The Interpretation

Here the parable-narrative ends – the interpretation follows. The interpretation itself is expressed in verse 9: “And I” also “say to you” (Lk. 16:9), which means the same as “this parable teaches thus”. But the Saviour does not proceed to this interpretation immediately; rather, as a transition to it, he places the thought of the comparative value of the wisdom of the “sons of this age” and “sons of light” on account of the approval expressed to the steward: “because he had acted wisely” (Lk. 16:8).

Verse 8. “The sons of this age are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8).

Who are these “sons of this age”, and who are the “sons of light”, and in what respect are the former wiser than the latter?

“Sons of this age” are those for whom the age to come, as it were, does not exist, who are occupied only with what is here, earthly, temporal, as though they are to live here forever. They do not think of heavenly paradise but hope to build it on earth and from earthly things. The Lord said of them: “the sons of this age marry” (Lk. 20:34). It is implied: and are concerned about nothing except what is connected with marriage. Among them, according to another parable, one takes a wife, another buys a field, another tests his newly bought oxen (Lk. 14:18–20), another is occupied with business (Mt. 22:5). All their treasure is on earth – and there is their heart (Mt. 6:21). They do not seek “the Kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Mt. 6:33). They are lovers of this world, conforming themselves in all things to this age (Rom. 12:2) and “walking according to the course of this world” (Eph. 2:2). They are not always evil and straightforwardly hostile to the divine order. Their distinguishing character is that “the cares of this age and the deceitfulness of riches” have stifled in them all higher aspirations (Mt. 13:22), and they live as if without God and spirit (Eph. 2:12). Having become such, they have become darkened in mind, in heart and in conscience (Rom. 1:21; 2 Cor. 4:4; Tit. 1:15). Therefore they are opposed to the “sons of light”.

“Sons of light” are those who “believe in ‘the light’ (Jn. 12:36). This light is our Lord Jesus Christ, who enlightens ‘every man coming into the world’ (Jn. 1:9). Whoever believes in the Lord passes from the darkness of this age into light (Eph. 6:12; Acts 26:18), and at the same time is wholly transformed himself and, having been darkness before, becomes ‘light in the Lord’ (Eph. 5:8). For this reason all who have believed, standing in the faith and acting according to its requirements, are ‘sons of light and sons’ ‘of day’ (1 Thes. 5:5). Many distinguishing characteristics of the ‘sons of light’ are indicated in the word of God. In the present passage, by way of opposition to the ‘sons of this age’, what is particularly drawn to attention is how they, having freed themselves from earthly and temporal interests, must seek above all the ‘Kingdom of God and His righteousness’ (Mt. 6:33) and strive only to ‘attain that age’ (Lk. 20:35). There should their treasure be, and with the treasure their heart (Mt. 6:21). This characteristic is among others so significant that St. Peter calls all Christians, born anew in the image of Him who created them, born ‘with a living hope…, to an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for’ their ‘sake’ (1 Pet. 1:3–4), so that the very Holy Spirit is nothing other than the pledge of this inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5, Eph. 1:14).

In what respect then are the “sons of this age” wiser than the “sons of light”? More than one answer is given to this. Most directly in this respect: those know how to wisely arrange their affairs and direct everything toward the achievement of their supposed goals, while these do not know how to act so in regard to their principal affair: they do not display as much zeal, consistency and effort toward the attainment of their eternal goals as the former display shrewdness and resourcefulness in the attainment of their temporal and earthly goals. That this is indeed the case, everyone knows. But it is so not on account of the significance of the “sons of light”, but on account of their infirmities and deviations from their calling. In the essence of the matter, “in their own generation”, in the sphere of their goals and strivings, the “sons of light” are incomparably wiser than all the wisdom of the world. One needs only remember how they leave the dark realm of the world, how they extricate themselves from the snares of sin, how they manage to overcome the passions and outwit the stratagems of the enemy, how they discover for themselves the most secret path to God invisible and incomprehensible and enter into living communion with Him, to be assured that the “sons of light”, “in their own generation”, display such lofty wisdom that in comparison with it no amount of worldlings’ refined resourcefulness is worth anything. But the “sons of light” are such only when, standing in their place, they act with all diligence, conscientiousness and self-denial according to the requirements of that place. When, however, having given their word to be “sons of light”, conscious of the conditions under which this is possible, and believing in the promises connected with it, they do not strive to show themselves true “sons of light” and thus, in the face of most brilliant promises, do not stretch out their hands and do not take a step to obtain them; then indeed they appear more foolish even than the not entirely skillful worldlings. To such it is always fitting to address an instructive discourse: see how worldlings manage to direct all things toward the attainment of their worldly goals, how they form plans, devise means and with patience and persistence bring them to execution and do not cease their efforts until they obtain what they desire, which, however, is always trivial, transitory, fleeting; while you, having ineffable promises and undoubted assurances of them, and means of obtaining them at hand, abandon yourselves to negligence and carelessness, with no visible effort to act according to your “generation”, as your name, your calling and your promise demand.

