Глава 16

1–13. The parable of the unrighteous steward. – 14–31. The parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. Luke 16:1. 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; The parable of the unrighteous steward is found only in one evangelist, Luke. It was said, undoubtedly, on the same day on which the Lord spoke the three previous parables, but this parable has no connection with those parables, since those were spoken by Christ in relation to the Pharisees, and this one refers to the “disciples” of Christ, i.e. many of His followers who had already begun to serve Him, leaving service to the world (Trench, p. 357), most of them former tax collectors and sinners (Arch. Butkevich, “Explanation of the parable of the unrighteous steward.” Church Gazette, 1911, p. 275). "One Man". This was obviously a rich landowner who himself lived in the city, quite far from his estate, and therefore could not visit him himself (who is meant here in a figurative sense - this will be said after explaining the direct meaning of the parable). "Governor" (οἰκονόμον), i.e. such a manager to whom the entire management of the estate was entrusted. This was not a slave (Jewish housekeepers were often chosen from among slaves), but a free man, as can be seen from the fact that, after being released from the duties of a housekeeper, he intends to live not with his master, but with other people (verses 3-4). “It was reported...” The Greek word here διεβλήθη (from διαβάλλω), although it does not mean that the denunciation was simple slander, as, for example, our Slavic translation understands, nevertheless makes it clear that it was made by people who were hostile to the steward. “Spends away” (ὡς διασκορπίζων – cf. Luke 15:13; Matthew 12:30), i.e. spends on his dissolute and sinful life, squanders the master's estate. Luke 16:2. 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. Luke 16:3. 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; The landowner, calling the housekeeper to him, says to him with some irritation: “What are you doing there? I've heard some bad rumors about you. I no longer want you to be my housekeeper and will transfer my estate to the management of another. You must provide me with a report on the estate” (i.e. all lease agreements, debt documents, etc.). This is the meaning of the address of the owner of the estate to the steward. The latter understood the owner this way. He begins to think about how he can live now, because he realizes that he is truly guilty before the owner and does not hope for mercy, but he has not accumulated the means to live and he does not know how or is not able to work in gardens and vegetable gardens. One could still live on alms, but for him, accustomed to living generously and wastefully, this seems an extremely shameful thing. Luke 16:4. I know what to do so that they will accept me into their homes when I am removed from managing the house. Luke 16:5. And calling his master’s debtors, each one separately, he said to the first: How much do you owe my master? Luke 16:6. He said: one hundred measures of oil. And he said to him: take your receipt and sit down quickly, write: fifty. Luke 16:7. 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. Finally, the housekeeper flashed the thought of salvation. He found a means by which the doors of houses would open for him after he was left without a place (he here means the “houses” of his master’s debtors). He calls the debtors, each separately, and enters into negotiations with them. It is difficult to say who these debtors were—whether tenants or merchants who took various natural products from the estate for sale—and it is not important. He asks one after another: how much do they owe his master? The first one answers: “one hundred measures” or, more precisely, “baht” (a baht is more than 4 buckets) of “oil”, of course, olive oil, which was valued very dearly at that time, so that 419 buckets of oil cost 15,922 rubles at that time with our money. (Prot. Butkevich, p. 283 19). The housekeeper tells him to quickly write a new receipt, in which the debt of this debtor is reduced by half. With another debtor, who owed “one hundred measures” or, more precisely, “cows” (kor - about 20 fours) of wheat, which was also highly valued (two thousand quarters of wheat cost about 20,000 rubles at that time with our money 20 - ibid., p. 324), he did almost the same. Thus, he rendered a huge service to these two debtors, and then, perhaps, to others, and they, of course, felt forever obliged to him. The housekeeper completely provided shelter and food for himself in the houses of these people. Luke 16:8. 