The subject I am going to approach may at first glance seem not to belong at all to the
subject of the current session. However we shall see that the subsequent material has the
most immediate connection to the theme of philosophy of religion. The question is of the
Parable of the Unjust Steward.
Before I begin the interpretation itself, let me remark that this parable is a text
unique with respect to its isolation from the rest of the texts of the Bible. For in all
of Scripture there is not even the slightest reference to this parable. And the Parable of
the Unjust Steward has remained in the darkness of misunderstanding not only after the
first glance, but even after the thousandth one. No exegete has ever been able to give an
interpretation which is free of internal and other contradictions. This fact also makes
this parable unique. So much for the rule declaring that closer an interpreter to the time
of Scripture better is his chance to penetrate into the mystery of it, which lies at the
base of the habit of magnifying the opinions of the Church Fathers.
It will not be out of place here to recall the words of Maimonides: "a story which
is repugnant to both reason and common sense ... contains a profound allegory ... and the
greater absurdity of the letter, the deeper the wisdom of the spirit." We have just
such a case. Yet, even without finding any literal sense in this parable, purely on the
grounds of the complete absurdity of attempts to interpret it literally we could assume
that its allegorical, figurative sense was uniquely precious. And so, the Parable of the
Unjust Steward (Lk 16):
- There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him
that he had wasted his goods.
- And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an
account of thy stewardship [more exactly house-management]; for thou mayest be no longer
steward.
- Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me
the stewardship [or house-management]: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
- I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship [or
house-management], they may receive me into their houses.
- So he called every one of his lord's debtors [unto him], and said unto the first, How
much owest thou unto my lord?
- And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit
down quickly, and write fifty.
- Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of
wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore eighty.
- And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children
of this world [more exactly age] are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
- And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon [better riches] of
unrighteousness; that, when ye fail [more exactly become indigent], they may receive you
into everlasting habitations.
- He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is
unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
- If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon [better riches], who
will commit to your trust the true [riches]?
- And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that
which is your own?
(1) As we begin our interpretation of this remarkable text, here, as with other
parables, we recognize the figure of a lord or "a certain rich man" as the One
God. This lord has goods, or to be more precise, possesses some wealth. What kind of
wealth? What is the content of this symbol? The first obvious inclination is to interpret
God's possessions as our transient world. But if we are attentive in reading our Scripture
we should not accept so simple a conclusion. The world has quite a different governor,
quite different from the steward the parable tells about. The world is ruled by another,
who has a clear name: "the prince of this world" (Jn 12:31). If we should
suppose that the world to be God's wealth, we would then have to identify the unjust
steward as the Devil. But there is a very simple argument against this identification. The
unjust steward gets later commendations from the lord that after the manner of men would
be hard to take as applying to the Devil "because the prince of this world is
judged" (Jn 16:11). Thus the steward would be judged also, and not by any means
"received into everlasting habitations" (9). Therefore, since the unjust steward
cannot be interpreted as the Devil, then the lord's wealth cannot be the world, but rather
something else, with a symbolical sense remaining to be discovered.
Although we are dealing with the first verse, further verses also provide useful
information for interpreting this context. And so we should read the parable attentively,
with an eye to interpreting the image of the lord's wealth. We find that stewardship is
oikonomia in Greek, which is to be translated precisely as 'house-management.' This word
contains the root oikos, which means 'house.' This is the key word for
us—possessions and house are used almost synonymously; for the parable tells about
both wasting of the lord's wealth by the unjust steward (1) and—on the other
hand—taking away the house-management from the steward (3), putting him out of the
house-management (4). We can not yet give a complete interpretation of the symbol of the
house. However we can be satisfied with Paul's words on God's "own house; whose house
are we" (Heb 3:6). In other words the house is an image of a human being—an
image of neither the flesh nor of the soul alone, but rather an image of everything which
makes up the human, including things whose existence the human may not even suspect.