This exhortation is precisely what is contained in the words of the Lord, as Blessed Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus indicate.

For those listening to the Lord it was understandable and instructive. The expressions “sons of this age” and “sons of the Kingdom” were well known at that time. By the latter were understood those who were to belong to the Kingdom of the Messiah, and by the former those who were to be foreign to it. Though the Saviour called them “sons of light”, yet by way of opposition to the “sons of this age” it was clear that by this He meant sons of the Kingdom, members of the promised Kingdom of the Messiah. As those listening for the most part understood that the Lord was the promised Messiah, and they themselves understood themselves as destined to participate in the Kingdom of the Messiah, so it must have occurred to all that this instructive word – the sons of light are less wise than the sons of this age (Lk. 16:8) – concerns them directly, and in all who were sincere it must have stirred the conviction of conscience, that if they are indeed caught up in earthly interests and, ensnared by them, cannot unfold themselves so that, believing the Lord’s word and clinging to Him, they begin to act as they ought to act as destined sons of the Kingdom, then they are more foolish than those whom they consider beneath and worse than themselves. This reproachful reminder, very keenly felt, could not remain without effect. It was powerful in awakening the impulse to take one’s place and maintain one’s significance by following the Lord. This was the very goal of the Saviour in setting forth this saying, to sow in the hearts of those who heard Him such a convicting thought, just as in another place He said directly: “the sons of the kingdom will be cast out” beyond” (Mt. 8:12). The Pharisees understood this and, as it did not please them, spoke murmuring words (Lk. 16:14). But of course not all were of the same disposition as the Pharisees.

Among the others present, the Apostles had already forsaken all things. In relation to them, the Lord’s saying could only mean: as you have begun, so hold yourselves to the end, and see to it that none of you prove less wise than the “sons of this age” “in their generation”. What a powerful exhortation this was for Judas, destined to fall from his calling and lose his promise! As for the tax collectors who sought understanding, the Lord was indicating to them a way out of their evil moral condition. They already understood that their manner of conduct could not be in harmony with Israel’s promises; yet at the Lord’s word they could not help guessing that they were to do something in the manner of what the steward had done. The Lord was saying to them, as it were: see how the steward showed resourcefulness? You must act according to his example, and I shall now tell you how: “Make friends for yourselves from the unrighteous mammon” and so forth (Lk. 16:9).

Not far from the truth, perhaps, is the opinion of those who regard the “sons of this age” as wiser than the “sons of light” in this respect: that those know how to conduct earthly affairs, the business of life, worldly matters, while these do not. St. Basil the Great, in his interpretation of the Psalter (Ps. 48:11–12), having quoted these words of the Lord (Lk. 16:8), says: “They are not simply ‘wiser’, but only in this respect – to conduct this fleshly life… In the same sense even snakes are wise” (Basil the Great. Homilies on the Psalms. 48,11–12). When the “sons of light” happen to meet the “sons of this age” on the same field, they always come out losers. By their simplicity they cannot discern all the stratagems employed by the former and are always circumvented to the detriment of their cause. Directed toward the higher, transcendent life and as if touching the earth only with their feet, they forget altogether the methods necessary for establishing an earthly life, they lose all the wisdom of the earth; while the “sons of this age”, perpetually occupied with arranging all that is needed, in their estimation, for the comfort of life, develop an extraordinary deftness, resourcefulness and foresight against which how could the simplicity and trustfulness of the “sons of light” withstand!

