Chapter Sixteen

1–13. Parable of the unjust steward. – 14–31. Parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus.

Luke 16:1. And He also said to His disciples: “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property; The parable of the unjust steward is found only in the evangelist Luke. It was spoken, undoubtedly, on the same day on which the Lord pronounced the three preceding parables, but it has no connection with those parables, because those were spoken by Christ with regard to the Pharisees, while this one – has in mind “disciples” of Christ, that is, many of His followers who had already begun to serve Him, having abandoned the service of the world (Trench, p. 357), – for the most part former tax collectors and sinners (Fr. Butkevicius, “Explanation of the Parable of the Unjust Steward”. Church News, 1911, p. 275). “One man.” He was, evidently, a rich landowner who lived in the city himself, quite far from his estate, and so could not visit it himself (whoever is to be understood here in the figurative sense will be explained after the literal interpretation of the parable). “Manager” (οἰκονόμον), that is, such a steward to whom was entrusted all management of the estate. He was not a slave (managers among the Hebrews were often chosen from slaves), but a free man, as is evident from the fact that after being released from his duties as steward he planned to live not with his master, but with other people (verses 3–4). “It was reported...” The Greek word standing here διεβλήθη (from διαβάλλω) although does not mean that the report was mere slander, as our Slavic translation understands it, nevertheless gives to understand that it was made by people who were hostile toward the steward. “Wastes” (ὡς διασκορπίζων – cf. Luke 15:13; Matt 12:30), that is, spends on his dissipated and sinful life, squanders his master’s estate.

Luke 16:2. And having called him, he said to him: What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward. Luke 16:3. Then the steward said to himself: What shall I do? My master is taking away my stewardship from me. I cannot dig, I am ashamed to beg. The landowner, calling his steward to him, with some irritation says to him: “What are you doing there? Disreputable rumors about you have reached me. I no longer want to have you as my steward and will give my estate to the management of another. You must present to me an account of the estate” (that is, all rental contracts, debt documents, and the like). Such is the meaning of the estate owner’s address to the steward. The latter understood the master in just this way. He begins to think about how to live now, because he realizes himself to be indeed guilty before the master and does not hope for mercy, and he has not accumulated the means of livelihood and he either does not know how to work in gardens and orchards or is unable to. He could still live on charity, but for him, accustomed to living widely and extravagantly, this seemed an extremely shameful thing.

Luke 16:4. I know what to do, so that when I am removed from my stewardship they will receive me into their homes. Luke 16:5. And having called each one of his master’s debtors, he said to the first: How much do you owe my master? Luke 16:6. He said: A hundred measures of oil. And he said to him: Take your note and sit down quickly, write: fifty. Luke 16:7. Then he said to another: And how much do you owe? He answered: A hundred measures of wheat. And he said to him: Take your note and write: eighty. Finally, a thought of salvation flashed in the steward’s mind. He found a way by which the doors of houses would open to him after he lost his position (he here has in mind the “houses” of his master’s debtors). He calls the debtors, each one separately, and enters into negotiations with them. Who these debtors were—whether tenant farmers or merchants who took products from the estate for sale—is difficult to say, and besides it is not important. He asks one after another: how much do they owe his master? The first answers: “a hundred measures” or, more precisely, “baths” (a bath was more than 4 buckets) “of oil,” of course, olive oil, which was valued very highly at that time, so that 419 buckets of oil were worth at that time in our money 15,922 rubles (Fr. Butkevich, p. 283 19). The steward orders him—bad deeds are usually done hastily so as not to be stopped—to write quickly a new note, in which the debt of this debtor is reduced by half. With another debtor, who was owed “a hundred measures” or, more precisely, “cors” (a cor was about 20 fourths) of wheat, which was also valued highly (two thousand fourths of wheat were worth at that time in our money about 20,000 rubles 20, ibid., p. 324), he proceeded almost the same way. Thus he rendered an enormous service to these two debtors, and then, perhaps, to others as well, and they, of course, felt themselves indebted to him forever. A refuge and livelihood for himself in the houses of these people the steward secured fully.