If the human thinks of himself as an integral part of the world—as he may or may
not do—then even mentioning the world will not be an incorrigible mistake. The wealth
we are dealing with in this parable is managed in an unjust way; and in the image of this
kind of wealth we see a man of the world, a man whose consciousness is definitely against
such words as "Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world"
(1 Joh 2:15). What then governs such a man? Is it the idea of traditional Christianity?
Not at all! The negative answer is included in Paul's words: "I would to God ye did
reign, that we also might reign with you" (1 Cor 4:8). What then governs a man of the
world? Maybe, by chance, faith with hope and love?
Here I could provide a lengthy analysis of the opinions of multitudes of philosophers
and wise men. But I shall not, for the only thing required from us is not possession of
the highest gifts, but simply the ability to read Scripture attentively. Again the answer
is found in Paul's epistles. And so Paul writes in Galatians: "The heir, as long as
he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant [more precisely, bondman], though he be
lord of all; But is under tutors and governors [Gr. oikonomos or house-manager or steward]
until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage
under the elements of the world" (Gal 4:1).
Well, do you really believe that a man of the world is governed by winds, earthquakes
and other manifestations of the elements of the universe? That would be ridiculous! But in
fact "the elements of the world" are nothing more than "the material
principles of the world." That is the proper translation. And have we never been in
bondage to the material principles of the world? This time it is not ridiculous at all!
Because many are in this bondage right now. And so, the most exact definition of the
unjust steward is in Paul's passage: "the material principles of the world."
This steward also has less imposing names: "materialism," "wisdom of this
world," or "wisdom of this age." It is just this material wisdom which is
that unjust steward who wastes the goods and possessions of the Lord, that is, destroys
the man of the world. I could here provide examples of the number of suicides in the
materially most advanced countries; of the irreversible changes in the climate of the
Earth caused by the race for material benefits; of the threat of mankind's nuclear
self-annihilation; and so on. These examples are correct but a bit crude. The most
terrible thing is a man's endeavor to turn spiritual things into material things even in
his mind: to do so with miracles, with Jesus Christ, with God ... and then to comprehend
them all in a material way, using the "wisdom of this age." When we speak of the
unjust governor I want you to realize that the unjust steward is not any abstract
substance outside of man. In a certain sense the unjust steward abides in everybody,
binding him to the world.
(2) In time it becomes clear to a man, that it is impossible to go on in the
same way. It begins with simple things. First he realizes that man cannot live by material
food alone. Then he realizes that it is impossible to trust the unjust steward especially
as more and more things occur which could not be explained and researched with the help of
material wisdom. They may be explained specifically by ideas which have nothing in common
with the material principles of the world. All this threatens to put the unjust steward
out of the government of man, that is the house of God.
(3) But it is impossible to do anything in the spiritual sphere with the help of
the material principles of the world, a fact recognized by the unjust steward, who says:
"I cannot dig." Let us refer to the following short parable in Luke:
"Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them ... He is like a man
which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock" (Lk 6:47).
In other words, digging means working in the spiritual sphere, which material principles
are unable to accept. The wisdom of this age cannot appeal to the branches of knowledge
that take spiritual principles as their basis. And it cannot appeal to faith, even while
acknowledging it: "to beg I am ashamed."
(4-5) In order to realize what happens subsequently we have to determine what or
whom the lord's debtors symbolize, and what symbolism there is in their bills. It is not
hard to conclude that the rest of the heroes of this parable, or as they called a little
later "the children of light" (8), are spiritual teachings of various kinds.
They are theological doctrines with their own theogonic and cosmogonic views, claiming to
know the truth in its wholeness. Nevertheless they do not possess the truth in its
entirety and thus they cannot be more than debtors before God. Their debt to God (and to
man also) consists of their misunderstandings and errors, which cause the difference
between them and the truth. The doctrines themselves are their bills (6–7). What is
the meaning of the unjust steward's further conduct which, if literally understood, would
set a rather bad example not only for a Christian, but even for a materialist in the most
obtrusive sense of the word? Excuse my inconsistency, but the logic of my exegesis
requires that I consider the second debtor first. However, I can note preliminarily that
the simplest way to tell this parable, if it were really simple, would be to have the
debtors owe the lord plain money. In this case the parable could manage with only one
debtor; a second one would be too much. Actually this is not the case—the debts of
the children of light are differentiated, with wheat and oil separate. There are quite
definite reasons for this.