There are also other opinions, not so relevant. Some think to reach the thought hidden in the Lord’s saying by starting from that characteristic trait of the “sons of this age”, according to which each of them, pursuing his own interests in everything, ever colliding with the interests of others, is necessarily in constant struggle with all people of his kind and must employ all sorts of stratagems to outwit others and not suffer loss but extract advantage from everything. This is unavoidable because, as the “sons of this age” proceed from selfishness, they cannot be at peace until they have protected themselves on all sides by their methods of self-preservation, in whose reliability they absolutely wish to be assured. But as everything in their sphere is flowing and changing, they are perpetually occupied in devising new ways to ensure themselves and defend against their peers, living by the same spirit. They have constant mutual warfare: now laying mines and now setting counter-mines. Wisdom of this sort is shrewdness and outwitting. It is indeed in constant use and in diverse application among the “sons of this age”. The “sons of light”, on the contrary, as those who rely on God for all their hopes, are free from such stratagems and live with one another in their circle, among themselves, in simplicity, openness and mutual trust, never suspecting anyone of any designs against them. Applying these notions to the Saviour’s saying, some find in it the following thought: the “sons of this age” are wise “in their generation” (Lk. 16:8), that is, they scheme and act shrewdly among themselves, while the “sons of light” are not wise “in their generation”, that is, they do not scheme or act shrewdly among themselves. The comparative degree is taken in place of the positive. The connection with what precedes would be thus: the master praised the steward because he “had acted wisely”, and that “wisely”, that is shrewdly, he acted, is because the “sons of this age” always act in this spirit of shrewdness and outwitting, which is entirely foreign to the “sons of light”. This is not a reproach for the latter; on the contrary, if they too should begin to scheme shrewdly among themselves, they would fall from their calling, would cease to be “sons of light”. Holy Apostle James calls the simplicity of the “sons of light” true wisdom, and while he calls the shrewdness of the “sons of this age” wisdom, he assigns it a very low and dark origin. According to him, the wisdom of the “sons of this age”, agitated by zeal and envy, is “earthly, soulish, demonic” (Jas. 3:15); but the wisdom which is “peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity”, is “wisdom from above”, divine (Jas. 3:17).

Others think thus: the “sons of this age”, acting in their sphere, always reckon on a sure return, so that from their transactions there is direct profit; they cannot allow unproductive expenditures: according to their calculation, coins withdrawn from the storehouse must return there again, necessarily themselves or more or less. The “sons of light”, on the contrary, in the use of their possessions do not know such calculations and spend, according to worldly judgment, quite unproductively: they give alms, help the destitute, establish hospitals, poor houses; they only spend and deplete their treasuries, and receive nothing in return. By the principles of the “sons of this age” this is not shrewd, not wise. They cannot possibly allow such an unthinking manner of action: too wise to fall into such an error. The “sons of light”, according to them, “are fools” (1 Cor. 3:18), although in reality they are intentionally such “fools” so as to become wise in the eyes of God.

Others think thus: starting from the praise given by the master to the steward for his shrewdness, they suppose that the Lord by His saying only pointed to the custom among the “sons of this age” of mutually praising each other’s successful stratagems. The thought is that people devoted to the spirit of the world, from those who belong to one and the same class with them in sentiments, customs and deeds, are considered wiser than those who, illumined by faith, act unflinchingly in its spirit and are devoted to the cares of pleasing God rather than to earthly well-being. These are considered foolish, outmoded, backward, although in fact by God’s judgment, those only seem wise but are not. Rather they are “an evil and adulterous generation” (Mt. 12:39), which, “professing themselves wise, became fools” (Rom. 1:22).

The first thought is preferred: it is more direct, more closely bound to the subsequent lesson from the parable and itself gives an instruction very instructive and impressive. But the other thoughts need not be rejected, if placed in the background as secondary. The sayings of Christ the Saviour cannot be rounded off according to the fashion of our judgments. Inasmuch as His word was attended to by different souls, each of which had its own needs and infirmities, Divine wisdom was able to invent utterances which gave each soul precisely what was needed for it. Therefore it is unlawful to examine the Lord’s words according to the laws of judgment concerning human speech.

