Parable of the Unjust Steward

[尼古拉前执事]

Nicholas which passages?

Huh?

[Justin Kissel]

Nicholas,

I think that he was asking about this:

Further verses help explain the parable.

[尼古拉前执事]

Oh. The verses after the ones that were quoted.

[Justin Kissel]

Lol, you seem very confused. I think he was asking, since you didn't seem to agree with where he cut off the quote, where you would cut off the quote. I'm sure he can read it and figure it out for himself, though, and leave poor confused nicholas alone :mrgreen:

[尼古拉前执事]

I am confused I am at work so I cannot tell you exactly how much further it should be quoted to help explain it. Can anyone at home with theor ONT look and tell us?

[Justin Kissel]

I've now read further, and also have read the patristic quotes given for these verses in the Orthodox New Testament. Like Arsenius, I don't see any reason to go past v. 9 as that is where the parable ends. Yes, the subject or wordly possessions and money is talked about in the passages immediately following v. 9, but they do not effect the interpretation of the parable (Lk. 16:1-9) either way. The Orthodox New Testament even hints at the break in continuity between the parable and the verses following: it follows (mostly) Blessed Theophylact through the parable (vv. 1-9), and then begins following Saint Cyril in the verses following the parable (vv. 10-13).

Saint Ambrose, Theophylact, Tertullian, and Ireneaus seem to agree, for the most part, on the interpretation here. The only possible difference is the source of the "mammon of unrighteousness". Theophylact clearly sees the "mammon of unrighteousness" as coming from God: "this 'mammon of unrighteousness' which is the money and wealth the Lord has given us to spend for the necessities of the brethren and fellow slaves" (P.G. 123:413A). Ireneaus, on the other hand, seems to see the "mammon of unrighteousness" as something "we acquired from unrighteousness when we were heathen" (Against Heresies, 4, 30, 3). This is not necessarily a different, however, since Theophylact might have been saying where the ultimate source of the wealth/possessions was (since God allowed the wealth to come to us), while Ireneaus is merely letting us know that it is called "mammon of unrighteousness" because of how we obtained it. Or perhaps the answer lies elsewhere.

In any event, this doesn't really matter as this difference (or non-difference) does not effect the central point of the parable. All four Fathers say that the point is that we have in our keeping certain gifts, qualities, possessions, money, resources, etc., and that we must use these to help those around us: our brothers and neighbors. According to these Fathers, the steward was commended by our Lord because he had taken that which was put in his charge, and used them to forgive others, but more importantly to solidify his relationship so that when he is in need, he will have someone to call for help. In other words, his helping of others in this life will help him at the time of the great judgment of Christ. This is why it is said that those whom we helped can receive us into "everlasting habitations": because when we help them now (on earth), they will help us later (in heaven).

It seems that the parable is not too difficult after all--at least when allowing the Church Fathers to open up to you. The problem, for me at least, was that I was taking it too literally. I couldn't figure out why Jesus was commending someone for essentially cheating his boss out of what he was owed. And I couldn't figure out for the life of me how forgiving someone of something that the steward had no real authority to forgive them of, could bring about his salvation (residing in eternal habitations). Now it seems very clear to me, understanding that the steward is I, as I sit here with my great weight in sins, being unable to fight them off completely, and being ashamed. If I use what I have, though--even that gained from unrighteous means in the past--to help those in need, then I will be helped later on. Love does indeed "cover a multitude of sins" (1 Pet. 4:8; Prov. 10:12).

[尼古拉前执事]

I think reading the verses around a quote is good practice.

Also, I have often found that when multiple parables are said, they all have the same meaning but are said different ways to ensure we understand.

Thankfully we have the Patristic record, but it seemed the continuing talking about mammon would be useful to the quotation.

I guess I was wrong.