mismanage someone else’s, that is, property? Our destiny is heavenly and divine wealth, for there is our dwelling. Until now, the Lord has taught us how to properly manage wealth. And since the management of wealth according to the will of God is accomplished only with firm impartiality towards it, the Lord added this to His teaching: You cannot serve God and mammon(Luke 16:13), that is, it is impossible for one to be a servant of God who has become attached to wealth and, out of addiction to it, retains something for himself. Therefore, if you intend to properly manage wealth, then do not be enslaved to it, that is, do not have attachment to it, and you will truly serve God.”
So, according to Blessed Theophylact, any wealth in general that is retained by its owner for his own benefit is called unrighteous wealth. Distributing such wealth to the poor is the way indicated by the Lord of acquiring friends who can introduce their benefactor to eternal abodes.
That all earthly riches belong to God as the only Owner of everything that exists in the world, and that people who possess such riches are only temporary stewards, bailiffs, obliged to give an account to their Master - there can be no doubt about this. But that the stewards were obliged to distribute to the poor every last thread of the wealth entrusted to their management, leaving nothing for themselves - it is permissible to doubt this. Christ never condemned the use of earthly goods as gifts sent by God. He only demanded that we not consider ourselves complete masters and unaccountable stewards of these benefits. He demanded that we recognize these blessings as God’s property and, while managing them, do not forget His commandments about love for our neighbors and that good They did this to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter strangers, clothe the naked, visit those in hospitals and prisons... (Matthew 25:34-40). The evil vinedressers (Matt. 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16) were condemned not for using the fruits of the vineyard given to them to manage, but for not giving sent from the Owner of the fruits that He demanded - because they wanted to appropriate the vineyard for themselves. The Lord could not oblige us to give to the poor everything we have, leaving nothing for ourselves and our family. Therefore, the opinion of Blessed Theophylact that any wealth (and therefore part of it) retained by its owner for his own benefit should be considered unrighteous wealth can hardly be considered correct; and it seems to me that this is not even his direct opinion, it is simply an omission, something unspoken, which is confirmed by one expression of his “to share this estate with his brothers”; to divide with one’s brothers means to leave one’s share to be divided.
In addition, the explanation of Blessed Theophylact does not answer the most important questions that arise when reading the parable of the unfaithful steward: was the steward worthy of praise? Why did the Lord set him up as an example to follow? And why did He command to make friends with unrighteous wealth, if wealth in itself cannot be considered either righteous or unrighteous, but is called unrighteous either because of the criminality of its acquisition, or because of the criminality of the goals for which it is used, or because of a special attachment to him, by admiration for him, as before an idol, an idol? And could the Lord even say that the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven can be opened by unrighteous wealth? We do not find an answer to all these questions in the interpretation of Blessed Theophylact.
According to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, “the true meaning of the parable is determined by the following features. The bailiff manages someone else's estate. Likewise, every person in real life uses wealth and other gifts of God’s creation and providence not as an independent possessor, obligated to no one; reporting, but as an overseer, obliged to report to God, to Whom alone everything originally and essentially belongs. The bailiff must finally leave the department and give an account to it; similarly, every person with the end of earthly life must leave what he disposed of on earth and give an account of his actions to the Court of God. The dismissed bailiff sees that he will remain poor and homeless; Likewise, those who depart from earthly life see that they are poor in deeds and virtues that would open for them one of the heavenly abodes. What should the poor bailiff do? What's a meager soul to do? The steward has the hope of being accepted into the homes of those to whom he has done a favor out of the abundance of management entrusted to him. The soul, despite the lack of perfection, has the hope that the needy and mourning, to whom it gave help and consolation from its earthly well-being, through the grateful prayer of faith will help it to open the door of eternal shelter, which they open for themselves through faithfulness in the feat of patience. Of course, the word of the parable clearly shows that, using worldly wisdom in the semblance of spiritual wisdom, it does not confuse them at all: the sons of this age are more perceptive than the sons of light in their generation(Luke 16:8). That is: what a pity that the children of worldly wisdom have enough skill, in the midst of destruction, to arrange their temporary well-being by dark means, but the children