Verse 9. “And I say to you: Make friends for yourselves from the unrighteous mammon, so that when you have been dismissed, they may receive you into eternal dwellings” (Lk. 16:9).

The Saviour speaks, as it were: this is why I introduced this parable! This is the lesson I wished to impart to you: “make friends for yourselves from the mammon” and so forth. In this saying the meaning of the parable is determined, the features are indicated which should be taken from the parable-narrative for its allegorical application. And there is no ground whatsoever to depart in interpretation from this outline made by the Saviour Himself. Those act contrary to the Lord’s intention who wish to give a spiritual meaning to every feature of this parable. By so doing they burden the parable with unnecessary additions, multiply perplexities and, by obstructing the lesson drawn by the Saviour with many considerations, rob it of the power of the natural impression, instruction and exhortation that is proper to it in its simplicity.

The features subject to allegorical interpretation are: mammon (wealth), the unrighteous mammon, and the acquisition through it of friends who are able to receive “into eternal dwellings” at the decline of life or at death. As the steward wisely acted when, having in his hands the property not his own, through obliging certain persons acquired them as friends, who received him into their house upon his removal from the house in which he had been living: so do I command you also to act wisely, says the Saviour – I command you that by the wise use of what you have and what, nevertheless, is not yours, even here on earth you make friends of those who are to receive you into eternal dwellings, after your departure from this life. One needs only to interpret what the unrighteous mammon is, who the friends are and how to acquire them, and the whole parable will be interpreted. Nothing more will be required for understanding it.

Mammon – the Syrian god of wealth – here signifies directly wealth, property, possessions; for which reason below, in verse 11, this word stands in place of “property”: “if you have not been faithful with the unrighteous mammon” and so forth (Lk. 16:11).

Why is mammon called unrighteous? In the time of Christ the Saviour this was a commonly used expression which meant the possessions of wealthy people, those who had more than necessary, who had grown rich. The title of “unrighteousness” does not necessarily point to unrighteousness in the means of growing rich, but expresses only the general judgment which is held even to this day and will probably always be held, that with wealth unrighteousness stands in close alliance, that for the one who has grown rich, especially if he has engaged in business ventures, it is difficult not to become entangled in some unrighteousness. It is difficult to acquire wealth with pure righteousness, difficult also to use it in all righteousness, because around it, besides much else, there always cling two major unrighteousnesses: excess of pleasures – luxurious living, and unwillingness to help the needy – miserliness in various degrees. Holy Apostle Paul speaks of those “desiring to become rich”, saying that they “fall into temptations and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction” (1 Tim. 6:9). Wealth could have been called unrighteous also because it bears unrighteous, not belonging to it, titles: it is called a good and a treasure, but it is not such; people think that it gives man a special dignity, but this is unrighteous, for the man himself does not become better, but only his outward appearance becomes more conspicuous through wealth; it is considered a firm support, but it is a rotten support, falling to ruin, transitory. Such a thought about wealth is expressed also by Christ the Saviour Himself. Below, in verse 11 (Lk. 16:11), He opposes to the “unrighteous mammon” the true, and consequently calls wealth unrighteous because He recognizes it as untrue, falsely so named, by reason of its impermanence, deceptiveness and falsehood. “The form of this world passes away” (1 Cor. 7:31). Thus, unrighteous mammon in the Lord’s saying means wealth, possessions, property, often in acquisition, and almost always in use ensnaring in unrighteousness and, in itself, unreliable, undependable, deceiving those who trust in it.

Who are the persons of whom the Saviour commands to make friends? Most commonly they are understood to be the poor, and the Lord’s command is given this meaning: spend your property and wealth on the poor, so that they, remembering your benefit on earth, might after death obtain your reception in eternal dwellings from our Heavenly Father. But prayer for reception into dwellings is one thing, and actual reception into them another. In the Lord’s saying it is indicated to make friends of such persons who themselves will receive you into eternal dwellings, not merely pray about it to God. Besides, with this meaning it is supposed that the poor will pass into the other life before their benefactors, and all in the capacity of having pleased God to such a degree that they will be powerful to obtain such a great and final good as residence in eternal dwellings. But neither one nor the other can generally be affirmed. And in the parable the steward made friends of those not such as would be in poverty, though they accounted the reduction of their debt a favor to themselves, deserving gratitude and recompense.