Luke 16:8. And his master commended the unjust steward because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the children of light. The master of the estate, hearing of such a deed by the steward, commended him, found that he had acted shrewdly, or better to translate it, wisely, prudently and appropriately (φρονίμως). Does this praise seem strange? The master has been harmed, and significantly, and yet he praised the unjust steward, marveling at his prudence. What is there to praise? It would seem, one should bring a suit against him in court, not praise him. Most commentators therefore insist that the master, properly speaking, only marvels at the cleverness of the steward, in no way approving the character of the very means which he found for his own rescue. But such a solution to the question is unsatisfactory, because from this it follows that Christ henceforth teaches His followers also only cleverness or the ability to find a way out in difficult circumstances of life, imitating unworthy (unjust) people. Therefore it seems more probable the explanation that Fr. Butkevich gives to this “praise,” and along with it to the steward’s deed. According to his interpretation, the steward removed from the accounts of the debtors only that which belonged to himself, since he had written earlier in the notes both the sum for which he rented the land to the tenants by agreement with his master, and that which he intended to appropriate for himself. Since now he no longer had the opportunity to receive the sum stipulated by him for himself—he was leaving the service—he changed the notes, thereby not doing in any way actual harm to his master, because he was still to receive his due (Butkevich, p. 327). Only one cannot agree with Butkevich in that the steward now “turned out to be honest and noble” and that therefore precisely for refusing the opportunity to receive his own share the master praised him. Honesty and nobility cannot be called the case when a man must necessarily refuse to receive income. Thus, really, the master, as a man of propriety, had no motive to insist that the debtors pay him in full everything that had been stipulated with them by the steward: he considered them owing a much smaller sum. The steward did not injure him—so why would the master not praise him? Such approval of the appropriateness of the steward’s deed is what the indication here comes to. “For the children of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the children of light.” The usual interpretation of this saying is this: worldly people know how to arrange their affairs better than Christians, achieving the high goals they have set. But it is difficult to agree with such an interpretation, first, because it is doubtful whether at that time the term “children of light” meant Christians: in the evangelist John, to whom the bishop Michael refers, who is among the general number of interpreters of this passage, if this expression is used even once, it is not to denote the concept “Christians” (cf. John 12:36). And second, in what way are worldly people, attached to the world, more shrewd than people devoted to Christ? Did not the latter show their wisdom in that they left all and followed Christ? Therefore we again incline to accept in the present case the opinion of Fr. Butkevich (he, however, repeats the opinions of Braun and Holbe), according to which “the children of this world” are the tax collectors who, in the view of the Pharisees, lived in spiritual darkness, occupied exclusively with petty earthly interests (tax collection), and “the children of light” are the Pharisees, who considered themselves fully enlightened (cf. Rom 2:19) and whom Christ so calls, of course, in an ironical sense. We come to this interpretation and the expression added by Christ: “in their generation.” By this He shows that He means here not “children of light” in the proper sense of the word, but “children of light” in their peculiar kind. Thus the meaning of the expression will be: for the tax collectors are more prudent than the Pharisees (Butkevich, p. 329). But with such an explanation—and this cannot be hidden—the connection of the last words of the verse under consideration remains unclear with that remark that the master praised the unjust steward. It remains to acknowledge that this thought of the second half of verse 8 does not stand in connection with the whole expression of the first half, but explains only the single word “shrewdly” or “prudently.” The Lord finished the parable with the words: “and his master commended the unjust steward, because he had acted shrewdly.” Now He wishes to make an application of the parable to His disciples, and so, looking at the approaching tax collectors (see Luke 15:1), He as if says: “Yes, wisdom, prudence in seeking oneself salvation—is a great thing, and I must now acknowledge that, to the astonishment of many, such wisdom is shown by tax collectors and is not shown by those who always considered themselves the most enlightened people, that is, the Pharisees.”