of light, students of divine wisdom, often do not use enough care to, with its light, with its power, equalize and make your way to eternal shelters! To explain the meaning of words - make friends with unrighteous wealth(Luke 16:9), or, as stated in the Slavic translation, Metropolitan Philaret says that “the Syrians had an idol called mammon and was superstitiously revered as the patron of wealth. From this the same name is transferred to wealth itself: mammon. The Lord, of course, not without reason, instead of the simple name of wealth, used the word mammon, in which the concept of idolatry is combined with the concept of wealth; and another reason for this can be proposed, as the one that I wanted to mean not just wealth, but wealth collected with passion, possessed with passion, becoming an idol of the heart. This is how the meaning of the whole expression is determined: mammon of untruth. This means wealth, which through addiction to it has become unrighteous or vicious; for in sacred language, untruth can mean vice in general, just as truth can mean virtue in general. What, then, does the instruction mean: make yourself a friend from the mammon of untruth? This means: wealth, which through addiction easily becomes for you a mammon of untruth, a substance of vice, an idol, turn into good acquisition through doing good to the poor and gain in them spiritual friends and prayer books for you. As for those rich who are not only not free from the untruth of addiction to wealth, but are also burdened by the untruth of ill-acquisition, they look in vain for an easy way to cover up their untruth in the parable of the unrighteous steward. But if they want true instruction that actually applies to them, they will find it in the instruction of the tax collector Zacchaeus.”
The final part of this interpretation is quite correct; but, unfortunately, the saint did not explain why this conclusion should be considered a necessary conclusion from the meaning of the entire parable. The unfaithful manager of the parable was burdened not by the “mammon of untruth” that the saint speaks of, but by that very “untruth of evil acquisition,” which, according to his own statement, cannot be covered up in the manner indicated in the parable. Therefore, the saint’s very conclusion cannot be considered a logical conclusion from the parable itself, if we understand it the way he understood it. Moreover, this interpretation does not answer the most important questions and perplexities that arise when reading the parable.
Some interpreters believe that a sinful person, who has not done anything good to justify his sinful life, who is rich, so to speak, only in sins, can use this unrighteous wealth to his advantage and gain friends with it, people who pray for him before God. If he realizes all the sinfulness of his life and, instead of hiding his sins, will reveal his sinful soul to everyone, present to them all the horror and all the destructiveness of such a life and thereby warn them against imitating him and sinners like him, then many will abstain from sin ; With such a warning, such a salvation for them, an outspoken sinner will do a good deed for them and make friends in them, and these friends will beg the Heavenly Father for his forgiveness. There is no doubt that such a sinner sincerely repents of his sins if he brings nationwide repentance for them; for such repentance he may deserve forgiveness, like the prodigal son of the parable; and if by his open repentance he still keeps others from sin, then he does a good deed towards them, that is, he creates fruit worthy of repentance, and therefore can be accepted into the eternal abodes, despite the multitude of sins. Thus, this interpretation is completely consistent with the spirit of Christ’s teaching, but, unfortunately, it cannot even be called an interpretation of the parable we are considering. An unfaithful steward, who accepted many sins on his soul during the management of his master’s estate, if he repented, it was only before God and his conscience; He did not confess his sins to any of the people, did not expose his sin-wounded soul to anyone, and did not warn anyone against a sinful life. Therefore, the proposed interpretation cannot be considered correct.
There are many interpretations of the parable of the unfaithful steward; but since none of them gives a clear, leaving no doubt, answer to the above questions, I will not present them here; I will limit myself only to the most widespread opinion among theologians about the meaning and significance of this parable.
It is believed that by the tributary image of a lord who had a manager, one must understand God Himself; under an unfaithful steward - people who use the wealth given to them by God not in accordance with the will of God proclaimed to them, that is, they do not help their neighbors in need. The master of the parable’s demand for an account from his steward is equivalent to God’s demand for an account from every person who has moved into eternity. By debtors we mean all those in need of outside help, and by friends who receive a retired steward into their homes - angels and saints of God.
For reasons that will be expressed below, I believe that this interpretation also leaves many perplexities unexplained.
Recently an explanation of the parable of the unfaithful steward by Professor Archpriest T. Butkevich appeared in the press (see Church Gazette, 1911, nos. 1–9).