Thus, although without the mediation of the poor, as we shall see, one cannot acquire friends pointed out by the Lord, yet the friends in the Lord’s word are not the poor themselves. The Lord says: make such use of your property that those who have eternal dwellings count it a benefit to themselves, and on that account receive you into those dwellings when you pass into eternity. Who then are such persons? God Himself, who is the determiner of the eternal lot of each, and His servants – the holy Angels, who receive the souls departing hence and, by God’s determination, place them in bright places, as the Lord subsequently says in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19–31).

And here one cannot pass by the poor and needy: they are the mediators in acquiring friends in heaven.

To please God, to gain His mercy and nearness, those who possess property can do only through easing the lot of those suffering from poverty and all kinds of deprivation. Almsgiving given to the poor God deigns to appropriate to Himself and receives it as a benefit to Himself, as a loan, according to the word of the Wise one, who says: “He who is generous to the poor lends to the Lord” (Prov. 19:17). These loans God will repay when the eternal lot of men is being determined, when there will come forth the determination, to whom to enter into eternal dwellings and whom to be cast into everlasting darkness. Then the Lord will invite into the Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world those who in their life fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, sheltered strangers, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, visited those imprisoned. Why? “For” He says, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt. 25:40). Thus the Lord Himself determines that He is the supreme Friend, having to receive into eternal dwellings, and shows the way to acquire His friendship. He is one for all, or contains all in Himself. That in the saying it is said “make friends” rather than “a friend”, this was required by the course of the discourse. Or it was said thus because the Lord with Himself understood also the Angels as executors of His determination concerning residence in eternal dwellings.

The holy Angels dwell in heaven. Those departing hence are received by them because they pass into their communion. Though God is the Determiner, yet the mediation of the Angels is fitting here. The Lord says: that they may receive you “into eternal dwellings” – not their own, but those determined by God for each – into those dwellings of which the Heavenly Father has “many” (Jn. 14:2). That this reception may be friendly, one must oblige the holy Angels of God. How? By reducing their debts. But what debts do they have? They have debts to those who have recourse to them. The needy turn to them in prayer and ask for help. By receiving prayer, they incur the debt to help those who pray; and by incurring a debt, they cannot but be concerned about repaying it. How is this done? Through wealthy and powerful people among whom the needy live and pray. The heavenly beings, entreated, descend to earth, go about those who are able to do good, and inspire one to do one thing, another to do another good deed. When the desire to help someone specifically comes unexpectedly to your heart, know that at that moment an Angel stands at your heart and puts these good thoughts into it, and do not refuse to fulfill them. Whoever listens to this inspiration and fulfills it, pays the debt for the Angels (or the saints) and thereby brings them peace, so that they have no further need to seek other people able to render the required help. They accept this as a benefit to themselves and remember it; so when the benefactor dies and passes into the other life, the holy Angels (and saints) joyfully receive him as their friend, their like-minded and co-worker, and place him in eternal habitation, where the Lord has determined. St. Ambrose, in his interpretation of this passage, says: “By the words ‘Make friends for yourselves from the unrighteous mammon’ the Lord commands that by generosity to the poor we gain for ourselves the friendship of the Angels and other saints”.