Luke 16:9. And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. The Lord has already expressed approval of the tax collectors following Him, but expressed it in the form of a general maxim. Now He addresses them directly from His own person: “And I—like that master of the parable—say to you that if anyone has wealth—as it was for the steward in the form of notes—then you should, just as he did, make friends for yourselves, who, like the friends of the steward, would receive you into eternal dwellings.” The Lord calls wealth “unrighteous” (μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας) not because it was acquired through unrighteous means—such wealth by the law should be returned as stolen (Lev 6:4; Deut 22:1)—but because it is vain, deceptive, fleeting, and often makes a man greedy, stingy, forgetting his obligation to benefit his neighbor, and serves as a great obstacle on the path to attaining the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:25). “When it fails” (ἐκλίπητε)—more correctly: when it (wealth) loses its significance (by the better reading—ἐκλίπῃ). This refers to the time of the second coming of Christ, when temporal earthly wealth will cease to have any significance (cf. Luke 6:24; Jas 5:1 and following). “Receive.” It is not said who, but one must presume—friends, whom one can acquire through the right use of earthly wealth, that is, when it is used as God desires. “Eternal dwellings.” This expression corresponds to the expression: “into their homes” (verse 4) and means the Kingdom of the Messiah, which will endure forever (cf. 3Ezr 2:11).

Luke 16:10. He who is faithful in very little is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in very little is unjust also in much. Luke 16:11. If then you have not been faithful with the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches? Luke 16:12. And if you have not been faithful in what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own? Luke 16:13. No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. In developing the thought about the necessity of prudent use of wealth, the Lord first presents as if a proverb: “he who is faithful in very little is faithful also in much.” This is a general thought that does not require special explanation. But then He directly addresses His followers from among the tax collectors with instruction. They, undoubtedly, had great wealth in their hands and were not always faithful in its use: often when they were collecting taxes and duties, they also took a part of what was collected for themselves. Here the Lord teaches them to abandon this bad habit. Why collect wealth for themselves? It is unrighteous, another’s, and one must treat it as another’s. You have the opportunity to obtain the true, that is, fully valuable wealth, which for you should be especially precious, as entirely suited to your position as disciples of Christ. But who will entrust you with this higher wealth, this ideal, true good, if you have proven unable to manage the lower properly? Can you be worthy of those goods which Christ grants to His true followers in the glorious Kingdom of God that is about to be revealed? From faithfulness in the use of earthly wealth Christ (verse 13) passes to the question of exclusive service to God, which cannot be combined with service to Mammon. See Matt 6:24, where this saying is repeated. By means of the parable of the unjust steward, Christ, having chiefly in mind the tax collectors, teaches all sinners in general how to attain salvation and eternal blessedness. In this lies the mysterious meaning of the parable. The rich man is God. The unjust steward is the sinner, who for a long time thoughtlessly squanders the gifts of God, until God calls him to account by terrible signs (illnesses, misfortunes). If the sinner has not lost his sound mind, then he repents, like the steward who forgave the debtors of the master those debts which he could have counted against them. But it is clear that engaging in detailed allegorical explanations of this parable would be completely useless, because one would have to be guided only by completely chance coincidences and resort to forced interpretations: like any other parable, the parable of the unjust steward contains, besides the main idea, additional features which do not require explanation.

Luke 16:14. Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they ridiculed him. Luke 16:15. And he said to them: You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. Among the listeners to the parable of the unjust steward were also Pharisees, who were sneering (ἐξεμυκτήριζον) at Christ—obviously because to them it seemed utterly absurd His view of earthly wealth. The Law, they said to themselves, regards wealth differently: there it promises wealth as a reward to the righteous for their virtues; consequently, it cannot in any way be called unrighteous. Moreover, the Pharisees themselves loved money. Such reasoning of the Pharisees, undoubtedly, is what Christ has in view when He addresses them with the words: “You are those who justify yourselves before men...” He as if wants to say to them: “Yes, in the Law there are indeed promises of earthly rewards, and in particular, of wealth for a righteous life. But you have no right to regard your wealth as a reward from God for your righteousness. Your righteousness is false. If you can find honor for yourselves among people through your hypocritical righteousness, you will not find recognition from God, Who sees the true state of your heart. And the state of it is such that it must be recognized as the most terrible.”