Explaining this parable, Professor T. Butkevich asks the question: why did the master of the parable not only not bring his unfaithful steward to justice, but even praised him?
In order to answer this question, Professor T. Butkevich first speaks, and in great detail, about the Jewish rich and their managers: “It must be recognized as a fact beyond doubt that Jews have always exhibited passions more than other peoples.” greed and covetousness. Beginning with Moses, all the Old Testament and God-inspired writers, especially David, Solomon, Jesus son of Sirach and the prophets, agree that many ancient Jews, having forgotten Jehovah and His commandments, often did not disdain any means for their enrichment: they did not disdain deception, theft, even robbery and robberies of merchant caravans. But profiteering in trade and usury were especially widespread among Jews: a 100% loan did not seem to be arranged on difficult terms. If five talents were given by other five talents, this did not surprise the Jew; but he sought to ensure that one mine brought him ten minas (Matt. 25:20; Luke 19:16). The loan was secured not only by a receipt and pledge of the debtor, but also by the guarantee of other persons. If the debtor’s property was not enough to repay the debt, the creditor could throw the debtor into prison or turn him and his entire family into eternal slavery.”
“By the time of the earthly life of our Lord Jesus Christ, the simple Jewish people, burdened with heavy Roman taxes and taxes on the temple, tithes in favor of the priests and Levites, oppressed by self-interested creditors and tax collectors, generally lived in great poverty and need. But the poorer the people were, the more pronounced their poverty was, the more striking were those few faces who owned great wealth and surrounded themselves with purely oriental luxury.”
The Jewish rich people contemporary to Christ were known as the “princes of Jerusalem,” lived in Jerusalem in their own palaces, the structure and luxury of which resembled the palaces of the Roman Caesars, and they also set up country dachas for summer holidays and entertainment. They owned rich fields sown with wheat, as well as vineyards and orchards of olive trees. But their main income came from trade and industry. The “prince’s” own ships brought him silver from the richest Spanish mines, and the caravans he sent to the east brought silk fabrics and various spices. In all the coastal cities before Gibraltar, the “princes of Jerusalem” had large trading warehouses, banking offices and agents.
“It goes without saying that the “princes of Jerusalem” could not personally conduct all their complex trade affairs and manage their estates. Imitating the Roman emperors, they, dressed in purple and fine linen, feasted brilliantly every day (Luke 16:19), and in every estate, in every office, on every ship they had their trusted agents or stewards And bailiffs.
Receiving from his master only general instructions regarding the prices of goods or rental [ The original spelling has been preserved. - approx. scan author] payments for gardens and fields, the managers themselves rented fields and vineyards to the poor residents; they themselves entered into contracts with tenants and kept these contracts with them; They themselves carried on trade. The “prince” considered it humiliating for himself to personally check the money delivered to him by agents and managers to the chief treasurer, who was always at his house. He completely calmed down when the treasurer reported to him that the stewards were promptly delivering from the estates what was assigned to them.”
The “prince” set a certain rent for his gardens, vineyards and fields, but the manager rented them out at a higher price and turned the surplus to his own benefit; In addition, tenants usually paid rent not in money, but in products, and the manager sold them and presented them to his master in cash. All this gave the managers complete scope for abuse, and they, taking advantage of their position, oppressed the poor tenants and profited at their expense.
Having characterized the Jewish rich and their managers in this way, Professor Butkevich says that when the master of the parable announced to his manager that he could no longer manage his estate and demanded that he submit a report, the manager, reasoning with himself, looked for a way out of his difficult situation. provisions. Left after his dismissal from service without any means of subsistence, he foresaw that he would have to either take on menial work, that is, dig soil in orchards and vineyards as a laborer, or beg for alms. But (speaks) I can’t dig, I’m ashamed to ask(Luke 16:3). Finally, he found the outcome and calls the debtors, that is, the tenants, to his master. That these were really tenants of gardens and fields is clear from the fact that in the receipts their debts are indicated not in money, but in agricultural products (olive oil, wheat). Although agricultural products were often sold on credit, in such cases the debt was always indicated in receipts as money, not food.