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. The owner of the estate, having heard about such an act of the steward, praised him, finding that he acted shrewdly, or, better translated, wisely, thoughtfully and expediently (φρονίμως). Does this praise seem strange? The master suffered damage, and quite significant, and yet he praised the unfaithful steward, marveling at his prudence. What is there to praise for? It would seem that we should file a complaint against him in court, and not praise him. Most interpreters therefore insist that the master, in fact, is surprised only by the dexterity of the housekeeper, without at all approving of the nature of the very means that he found for his salvation. But such a solution to the question is unsatisfactory, because it follows that Christ further teaches His followers only dexterity or the ability to find an outcome in difficult circumstances of life, imitating unworthy (unrighteous) people. Therefore, it seems more likely that the explanation given to this “praise”, and at the same time to the act of the housekeeper, Archpriest. Butkevich. According to his interpretation, the steward discounted the debtors only what he himself owed, since he had previously written in receipts both the amount for which he rented out the land to tenants in agreement with his master, and the amount that he intended to appropriate for himself personally. Since now he no longer had the opportunity to receive the amount he had negotiated for himself - he was leaving the service - he changed the receipts, without thereby causing absolutely any damage to his master, because he still had to receive his (Butkevich, p. 327). But we cannot agree with Butkevich that now the housekeeper “turned out to be honest and noble” and that therefore it was precisely for refusing the opportunity to receive his share that the gentleman praised him. Honesty and nobility cannot be called when a person involuntarily has to refuse to receive income. Thus, indeed, the owner, as a decent person, had no incentive to insist that the debtors pay in his favor everything that was reprimanded from them by the housekeeper: he considered them to owe a much smaller amount. The housekeeper did not offend him - why should the owner not praise him? This approval of the expediency of the steward’s action is indicated here. “For the sons of this age are wiser in their generation than the sons of light.” The usual interpretation of this saying is this: worldly people are better able to organize their affairs than Christians, achieving the lofty goals they have set. But it is difficult to agree with such an interpretation, firstly, because at that time the term “sons of light” hardly meant Christians: in the Evangelist John, to whom Bishop Michael refers, who is one of the general number of interpreters of this place, if this expression was once used, it was not to designate the concept “Christians” (cf. John 12:36). And secondly, why are worldly people, attached to the world, more perceptive than people devoted to Christ? Didn’t the latter show their wisdom in leaving everything and following Christ? Therefore, we are again inclined to accept in this case the opinion of Rev. Butkevich (he, however, repeats the opinions of Brown and Holbe), according to which the “sons of this age” are publicans who, in the opinion of the Pharisees, lived in spiritual darkness, occupied exclusively with petty earthly interests (collecting taxes), and the “sons of light” are the Pharisees who considered themselves completely enlightened (cf. Rom. 2:19) and whom Christ calls so, of course, in an ironic sense. The expression added by Christ also comes to this interpretation: “in its own way.” By this He shows that He means here not “sons of light” in the proper sense of the word, but “sons of light” in a special, kind of way. Thus, the meaning of the expression will be this: for publicans are more prudent than the Pharisees (Butkevich, p. 329). But with such an explanation - this cannot be hidden - the connection between the last words of the verse in question and the remark that the master praised the unfaithful steward remains unclear. It remains to be recognized that this thought of the second half of verse 8 does not stand in connection with the entire expression of the first half, but explains only one thing “insightfully” or “prudently.” The Lord ended the parable with the words: “And the lord praised the unfaithful steward for acting wisely.” Now He wants to apply the parable to His disciples, and now, looking at the publicans approaching him (see Luke 15:1), He seems to say: “Yes, wisdom, prudence in seeking salvation for oneself is a great thing, and I must now admit that, to the surprise of many, such wisdom is revealed by publicans and those who have always considered themselves the most enlightened people do not show it, i.e. Pharisees." Luke 16:9. 