John Lightfoot on Luke 16:9

[Of the mammon of unrighteousness.] I. Were I very well assured that our Saviour in this passage meant riches well gotten, and alms to be bestowed thence, I would not render it mammon of unrighteousness, but hurtful mammon. For hurt signifies as well to deal unjustly. Vulg. hurt not the earth. And so riches, even well got, may be said to be hurtful mammon; because it frequently proves noxious to the owner. It is the lawyers' term, the damage of mammon (Maimonides hath a treatise with that title), that is, when any person doth any way hurt or damnify another's estate. And in reality, and on the contrary, hurtful mammon, i.e. when riches turn to the hurt and mischief of the owner...

II. Or perhaps he might call it mammon of unrighteousness in opposition to mammon of righteousness, i.e. of mercy, or almsgiving: for by that word righteousness, the Jews usually expressed charity or almsgiving, as every one that hath dipped into that language knows very well. And then his meaning might be, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, i.e. of those riches which you have not yet laid out in righteousness, or almsgiving...

III. I see no reason, therefore, why we may not, nay, why, indeed, it is not necessary to, understand the words precisely of riches ill gotten. For,

1. So the application of the parable falls in directly with the parable itself: "That steward gained to himself friends by ill-gotten goods; so do ye: make to yourselves friends of the wealth you have not well got."

Object. But far be it from our Saviour to exhort or encourage any to get riches unjustly, or to stir them up to give alms out of what they have dishonestly acquired. Saith Heinsius; "No man but will confess our Lord meant nothing less than that any one should make friends to himself of riches unjustly gained." Yet, for all this, I must acknowledge myself not so very well satisfied in this matter.

2. Let us but a little consider by what words in the Syriac our Saviour might express mammon of unrighteousness, especially if he spoke in the vulgar language. It was a common phrase, mammon of falsity, or false mammon; at least if the Targumists speak in the vulgar idiom of that nation, which none will deny. It is said of Samuel's sons, that "they did not walk in his ways but turned after 'false mammon.'" "He destroys his own house, whoso heaps up to himself the 'mammon of falsehood.'" "Whoever walks in justice, and speaketh right things, and separates himself from 'the mammon of iniquity.'" "To shed blood and to destroy souls, that they may gain 'mammon of falsehood.'"

There needs no commentator to shew what the Targumists mean by mammon of falsehood, or mammon of unrighteousness. They themselves explain it, when they render it sometimes by mammon of violence; sometimes by mammon of wickedness. Kimchi, by mammon of rapine, upon Isaiah 33.

By the way, I cannot but observe, that that expression, Hosea 5:11, after the commandment, i.e. of Jeroboam or Omri, is rendered by the Targumists after the mammon of falsehood. Where also see the Greek and Vulgar.

Seeing it appears before that mammon of unrighteousness, is the same in the Greek with mammon of falsity or false mammon in the Targumists, who speak in the common language of that nation, there is no reason why it should not be taken here in the very same sense. Think but what word our Saviour would use to express unrighteousness by, and then think, if there can be any word more probable than that which was so well known, and so commonly in use in that nation. Indeed the word unrighteousness, in this place, is softened by some, that it should denote no further than false, as not true and substantial: so that the mammon of unrighteousness should signify deceitful mammon, not opposing riches well got to those that are ill got, but opposing earthly riches to spiritual: which rendering of the word took its rise from hence especially, that it looked ill and unseemly, that Christ should persuade any to make to themselves friends by giving alms out of an ill-gotten estate: not to mention that, verse 11, unrighteous mammon, is opposed to true riches.

III. It is not to be doubted but that the disciples of Christ did sufficiently abhor the acquiring of riches by fraud and rapine: but can we absolve all of them from the guilt of it before their conversion? particularly Matthew the publican? And is it so very unseemly for our Saviour to admonish them to make themselves friends by restitution, and a pious distribution of those goods they may have unjustly gathered before their conversion? The discourse is about restitution, and not giving of alms.

IV. It is a continued discourse in this place with that in the foregoing chapter, only that he does more particularly apply himself to his disciples, verse 1, He said unto his disciples; where the particle and joins what is discoursed here with what went before. Now who were his disciples? not the twelve apostles only, nor the seventy disciples only: but, chapter 15:1, all the publicans and sinners that came to hear him. For we needs must suppose them in the number of disciples, if we consider the distinction of the congregation then present, being made between scribes and Pharisees, and those that came to him with a good mind to hear: besides that we may observe how Christ entertains them, converseth with them, and pleads for them in the parable of the foregoing chapter. Which plea and apology for them against the scribes and Pharisees being finished, he turns his discourse to them themselves, and under the parable of an Unjust Steward, instructs them how they may make to themselves friends of the wealth they had unjustly gained, as he had done. And, indeed, what could have been more seasonably urged before the unjust and covetous Pharisees, than to stir up his followers, that, if they had acquired any unrighteous gains before their conversion, they would now honestly restore them, piously distribute them, that so they may make themselves friends of them, as the Unjust Steward had done?

And for a comment upon this doctrine, let us take the instance of Zacchaeus, chapter 19. If Christ, while entertained in his house, had said to him what he said to his disciples here, Zacchaeus, make to thyself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; would Zacchaeus himself, or those that stood by, have understood him any otherwise, than that he should make friends to himself of that wealth he had gotten dishonestly? And why they may not be so understood here, I profess I know not; especially when he discourses amongst those disciples that had been publicans and sinners; and scarce any of them, for aught we know, but before his conversion had been unjust and unrighteous enough.

[Make to yourselves friends.] Were it so, that, by the mammon of unrighteousness could be understood an estate honestly got, and the discourse were about giving of alms, yet would I hardly suppose the poor to be those friends here mentioned, but Got and Christ. For who else were capable of receiving them into everlasting habitations? As for the poor (upon whom these alms are bestowed) doing this, as some have imagined, is mere dream, and deserves to be laughed at rather than discussed.

In Bava Kama we have a discourse about restitution of goods ill gotten; and amongst other things there is this passage: "The Rabbins deliver; those that live upon violence (or thieves), and usurers, if they make restitution, their restitution is not received." And a little after, for shepherds, exactors, and publicans, restitution is difficult. (The Gloss is, Because they have wronged so many, that they know not to whom to restore their own.) But they do make restitution to those who know their own goods, that were purloined from them. They say true, They do make restitution: but others do not receive it of them. To what end then do they make restitution? That they may perform their duty towards God.

Upon what nicety it was that they would not allow those to restitution, from whom the goods had been purloined, I will not stand to inquire. It was necessary, however, that restitution should be made; that that which was due and owing to God might be performed; that is, they might not retain in their hands any ill-gotten goods, but devote them to some good use; and, accordingly, those things that were restored, (if the owners could not know them again) were dedicated to public use, viz. to the use of the synagogue: and so they made God their friend, of the goods that they had gained by dishonesty and unrighteousness.