Luke 16:16. The law and the prophets were until John; since then the kingdom of God is being proclaimed, and everyone enters it by force. Luke 16:17. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to fail. Luke 16:18. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. These three verses contain sayings which have already been explained in the commentaries to the Gospel according to Matthew (see Matt 11:12-14). Here they serve as an introduction to the following parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus. The Lord affirms thereby the great significance of the law and the prophets (this will be discussed also in the parable), which prepared the Jews to accept the Kingdom of the Messiah, the herald of whose coming was John the Baptist. Through them, in men a desire arose to seek the opened Kingdom of God. The Law should not lose even one jot from itself, and as an example of this affirmation of the Law, Christ points to the fact that He understands the law about divorce even more strictly than it was treated in the Pharisaic school. However, B. Weiss gives a special interpretation to this saying of verse 18. In the evangelist Luke’s view, according to him, this saying is to be understood allegorically as characterizing the relations between the Law and the new order of the Kingdom of God (cf. Rom 7:1-3). Whoever for the sake of the latter renounces the former thereby commits before God such a sin of adultery as one who, after God freed man from subjection to the Law through the proclamation of the Gospel, still wants to continue the former relations with the Law. The former sins from the point of view of the immutability of the Law (verse 17), and the latter—as one unwilling to accept participation in men’s striving toward the new, gracious life (verse 16).

Luke 16:19. Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen and feasted sumptuously every day. In the following parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus, the Lord shows what terrible consequences follow from the improper use of wealth (cf. verse 14). This parable is not directed straight against the Pharisees, because one could not liken them to a careless rich man concerned about his salvation, but against their view of wealth, as something completely harmless to the cause of salvation, even as a testimony to the righteousness of the one possessing it. The Lord shows that it is not at all a proof of righteousness and that it often brings the greatest harm to the one who possesses it and casts him down after death into the hellish abyss. Purple is a woolen cloth dyed with an expensive purple dye, used for making outer garments (of a red color). “Fine linen” is the finest white cloth, made from cotton (consequently, not linen) and used for making undergarments. “And feasted sumptuously every day.” From this it is clear that the rich man had no cares whatsoever either for public affairs and the needs of his neighbors, or for the salvation of his own soul. He was not a man of violence, an oppressor of the poor, nor did he commit any other crimes, but this very constant careless feasting was a great sin before God.

Luke 16:20. But there was also a certain poor man named Lazarus, who lay at his gate full of sores. “Lazarus” is a name shortened from Eleazar—God is help. One may agree with some commentators that Christ mentions the name of the poor man for the purpose of showing that the poor man had only the hope of God’s help: people had cast him at the gate of the rich man (ἐβέβλητο—was cast out, in our translation—“lay”). “At his gate” (πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα)—at the entrance, which from the outer courtyard led into the house (cf. Matt 26:71).

Luke 16:21. And he desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. “With what fell from the rich man’s table.” In Eastern cities all scraps are usually thrown directly into the street, where they are picked up by the numerous dogs roaming the streets. In the present case, the sick Lazarus had to share these scraps with the dogs. Dogs, dirty and unclean from a Jewish point of view, were licking his sores—they treated the unfortunate man, who was unable to drive them away, as one of themselves. There is no suggestion of any compassion which they supposedly showed thereby to the poor man.

Luke 16:22. Now it happened that the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. “Was carried away by the angels.” Of course, it was the soul of the poor man that was carried away by the angels, who, according to Jewish belief, carry the souls of the righteous into paradise. “Abraham’s bosom.” Thus among the Hebrews was denoted the paradise bliss of the righteous. The righteous dwell after death in the closest communion with the patriarch Abraham, resting their head on his breast. However, Abraham’s bosom is not the same as paradise—it is, so to speak, the chosen and best position which in paradise the poor Lazarus occupied, having found here for himself a quiet refuge in the arms of his forefather (the image is taken not from a supper or meal, about which, for example, mention is made in Matt 8:11 and Luke 13:29-30, but from the custom of parents warming their children in their arms; cf. John 1:18). Of course, paradise is taken here not in the sense of the kingdom of glory (as in 2 Cor 12:2 and following), but only as the designation of the sorrowless state of the righteous who have departed from earthly life. This state is temporary; the righteous will remain in it until the second coming of Christ.