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. The Lord had already expressed approval of the publicans who followed Him, but expressed this in the form of a general maxim. Now He addresses them directly on His behalf: “And I, like that gentleman, tell you that if anyone has wealth, as the steward had it in the form of receipts, then you must, like him, make friends for yourself, who, like the steward’s friends, will accept you into the eternal abodes.” The Lord calls wealth “unrighteous” (μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας) not because it was acquired in unrighteous ways - such wealth according to the law must be returned as stolen (Lev.6:4; Deut.22:1) - but because it is vain, deceptive, fleeting and often makes a person covetous, miserly, forgetting about his duty to do good to his neighbors, and serves as a great obstacle to achieving the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:25). “When you become poor” (ἐκλίπητε) – more correctly: when it (wealth) loses its meaning (according to the best reading – ἐκλίπῃ). This indicates the time of the second coming of Christ, when temporary earthly wealth will cease to have any meaning (cf. Luke 6:24; James 5:1 et seq.). "Accepted" . It is not said who, but one must assume - friends who can be acquired through the correct use of earthly wealth, i.e. when it is used in a way that pleases God. "Eternal Abodes". This expression corresponds to the expression: “to their homes” (verse 4) and denotes the Kingdom of the Messiah, which will endure forever (cf. 3 Ezra 2:11). Luke 16:10. 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. Luke 16:11. So, if you have not been faithful in unrighteous wealth, who will trust you with what is true? Luke 16:12. And if you have not been faithful in what belongs to others, who will give you what is yours? Luke 16:13. 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. Developing the idea of ​​the need for the prudent use of wealth, the Lord first cites a proverb: “faithful in little is faithful in much.” This is a general idea that doesn't require much explanation. But then He directly addresses His followers from among the tax collectors with instructions. They undoubtedly had great wealth in their hands and were not always faithful in their use: often, when collecting taxes and duties, they took a portion of what they collected for themselves. So the Lord teaches them to give up this bad habit. Why should they collect wealth? It is unrighteous, alien, and must be treated as alien. You have the opportunity to receive the true, i.e. quite valuable wealth, which should be especially dear to you, as it is quite suitable for your position as disciples of Christ. But who will entrust you with this highest wealth, this ideal, genuine good, if you are unable to cope as you should with the lower? Can you be worthy of the benefits that Christ bestows on His true followers in the glorious Kingdom of God that is about to open? From faithfulness in the use of earthly wealth, Christ (verse 13) moves on to the question of exclusive service to God, which is incompatible with service to Mammon. See Matthew 6:24, where this saying is repeated. With the parable of the unrighteous steward, Christ, who primarily had publicans in mind, teaches all sinners in general how to achieve salvation and eternal bliss. This is the mysterious meaning of the parable. A rich man is God. An unrighteous steward is a sinner who carelessly squanders the gifts of God for a long time, until God calls him to account with some terrible signs (illnesses, misfortunes). If the sinner has not yet lost his common sense, then he brings repentance, just as the steward forgave the master’s debtors for the debts that he could have accounted for them. But it is clear that going into detailed allegorical explanations of this parable is completely useless, because here you will have to be guided only by completely random coincidences and resort to exaggerations: like any other parable, the parable of the unrighteous steward contains, in addition to the main idea, additional features that do not require explanation. Luke 16:14. The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they laughed at Him. Luke 16:15. 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. Among the listeners of the parable of the unrighteous steward were the Pharisees, who laughed (ἐξεμυκτήριζον) at Christ - obviously because His opinion about earthly wealth seemed completely absurd to them. The law, they told themselves, looks at wealth differently: it promises wealth as a reward to the righteous for their virtues, therefore, it cannot in any way be called unrighteous. Moreover, the Pharisees themselves loved money. This reasoning of the Pharisees, undoubtedly, is what Christ has in mind when he addresses them with the words: “you show yourself to be righteous...” He seems to want to tell them: “Yes, the law really does contain promises of earthly rewards and, in particular, wealth for a righteous lifestyle. But you have no right to look at your wealth as a reward from God for your righteousness. Your righteousness is imaginary. If you can find respect for yourself from people with your hypocritical righteousness, then you will not find recognition from God, who sees the real state of your heart. And this condition is such that it should be recognized as the most terrible.” Luke 16:16. Law and Prophets before John; From now on, the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone enters into it with effort. Luke 16:17. But it is sooner that heaven and earth pass away than one line of the law disappears. Luke 16:18. Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries one divorced from her husband commits adultery. These three verses contain sayings that have already been explained in the commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew (see Matthew 11:12-14, 5:18, 32). Here they have the meaning of an introduction to the following parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus. The Lord affirms with them the great significance of the law and the prophets (this will be discussed in the parable), who prepared the Jews for the acceptance of the Kingdom of the Messiah, the herald of whose coming was John the Baptist. Thanks to them, people awakened to the desire for the revealed Kingdom of God. The law should not lose a single feature of itself, and as an example of this affirmation of the law, Christ points out that He understands the law of divorce even more strictly than it was interpreted in the Pharisaic school. However, B. Weiss gives a special interpretation of this saying of the 18th verse. Evangelist Luke, in his opinion, understands this saying allegorically, as characterizing the relationship between the law and the new order of the Kingdom of God (cf. Rom. 7:1-3). Whoever, for the sake of the latter, renounces the former, thereby commits before God the same sin of adultery as the one who, after God has freed man from subjection to the law through the proclamation of the Gospel, still wants to continue his previous relationship with the law. He sins from the point of view of the immutability of the law (verse 17), and this one sins as someone who does not want to take part in people’s striving for a new life of grace (verse 16). Luke 16:19. A certain man was rich, dressed in purple and fine linen, and feasted brilliantly every day. In the following parable about the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, the Lord shows what terrible consequences the improper use of wealth leads to (cf. verse 14). This parable is not directed directly against the Pharisees, because they could not be likened to a rich man carefree about his salvation, but against their view of wealth as something completely harmless to the cause of salvation, even as evidence of the righteousness of the person who has it. The Lord shows that it is not at all a proof of righteousness and that it often brings the greatest harm to its owner and reduces him after death to the abyss of hell. Porphyry is a woolen fabric dyed with expensive purple dye, used to make outerwear (red). “Visson” is the finest white fabric made from cotton (hence, not linen) and used to make underwear. “Every day he feasted brilliantly.” From this it is clear that the rich man had no worries either about public affairs and the needs of his neighbors, or about the salvation of his own soul. He was not a rapist, an oppressor of the poor, and did not commit any other crimes, but this constant careless feasting alone was a great sin before God. Luke 16:20. There was also a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate covered with sores. "Lazarus" is a name shortened from Eleazar - God of help. One can agree with some interpreters that Christ mentions the name of the beggar for the purpose of showing that the beggar had only hope for God’s help: people threw him at the rich man’s gate (ἐβέβλητο - was thrown out, in Russian translation - “lying”). “At the gate” (πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα) – at the entrance that led into the house from the front courtyard (cf. Matt. 26:71). Luke 16:21. and wanted to feed himself on the crumbs falling from the rich man’s table, and the dogs came and licked his scabs. "The crumbs falling from the rich man's table." In eastern cities, all scraps are usually thrown directly into the street, where they are picked up by dogs wandering in large numbers along the streets. In the present case, the sick Lazarus had to share these scraps with the dogs. The dogs, dirty, unclean animals from the Jew's point of view, licked his scabs - they treated the unfortunate man, who was unable to drive them away, as if they were their own kind. There is no hint of pity, which they supposedly showed towards the beggar. Luke 16:22. The beggar died and was carried by the Angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. "Carried away by the Angels". Of course, the soul of the beggar was carried away by the Angels, who, according to Jewish belief, carry the souls of the righteous to heaven. "Abraham's Bosom". This is how the Jews designated the heavenly bliss of the righteous. The righteous remain after death in the closest communion with Patriarch Abraham, resting their heads on his chest. However, Abraham’s bosom is not the same as paradise - it is, so to speak, a chosen and better position, which the beggar Lazarus occupied in paradise, who found a quiet refuge here in the arms of his ancestor (the image here is taken not from a supper or meal, which, for example, is mentioned in Matthew 8:11 and Luke 13:29-30, but from the custom of parents to warm their children in their arms; cf. John 1:18 ). Of course, paradise here is taken not in the sense of the kingdom of glory (as in 2 Cor. 12:2 et seq.), but only as a designation of the carefree state of the righteous who have departed from earthly life. This state is temporary; the righteous will