Interpretation of the Gospel for each day of the year. Thursday of the 27th week after Pentecost

<<< LIBRARY >>>

Interpretation of Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria on the Gospel of Luke

Chapter sixteen

He also said to His disciples: There was a certain man who 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. Every parable covertly 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, one should not explain all parts of the parable to the point of subtlety, but, having used the subject as appropriate, the other parts should be omitted without attention, as parables added for the sake of integrity, but having no correspondence with the subject. The same should be done with the proposed parable. 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 the other wheat, why it is said that they owed a hundred each, and if all If we generally explore everything else with excessive curiosity, then we will make the speech obscure, and, forced by difficulties, we may even end up with ridiculous explanations. Therefore, this parable should be used as much as possible. Let me explain a little. The Lord wants here to teach us how to manage the wealth entrusted to us well. 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 dispose of property well and as He commands. Then we learn that if we act in managing wealth not according to the Lord’s thoughts, but squander what has been entrusted to us on our own whims, then we are the kind of stewards who have been denounced. For the will of the Master is such that we use what has been entrusted to us for the needs of our fellow servants, and not for our own pleasures. When they inform on us and we have to be removed from the management of the estate, that is, expelled from this life, when it is we who will give an account of the management after our death from here, then we are late in noticing what needs to be done, and we make friends for ourselves with unrighteous wealth. “Unrighteous” is the name given to the “wealth” that the Lord has entrusted to us to use for the needs of our brothers and co-workers, while we keep it for ourselves. But late we realize where we should turn, and that on this day we cannot work, for then is not the time to do, nor to ask for alms, for it is indecent, since the virgins who asked (for alms) are called fools (Matthew 25:8). 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 are assigned eternal abodes as their inheritance, into which they can receive those who showed them love here through the distribution of wealth, although it, as belonging to the Master, first had to be distributed to the poor. They are debtors according to what was said: “he shows mercy and lends every day” (Ps. 36:26), and in another place: “He who does good to the poor lends to the Lord” (Proverbs 19:17). So, first it was necessary to distribute everything to these good debtors, who pay a hundredfold. However, when we turn out to be unfaithful stewards, unjustly retaining for ourselves what is assigned to others, we should not remain forever in this inhumanity, but should give to the poor so that they will accept us into eternal abodes. “When we explain this parable in this way, then in the explanation there will be nothing superfluous, or sophisticated, or mind-boggling. However, the expression “the sons of this age are more perceptive” and further seems to mean something else, and not incomprehensible or strange. He calls “sons of the age” those who invent everything on earth that is useful for them, and “sons of light” those who, out of love for God, must teach others spiritual wealth. So, here it is said that people who are appointed as stewards of human property try in every possible way to have consolation after leaving management, but the sons of light, who are appointed, that is, receiving in trust the management of spiritual property, do not think at all that after to benefit from this, So, the sons of this age are those who have been entrusted with the management of human affairs and who “in their generation,” that is, in this life, conduct their affairs wisely, and the sons of light are those who have accepted property in order to manage they are God-loving. It turns out that when managing human property, we manage our affairs wisely and try to have some kind of refuge for life even when we are removed from this management. And when we manage property, which must be disposed of according to the will of God, we do not seem to care that, upon our departure from this life, we will not fall under responsibility for management and be left without any consolation. That is why we are called foolish because we do not think about what will be useful for us after this. But we will make friends for ourselves in the poor, using on them unrighteous wealth, given to us by God as a weapon of righteousness, but retained by us for our own benefit and therefore turned into untruth. If wealth acquired in a righteous way, when it is managed badly and is not distributed to the poor, is imputed to unrighteousness and to mammon, then how much more is the wealth unrighteous. Let us be the last to make friends for ourselves, so that when we die and move from this life, or in another case we become faint-hearted from condemnation, they will receive us there 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. The Lord also teaches that wealth must be managed according to the will of God. “He who is faithful in little,” that is, who has managed well the property entrusted to him in this world, is faithful “in much,” that is, worthy of true wealth in the next century. “Small” refers to earthly wealth, since it is truly small, even insignificant, since it is fleeting, and “many” - Heavenly wealth, since it always abides and arrives. 