Among all the stories told by Christ, the most controversial is the parable of the unfaithful steward. For many centuries, prominent theologians of various Christian denominations have tried to understand its meaning and interpretation. Let's find out what conclusions they came to and what this story is about.
A bit 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 present 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 biographies of Jesus. Both of his books are set forth clearly and thoroughly, which is not always characteristic of the other Apostles, more inclined to filling their texts with metaphors.
The probable reason that the parable of the wrong ruler is mentioned only once is its ambiguity. In addition, Christ usually gave explanations of what these or other of his stories meant, but this time he limited himself only to vague statements about wealth and the inability to serve two masters at once. Therefore, other Apostles might not have written such a controversial parable in their books. In addition, not all evangelists were likely to be present at the time of her story.
Content
The following is an excerpt from the scripture that sets forth this parable. In addition, you can read the verse following it.
Main characters. Master
In the center of the story of the parable of the unfaithful ruler, two characters appear: the lord and his unfaithful servant.
What is known about mister? The story mentions that he is very rich, and therefore does not independently manage his property, having for this a special person who manages.
The gentleman does not interfere in the work of his subordinate, trusting him and giving himself the opportunity to decide how to conduct business. When the landlord was informed that the steward wasted his estate, he requested a report on his entire service. And when he learned that the manager had cheated, having written off some of their debt to some debtors, he praised his resourcefulness.
All of his actions indicate the following features:
- kindness;
- ability to appreciate good qualities.
Despite the kindness, the gentleman is not a fool and can not be clearly called trusting. The fact that he did not check earlier the reports of his servant could have other reasons besides unconditional faith in him, for example, banal preoccupation with other affairs.
It is noteworthy that both times the lord somehow learns about the actions of his servant. So, although he does not intervene in affairs, he always keeps his hand on the pulse of the situation. His ignorance of the manager’s misconduct is rather an indicator of hope for his decency.
Also controversial is the ability to forgive, which is often attributed to the protagonist of the parable of the unfaithful ruler. The story ends with the fact that the gentleman praised the negligent manager. At the same time, it is not said whether he left him in office, whether he helped to get another or expelled. So we do not have a complete picture of his image.
Invalid ruler
In an English translation, this story is called “Parable of the Unjust Steward, which means“ the parable of an unjust steward. ”This begs the first question about the nature of the crime of the second protagonist. According to the Russian translation, he is described as“ unfaithful, ”who betrays his master However, if we take the English version as a basis, it turns out that he might not betray the owner, but be unfair to the people he was placed on. In this case, his character may differ from the generally accepted one. He is not a liar, relying on the trust of the master, and a clever businessman who unjustly behaved towards his subordinates.
What else is known about the manager? He is either old, or has some physical injuries, therefore is incapable of work. This is confirmed by his phrase "I can not dig." At the same time, the steward is not ready to beggar, saying "I am ashamed to ask." This implies either pride or the widespread fame of his person, which promises shame and humiliation among others.
It is possible that he is a middle-aged man with a disability, probably not very noticeable. Therefore, he is ashamed to ask: a forty-year-old, healthy-looking, peasant is unlikely to be served. The hero’s plans are also in favor of this version. He wants the forgiven debtors not to give his written-off products, but to "take them to their houses," that is, he plans to get a job there.
Several assumptions can also be made about the social status of the hero. Unlike other parables, it does not say that he was a slave. And the manager’s plans to find a new job directly indicate his ability to choose a place of service. It turns out he was a free man.
Interpretations of Theophan the Recluse
Attempts to understand what exactly Jesus wanted to say in his parable, far from one theologian. Theophan the Recluse was actively interested in the interpretation of the parable of the wrong ruler.
He called this story the most complicated. Like most, he compared the image of the lord with the Lord, and the unrighteous servant with the sinful man.
The property given into the possession of the steward, according to the Recluse, is all those material and spiritual blessings, as well as the physical data with which the Creator bestows on every person.
The theologian sees the meaning of the parable in the fact that, despite his sins, which he commits, not obeying God, he must always look for a way to save his soul without losing his hand.
Opinion of Theophylact Bulgarian
This famous theologian in his writings also gives a commentary on the parable of the unfaithful ruler.
He compares the unfaithful steward with an dishonorable minister who uses the “wealth” handed down by the Lord not for the benefit of his brothers and sisters by faith (as it should be), but for his own needs.