Having called the tenants, each separately, the manager invites them to rewrite their rental receipts and reduce the amount of their debts in new ones. The manager could have completely destroyed the receipts and thus especially endeared himself to the tenants, but he did not do this. Why? Of course, not because he was afraid of responsibility. If the manager’s act is considered criminal, then does it really matter whether he is held accountable for the waste of all the entrusted property or part of it? There was nothing to pay, and criminal liability is the same in both cases.
Having thus the opportunity to completely destroy the rental receipts, the manager limited himself to reducing the debts of the tenants. And for this, the gentleman not only did not put him on trial, but even praised him. This praise proves that, by reducing the amount of tenants’ debts, the steward did not cause any damage to his master and did not commit anything criminal. But what did he do? Harassing the tenants when renting fields and gardens to them, he took from them a rent higher than the amount that was assigned by his master, and took all the excess for himself. Now, looking for a way out of his difficult situation, he remembered the tenants whom he oppressed; his conscience spoke to him, he repented and wanted to make amends for his sin before them with a good deed. He called them and forgave them only those excess rents that he negotiated from them in his favor, and since these surpluses were unequal, he forgave one 50% of his debt, and the other only 20%.
“With this explanation, it becomes clear why the master of the parable did not put his steward on trial, but praised him. The owner got his; his interests were not harmed; Why could he be angry with his manager? But he could praise him, for his steward, who had previously been a bad man, now turned out to be not only prudent but also honest, noble, who refused to take advantage of what belonged to him according to human justice, but not according to conscience.”
The Russian translation of the Gospel says that the master praised the steward, that shrewdly entered; Meanwhile, “the Greek word Frokhotsos is found nowhere in ancient Greek literature in the sense ingenuity it means: judicious, wise, prudent, insightful. Therefore, the Gospel text should be translated as follows: “And the lord praised the unfaithful steward, prudently entered". The Slavic translation is more accurate than the Russian one; there is a word there "wise" and not “smartly.”
“Some interpreters who recognize the steward’s act as immoral point out that even after this act the Savior calls the steward unfaithful. On this Fonk answers quite rightly: the manager here is called unfaithful not because with his last act he showed injustice to a particularly high degree, but because this act already belonged to him due to his previous behavior.” Factual evidence can also be found in favor of this explanation: Apostle Matthew forever remained with the nickname publican, Apostle Thomas - incorrect, Simon - leper".
Continuing the explanation of the parable, Prof. T. Butkevich says: “The Savior, having told how the master praised the unfaithful steward, added from Himself: for the sons of this age are more shrewd than the sons of light in their generation(Luke 16:8). The Lord called the sons of this age those people who, like publicans and the rulers of the “princes of Jerusalem,” are primarily occupied with worldly concerns and their own personal sensual interests. But who should be understood by “sons of light”?”
All interpreters of this parable by “sons of light” mean true followers of Christ, the righteous and saints of God. “But (says Prof. T. Butkevich) it’s hard to think that the righteous and saints of God, who can only be called “sons of light” (for in whom sin reigns, he is not yet a son of light), are less prudent than sinners, thieves, rogues, swindlers and generally people standing far from the light. It is difficult to recognize the holy Apostles as people who do not mind being cunning and borrowing external cunning from the sons of this age. For the sons of light, the righteous, eternal abodes have already been prepared by the Heavenly Father (Matthew 25:34); What else can the sons of this age give them? Why do they need worldly agility and resourcefulness? Such questions involuntarily come to mind, and it seems to us that we need to look for another explanation.
During His public ministry, Jesus Christ repeatedly called the Pharisees blind(Matt. 15, 14; 23, 16–17, 26). But the Pharisees thought of themselves differently: as experts in the Old Testament writings and fatherly traditions, they only considered themselves sons of light, but they could only recognize all others, especially publicans and sinners, as sons of darkness and this age. Therefore, it is very natural to assume that when pronouncing a parable, seeing among your listeners publicans And Pharisees, The Savior called the first the sons of this age, and the last (ironically, of course) the sons of light, as they called themselves. Then His saying: the sons of this age are more prudent than the sons of light, It will be clear and simple: publicans are more prudent than the Pharisees, which was repeatedly proven by publicans in practice. Our assumption finds special confirmation in the fact that in this verse Jesus Christ does not speak about the sons of light in general, but only about the sons of light of a kind, just as in Russian they say, for example, about a police watchman: the authorities of a kind or in their own way.”