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, he will not be worthy of even that much, but will be rejected as an unfaithful. Explaining what has been said, he adds: “So, if you were not faithful in unrighteous wealth, who will believe you what is 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 is withheld by us and not distributed to the poor. For the theft of someone else's property and that of the poor is injustice. So, whoever manages this estate poorly and incorrectly, how can he be trusted with “true” wealth? And who will give us “ours” when we mismanage “someone else’s”, that is, property? And it is “foreign”, since it is intended for the poor, and on the other hand, since we did not bring anything into the world, but were born naked. And our destiny is Heavenly and Divine riches, for there is our dwelling (Phil. 3:20). Possessions and acquisitions are alien to man, created in the image of God, for none of them are like him. And enjoying Divine blessings and communicating with God is akin to us. “Until now, the Lord taught us how to properly manage wealth. For it is someone else's, not ours; we are stewards, not lords and masters. Since the management of wealth according to the will of God is accomplished only with firm dispassion towards it, the Lord added this to his teaching: “You cannot serve God and mammon,” that is, it is impossible for one to be a servant of God who is attached to wealth and addiction to it holds something behind itself. 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. For the love of money, that is, the passionate inclination for wealth, is condemned everywhere (1 Tim. 6:10). The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they laughed at Him. He said to them: You show yourselves to be righteous before men, but God knows your hearts, for whatever is exalted among men is an abomination to God. The Pharisees, annoyed at the words of the Lord, laughed at Him. For they, as money lovers, were unpleasant to hear about non-covetousness. So it is said: “Godliness is an abomination to a sinner, and wounds to the wicked are reproached” (Proverbs 9:7). The Lord, revealing the hidden wickedness of the Pharisees and showing that, although they take on the appearance of righteousness, they are vile, yet before God in their conceit, says: you present yourselves as righteous before people and think that you alone are given the understanding of what is necessary, and teach; That’s why you laugh at My words as unreasonable, wanting to be revered by the mob as teachers of truth. But that's not the case. Because God knows your hearts and considers you vile for your arrogance and addiction to human glory. “For whatever is high among men is an abomination to God.” “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5). Therefore, you, Pharisees, had to live not for human opinion, “for God will scatter the bones of those who fight against you” (Ps. 53:6), but it is better to make yourselves righteous before God. Law and Prophets before John; From now on, the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone enters into it with effort. But it is sooner that heaven and earth pass away than one line of the law disappears. Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries one divorced from her husband commits adultery. Apparently, this is a separate speech that has nothing in common with the above, but for the attentive it will not seem inconsistent, but, on the contrary, very connected with the previous one. The Lord, with the above words, taught non-covetousness and called wealth an unrighteous name, and the Law (Lev. 26:3-9) provided blessings in wealth (by the way), and the prophets (Isa. 19) promised earthly blessings as a reward. Lest anyone, like the Pharisees, say to Him mockingly: What are you saying? Are you contradicting the Law: it blesses with wealth, but You teach non-covetousness? - therefore the Lord says: The Law and the Prophets had a time before John and they taught well, because the listeners were then at a young age. But from the time when John appeared, almost disembodied due to lack of covetousness and non-covetous almost due to disembodiment, and preached the Kingdom of Heaven, earthly blessings no longer have time, but the Kingdom of Heaven is preached. Therefore, those who desire heaven must learn non-covetousness on earth. Since the prophets and the Law did not mention the Kingdom of Heaven, they rightly promised earthly blessings to people who were still far from perfect and unable to imagine anything great and masculine. Therefore, Pharisees, I rightly teach non-covetousness, when the imperfect commandments of the Law no longer have time. Then, so