Luke 16:23. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. “In Hades.” The Hebrew word “sheol,” translated here as “Hades,” as among the Seventy, denotes the general abode of departed souls before resurrection and is divided into paradise for the godly (Luke 23:43) and Gehenna for the ungodly. Besides, the Talmud says that paradise and Gehenna are so arranged that from one place one can see what is happening in the other. But drawing from this and from the following conversation of the rich man with Abraham any dogmatic thoughts about the afterlife is hardly necessary, because, undoubtedly, in this section of the parable we have before us a purely poetic depiction of a certain thought developed in the parable, similar to what is found, for example, in 1 Sam 22, where the prophet Micah describes a revelation he received about the fate of Ahab’s army. Can one, for example, truly literally understand the rich man’s words about the thirst that torments him? After all, he has no body in Hades...” “He saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.” This, of course, greatly increased his torment, for he was extremely vexed that the despised poor man was enjoying such closeness to the patriarch.

Luke 16:24. And he cried out and 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 in anguish in this flame. Luke 16:25. But Abraham said, “Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Luke 16:26. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and none may come from there to us. Seeing Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, the suffering rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to him to help him with even a drop of water. Abraham, calling the rich man affectionately his “child,” refuses him his request: he has already received enough of what he considered good (“your good things”), and Lazarus in life saw only evil (there is no addition of “his” here, which indicates that suffering is not at all a necessary lot of the righteous). From the contrast between Lazarus and the rich man, who undoubtedly was himself guilty of his bitter fate because he lived impiously, it is clear that Lazarus was a godly man. Further, Abraham points to the will of God, according to which one cannot pass from paradise to Gehenna and back. Expressing this thought figuratively, Abraham says that between Gehenna and paradise stretches a great chasm (according to rabbinical belief—only a span), so that Lazarus, even if he wished to go to the rich man, could not do so.

Luke 16:27. And he said, “Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house— Luke 16:28. “For I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Luke 16:29. But Abraham said to him, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. Luke 16:30. And he said, “No, father Abraham; but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent. Luke 16:31. Abraham said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead. This section indicates that there is only one way to avoid the fate of the rich man tormented in Hades—that is repentance, a change from the idle life spent in pleasure alone, and that the means by which all those seeking instruction are equipped are the law and the prophets. Even the return of the dead cannot bring as much benefit to those living such a careless life as these constantly available means of instruction. “So that he may warn them,” namely, tell them how I am suffering because I did not want to change my careless life. “Neither will they be convinced.” When the evangelist wrote this, his mind may have been presenting the unbelief with which the Jews met the raising of Lazarus (John 12:10) and the resurrection of Christ Himself. Besides, Christ and the apostles had long been performing the raising of the dead, but did this affect the unbelieving Pharisees? Of course, they tried to explain these miracles by some natural causes or, as they actually did, by the help of the dark power 21. * * * Notes The sum corresponding to the price of approximately 18.5 kg of gold. – Ed. note. Approximately 23 kg in gold equivalent. – Ed. note. From Abraham’s response to the rich man, one can conclude the falseness of the teaching of spiritualism, which recognizes the possibility of the appearance of the dead for the purpose of convincing someone of some high truth: we have a guide in life—the Holy Church, and we need no other means. Some commentators, besides the direct meaning indicated above, see in this parable still an allegorical and prophetic meaning. The rich man, in their understanding, in all his conduct and fate depicts Judaism, which lived carelessly in the hope of its rights to the Heavenly Kingdom and then, after the coming of Christ, suddenly found itself beyond the threshold of this Kingdom, while the poor man—paganism, which was cut off from Israeli society and lived in spiritual poverty, and then suddenly was accepted into the bosom of Christ’s Church.