Having given such excellent explanations of the above two essentially important questions and proving with references to the Old Testament books that in Scripture wealth is often called “unjust wealth,” Professor T. Butkevich moves on to the final words of the Savior: And I say to you: make friends for yourself with unrighteous wealth, so that they, when you became poor, received you into eternal abodes (Luke 16:9).
“What is this “unrighteous wealth” or, more precisely, “wealth of unrighteousness” with which the Lord commands us to gain friends, and through them eternal abodes? So that we can truly understand this instruction, Jesus Christ, of course, not by accident, but with intention, replaces the word “wealth” with the name of the Syrian idol of wealth mammon, that is, with the concept wealth connects the concept idolatry, because He wanted to mean not just wealth, but wealth collected with passion, becoming an idol of the heart. Therefore, the words of the Savior - make friends with unrighteous wealth - cannot be explained solely by the requirement to return stolen or plundered property and not use it; These words mean that in order to gain friends, and through them, eternal abodes, that is, to achieve our salvation, we must not follow the path followed by covetous people, misers and misers who own unrighteous wealth only for themselves, and for this we first of all We must suppress the passion of covetousness in our souls, and then devote ourselves to matters of Christian charity, as required of us by the absolute Owner of everything that exists - God, who taught us how we should manage the earthly goods temporarily entrusted to us. Under friends we must understand the beggars, the poor and those in need in general, that is little brothers Christ, who prepares places in the many abodes of His Father for all His followers. Eternal Abodes- this is the Kingdom of Heaven, for there is nothing eternal on earth. In many ancient manuscripts, instead of the Greek word, translated into Russian by the word impoverish, is a word meaning you will die. All interpreters agree that we are talking about death here; when you die, as it should have been translated into Russian from the Bible instead of the expression “when you become poor.”
In conclusion of his explanation of the parable of the unfaithful steward, Professor T. Butkevich says that “a rich man who has an unfaithful steward is an influx of God Himself; the unfaithful steward is the image of every sinner. Like the steward, the sinner enjoys for a long time the earthly goods given to him for a time; but he lives the same way as the steward, carelessly, dissolutely, not thinking that the hour will come when he will need to leave the earth and appear before the face of the Judge, from whom he received in his life all the gifts necessary for salvation and whose will was announced to him in a timely manner. The manager, called to the master, learned his irrevocable decision about his removal and thought about the question - what to do? Likewise, the Lord attracts the sinner’s heart to Himself and awakens in him the confidence in the need to leave the earthly vale and move beyond eternity. Hearing the decisive voice of God, the sinner’s conscience comes into extreme confusion and anxiety; The fatal question arises - what to do? Are there any earthly means of salvation? But, alas! Nothing can save a person from death. There is only one thing left: to submit to the will of God. The steward began by destroying in the receipts of his master's debtors that part of the payment that was intended to be his property. The repentant sinner must also begin the work of his salvation with this. He knows the will of God: if you forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. So, we must first of all be reconciled with our neighbors, forgive them all their sins against us and ask ourselves for forgiveness of our sins against them. The inflowing debtors are our neighbors; they are all sinners before God and therefore are called His debtors. The debtors of the parable are never called debtors of the steward, but only debtors of his master, although a significant part of their debt should have gone to the steward. With these features, the Lord revealed to His listeners the truth that before people, our neighbors, we are only relative debtors, and only before God alone are we debtors, that is, sinners, in the proper sense. The commandment to love our neighbors was given by God, and therefore, when we sin against our neighbors, we first of all sin against God Himself and His commandments. Therefore, just by fulfilling the commandment to love one’s neighbors, without fulfilling the commandment to love God, one cannot achieve the Kingdom of Heaven. Love for God is manifested in fulfilling His commandment to do good to the poor and needy. Angels and saints of God, as friends of a repentant sinner, intercede for him before God and thereby prepare for him an eternal home in the Kingdom of Heaven. Material wealth, although it is unjust in its method of acquisition and use, when disposed of in a manner pleasing to God, can assist a person in achieving the highest moral goals.”
This is Professor T. Butkevich’s explanation of the parable of the unfaithful steward.