that they would not say that, finally, everything legal was rejected as vain and completely empty, the Lord says: No! on the contrary, now it is being fulfilled and accomplished even more. For what the Law wrote in the shadow, speaking figuratively about Christ or about the commandments, is now being fulfilled, and not a single line of it will be lost. What is indicated there in the form of a shadow about Christ will now be fulfilled in the clearest way. And the commandments of the Law, given then adaptively and in accordance with the understanding of the imperfect, will now have the highest and most perfect meaning. And that the Law spoke imperfectly to the imperfect can be seen from the following. For example, the Law, due to the hardness of the hearts of the Jews, gave a sentence on the dissolution of marriage, namely: if a husband hated his wife, he had the right to divorce her so that something worse would not happen. For the murderous and bloodthirsty Jews did not spare their closest relatives, so they buried their sons and daughters as sacrifices to demons. But this is a flaw and imperfection of the Law. Then there was a time for such a law, but now a different, more perfect teaching is needed. That is why I say: whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery. Therefore, it is not surprising if I teach about non-covetousness, although the Law does not clearly say anything about it. Behold, the Law indifferently gave the commandment about marital divorce, to prevent murder among the Jews; and I, accustoming my listeners to the highest perfection, prohibit divorce without a blessed reason and command this not contrary to the Law, but so that there is no murder between husbands and wives. And I confirm this when I teach that spouses should take care of each other and protect each other as if they were their own members. And the Law wanted this, but since the listeners were imperfect, He determined to dissolve the marriage, so that, at least under this condition, the husband and wife would spare each other and would not be angry with each other. - So, Christ confirmed all the requirements of the Law; and therefore he said well that it is impossible to miss a single line from the Law. For how would it perish when Christ corrected it (the Law) in the best possible way? A certain man was rich, dressed in purple and fine linen, and feasted brilliantly every day. There was also a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate covered with 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. This speech stands in connection with the previous one. Since the Lord taught above how to manage wealth well, he rightly adds this parable, which, by example of what happened to the rich man, points to the same idea. This speech is precisely a parable, and not a real event, as some thought without reason. For the time has not yet come for the righteous to inherit the blessings, nor for the sinners to inherit the contrary. And the Lord gave the speech figurativeness in order to teach both the unmerciful what is in store for them in the future, and to teach the ill-suffering that they will be prosperous for what they endure here. The Lord took the rich man into the parable without a name, since he is not worthy to be named before God, as it was said through the Prophet: “I will not remember their names with my mouth” (Ps. 15:4). And he mentions the poor by name, for the names of the righteous are written in the book of life. They say, according to Jewish tradition, that at that time there was a certain Lazarus in Jerusalem, who was in extreme poverty and illness, and that the Lord mentioned him, taking him into the parable as obvious and famous. — The rich man was prosperous in all respects. He dressed in purple and fine linen and not only dressed himself, but also enjoyed every other pleasure. “He feasted brilliantly,” it is said, and not that today - yes, but tomorrow - no, but “every day,” and not that moderately, but “brilliantly,” that is, luxuriously and wastefully. And Lazarus was poor and sick, and, moreover, “with scabs,” as it is said. For you can be sick and yet not be wounded, but this increases evil. And he was defeated at the rich man's gate. It is a new sorrow to see that others enjoy abundantly, while he suffers from hunger. For he wanted to be satisfied not with luxurious dishes, but with crumbs from them, such as the dogs ate. No one cared about the healing of Lazarus: for the dogs licked his wounds, since no one drove them away. What? Lazarus, being in such a difficult situation, blasphemed God and reviled the luxurious life of the rich man? Condemned inhumanity? Grumbled about Providence? No, he didn’t think of anything like that, but he endured everything with great wisdom. Where can you see this? From the fact that when he died, the Angels accepted him. For if he had been a murmurer and a blasphemer, he would not have received such an honor - being accompanied and carried by Angels. “The rich man also died, and they buried him.” Even during the life of the rich man, his soul was truly buried; it carried the flesh like a coffin. Therefore, even after his death, he is not elevated by the Angels, but is relegated to hell. For he who has never thought about anything lofty or heavenly deserves the lowest place. With the words “they buried him,” the Lord hinted that his soul was destined for the underworld and a dark place. 