Here is the whole interpretation of the parable, and one should not seek anything beyond this. We consider it necessary to append to this only one or another remark: 1) those who under “unrighteous mammon” understand only wealth unjustly acquired, too much narrow the meaning of the parable. Although such a thought is very fitting for one part of those listening to the Lord, namely the tax collectors (and Pharisees), yet for them a hint at the moral aspect of their growing rich, which is here and quite strong, would suffice. It is evident that the Lord did not wish to limit the meaning of the parable to them alone but embraced all who possessed means and could do good, as is evident from the application that follows (Lk. 16:10–13). The Lord was listened to not only by tax collectors; certainly others of sufficient means were also there, whose wealth was not unjustly acquired. When the tax collectors heard the Lord’s words, their conscience reminded them of theirs, and these others of theirs. For him who had wealth unjustly acquired, at the words “unrighteous mammon” the thought lingered more on the word “unrighteousness”; while for him whose wealth was not obviously unrighteous, the attention lingered more on the word “mammon” and presented to the mind a thought about wealth in general (by the usual understanding of the phrase “unrighteous mammon”). Both kinds heard a general lesson – to use earthly wealth so as to thereby merit eternal dwellings; 2) equally those confuse the meaning of the parable who in its lesson introduce a reminder about returning what was unjustly acquired to those from whom it was wrongfully taken, and even an exhortation about righteous acquisition. An unnecessary addition! The Saviour takes the acquired property as it is. Approval of returning unrighteously acquired goods He expressed in the example of Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:2–10). Here this was not in view. If there is a hint at unrighteous acquisition, it is such that returning it is difficult and impossible. Meanwhile there were souls who listened to the Lord’s word with the question: how should we deal with such acquisition? And they are given the answer: return it to God through the hands of the poor – He will set all right. Or as the Lord said above: “Rather, give as alms what you can afford, and behold, all things will be clean for you” (Lk. 11:41). If you cannot return it, sanctify what you have grabbed by giving alms. By this instruction that part of those listening to the Lord was reassured, whose conscience was troubled by the unrighteousness of acquisition which they could not return; 3) but on the other hand, there is reason to think that the meaning of the parable is not limited to indicating the beneficent use of wealth alone, but points to similar use of all that man possesses – his mental and bodily powers, knowledge, arts, external position, connections, service – all in general gifts of life received from God. Use everything for doing good, and by this you will acquire for yourselves friends in heaven and prepare there in advance eternal dwellings for yourselves. This thought can be seen in the fact of the parable that the steward provided himself friends and shelter by skillfully managing what was not his own. But for us everything is not our own, everything is from God in Christ Jesus, and we ourselves are not our own. This broadening of the meaning of the parable is justified by the fact that, immediately following this, in continuation of the parable-lesson, the Lord Himself dwells on the words “another’s” and “your own” (Lk. 16:12); 4) the words “when you have been dismissed” (Lk. 16:9) do not mean: when you have exhausted your property, but – when you yourselves are exhausted, when your strength and life are exhausted, in other words – when you die and pass into another life. For who is received into eternal dwellings? Not only he who has given away his property, but also he who is called from this life into another to receive righteous recompense for the God-pleasing use of the gifts of this life. Eternal dwellings are the mansions of the Heavenly Father (Jn. 14:2), blessed abodes in heaven. These words are spoken by way of comparison to the fact that the steward was taken by the debtors into “their houses” or dwellings (Lk. 16:4).

In confirmation of the fact that nothing further should be sought in the Saviour’s parable beyond what has been said, we present a brief extract from Blessed Theophylact’s interpretation of this parable.

“One should not“, he says, “inquire too minutely into what each feature of the parable means; but, taking from it what is necessary for its purpose, leave the rest as said only for the completeness of the parable-narrative. If in the present parable we were to investigate in detail who the steward is, who is the master who entrusted him with the management, who reported on him, what it means that one debtor owed oil and another wheat, what it means also that they owed by a hundred measures – in a word, if we were to inquire about everything and interpret it all; we would only darken the parable, and it is no wonder if we should arrive at something incongruous. Therefore we must take from the parable only what is essential and edifying. The Lord wishes to teach us by it the proper use of the property entrusted to us. We are not owners but stewards of another’s property given to us by God, so that we may manage it according to His holy will. His will is that we use what has been given us for the needs of our brothers, not for pleasures for ourselves alone. ‘Unrighteous mammon’ (Lk. 16:9) the Lord called property because it is given us for the needs of others, but we retain it with ourselves or spend it on ourselves alone. What then should we do? Let us make our poor brothers partners in our property, for which, when we ‘are dismissed’, that is, depart from this life, we shall be received into ‘eternal’ ‘dwellings’ (Lk. 16:9). For the poor the Lord repays, for ‘he who is generous to the poor lends to the Lord’ (Prov. 19:17). Understanding the parable thus, we do not allow anything superfluous and fanciful, satisfying only curiosity.”

