The Unjust Steward

What is the main point of the parable? Why is a man who acts dishonestly and dishonorably presented as a positive example?

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.4 - The Parables of Jesus, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

This one will be a tough one….

Luke 16: 5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.

Dishonest and dishonorable. And Jesus in turn offers:

9 “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home.

How to understand this? Metropolitan Hilarion offers that this parable is told in such a way as to present almost a fairy tale – it is a story that is purposefully unrealistic.

By doing this, it is as though he wanted to tell his listeners: you need to learn to act in a way that nearly no one does in real life. The heart of the metaphor, then, is not the principle of similitude, but rather, the principle of opposition….

I am still not really getting it.

The master is very rich. What is described in the parable – not even all of his riches, but merely that which is relevant to two people – is unbelievable wealth. One hundred measures of oil is about 1000 gallons. So, any reduction of the debt would be a boon to the debtor, but this amount of debt can only be owed to one who is unfathomably wealthy such that he could have loaned this amount in the first place.

Now, here is a steward to be fired for wasting the master’s resources, and his immediate response is to curry favor with others by further wasting the master’s resources.

There are many interpretations of just what is happening here. Metropolitan Hilarion comments on a few of these, none of which are very satisfying to me. This emphasizes the point: it is a very difficult parable to understand or interpret.

In any case, and against all rational expectations, the master commends the steward for acting intelligently! This comes to a point made earlier – this story is purposefully unrealistic. It is clear that no master would act this way.

But this still doesn’t really help regarding my confusion….

The key to understanding the meaning of the parable is the following phrase: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.” The mammon of unrighteousness here indicates material success – what Jesus considered to be almost an insuperable obstacle for entering the kingdom of heaven.

Metropolitan Hilarion sees from this that one could use material goods to acquire friends who will help him secure a place in the eternal mansions. He connects this parable to the next one, where the rich man would not help Lazarus. The rich man then finds himself on the wrong side of the chasm, with Lazarus, the poor man, in the bosom of Abraham, out of reach. Perhaps just sharing a small portion of his wealth with Lazarus might have made a difference in the hereafter.

Yet I still do not see why the steward’s actions should be commended.

…the main idea of the parable of the unjust steward is that material wealth does not belong to man; it is the property of God and is only given to man for temporary stewardship. … Considering themselves to be the rightful owners of their own riches, such people forget that sooner or later they will lose all of it, and at that moment they will need friends who will welcome them into the eternal mansions.

Now, this doesn’t comport with how I understand that entry to eternal mansion, but perhaps I could think of it a different way: the number of “friends” I have waiting there for me, friends because of my charity on earth, are just a sign of the good works I have done.

Cyril of Alexandria offers an interpretation of this parable:

“For as long as a man lives in wealth and pleasure, he is careless about piety to God. … …the Savior has shown them a means of salvation in the present parable. …It is, that while they are yet in this world, if they are unwilling to divide all their wealth among the poor, that at least they should gain friends by a part of it….”

But the steward was not sharing his wealth, but his master’s wealth.

Perhaps a bit more clarifying, from Anastasius of Sinai. He sees that this amount of wealth can only be accumulated by unjust means: usury, confiscations, enforced gifts, etc. All means by which we can relate today. He said: be aware, the whole world is involved in this kind of unjust wealth accumulation. If the wealth has come to us from evil sources, better that it is distributed for good purposes.

I can understand this very well, except the steward made this decision not about his wealth, but his master’s.

Conclusion

Metropolitan Hilarion recognizes this continuing difficulty: the steward is dealing with his master’s wealth, not his own. And the master is not the one deciding to give his wealth away. Yet, the master did approve of it when he found out – perhaps lending credence to the interpretations of Cyril and Anastasius.

The debtors did not know that the steward was about to be fired by the master when the steward was having them mark down the debt. So, they believed that it was the master that was acting in charity of some sort. Hence, the master gained something from this event and this is why he commended the steward.

I guess that’s the best I can do with it: in the end, the master has come to realize that the steward did the master a favor, albeit through dishonest means.

But what I do with this in my life, I have no idea.