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: child! 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 on top of 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. Just as the Lord, having expelled Adam from paradise, settled him in front of paradise (Gen. 3:24), so that suffering, repeated at the constant sight of paradise, would make Adam more clearly feel the deprivation of bliss, so he condemned this rich man before the face of Lazarus, so that, seeing in what state Lazarus is now there, the rich man felt what he had lost through inhumanity. Why did the rich man see Lazarus not with another of the righteous, but in the bosom of Abraham? Since Abraham was hospitable, and the rich man had to be convicted of his dislike for hospitality, therefore the rich man sees Lazarus with Abraham. He even invited those passing by into his house, but he despised the one lying inside the house. Why does the rich man make his request not to Lazarus, but to Abraham? Maybe he was ashamed, or maybe he thought that Lazarus remembered his evil, and based on his deeds he made conclusions about Lazarus as well. If I (he could think), enjoying such happiness, despised him, oppressed by such misfortune, and did not give him even crumbs, then all the more he, despised by me, will remember the evil and will not agree to show me mercy. That is why he addresses his words to Abraham, probably thinking that the patriarch does not know how it happened. What about Abraham? He did not say to the rich: inhuman and cruel, aren't you ashamed? Now you remembered humanity. But how? "Child"! Look at the compassionate and holy soul. Some sage says: do not outraged the humble soul. Therefore, Abraham also says: “Chojo”, giving this to know that to call him so graciously even now in his power, but only, and that he was more powerful to do for him. What I can, I will devote to you, that is, the voice of compassion. But in order to go from here there, this is not in our will, for everything is concluded. “You have already received your good in your life, and Lazarus is evil.” Why didn't Abraham say to the rich: you got it, but got it? The word “get back” we usually use about those that they receive what they should have. What do we learn? The fact that although some have defiled themselves with atrocities, although they came to an extreme degree of anger, they ever did one or two good deeds. Therefore, the rich man had any good deeds, and since he received retribution in the prosperity of the local life, it says that he received his good ”. "And Lazarus is evil." Maybe he did one or two evil things and in sorrow, which he had undergone here, received due retribution for them. Therefore, he is comforted, and you will guard. “The abyss” means the distance and the difference between the righteous and sinners. For both their arbitrariness were different, so their monastery have a great difference when everyone receives retribution according to arbitrariness and life. Dress here the objection to the Origenists. They say that the time will come when the torment will end and the sinners will connect with the righteous and with God, and thus God will be all in all. But now, we hear, Abraham says that those who want to move from here to you or from there cannot do this. Therefore, as it is impossible for someone to go to the place of sinners from the fate of the righteous, it is not possible to teach us Abraham, to move from the place of torment to the righteous. And Abraham, no doubt, is more worthy of faith than Origen. - What is Hell? Some say that hell is an underground gloomy place, while others called hell the transition of the soul from visual to an invisible and viscous state. For it has long the soul is in the body, it is found by its own actions, and by separation from the body it becomes invisible. This was called hell. - “bosom of Abraham” is called the totality of those blessings who are presented to the righteous at the entrance of their storm to heavenly pier; Since in the sea in bays (bosom) we usually call places convenient for the pier and calm. - Pay attention to the fact that on the day that offender will see what glory to him will be, and this one will, in turn, will see in what conviction the offender will be, just as the rich saw Lazarus, and this one - again rich. 