(7) If, for instance, the material principles of the world acquire knowledge
that the Earth is a sphere, they address themselves to some religion which holds the Earth
to be flat saying: "Your debt—that is, the difference between your views and the
true situation—is too great. You have so many delusions and offenses! Renounce your
theory now, take your debtor's note and write a new one, which would correspond with the
achievements of worldly wisdom. Thus your doctrine will be closer to the truth, and your
debt will be reduced." Or the wisdom of the world appeals to some religion defending
the geocentric cosmology. "Your knowledge is imperfect, and you have a debt to your
master. Behold, here is the heliocentric cosmology. Take now your doctrine where you teach
the Earth to be the center of the universe and write a new one so you shall owe the Lord
less." You can multiply examples of this kind without effort. Thus, the unjust
steward changes the bill of a hundred measures of wheat to a bill of a somewhat smaller
debt of wheat or corn or grains of truth.
(6) However let me return to the debtor of oil. We may by no means ignore the
qualitative difference between his debt and the first debt. And I must not forget the
secret of the oil symbolism which is love. Accordingly, we can see here that the debtors
or the children of light have too little love for each other. Instead of mutual love we
can observe the picture where love has given up its place to mutual intolerance and
enmity, to and including the willingness to use violence. So what is there praiseworthy
here in the role of the unjust steward? The answer is found in the fact that investigating
the structure of the world through material principles, which brings incompatible theories
closer to the truth, clearly brings them closer to reconciliation with one another. This
can multiply neither their love nor their spiritual knowledge—there is not a single
word about that in the parable. But the material principles can eliminate grounds for
mutual hostility and melt their enmity, thus reducing their debts of love. Here is a
rather crude example. One child of light declares that the Earth rests on the back of a
whale. Another one believes it is standing on three elephants. Each is angry for
"distortion of the truth" by the other. "You both are wrong," the
unjust steward says, "The Earth is not based either on the back of a whale or on
three elephants. There is nothing to quarrel about."
The parable does not tell that the unjust steward completely clears away any debts,
although it seems that such conduct could make him even more friends. But the wisdom of
this age is unable to do that. In other words, the material principles of the world, being
completely unable to replace the spiritual principles, can bring theological teachings
closer to the truth. The unjust steward has no power over fifty measures of oil and over
eighty measures of wheat. Regarding the rest of these debts the children of light ought
both to dig and to beg to clear their debts off, that is, to lead their views to the
truth.
(8-9) So how could the lord help but commend the unjust steward for this? An
unjust steward, a child of this age, always on the move, is really wiser than the children
of light, debtors that continuously sin in their attempts to change the living and
knowable truth into a salt-pillar of the law. But that law is fabricated by men who only
claim to introduce it as the absolute truth. Returning them from dead things to living
ones is an act indeed worth complimenting.
It is worth noting the nonsensicality of attempts at literal interpretation. Although
the unjust steward merited the gratitude of the lord's debtors, with his last step he
enlarged his crime before his lord, in wasting the lord's goods even more. Nevertheless he
is not only left unpunished by the lord, but on the contrary earns his appreciation. But
from the debtors, for whom he has done such a good deed, he receives nothing but a
promise—also coming not from the debtors themselves—to receive him into their
dwellings when he should become a pauper. "Make to yourselves friends of the riches
of unrighteousness." It means that the material reasons of the world, the wisdom of
this age must be used for the good of light. We now know that the unjust steward can
promote making friends in the Lord. But on the other hand, without underestimating its
significance, we must not forget Paul's commandment: "Charge them that are rich in
this world [or age], that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in
the living God" (1 Tim 6:17).
|