According to Feofilakt, such false servants can be saved, but only by sharing all the dishonestly acquired good with those in need.
Interpretation of the Parable of the Wrong Ruler of Osipov
The famous Soviet and Russian theologian Alexey Ilyich Osipov focuses on another aspect of this story. In his opinion, unjust wealth has two meanings:
- a state acquired in defiance of the law and humanity;
- the futility of everything material, which during life seems important, but for eternity does not have the slightest value.
In both cases, according to Osipov, it is necessary to strive to use such wealth to gain what is of true value - eternal life.
Opinion of the Catholic Church
The Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States at the official level determined their own interpretation of this parable. It is based on the practice of usury known at the time of Christ. Then some managers, lending from the property of the owner, secretly overstated interest. They put the resulting difference in their pocket, profiting from the needy, who either did not know the true size of the penalty, or did not have the opportunity to complain about arbitrariness.
Such behavior could not be considered a betrayal of the interests of the owner, because he received the profit he was counting on.
Based on this tradition, Catholic theologians suggest that the unfaithful steward was engaged in such fraud with high interest on debts. This became known to his master. He got angry that his servant was so dishonestly doing business, and indeed he was defaming the name of his employer. After all, all those who borrowed did not know that it was not the landlord who set the high penalty, but his servant. Therefore, all accusations of greed went to the master, and not the true culprit.
Faced with the threat of losing his place, the governor called on those whom he had deceived with interest and ordered them to rewrite receipts for what they should have been. It turns out that he did not squander the property of the owner, but only stopped taking excess from other people. It was for this attempt that his master praised him.
Pharisees Version
The Bible has repeatedly mentioned that the well-known Pharisees tried to catch Jesus in a lie. Seeking to discredit him in the eyes of society, these people accused him of not complying with the law. However, they themselves often violated it.
Based on the interpretation adopted by the Catholics, there is an opinion that this parable was told specifically for such lawyers. Based on this logic, it is believed that every Pharisee or other person robbing people, hiding behind the name of the Lord, is such an unfaithful ruler.
In favor of such an interpretation is the fact that this parable was told precisely during the Pharisees.
Why did not Christ explain the meaning of the parable?
Consider another interesting nuance regarding this story. Not only the content of the story causes much controversy, but also the fact of the lack of interpretation of the parable of the unfaithful ruler on the part of Christ. After all, he usually explained what certain heroes and events meant. In this regard, there are several opinions.
The most common: Christ did not say what he wanted to say, giving the audience the opportunity to guess for themselves.
More interesting is a different opinion. It cannot be ruled out that Jesus explained the meaning of what was said to those present and this was recorded. However, after the ascension of Christ and the death of his lifetime followers, the interpretation of history could be purposely deleted, since it did not correspond to the doctrines of only the emerging religion. Indeed, if the version about the abuse of the Pharisees and other ministers by their position is true, then the parallels can be drawn further.
At the very beginning of the formation of Christianity, the function of priests was abolished. It was assumed that everyone who believes will try to study and act on the Scriptures. And in order not to make a mistake, you need to constantly be in fellowship with brothers and sisters of faith.
Under such a system, a separate caste of interpreters of the law was not needed. In the same way, with cleansing from sins: believing in the Sacrifice of Christ, the first Christians did not need to perform expensive rituals, they only needed sincere repentance and prayer to the Creator.
In this form, the newly formed teaching functioned well while it was one of the many religions of the Roman Empire. But several centuries later, when it received the status of the only religion for the entire state, it was necessary to make changes, in particular, to add a caste of priests (they are priests), which was called to preach what is beneficial to the ruler, and at the same time to "sell" their services, which in fact, they were supposed to provide for free.
Naturally, this contradicted the original concept of Christianity, therefore, of all the books written by the Apostles, only those that corresponded to similar goals were chosen. The parable of the unfaithful ruler could be perceived as a condemnation of priests who covered themselves with service to God but robbed the people. Therefore, its interpretation could be deleted so as not to cause unnecessary bad thoughts.
But these are only assumptions, which now there is no way to confirm or deny. It is possible that the interpretation was simply lost. In any case, now it is not there, so everyone who reads the Bible has the opportunity to independently understand the meaning of the parable of the wrong leader.