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 too do not come to this place of torment. Abraham told him; They have Moses and Prophets; let them listen to them. He said: no, the father of Abraham, but if one of the dead comes to them, they will play. Then Abraham told him: if Moses and prophets do not listen, then if someone from the dead would not be resurrected, they would not believe. The unfortunate rich, having not received his fate, attaches a request for others. Watch how he, through punishment, came to sympathy for others, and while he previously despised Lazar, at his feet lying, now care about others, which are not with him, and begs to send his lasar from the dead to his father, not just someone From the dead, but Lazarus, so that they saw him before the sick and dishonest see now crowned glory and healthy, and the witnesses of his squalor themselves became the contemplators of his glory. For obviously, he would have to appear in glory, if he had to be a preacher, worthy of probability. What did Abraham say? "They have Moses." You, ”he says,“ do not bake about the brothers as God, the creator of them. ” He assigned countless mentors to them. And the rich man says: “No, father”! For as he himself, hearing the Scriptures, did not believe their words and considered their words, he also suggested about his brothers and, judging by themselves, says that they would not listen to the scriptures, like himself, but if anyone resurrects from the dead, they would believe. There are now such people who say: who saw what is being done in hell? Who came from there and announced us? Let them listen to Abraham, who says that if we do not listen to the scriptures, we will not believe those who would come to us from hell. This is obvious from the example of the Jews. They, since they did not listen to the scriptures, did not believe it when they saw the dead as risen, even thought and kill Lazarus (John 12, 10). Likewise, and after the Lord’s crucifixion, many deceased were resurrected (Matt. 27, 52), the Jews breathed on the apostles even greater murder. Moreover, if this resurrection of the dead was useful for our faith, the Lord would do it often. But now nothing is as useful as a thorough study of the Scriptures (John 5, 39). The devil would have ghostly to resurrect the dead (although), and therefore would have misleading unreasonable, all the doctrine of ADA, worthy of his malice. And with our common scripture study, the devil cannot invent anything like that. For they (scriptures) are the lamp and light (2 Pet. 1, 19), with the radiance of which the thief is detected and opened. So, the scriptures need to believe, and not demand the resurrection of the dead. - You can understand this parable and in a figurative sense, for example, so that the face of the rich is Jewish. He was previously rich, enriched with all knowledge and wisdom, and the rivers of God, which are more honest with gold and grooming of multi-fed-shaped (Proverbs 3, 14-15). He dressed in Porphyra and Wisson, having a kingdom and priesthood and himself being the tsarist priesthood to God (Exodus 19, 6). Porphyra hints at the kingdom, and Wisson at the priesthood. For the Levites, under the priests, used vests from Wisson. He had fun brilliantly for all days, because every day in the morning and evening he made victims that bore the name of infinity, that is, continuity. - Lazar were pagans, people, poor in divine talents and wisdom and lying at the gate. For the Gentiles were not allowed to enter the house of God; Their entrance was considered to be defiled, as can be seen from the book of Acts. The Asian Jews indignantly shouted at Paul that he introduced the pagans into the temple and defiled this holy place (Acts 21, 27-28). The pagans were wounded by stench sins and their wounds had shameless dogs, demons; For our ulcers (spiritual) are pleasure for them. The pagans wanted to eat crumbs falling from the rich man's table; For they did not have any participation in the bread that strengthens the heart (Psalm 103, 15), and needed the food of the finest, slightly and reasonable, like the Hananeian wife, being a pagan, wants to be nourished with crumbs (Matthew 15, 22 - 26 - 27) . What's next? The Jewish people died for God, and his bones were dead, since he did not make any movement to good. And Lazarus, that there are pagan people, died for sin. The Jews, who died in their sins, are burned by the flame of envy, jealous, as the Apostle says, that the Gentiles were accepted into faith (Rom. 11, 11). And the Gentiles, before the poor and inglorious people, in fairness live in the bowels of Abraham, the father of the Gentiles. Abraham, a former pagan, believed in God and from serving the idols turned to God's knowledge. Therefore, those who became participants in his appeal and faith, rightly rest in his bowels, inheriting the same fate, the monastery and perception of benefits. The Jewish people want at least one drop from previous legitimate sprinkling and purification, so that his tongue is cool and could safely say something against us in favor of the law of the law, but does not receive. For the law is only to John (Matt. 11, 13). “The victims,” it is said, “and you are not asleep” and further (Psalm 39, 7). And Daniel foresaw: “A vision and the Prophet were sealed, and the holy of saints was anointed” (Dan. 9, 24), that is, they stopped and concluded. - You can morally understand this parable. Exactly: being rich in evil, do not leave your mind to endure hunger and, when it is created to strive for the sky, do not plunge it and do not force him to lie at the gate, but enter him inside, and do not stand outside, do not wander, do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie down, but do not lie Act. This will serve you the beginning for reasonable activity, and not the pleasure of only carnal. And other parts of the parables are conveniently understood in favor of morality.