To this same matter pertain also the words: “The sons of this age are wiser” than “the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8). “Sons of this age” the Lord calls those who are concerned about earthly interests and carefully devise all that is necessary for them; “sons of light” – those who should manage their property in a spiritual and God-pleasing manner. And here is what the Lord wishes to indicate! That people appointed to manage property, according to mere human reckoning, know how to arrange everything so that, in case of removal from office, they will not be in need, while “sons of light”, who are commanded to manage their property spiritually and for their soul’s salvation, do not know how to conduct this affair so that it would be well for them after this life.” (The same thought is held by Euthymius Zigabenus)

As for other interpretations, it is inconvenient to present them: there are extraordinarily many. No parable has produced such divergence of opinion as this one. Here is the briefest enumeration of them!

The ancient commentators all unanimously understand the rich man to be God. But in understanding the steward they diverge, understanding him as the Apostles, or bishops, or Christians in general, or rich men, or sinners, or the Jewish people, or the devil.

The modern commentators all unanimously understand the steward to be followers of Christ the Saviour. But in understanding the rich man they diverge, understanding him as God, like the ancients, or as the prince of this age, or as mammon, or as the world personified, or as Roman rule, or as the Roman emperor, or as an indefinite person.

Any imagined interpretation finds some application in the parable, yet none can be carried through all its features without strain, even contradiction. Even the thought that by the rich man we should understand God—though it is the most natural and has behind it the consent of the ancient fathers and the majority of modern commentators—cannot be accepted without limits. In applying it, one must keep within precise boundaries and must not extend it through all the features of the parable, nor is it possible to do so: at once we encounter contradiction. The steward managed the property badly and was dismissed for this. Yet he acted even worse and for this he is praised. If the same master—who is understood to be God—both condemns and praises, it would appear that God condemns for the lesser mismanagement but praises for the greater. To shift our point of view in allegorical interpretation is altogether illegitimate. Without the thought of God, the interpretation will not be complete; but one should not extend this thought throughout the parable, but rather hold to the bounds indicated by Blessed Theophylact. The interpretation in which the master is understood as the spirit of this age, the world, or its prince, is even less tenable. According to it, the steward is one who serves the world, living by the spirit of the world, who, having considered that all must end, comes to repentance and changes the manner of his life. Death will come and take all—and then judgment and reckoning. Driven by this thought, he begins to use his possessions and all the gifts of life for his salvation, contrary to the spirit of the world. The prince of this world observes this and stirs up persecution against him. The application stops there: we cannot go further. Yet even so far it did not accord entirely with the parable. The thought of death corresponds to the master’s judgment, but according to this interpretation it should precede it, as the cause of the use of his possessions that displeases the prince of the world. Moreover, this thought is not given by the prince of the world but is wholly suppressed by him. Further, the world or the prince of the world, noticing that his former ally (friend) began to act not according to his rules, condemns him to dismissal from his position. In the application this would mean: he stirs up persecution and oppression of the godly from the side of the worldly. And this is another thought applied to the same circumstance, which should not be the case.

From this method of interpreting the parable, however, we can borrow the thought of death as an instructor of him who disposes of God’s gifts not according to God’s will. The steward began to think and devised how to secure his future, by the fact that he saw himself in extremity. With the feeling of the extreme peril of his eternal condition, the thought of death strikes him who is at fault before God in the use of His gifts, and it swiftly develops in him corrective thoughts and feelings. Clearly picturing how he must depart from this life and pass into another, for which he has prepared nothing and in which, consequently, awaits him only humiliation and torment, it forces him to come to his senses and to be concerned for securing his future. From this moment begins the use of all things not for his own pleasure but for the good of others and the glory of God. The thought of death and the deprivations of the life beyond is sent into the soul from God. But, having implanted it, He leaves the unfaithful one free, so that he himself may consider how to extricate himself from his wretched condition. Thus this thought accords completely with the interpretation we have proposed.

Other methods of interpretation are even less suited to application. Almost all of them err in that they attempt to interpret the parable themselves, when it has already been interpreted by the Saviour, and, desiring to say something new, they fall into great absurdities. One should take only those features of the parable which the Lord Himself has indicated; everything else should be left without application, since in the parable narrative itself it was only mentioned in passing by the Lord, without the definiteness and limitations that could guide in interpretation.”