The Story of the Parable

The parable-narrative is clear in itself. There is no need for explanation, but rather indication of certain unspoken particulars, so that it may become evident of itself that, as in the parable-narrative the precise boundaries of all circumstances are not defined, so one should not extend an allegorical interpretation throughout this entire narrative.

Verse 1. “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this steward was squandering his property” (Lk. 16:1).

When the holy evangelist says that the Saviour, having spoken to the Pharisees and scribes, turned with discourse to the disciples, he means by these not only the twelve Apostles, but all who had gathered to listen to Him with readiness to follow His teachings. Such were always many. In the Gospel according to John it is said that many of the disciples of the Lord left Him and no longer walked with Him (Jn. 6:66). It follows that all who walked after Him and listened to Him were counted as His disciples. St. Luke saw in those listening to the Saviour an entire “multitude of disciples” (Lk. 6:17). They were present at this time as well. It is specifically said of the tax collectors that they drew near to the Saviour to listen to Him (Lk. 15:1).

The rich man is not distinguished by any special characteristics, as is done in the following parable (verse 19 and onward), because he is not the principal character of the parable, but the steward. He was so rich that he needed to have a steward. Whether there were other stewards is not mentioned. The matter is not about the measure of the master’s riches, but about the practical shrewdness of the “sons of this age” (Lk. 16:8), which can be fully expressed even in one example, in the disposition of even a slight property.

Stewards were for the most part trusted servants from among their own bondmen, which custom is maintained to this day in the East. But free persons were sometimes invited for this position and served under contract. The steward in the parable, as is evident, belonged to the number of free persons, because from the master he serves, he fears not beatings, prison, or some other punishment for poor management of the property, but only dismissal from his position and, as a result, poverty and destitution.

The steward is “accused” of squandering the property. The word “accused” seems to indicate a false report – slander – but the word signifies also a true report. In the present case the report, evidently, was true, though called “accused” perhaps because it was not made openly but whispered in the ear. The whole course of the narrative shows that the steward was guilty and himself says nothing against the master’s charge, surely because there was nothing to say. Squandering the property in relation to the manager most nearly signifies: manages poorly, has let the property fall into disarray, overlooks everything, all goes to waste. There is no sign that he was enriching himself from the master’s goods before; otherwise, upon removal from stewardship, he should not have expected extreme poverty, unless one supposes that while enriching himself he was squandering everything. The straightforward meaning is – the steward proved to be such that from his management there was no benefit either to the master or to himself.

Verse 2. “And he called him and said to him: What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward of my household” (Lk. 16:2).

The master only heard – and believed, and on the basis of hearing made the determination to dismiss the steward who had not justified his trust. Surely, the fault was so evident that there was no need to verify its truth and make inquiries. The master straightforwardly decides: you cannot rule the household any longer – “give me” “an account”. Not “give” me an explanation or defense against what I hear, but prepare everything for transfer, settle the accounts and hand over the property and then leave my house and go where you wish.

Verse 3. “And the steward said within himself: What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg” (Lk. 16:3).

The master’s word was so decisive that it left the steward no hope of remaining in his former position. Meanwhile he does not see himself hemmed in or watched over – he has full freedom to prepare his accounts. This freedom he used to provide for his own future. The extremity of his situation became clear – he was left with one of two choices: either to die of hunger or to lead a sorrowful and degrading life, to go work as a day laborer or to beg for alms. “To dig”, that is, to work with a spade in gardens, orchards and fields – the most common way for the working class on the East to earn a living. “To dig”, he says, “I am not able”, either because he is already old or because he is unaccustomed to it; “to beg I am ashamed” – surely, he was known in his place.

Verse 4. “I have thought of what to do…” (Lk. 16:4).

He figured out how to extricate himself, a happy thought came to him, the execution of which, being not difficult and lying wholly in his hands, promised him both shelter and sustenance and protection. What exactly was devised is not stated beforehand, but the plan was a good one, and the steward could confidently promise himself: “So that when I am dismissed from my stewardship, they may receive me into their houses” (Lk. 16:4).

Verses 5–7. What was devised becomes evident from the deed itself, but as it was conceived so immediately it was done. The plan was executed with haste: perhaps there was no time, or perhaps it was intended that the unexpected generosity of the proposal would strike the debtors and dispose them all the more in his favor. Questions directed to the same end: How much do you owe? and you, how much? (Lk. 16:5, 7). He knew how much each owed, but wanted to make the favor more striking, speaking as if thus: here is what a concession I am making to you, and to you this one. The consent of the debtors to this was assumed, there is no mention of it because the action proceeded in the spirit of their desires. It must have been clear to them also why this was being done, just as for the steward it was beyond doubt that he would not be forgotten. Hence there is no mention of any secret agreement about this. The essence of the plan consisted in that the steward, in settling accounts, thought to do the master’s debtors a considerable favor by a reduction in their accounts, one fifty and another twenty parts out of a hundred, so that out of gratitude they would afterward receive him “into their homes”. What the one and the other measure signified, why one was given fifty and another twenty, whether there were only two debtors or more – the determination of these particulars meant nothing for the parable. The intention was only to indicate that the steward achieved his supposed end – he managed to provide for his own future.

Verse 8. “And his master commended the unrighteous steward, because he had acted wisely” (Lk. 16:8).

The steward did not multiply words, not only with outsiders but even with the debtors themselves: all was done silently, mentally, like mathematical calculations. Already the sum, the result, the deed itself showed how well everything had been thought out. One must suppose that the steward had already left his master’s house and been received into the houses of his master’s debtors. The master either guessed or inquired why and how this had been done, and praised the steward not for dishonesty but for how skillfully he had managed to provide for himself for the future while in such extremity, and how he had conducted his affairs so that no fault could be found.

Here is the chief point of the parable! All the rest was told only so as to form a continuous narrative. In telling it, the Saviour, evidently, touches only the surface, hastening quickly to reach this chief point: “And his master commended…, because he had acted wisely”. At this point the entire interpretation must focus its attention.

“The master commended” refers not to the Lord Saviour but to the master, the rich man. If one admits that the Saviour commended the unrighteous steward, then one must simultaneously recognize that these words are inserted by the holy evangelist. But this would disturb the entire narrative; the parable-history would remain without an end; the words “the sons of this age are wiser… than” (Lk. 16:8) and the rest would refer to the holy evangelist, and to refer them to the Saviour one would need to add before them: “saying”, for which there is no foundation. It is evident, moreover, that the discourse, from verse 1 to verse 13, proceeds uninterruptedly in natural connection and must be recognized as proceeding from the lips of the Saviour in its entirety. Consequently, He himself said: “the master commended” and thus did not speak of Himself but of the one whom He called master in verse 3 (Lk. 16:3) and master in verse 5 (Lk. 16:5). This remark is necessary for those who, referring the words “the master commended” to the Saviour, bring upon themselves the confusing perplexity: how did the Saviour commend the unrighteous? It is not the Lord who commends but the master.