Noticed an error in the text? Select it with the mouse and press Ctrl+Enter

<<< CONTENTS >>>

A little about the parable

Most of the stories that Jesus generously shared with his disciples and opponents appear in several Gospels, and sometimes are repeated in four at once. However, the parable of the unfaithful ruler is found only in the Gospel of Luke.

Although other chroniclers of Christ do not mention it, historians have no doubt about its authenticity. The fact is that the Apostle Luke, who wrote the Gospel and Acts, is recognized as the most scrupulous of the authors of the lives of Jesus. Both of his books are presented clearly and thoroughly, which is not always characteristic of other Apostles, who are more prone to filling their texts with metaphors.

A likely reason that the parable of the unfaithful steward is mentioned only once is that it is ambiguous. In addition, Christ usually gave explanations of what these or those of his stories meant, but this time he limited himself to only vague statements about wealth and the impossibility of serving two masters at once. Therefore, other Apostles might not have written down such a controversial parable in their books. Moreover, not all the evangelists were probably present when she told it.

Opinion of the Catholic Church

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops at the official level determined its own interpretation of this parable. It is based on the practice of usury, known in the time of Christ. Then some managers, lending from the owner’s property, secretly inflated the interest from him. They put the resulting difference in their pockets, profiting from the needy, who either did not know the true size of the fine or did not have the opportunity to complain about the arbitrariness.

Such behavior could not be considered a betrayal of the owner’s interests, because he received the profit he was counting on.

Based on this tradition, Catholic theologians suggest that the unfaithful steward was engaged in precisely such fraud with inflated interest on debts. This became known to his master. He was angry that his servant was conducting business so dishonestly, and in fact was discrediting the name of his employer. After all, everyone who borrowed money did not know that the inflated penalty was set not by the owner, but by his servant. Therefore, all accusations of greed were directed at the master, and not at the true culprit.

Finding himself in danger of losing his job, the manager called those whom he had deceived with interest and ordered them to rewrite the receipts as they should have been. It turns out that he did not squander the owner’s property, but only stopped taking extra from other people. It was for this attempt to correct himself that his owner praised him.

Version about the Pharisees

The Bible mentioned more than once that the famous Pharisees tried to catch Jesus in a lie. In an effort to discredit him in the eyes of society, these people accused him of non-compliance with the law. At the same time, they themselves often violated it.

Based on the interpretation adopted by Catholics, there is an opinion that this parable was told specifically for such teachers of the law. Based on this logic, it is believed that every Pharisee or other person who robs the people, hiding behind the name of the Lord, is such an unfaithful steward.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that this parable was told precisely under the Pharisees.

Interpretations of Theophan the Recluse

More than one theologian has tried to understand what exactly Jesus wanted to say with his parable. Theophan the Recluse was actively interested in the interpretation of the parable of the unfaithful steward.

He called this story the most difficult. Like the majority, he compared the image of the master with the Lord, and the unrighteous servant with a sinful man.

The property given into the possession of the manager, according to the Recluse, is all those material and spiritual benefits, as well as physical data, which the Creator gives to each person.

The theologian sees the meaning of the parable in the fact that a person, despite his sins that he commits without obeying God, must always look for a way to save his soul without giving up.

Interpretation of the parable of the unfaithful steward Osipov

The famous Soviet and Russian theologian Alexey Ilyich Osipov focuses his attention on another aspect of this story. In his opinion, unrighteous wealth has two meanings:

• a fortune acquired contrary to law and humanity;
• the futility of everything material, which during life seems important, but for eternity has not the slightest value.

In both cases, according to Osipov, it is necessary to strive to use such wealth to acquire what has true value - eternal life.