From the book Connection and Translation of the Four Gospels author Tolstoy Lev NikolaevichPARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON (Luke XV, 11-32; Matthew XVIII, 14) And Jesus said: A certain man had two sons. The younger one said to his father: Father, separate me. And the father separated him. Soon this younger one took his entire part and went into the distance. And he squandered all his property. As he squandered everything, there was a great famine in that
From the book The Holy Biblical History of the New Testament author Pushkar Boris (Bep Veniamin) NikolaevichParable of the Lost Drachma Lk. 15:8-10 Man is priceless in the sight of God, and God seeks the conversion of the sinner throughout his entire life. “What woman,” Christ said to the Pharisees, “having ten drachmas, if she loses one drachma, does not light a candle and begins to sweep the room and search
From the book of the Four Gospels author (Taushev) Averky From the book Lessons for Sunday School author Vernikovskaya Larisa FedorovnaParables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin Jesus Christ spoke in many parables about God's love for us. He said that the Heavenly Father desires correction for every sinner and provides the means for this. This is what the parable of the lost sheep is about: “Who among you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them?
From the book Gospel Story. Book two. Events of the Gospel history that took place mainly in Galilee author Matveevsky Archpriest PavelParable of the Prodigal Son Do you remember what Jesus said about the joy in heaven when a sinner is reformed? He explained the same truth in the following parable, showing the love and mercy of our heavenly Father: “A certain man had two sons. The youngest of them
From the book Modern Practice of Orthodox Piety. Volume 1 author Pestov Nikolay EvgrafovichParables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, the Unfaithful Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus Lk. 15, 1–32; 16:1–31 Among the listeners of the Lord, who reverently listened to His preaching, there were many tax collectors and sinners who enjoyed a bad reputation among the people: some were not loved because
From the book A Guide to Studying the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Four Gospels. author (Taushev) AverkyChapter 29. Parable “about the unfaithful steward” The master praised the unfaithful steward for acting wisely. OK. 16:8 “A certain man was rich and had a steward, against whom it was reported to him that he was wasting his property. And calling him, he said to him: What is this I hear about you? Give a report to
From the book of the Bible. Modern translation (BTI, trans. Kulakova) author's BibleParable of the Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:10-20 and Luke 15:3-7). This parable paints a picture of God's boundless love and mercy for fallen man. “See that you do not despise one of these little ones” - do not despise, almost the same as “do not tempt”, that is, do not consider them so
From the book Holy Scripture. Modern translation (CARS) author's BibleParable of the Lost Sheep 10 Take heed, and never despise one of these little ones. For, I tell you, their angels constantly see the face of My Father in Heaven. 1112 What do you think, if a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains and
From the book of the Bible. New Russian translation (NRT, RSJ, Biblica) author's BibleParable of the Lost Sheep Tax collectors and those called sinners constantly crowded around Jesus to listen to Him. 2 But the Pharisees and scribes were indignant and said: “He welcomes sinners and even eats with them!” 3 Then He told them this parable: 4 “Let’s say who has -
From the book Fundamentals of Orthodoxy author Nikulina Elena NikolaevnaParable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4–7)12 - What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine to graze on the hills and go in search of the lost one? 13 And if he finds it, then, I tell you the truth, he will be glad for this one more,
From the author's bookParable of the Lost Sheep (Matthew 18:12–14)1 All the tax collectors and sinners gathered to listen to Jesus. 2 The guardians of the Law and the teachers of Taurat were dissatisfied with each other: “He communicates with sinners and eats with them.” 3 Then Jesus told them a parable: 4 “Suppose someone
From the author's bookParable of the Prodigal Son 11 Isa continued: “One man had two sons.” 12 The younger said to his father, “Father, give me the portion of the inheritance that is due to me.” And the father divided the property between his sons. 13 After a few days the younger son gathered everything he had, and
From the author's bookParable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4–7)11 “The Son of Man came to save the lost,” Jesus continued. - 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go in search of the lost one? 13 And if he finds
From the author's bookParable of the Lost Drachma “What woman,” Christ said to the Pharisees, “having ten drachmas, if she loses one drachma, does not light a candle and begins to sweep the room and search carefully until she finds it, and having found it, she calls her friends and neighbors and says: “ rejoice with me: I have found