remain in it until the second coming of Christ. Luke 16:23. And in hell, being in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his bosom "In Hell". The Hebrew word “Sheol,” translated here by the word “hell,” as in the Seventy, denotes the general location of departed souls until the resurrection and is divided into heaven for the pious (Luke 23:43) and Gehenna for the wicked. In addition, the Talmud says that heaven and Gehenna are so located that from one place you can see what is happening in the other. But it is hardly necessary to deduce from here and from the following conversation of the rich man with Abraham any dogmatic thoughts about the afterlife, because, undoubtedly, in this section of the parable we have before us a purely poetic image of a well-known thought developed in the parable, similar to that found, for example, in 1 Kings 22, where the prophet Micah describes the revelation that was to him about the fate of Ahab’s army. Is it really possible, for example, to literally understand what the rich man says about the thirst that torments him? After all, he has no body in hell... “I saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom.” This, of course, increased his torment even more, since he was extremely annoyed that a despicable beggar was enjoying such closeness to the patriarch. Luke 16:24. and crying out, he 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. Luke 16:25. 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; Luke 16:26. 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. Seeing Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, the suffering rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to him to help him with even a drop of water. Abraham, affectionately calling the rich man his “child,” refuses him, however, to fulfill his request: he has already received enough of what he considered good (“your good”), and Lazarus saw only evil in life (there is no addition “his own” here, which indicates that suffering is not at all the necessary lot of the righteous). From the contrast of Lazarus with the rich man, who, undoubtedly, himself was to blame for his bitter fate, because he lived wickedly, it is clear that Lazarus was a pious man. Further, Abraham points to the will of God, according to which it is impossible to move from heaven to Gehenna and back. Figuratively expressing this thought, Abraham says that between Gehenna and paradise there is a large abyss (according to the rabbinic idea - only an inch), so that Lazarus, even if he wanted to go to the rich man, could not do it. Luke 16:27. Then he said: So I ask you, father, send him to my father’s house, Luke 16:28. for I have five brothers; let him testify to them, so that they too do not come to this place of torment. Luke 16:29. Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. Luke 16:30. He said: no, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead comes to them, they will repent. Luke 16:31. Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then even if someone were raised from the dead, they would not believe it. In this section it is indicated that there is only one way to avoid the fate of a rich man languishing in hell - this is repentance, a change in an idle life spent in mere pleasures, and that the law and the prophets serve as the means indicated to all those seeking admonition. Even the return of the deceased cannot bring as much benefit to those leading such a careless life as these constantly available means of admonition. “Let him bear witness to them,” namely, tell them how I suffer because I did not want to change my careless life. “They won’t believe it.” When the evangelist wrote this, his mind could be presented with the disbelief with which the Jews greeted the resurrection of Lazarus (John 12:10) and the resurrection of Christ Himself. In addition, Christ and the apostles had long since carried out the resurrection of the dead, but did this have any effect on the unbelieving Pharisees? Of course, they tried to explain these miracles by some natural causes or, as they actually explained, by the help of dark forces 21 . An amount corresponding to the price of approximately 18.5 kg of gold. – Editor's note. Approximately 23 kg in gold equivalent. – Approx. ed. From Abraham’s answer to the rich man one can conclude that the teaching of spiritualism is false, which recognizes the possibility of the appearance of the dead to convince someone of some high truth: we have a leader in life - the Holy Church, and we do not need other means. Some interpreters, in addition to the direct meaning indicated above, see in this parable an allegorical and prophetic meaning. The rich man, in their understanding, in all his behavior and fate represents Judaism, who lived carelessly in the hope of their rights to the Heavenly Kingdom and then, after the coming of Christ, suddenly found themselves beyond the threshold of this Kingdom, and the beggar represents paganism, which was alienated from Israeli society and lived in spiritual poverty, and then was suddenly accepted into the bosom of Christ’s Church. You might be interested in: