Luke 16:14

Luk_16:14-18

The Pharisees also, who were covetous

Lovers of money

Those lovers of money heard what things?

As rulers of the people they heard the parable of the unjust steward, and their own doom as men entrusted with the priceless riches of Gods teaching pronounced: How is it that I hear this of thee? They heard, He that is faithful in that which is least--money--is faithful also in much.

I. LOVERS OF MONEY DERIDE A STRICT SCRUPULOSITY. Be faithful in the least. Many of the customs of trades and professions are out of harmony with the gospel teaching on strict conscientiousness.

II. LOVERS OF MONEY DERIDE THE TEACHING OF THE GOSPEL ON SELFDENIAL. Self-denial and a race for wealth are incompatible things: Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

III. LOVERS OF MONEY DERIDE THOSE WHO CALL THE PURSUIT OF RICHES THE WORSHIP OF MAMMON.

IV. LOVERS OF MONEY NEED ROUSING BY A STERNER TEACHING. Was not the Saviour impelled to the utterance of the parable of Dives and Lazarus--look at it--by the looks of contempt implied in the word ἐξομυκτήριζον, the distended nostril and curled lip of these Pharisees? Does this help to explain our Lords unusual severity: In hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment Nothing will shake the lover of money but stern teaching, and not always that. (Clerical World.)

Ye are they which justify yourselves before men

Men often highly esteem what God abhors

Show how and why it is that men highly esteem that which God abhors.

1. They have a different rule of judgment. God judges by one rule; they by another. Gods rule requires universal benevolence; their rule is satisfied with any amount of selfishness, so it be sufficiently refined to meet the times. The world adopts an entirely different rule, allowing men to set up their own happiness as their end. But Gods rule is, Seek not thine own. God regards nothing as virtue except devotion to the right ends. The right end is not ones own, but the general good. Hence Gods rule requires virtue, while mans rule at best only restrains vice. Men very inconsiderately judge themselves and others, not by Gods rule, but by mans. Here I must notice some of the evidences of this, and furnish some illustrations. Thus, for example, a mere negative morality is highly esteemed by some men. Again, a religion which is merely negative is often highly esteemed. So also of a religion which at best consists of forms and prayers, and does not add to these the energies of benevolent effort. Again, the business aims and practices of business men are almost universally an abomination in the sight of God. Professed Christians judge themselves falsely, because they judge by a false standard. One of the most common and fatal mistakes is to employ a merely negative standard. The good Christian in the worlds esteem is never abrupt, never aggressive, yet he is greatly admired. He has a selfish devotion to pleasing man, than which nothing is more admired. Now, this may be highly esteemed among men; but does not God abhor it? (C. G. Finney, D. D.)

God knoweth your hearts.

The heart-searcher:--

I. This truth is eminently calculated to deepen our sense of the unapproachable greatness of the God with whom we have to do.

II. This truth illustrates, not the greatness only, but also the forbearance and mercy of God.

III. This truth should teach you, my brethren, the folly, not to dwell on the guilt, of formality and hypocrisy.

IV. This truth is adapted to console and encourage the often misjudged and afflicted people of God.

V. This truth assures us beforehand of the equity of the Divine awards at the judgment-day. (C. M. Merry.)

Gods knowledge of the heart

At the present day many persons have photographs of their faces taken, which they present to their friends. But if it were possible to have an album of photographs taken of our sinful souls, revealing and blazoning forth all the evil deeds they had each done, all the evil words they had ever spoken, and all the evil thoughts they had ever thought, how hideous and horrible would such pictures be! Would any man dare to give his true soul-photograph to any brother man? I think not; and far less to his friends. Yet the things and thoughts we would thus conceal from others, and even from ourselves, are all known to God. He has full and faithful photographs of all; for He is perfectly cognizant of every single one of our evil deeds, and words, and imaginations. Nay, possibly we unwittingly carry about with us complete photographs of our own souls. May not the unsaved soul carry this record with it at death? May not unsaved sinners be thus both their own self-accusers and witnesses before the judgment-seat of Christ? Nor can anything except His blood, which cleanseth from all sin, blot and wash out the record of our iniquities, and prepare the soul, by the grace of God, to receive the image of His Son. (Sir James Simpson.)

Every man presseth into it

Violence victorious

I. THE STATE OF THE CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

1. A kingdom.

2. The kingdom of heaven.

II. THE DISPOSITION OF THOSE WHO SEEK THIS KINGDOM. Violent.

1. Between us and the blessed state we aim at there is much opposition; and therefore there must be violence.

(1) The means of grace and salvation are opposed from within us.

(2) There is also opposition from the world.

(a) Snares and delights, to quench our pleasure in the good things of the Spirit.

(b) Fears, terrors, and scandals, to scare us from doing what we ought.

2. God will have this violence and striving, to test the truth of our profession.

3. God will have us get these things with violence, that we may value them more when we have them.

4. The excellence of the thing requires violence.

5. The necessity requires it. The kingdom of heaven is a place of refuge as well as a kingdom to enrich us.

III. THE SUCCESS OF THIS EAGERNESS. The violent take the kingdom by force. Why?

1. Because it is promised to the violent (Mat_7:7; Rev_3:19-21).

2. The spirit whereby a man is earnest is a victorious spirit. The Spirit of God possesses them; and with His help they cannot fail.

3. Only the violent take it, because God offers it on this condition alone.

4. Only the violent can prize it when they have it. (R. Sibbes, D. D.)

Taken by force

Let us look in a large way at this important truth. Everything great on earth has to be achieved by long, earnest, persistent toil. If you seek to become master of any art, any literature, any science, any accomplishment, you do not sit down and say, God is the giver of all good, and I shall not be so arrogant as to strive for that which He alone can bestow. You know very well it can only be had by meeting every obstacle and conquering it. The very value of the thing is estimated often by the straining endeavour, the unconquerable zeal, and the cease less labour which are requisite to its attainment. We so often see only the results in certain lives, and not the long processes which have been leading up to those results, that we are tempted sometimes to forget this. A poet writes some verses that cause the whole nations soul to burn and glow; an orator makes some speech that thrills his country to its very hearts core; a philosopher observes some phenomena which open up a whole field of scientific truth. We are dazzled with the success; we are forgetful of the long, patient hours of study and of thought which have gone before. Millions had seen apples fall before Newton did, and it revealed nothing to them; millions had seen the kettle lid blown off by steam before Watt did, and it suggested no thought to them; millions had lost their dearest friend before Tennyson lost Hallam, and they wrote no In Memoriam; millions had watched nations reeling with the shock of revolution before Burke gazed on the shattered throne and the polluted altar of France, and no burning words of eloquence fell from their lips or from their pen. To the souls trained in patient thought the revelation of great truth comes--or rather, what are common facts to others are revelations to them. Dont call these things accidents. The accidental falling of an apple was the cause of the discovery of the laws of gravity, says a popular treatise. A fearful untruth. The cause of the discovery was the long period of deep self-sacrificing thought which Newton had given to Nature. What a lucky man Newton was to have that apple fall before him! said a young man once, in my hearing. Rather, said a thoughtful man, standing by, what a lucky apple to fall before Newton! There is a world of truth in that. So one might go through the whole range of human experience and culture, and everywhere the kingdom that you want to become master of has to be taken by force. The door is opened to the persistent knocking. The bread is given to the unwearied demand. The treasure is found by the one who has been seeking. Now we come to the highest life of all--to the culture of that part of our nature which transcends all else. Is it not this great principle which pervades all the physical and mental world; which we see in every tiny plant as it struggles through the earth towards the light, in every mighty oak scarred with the lightnings and storms of ages, in every torrent that fights its way towards the ocean; which we see in every achievement of physical science, in every path she has constructed across mountain or morass, in every railroad for which she has torn and blasted a way through the granite of the earth; which we see in every great painting that has glowed with beauty on the canvas, in every great work of the sculptor who has made the cold marble breathe and live; which we see in every page of every great book in which Science records her facts, or poet, or historian, or philosopher has penned his researches and his thoughts--is not, I say, this great principle, which thus meets us everywhere--in all noble results, and all great achievements, in every department of human thought and life--to be found anywhere in the grander life of the immortal soul? Surely itis, brethren, and we ignore the teaching of Christ and of His apostles if we regard Christs religion as merely a means by which we are to be saved from all trouble and responsibility about the future. There are people who tell you that all you have to do is to accept Christ, believe in Him, and then He has done all for you--you need have no more anxiety or trouble. All through those Epistles, which are so full of the gospel of the grace of God, and where Christ and Him crucified is the central fact of the Christian faith, the apostle, in words which thrill with the living power of deep personal experience, speaks of the Christian life as a ceaseless, protracted, fearful struggle. Be exhausts things sacred and profane to find imagery to depict and to impress this truth. The Christian life is a race for which no previous preparation is too careful; in which every nerve is to be strained, and on which all our force is to be concentrated, that we may obtain the prize (1Co_9:24-27). (T. T. Shore, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 16:14-15. The Pharisees, who were covetous — Of a very worldly spirit; heard all these things — Namely, concerning the true use of riches, and the impossibility of men’s serving God and mammon at the same time; and they derided him — As a visionary, who despised the riches, honours, and pleasures of life for no other reason but because he could not procure them. The original word, εξεμυκτηριζον, is very emphatical, signifying, they mocked him, by a scornful motion of the mouth and nose, as well as by what they spake to him. The word might properly be rendered, they sneered. “There was a gravity and dignity in our Lord’s discourse which, insolent as they were, would not permit them to laugh out; but by some scornful air they hinted to each other their mutual contempt.” — Doddridge. And he said, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men — By shunning the company of sinners, and your care of external appearances, you make specious pretences to extraordinary sanctity before the world, and you seldom fail to acquire a great reputation for it. Or, the meaning may be, You think yourselves righteous, and persuade others to think you so. But God knoweth your hearts — You cannot justify yourselves before him, who knows you to be so far from being righteous, that you are very wicked. For though you may have covered the foulness of your crimes with the painted cloak of hypocrisy, and by going about, thus adorned, have cheated those who look no further than the outside, into a high admiration of you, you cannot screen yourselves from the detection of God, whose eye penetrates through every covering, and who judges of things not by their appearances, but according to truth. For that which is highly esteemed among men, &c. — In consequence of which it comes to pass that he often abhors both men and things that are held in the highest estimation.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Renewed topic of controversy with the Pharisees—The doctrine concerning riches, Luk_16:14-31.

14. The Pharisees (probably the same Herodian set as in Luk_13:31-33, and Luk_15:1-2, where see our notes) raised a dispute because Jesus received and ate with converted publicans and sinners. Their murmurs then drew out the THREE PARABLES in regard to mercy for the penitent. Their present assault in consequence of the two last parables, and the doctrine of Christ in regard to riches, called forth the parable of the rich man. Were covetous—Literally, in the Greek they were φιλαργυροι, or silver-loving. That is, they were greedy for wealth and pomp.

Heard—The Greek imperfect tense signifies were hearing. They were listening while our Lord delivered the last parable, greatly disgusted with his treatment of the subject of riches. Derided—Greek, were deriding him; they were doing so while he spoke. The word in the original signifies that sort of propelling the breath through the nostrils expressed by the word to snuffle, and more delicately by the word to sneer. Of course they sneered with bitter words also. We might imagine them saying, “No doubt that treacherous steward is the proper model for his set of villainous publicans; the stewards of the Roman oppressors of Israel.” But they themselves were the courtiers of Herod Antipas, who was by blood an Edomite.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk_16:14-18. In this section, the connection of which with the preceding and following parables is not at first sight apparent, we have evidently the heads of a discourse addressed to the Pharisees. The thread of connection seems to be the following. The Pharisees derided the teaching of Jesus concerning riches, and plumed themselves upon their righteousness. Jesus contrasts merely outward and legal righteousness with that inward righteousness which approves itself to God (Luk_16:15). He declares that the period of outward legal righteousness came to an end with the preaching of John the Baptist; that the kingdom of God is now preached and every one (i.e., publicans and sinners) presseth into it. Yet no reproach was thus cast upon the Law; there was no relaxation of the standard of holiness—nay, in the kingdom of God a strict observance of the rules of conduct was insisted upon. The scaffolding of the legal system was taken away, but the inward principle of the Law is eternal (Luk_16:17). The example given of the indissolubility of the moral law and of the revelation, through Christ, of a stricter morality than that of the Mosaic enactments, is taken from the law of adultery. The paragraph Luk_16:14-18 forms an introduction to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The words (Luk_16:15) “that which is highly esteemed among men” are illustrated by the picture of the brilliant and sumptuous life of the Rich Man; the words, “is abomination in the sight of God” correspond to the statement of the terrible chastisement in hell which falls upon him; while the permanent value of the Law (Luk_16:17) is asserted over again by Abraham—“They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (Luk_16:30). In contrast, too, with those who press violently into the kingdom of God (Luk_16:16), is the life of the self-indulgent sinner, who is indifferent to everything but his own ease and comfort.

Luk_16:14. Covetous.—Rather, “lovers of money” (R.V.). Derided.—The literal meaning of the word is “to turn up the nose at.” Derided the idea; that is, that riches hindered religion.

Luk_16:15. Justify yourselves.—I.e., declare yourselves to be just, or righteous. Highly esteemed.—Rather, “exalted” (R.V.); lit. “lofty.”

Luk_16:16. The law, etc.—Christ here clearly distinguishes between the Old and the New Dispensation. Presseth into it.—Rather, “entereth violently into it” (R.V.) (cf. Mat_11:12-13). The allusion is to the eagerness with which some classes of the community received the message of the kingdom (cf. Luk_7:29; Joh_12:19).

Luk_16:17. One tittle.—The word used described the little turns of the strokes by which one letter of the alphabet differs from another somewhat like it.

Luk_16:18. Whosoever putteth away his wife.—The allusion here to the law of divorce is probably a reference to the fact that the Pharisees were lax in their opinions on this point. They allowed divorce for any cause: Christ forbade it, except for the one cause of “fornication.” The expression in this verse might seem to forbid divorce altogether, but in other passages where the matter is dealt with, the one exception is specified (see Mat_5:32; Mat_19:9).

Luk_16:19. A certain rich man.—No name given him, while the beggar has a name (Luk_16:20). He is often called Dives (Latin for “rich”). Clothed in purple.—His outer dress of costly Tyrian purple, his inner of fine linen from Egypt. Fared sumptuously.—Or “living in mirth and splendour” (R.V. margin). No charge of gluttony or other sensual vice can be founded on these words. He enjoyed the pleasures of this life which his wealth could purchase, instead of providing friends against the day of death (Luk_16:9). His luxuriousness was of the type described in 1Jn_2:16.

Luk_16:20. Lazarus.—A form of Eleazar, which means “God my help.” This name is evidently chosen to indicate the beggar’s piety, upon which, however, the parable lays no stress, as the Rich Man’s sin was neglect of a brother man, and not neglect of a pious brother man. The word translated “beggar” means simply a poor man. Full of sores.—As persons of his class often are—cutaneous disorders, from meagre diet, and neglect.

Luk_16:21. Desiring.—And evidently obtaining his desire: accepting willingly the crumbs, though they were insufficient to satisfy his hunger. The dogs.—The wild, ownerless dogs that roam in the streets of an Eastern city, and act as scavengers. Licked.—In contrast with the inhumanity of men towards the beggar is set the pity of the dogs: they licked his sores as they lick their own.

Luk_16:22. The beggar died.—No mention made of burial, as in the case of the Rich Man: the funeral rites of a pauper attract little attention. Was carried.—I.e., his soul was carried. Abraham’s bosom.—I.e., the happy side of Hades, where the saints were regarded as resting in bliss. The figure is that of a banquet: the beggar is placed in a seat of honour next Abraham. The reclining at table by which the head of one person almost rested on the lap of another, explains “Abraham’s bosom” (cf. Joh_13:23). And was buried.—Splendid obsequies, in accordance with the rank and wealth he had enjoyed. Taken in connection with what follows, there seems a strain of irony in the mention of the Rich Man’s burial.

Luk_16:23. In hell.—Rather, “in Hades” (R.V.), the baleful side of the world of spirits. There can be no doubt that in the representation of the state of matters in the future world, as given in this parable, Christ uses figurative language, in accommodation to the prevailing Jewish ideas of His time, rather than reveals that world as it is. In torments.—Perhaps we are to understand by this the anticipation of condemnation—the final condemnation being still in the distance.

Luk_16:24. Send Lazarus.—As, having been his inferior on earth, he may be employed still as a servant. The Rich Man is now the suppliant, but is not yet accustomed to the reversal of his lot. Tongue.—Which had been an organ of luxury. Am tormented.—Rather, “am in anguish” (R.V.); the word differing from that in Luk_16:23.

Luk_16:25. Son.—Solemn and calm reply: no mockery of his state, no grief concerning him either. Receivedst.—Or “receivedst to the full.” All thy good things.—“All thou didst account good, came to an end with life.” “Thy good things.” Notice that the corresponding word is not used of Lazarus’ “evil things.” He did not, probably, regard them as evil, but as part of God’s discipline towards him.

Luk_16:26. And beside all this.—I.e., “Even if it were not so, God’s decree has placed thee where thou art, and a great gulf between us, so that it is impossible to grant thy request.” So that they.—Rather, “in order that” none may pass it. Is fixed.—For ever impassable.

Luk_16:27-28. I pray thee, therefore.—His brethren were living carelessly as he had lived. In his solicitude on their account we have a certain change in his disposition—his selfishness gives way: and in this change we would gladly believe there is the germ of a better life. The general tone, however, of the parable forbids much stress being laid on this.

Luk_16:30. Nay, father Abraham.—Not “They will not hear them,” for he could not tell that; but “Leave them not to that uncertain chance; make their repentance sure by sending a messenger from the dead.”

Luk_16:31. If they hear not, etc.—The words of Abraham are stronger than those of the Rich Man—even the lesser work of persuasion, not to speak of the greater of bringing to repentance, could not be wrought by this means. The possibility of sending such a messenger is not denied. There is no impassable gulf between Hades and the world. Lazarus of Bethany (whose name so strangely corresponds to that of the beggar here) crossed it, and so did Christ Himself. The Pharisees did not believe, though confronted with the fact of the resurrection of some from the dead. Christ, after His rising again, did not go to them—the fact is here asserted that they would not have believed, even if He had done so. The reason for such unbelief has its explanation: mere marvels have not necessarily any moral value, and soon pall upon those who witness them.

MAIN HOMILETICS ON THE PARAGRAPH.—Luk_16:14-31

Abused Wealth the Rich Man’s Ruin.—The parable of the Unjust Steward teaches the right use of worldly wealth; and the central point of the miscellaneous sayings in Luk_16:14-18 is the permanence of the Law and the Prophets. Both points reappear in this parable.

I. The earthly contrast of the two lives.—There is a double contrast—the sharp and shocking diversity between the prodigal abundance of the Rich Man’s dress and fare and the squalid misery of the diseased beggar, and the contrast between the end of their lives. With regard to the first it is to be clearly understood that Jesus Christ is not running a-tilt against rich men, as if wealth was wickedness, or a beggar necessarily a saint. But it should be as clearly noted that He is declaring the essential wickedness and inhumanity which dog the possession of wealth, as a constant danger; namely, the use of it for selfish purposes, so as to preserve in all its sharpness the contrast between its possessor and the poor. The Rich Man’s duty to Lazarus was not discharged by letting him have the leavings of his feasts, as he seems to have done. Rich men may do small charities and yet be guilty of such use of their wealth as will sink them to ruin. The name Lazarus (Eleazar, “God is help”) suggests the thought of the poor man’s devoutness, though in the parable the fact of his piety is not dwelt upon. Not because Lazarus was pious, but because he was poor and leprous, was it the Rich Man’s business to help him. Christ’s teaching about wealth is not communistic or socialistic. He recognises fully the right of individual possession, but He emphatically asserts that possession is stewardship, and that we hold money, as we do everything, in trust for those who lack and need it. Lazarus dies first, worn out by privation and disease. Perhaps, if he had been carried indoors from the gate, he would have lasted longer. What a change for him! The one moment lying in the fierce sunshine, so motionless and helpless that the dogs came about him as if he were dead, and he had no strength to drive them away; and then he is carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom. He has no funeral, as the other has. The Rich Man dies, and, of course, has a splendid interment, with all the proper pomp and circumstance. His wealth can get him a fine funeral, of which he knows nothing; and that is all that it can do.

II. The contrast of the two lives in Hades.—Our Lord paints that unseen state in colours taken from the ordinary Jewish conceptions. “Abraham’s bosom,” the bearing of the soul by angels, the dialogues between the dead, were all familiar rabbinical ideas; so that it is difficult to say how far we have here representations of fact. The main idea seems to be that of the reversal, in Hades, of the earthly condition. Lazarus is now in the place of joy and abundance; the Rich Man is now the beggar lying at the gate. He who would give nothing of his abundance, but was deaf to the groans and blind to the misery at his gate, has now to feel the pangs of need and to crave a drop of water to cool his tongue. The solemn answer put into the lips of Abraham expresses the impossibility, from the very nature of that state, of granting the desired alleviation. It is a state of retribution, the outgrowth and necessary issue of the earthly life, and so cannot be otherwise than it is. “Remember.” The past will stand clear before the selfish man and be a torment—he is tortured by the very desires he has nourished and by the stings of conscience and memory. “Thy good things.” He who makes the world his good is necessarily wretched when he is swept out of it by the whirlwind of death, and sees, when too late, what a blunder his estimate of its good was. On the other hand, the pious beggar received things that were “evil” in reality, but yet were not the things which he regarded as truly evil; and because he, on his part, placed his good higher than the world, therefore evil wrought for good to him. The lesson of this parable is the converse of that of the Unjust Steward; namely, that the selfish use of wealth is fatal, and brings bitter retribution in another life. The second ground for the refusal of the request is the existence of the “great gulf” which forbids passage from either side. Doctrinal statements can scarcely be founded on the parable, yet we see that there is no hint of repentance in the Rich’s Man’s cry, and that the implication of the whole is that his character was set. True, the state of Hades is not a final state; but it is also true that the narrative gives no reason for holding that the character of its inhabitants is anything but permanent.

III. The sufficient warnings by Law and Prophets.—The rich man’s second petition has often been treated as a sign that his selfishness was melting, and that so he was on the road to a better mind. But the natural instinct of family is not in itself more than selfishness in another form; and his request implies that he thinks the fault of his being where he is, lies not at his door, but is due to imperfect warnings. That does not sound like repentance. “If I had had a message from the grave, I would have repented.” So many of us think that it is God’s fault, not ours, that we yield to temptation. But the real ground of our sinful, godless lives is not a deficiency of light and warning, but inward aversion. Every man has far more knowledge of good than he uses. It is not for lack either of warning or conviction that men are lost. They do not need enlightenment, but, as Christ significantly puts it here, “persuasion.” The Pharisees, whom Christ is pointing at here, were giving signal proof of the power of neglecting miraculous evidence, even while, like the Rich Man, they were calling out for it from Jesus. This latter portion of the parable is directed against them, and completes the reference of the whole to the preceding part of the chapter. The first part echoes the lesson of the Unjust Steward: this repeats the assertion of the permanent validity of Law and Prophets. But though directed presumably against the Pharisees, both have their lesson for us. We have knowledge and motive enough to walk in the paths of godliness. If we do not give heed to what we have, it would be vain to send even messengers from the dead to us. What is lacking in us, if we do not yield to the light, is not more light, but eyes to see, and a heart to love it.—Maclaren.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk_16:14-31

Luk_16:14. “Derided Him.”—The Pharisees listened to these counsels concerning wealth with a scorn and contempt which expressed themselves openly. The Saviour and most of His followers were poor, and rich men are very apt to despise what they consider the cheap Quixotism of the views of pious men concerning the best use of riches, when those men are themselves poor.

No doubt the Pharisees found confirmation of their belief that the love of riches was compatible with the love of God in the fact that the Law spoke of riches as a mark of the Divine blessing.

Luk_16:15. The Judgment of Men and the Judgment of God.

I. Men see but the outside, and are easily deceived: God sees the heart, and cannot be deceived.

II. Man judges by one standard, God by another.—Rank, wealth, ability, learning, attract the admiration of men, while only moral and spiritual elevation of character wins the approval of God.

Luk_16:16. Until John and Since.

I. The ministry of the Baptist, short as it was in its duration, slight apparently in its consequences, is made the turning point of the dispensations. The spiritual history of the world was cleft in twain by that brief mission.

II. Our Lord regards that mission as already part of the past—almost of the far past. Time moves quietly when God is making history; one day is sometimes as a thousand years, no less truly than the converse.

III. There is a strength in the expression “presseth” which makes it less the statement of a fact than the utterance of a triumphant anticipation.—This is that tone of prophetic jubilation which breaks in so often upon sadder themes of discourse as the Saviour marches toward Jerusalem and Calvary.—Vaughan.

The Virtue of Violence.—“Presseth violently.” Violence is here for once made a virtue. In the life of the kingdom there are some characteristics fitly expressed by these strong words.

I. The life of the kingdom is, in part, a life of renunciations.—It has to make sacrifices, to make war on sins, vehemently to determine not to miss the heaven where only righteousness dwells with God.

II. The life of the kingdom is not an easy one, in what it demands of the reason. Not that Christ would commend haste or rashness in belief, or expect any man to believe first and then inquire. But even in believing there is a timidity which is not prudence, and a vehemence which is not presumption. The gospel is a life, the entrance upon a new idea and plan of existence; and, this being so, it is folly to make the question of faith or no faith a matter of caprice or accident. Therefore the man is to be commended who will brook no delay and no diversion in the settlement of the question of questions: how, in what allegiance, he is to live.

III. The life of the kingdom is a life of two chief activities.—Godward and manward. Devotion and work. Vehemence in prayer is not an incongruous term to apply to devotion. Force, zeal, earnestness too, are necessary to the perfection of the Christian character. Positive activity manward. For lack of this most men swim with the stream, and their spiritual life tends to decay. How much nobler the life of the man who “presses” into the kingdom!—Ibid.

Luk_16:16-18. The New Era.—

1. There is a change in the Divine method: the Law and the Prophets prepared men for the kingdom of God, but now the kingdom has come; the mercy of God to the sinful is revealed, and all are summoned to take advantage of it.

2. There is a general movement in human society; multitudes of the outcast and despised are pressing into the kingdom.

3. Yet the holiness of God which the Law proclaims remains for ever the same; the glad tidings of forgiveness do not imply a diminution of the Divine requirements.

4. On the contrary, under the gospel a severer and more spiritual standard of morality is set up: the sanctity of the marriage-tie, for example, is greater under Christianity than it had been in Jewish society.

Luk_16:19-31. Contrasted Destinies.

I. A series of solemn dramatic contrasts to startle the Pharisees out of their complacent selfishness.—

1. The contrast between Dives and Lazarus in life.

2. The contrast is resumed beyond the grave.

3. A contrast of character underlies the picture.

II. Passage from the dramatic to the didactic stage of the parable.—

1. The destinies of a lost soul are appealed in vain to the court of natural affection.

2. The contrasts of the hereafter are maintained by the inexorable necessities of the Divine government.

3. The permanence of the contrasted destinies beyond the grave is certified by the permanence of human character.

4. These final contrasts hereafter rest upon a common probation in this life.—Selby.

Dives and Lazarus.

I. Dives was lacking in the necessary grace of holy charity.—His ignorance of Lazarus was culpable. A man ought to know the sorrows of those who are in his path.

II. The other world-picture reverses their positions.—Two great principles prevent Dives’ misery from being mitigated.

1. God’s compensating justice.

2. God’s sovereign arrangement that in another world there should be the exact contrast of this.

III. Good desires may spring up too late in the heart.

IV. Every living man has provided for him, within his present grasp, all that is necessary for his own salvation.

V. The manner in which the Bible is to be savingly used.—Vaughan.

An Unfaithful Steward’s Doom.—The Pharisees scoffed at our Lord’s “visionary” account of property: this parable is His reply. The intense and natural curiosity of men about the future life has led them to pass over the tremendous moral and practical lessons of the parable, in their endeavour to discover what it reveals concerning the fate of the impenitent. But what is it that our Lord meant the parable to teach? The Rich Man thought that his wealth was his own, to do with as he liked. It never occurred to him that it all belonged to God. How did he incur such a terrible doom in the spirit-world? An awful and hopeless doom! By his flagrant breach of trust in not using his wealth for the relief of those whose sufferings touched the Divine heart, and to whom he should have been the minister of Divine pity. To God this was intolerable. The “flame” is the fiery displeasure which God feels at his selfishness.—Dale.

A Warning to the Selfish.

I. The covetous rich.—Condemned by Christ.

1. By direct reproof.

2. By illustrative parable.

II. The covetous rich and the godly poor.—

1. Contrasted in worldly condition.

2. Contrasted in the hour of death.

3. Contrasted in the unseen world.

III. Lessons of the story.—

1. Certain destruction awaits the worldly.

2. Peace and joy await those whose treasure is in heaven.

3. Repentance must be in this life: there is none beyond.—Taylor.

Here and Hereafter.—The story of two men.

I. In this world.—

1. The Rich Man.

2. The poor man.

II. In the next world.—

1. In Abraham’s bosom.

2. In hell.—Watson.

Outline of the Parable.

I. The earthly condition of the two men (Luk_16:19-22).

1. The Rich Man’s mode of life (Luk_16:19).

2. The poor man’s mode of life (Luk_16:20-21).

3. The death of the former (Luk_16:22 a).

4. That of the latter.

II. The condition of both in the world beyond the grave (Luk_16:23-31).

1. The torment of the Rich Man, and his request (Luk_16:23-24).

2. The reply of Abraham (Luk_16:25-26).

3. The Rich Man’s second request (Luk_16:27-28).

4. Abraham’s second reply (Luk_16:29-31).

The parable teaches—

1. The uncertainty and transitoriness of earthly blessings.

2. The responsibility of rich men, not only for what they do, but for what they do not do with their wealth.

3. The supremacy of the law of God as a guide to eternal life.—Speaker’s Commentary.

Selfishness and Its Doom.—

1. The Rich Man’s selfishness.

2. His indifference to the misery of his fellows.

3. His dreadful doom.

Two Scenes.

I. The earthly scene.—The condition and manner of life of the two men; their characters and dispositions, as yet unrevealed.

II. The Rich Man’s selfishness implied by his neglect of his poor neighbour.

III. The scene beyond the grave.—The altered circumstances of the two: the permanent character of the new conditions; relief of present misery, and a warning to those still on earth refused.

This World and The Next.

I. For mankind, after this life is done, another world remains, consisting of two opposite spheres or conditions—one of holiness and happiness, the other of sin and misery.

II. There is a way from this present life to the place of future misery, and also a way to the place of future blessedness.

III. There is no way over from one of these future states to the other.

IV. Our Lord would constrain us to make the needful transition now.—Arnot.

The parable emphasises the facts—

(1) that one may enjoy a high standing in the sight of men and be reprobate before God;

(2) that an unloving temper is essentially base; and

(3) that a terrible penalty is inflicted on those who misuse the world’s goods.

A Trilogy.—The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is the sublimest delineation of this side and of that side of the grave in its astounding antitheses. What is the trilogy of a Dante, in which He sings of hell, purgatory, and heaven, compared with the trilogy of this parable, which places with few but significant strokes the great whole of Earth, Gehenna, and Paradise, at once before our eyes.—Van Oosterzee.

Luk_16:19. “A certain rich man.”—Jesus said not, a calumniator; He said not, an oppressor of the poor; He said not, a robber of other men’s goods, nor a receiver of such, nor a false accuser; He said not, a spoiler of orphans, a persecutor of widows;—none of these. But what did he say? “There was a certain rich man.” And what was his crime? A lazar lying at his gate, and lying unrelieved.—Augustine.

Abuse of Riches.—Riches may be abused

(1) not only by positive misuse, but also

(2) by the careless and thoughtless use of them. These two lessons are taught respectively by the preceding and by the present parable.

Luk_16:20. “Named Lazarus.”—Seems he not to you to have been reading from that book where He found the name of the poor man written, but found not the name of the rich; for that book is the book of life.—Augustine.

Luk_16:21. “The dogs came.”—The kindness of the brute brings out in deep relief the inhumanity of man.

The nakedness and hunger of Lazarus are contrasted with the rich clothing and sumptuous banquets of the Rich Man.

Luk_16:22. “The beggar died.”—The beggar died first, being taken from his sufferings; the other was given longer space for repentance.

“Carried by angels.”—Here is one who in his life had not a single friend; and now suddenly not one, but many angels wait upon him.—Luther.

The Beggar’s Escort.—

I. Angelic ministry.—Surplusage of angelic service. Not one angel, but two or more, an indication of the glad and bright willingness with which the humble task of duty was done. A gracious and honouring superfluity of helpfulness.

II. The differentiation of Divine and human estimates.—The angels were doing God’s bidding. The plurality of this deputed bodyguard means, not only service, but honour. A message to us not to stand on our dignity and self-respect, but to honour Christ’s lowly ones. The scornful rabbis would have declined to accompany a beggar’s funeral. The angels gladly escort his liberated spirit to the abodes of the blessed, for he was a true “son of Abraham.” Would you feel honoured if asked to attend a pauper’s funeral, or to help to lay the deal-encased body in the grave? Or would you judge only by the outward appearance, and show yourself at the rich man’s burial? The angels “see not as man seeth,” and count it an honour to be the bodyguard of a beggar, and the ministrants of his spirit.—Grosart.

“Abraham’s bosom.”—To correct the notion that wealth, as such, excludes from happiness hereafter; or that poverty, as such, ensures fruition of that happiness, it is sufficient to observe that the beggar Lazarus is carried by angels into the bosom of the rich man Abraham, who made a right use of the riches of this world.

A Sudden Change for The Better.—In an instant Lazarus finds in the heavenly world the sympathy and help which had been denied him on earth.

“And was buried.”—There is a sublime irony, a stain upon all earthly glory, in this mention of his burial, connected as it is with what is immediately to follow. The world, loving its own, follows him, no doubt, with its pomp and pride, till it could not follow any farther. There was not wanting the long procession of the funeral solemnities through the streets of Jerusalem, the crowd of hired mourners, the spices and ointment, very precious, wrapping the body; nor yet the costly sepulchre, on which the genial virtues of the departed were recorded. This splendid carrying of the forsaken tenement of clay to the grave is for him what the carrying into Abraham’s bosom was for Lazarus; it is his equivalent, which, however, profits him little where he now is. For death has been for him an awakening from his flattering dream of ease and self-enjoyment upon the stern and terrible realities of eternity. He has sought to save his life, and has lost it. The play in which he acted the rich man is ended, and, as he went off the stage, he was stripped of all the trappings with which he had been furnished that he might sustain his part. There remains only the fact that he has played it badly, and will therefore have no praise, but uttermost rebuke, from Him who allotted to him this character to sustain.—Trench.

Luk_16:23. “In hell.”—The Rich Man is thus represented as awakening from the momentary unconsciousness of death to full consciousness; and the first object he discerns is Lazarus, whom he had seen lying in wretchedness at his gate, reposing in the seat of honour beside Abraham.

Luk_16:24. “Father Abraham.”—This is the only example in Scripture of the invocation of saints, and does not afford much encouragement for the practice.

Luk_16:25-26. The Request Denied.—The request is denied for two weighty reasons:

1. It is unreasonable.

2. It is impossible to grant it.

Luk_16:25. Memory in Another World.—

I. Memory will be so widened as to take in the whole life.

II. Memory in a future state will probably be so rapid as to embrace all the past life at once.

III. It will be a constant remembrance.

IV. Memory will be associated with a perfectly accurate knowledge, and a perfectly sensitive conscience as to the criminality of the past.—Maclaren.

Different Modes of Divine Procedure.—God deals with men in different ways: on some He seeks to awaken gratitude by bestowing upon them many gifts; others He leads through suffering to humility and pious resignation in spirit. And in accordance with the results produced is the retribution in the future world: the ungrateful find themselves in poverty and misery; the meek are healed of their wounds, and exalted to felicity.

Luk_16:26. “Beside all this.”—Not only would there be a moral impropriety in granting the request, but the decree of God had made it impossible to grant it. An unfathomable gulf which could not be spanned separated between the Rich Man and the company of the blessed.

Luk_16:27-28. “Send him to my father’s house.”—The request of the Rich Man is incompatible with the interpretation of the parable, which regards it as condemning riches, and not merely the abuse of riches. The five brethren are in danger of coming to the place of torment because of their unbelief and impenitence, and not because of their being wealthy.

Luk_16:28. “Lest they also.”—We cannot escape the conclusion that in the Rich Man’s words there is a certain reproach against God and the Old-Testament economy, for his not having received sufficient warning. The reproach is rolled back by Abraham’s reply: “They are sufficiently warned: the fault is theirs if they, too, go to the place of torment.”

The Five Brethren.—The effect which might possibly have been produced upon the five brethren of Dives, by Lazarus “going to them from the dead” has been described as follows: “He stands and knocks at the door of their mansion, and at length enters in his grave-shroud. His glazed eyeballs and hollow cheeks declare him a tenant of the narrow house. In deep, sepulchral tones he says, “I have come from the night of the grave, and I know of death, and of hell, and of heaven, and it’s all true.” But the eldest brother is a Pharisee. He is a self-righteous man. He fasts and he prays. He pays tithes of all he possesses. He is not as other men are—the message cannot be for him. The second brother is a Sadducee. He believes neither in angel nor in spirit. He is the type of the sceptic of the present day—when death comes, it is utter annihilation. He explains away the appearance of Lazarus as an optical illusion. The third is a merchant—buying, and selling, and getting gain. He is an avaricious man; but his brother left him no legacy in his will, and he cannot now believe that he cares for his soul in eternity, when he cared so little for his body on earth. The fourth is a fashionable man, a man of æsthetic taste and culture; he loses himself in the beauties of nature, of art, of literature. The sight of Lazarus in his mansion was an offence to him. What had this beggar got to do here. The message could not be for him. The fifth was a delicate, pale-faced youth; the least thing put his poor heart in a flutter. He could bear no excitement, and, as he beheld the form of Lazarus in his grave-clothes, he swooned away; and when he recovered, the apparition was gone.—Robertson.

Luk_16:29. “Hear them.”—There are two kinds of hearing.

I. That which is confined to outward acquaintance with the Law and the Prophets, and acceptance of their teaching Divine truth.

II. That which is manifested in obedience to the will of God revealed in His Word. The Scriptures were read in the synagogues, and were carefully studied by the Rabbis, so that no Jew could fail to “hear “in the one sense of the word. There needed to be added to intellectual knowledge a love of holiness, and practice of it in daily life.

Luk_16:30. “Nay, … but if one went.”—As the works of the blessed dead follow them, so follow this man his ignorance of the way of salvation, his neglect and practical contempt of the extant Word, his self-will and self-vindication, his pertinacious demand of signs and wonders from the mighty hand of God.—Stier.

Luk_16:31. “If they hear not,” etc.—

I. The ordinary means of salvation which we enjoy are amply sufficient.

II. If the ordinary means of grace fail to convert us, no extraordinary—that is, miraculous—means are to be expected.

III. When the ordinary means fail to convert men, miracles, though they were wrought, would fail also.—Foote

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luk_16:14-31)

14And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided 15[ἐξεμυκτήριζον] him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed 16[lofty, ὑψηλόν] among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth5 into it. 17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass [away], than [for] one tittle of the law to fail [fall]. 18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever [he that6] marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed [and he was wont to array himself] in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which7 was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover [nay, even] thedogs came and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried23[entombed]; And in hell [hades] he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is [here8] comforted, and thou art tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf [chasm] fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went 31[should go] unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded [or, won over, V. O.], though one rose from the dead.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk_16:14.Derided Him, ἐξεμυκτήριζον [lit., turned up the nose at], 2Sa_19:21; Psa_2:4. An unequivocal, and at the same time hateful, token of deep contempt, whose cause is easy to give, especially in this case. The rich Pharisees looked down on the poor Nazarene with contempt, as if they would say: “You have spoken very trippingly about the use or misuse of riches, but we have no mind whatever to trouble ourselves about your counsel.” The answer of the Saviour, Luk_16:15, gives us to see how He views this hypocritical pride as the deepest source of this contempt.

Luk_16:15.Ye are they.—An expression almost like the well-known one of the prophet Nathan, 2Sa_12:7 : “Thou art the man!”—Justify yourselves.—Comp. Luk_11:39 seq. and Luk_18:10, where the image of a Pharisee is delineated who will justify himself even in the eyes of God.—But God knoweth your hearts.—Comp. 1Sa_16:7; Psa_7:10.

For what is lofty.—The Saviour, of course, speaks not of that which actually in a moral respect stands high and may stand high, but only that which in men’s eyes is prominent above other things, of which is high κατ’ ὄψιν.—Βδέλυγμα, in general, a thing which in the eyes of the holy God is abhorrent and damnable; in a special sense, also, impurity, which was often connected with idolatry; therefore τό βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, Mat_24:15; Mar_13:14, and the union of βδέλυγμα and ψεῦδος, Rev_21:27. Here the word is chosen with the more striking force, because the Pharisees considered themselves as very especial favorites of God.

Luk_16:16. The law and the prophets.—Even from old time the expositors of Luk_16:16-18 have been divided into two classes. Some give up all connection; so, e.g., De Wette: “Luk_16:16-18 stand isolated; every attempt made to demonstrate a connection has been a failure.” Among the Dutch theologians, Van Der Palm believed that Luke, before beginning on a new page a new parable, in order to make use of the yet vacant space of his almost fully occupied former leaf, noted down some disconnected sayings of the Lord, without any historical connection. Others, on the other hand, have, with more or less success, sought to state the connection, as well of these sayings with the rebuke in Luk_16:15, as also with the parable, Luk_16:19-31. According to Stier, e.g., “All the single sayings fit exactly into most intimate unity.” According to Meyer, the actual centre of gravity falls upon Luk_16:17, while Luk_16:16 is merely introductory, and Luk_16:18 is an example which is intended to explain more particularly the previous declaration of the continuing validity of the law. According to Lange, L. J., iii. p. 464, the Saviour will give the Pharisees to feel that their time is over, and that without their own notice a new period has dawned. The whole exposition of the latter deserves to be compared in its connection. Even the very great diversity of these attempts proves how difficult the question itself is. We, for our part, are acquainted with no statement of the course of thought of these three verses, whose simplicity and naturalness satisfy us in every respect, and we therefore regard it as easier to explain each of these three verses for itself than to state in a satisfactory manner how they are connected with one another, and why the Saviour on this occasion held up precisely these recollections before the avaricious Pharisees.

Were until John.—Not ἧσαν is to be supplied (Ewald, De Wette), but ἐκηρύσσοντο, or something of the kind. In any case, the Saviour will intimate, not that the Old Testament Dispensation was now abrogated (Olshausen), but that the Old Testament up to John constitutes a whole fully complete within itself, which, as the period of preparation, now gives place to the word of fulfilment—the preaching of the kingdom of God.

And every man presseth into it, or, Every man useth violence against it.—Comp. Mat_11:12-13. We cannot agree with the common view that here the impulse of enthusiastic interest and the impetuous longing to press into the kingdom of God is indicated. The connection, Luk_16:14-15, appears to lead us rather to the thought that it is here a hostile assault that is spoken of, in which the inward malice of the heart reveals itself. In view of the augmenting opposition which the Saviour found in Israel, He could hardly have meant to say that so general an eagerness for entrance into His kingdom existed. But especially does the necessity of an explanation in an unfavorable sense strike the mind when we compare the parallel passage in Matthew in its whole connection. The βιασταί, the powerful of the earth, were in Jesus’ days, at all events, not in fact very much devoted to the cause of the kingdom of God, comp. Mat_11:16-19; Luk_7:29-30, and what ground could the Saviour have had to speak here of an impulse of heart on the part of many, which, at all events, was wanting to the Pharisees? By our explanation, on the other hand, it is, perhaps, possible to show some connection with Luk_16:14. The Saviour will then say: How hostilely soever ye are disposed towards a kingdom of God, which (Luk_16:16) was announced by the law and the prophets, yet the law’s demands and threatenings hold continually good (Luk_16:17) in undiminished force (an example, Luk_16:18), and ye will, therefore, not escape the judgment of the God who knows your hearts, Luk_16:15. [I cannot accede to the author’s view of this passage In the first place, his arguments drawn from the connection do not appear to have great weight, for the original connection is evidently that given in the parallel passage, Mat_11:12. Then his identification of the βιασταί in Mat_11:12 with the powerful of the earth, who were opposed to Christ, is quite gratuitous. Persecution against the kingdom of God, to any considerable extent, between the first preaching of John and the period here mentioned, there had not been; while there had been from that period on, a widespread and enthusiastic pressing forward to hear the preaching concerning the kingdom of God, and, on the part of many, a pressing into it. The “every man” of Luke, besides that it is hardly so exact as the terms used by Matthew, need no more be taken with absolute literalness than Paul’s mention of the Gospel as being preached “to every creature under heaven.” Besides, the whole complexion of both passages shows that, although our Lord, as Alford remarks, here contrasts the actual existence of the kingdom of heaven, as a present and powerful fact, with the bare prophesying of it by John and the prophets, yet He is aware how much that is ill-considered and external there is in this present enthusiasm. Nor do I see any reason why the Presents ἁρπάζουσιν and βιάζεται, in Matthew and Luke, may not have the tentative sense so frequently found in the Present and Imperfect, and be nearly equivalent to “essay to press into it,” or “with vehement exertion to appropriate it,” with the implication that the future will show how far this eagerness will accomplish its end.—C. C. S.]

Luk_16:17. And it is easier.—Comp. Mat_5:18-20, and Lange, ad loc. The Saviour, it is true, teaches here no external validity of the law; for, according to his own teaching, heaven and earth will one day pass away, Mat_24:35, but till the dawn of the new economy the moral obligation of the law remains in inviolable force. “In the world of perfection there is no longer need of a law, since every one purposes the right to himself. As, therefore, for God there is no law, so is there also for the perfected world no law. For, like God, so is also this a law unto itself.”

Luk_16:18. Whosoever putteth away his wife.—According to the most, a special example by which the principle expressed in Luk_16:17 is further established. The singularity of this example misled Olshausen to the curious view that here we have to understand spiritual idolatry of the Pharisees, who honored Mammon more than Jehovah, and has brought Stier to the conjecture that here there is an indirect allusion to the scandal which Herod had given, Mar_6:18. Possibly it is true, but, in our apprehension at least, not probable. Is it not much simpler to assume that Luke, who nowhere else in his gospel has a place to take in the doctrine of the Saviour respecting the inviolableness of marriage (comp. Mat_19:3-12), here, on the mention of the inviolableness of the law, without observing the original historical connection, adds the statement of a particular from which it may appear how strictly the Saviour regarded its moral precepts? In a more complete form we find this precept respecting marriage and divorce noted down, Mat_5:31-32. But if our Lord really uttered this the second time on this occasion, we may then confidently suppose that He paused in His discourse a moment or so before He proceeded to deliver the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

General Remarks on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.—Manifestly this parable was uttered by reason of that which took place Luk_16:14-15, with a look at the Pharisees. It stands in this place very congruously, for it has the unmistakable purpose of teaching these people to see of how little value it is to show one’s self pious before men when one is reprobate before God; to give them to feel the baseness of an unloving temper, of which they had already made themselves guilty in their judgment of the publicans, Luk_15:2; but especially to draw their attention to the terrible consequences of the misuse of earthly good, to which their hearts clave so closely. The intention of the parable, therefore, is not to give a special instruction about future retribution—although we thankfully accept the rays of light that fall upon this also, yet it is immediately obvious that the whole parable is veiled in the costume of the Jewish eschatology—but to proclaim the great truth, that if one neglects the application of wealth to beneficent purposes, this becomes the source of eternal calamity. So far, this parable is the obverse of the foregoing, and stands in a natural connection with it. Whoever, like the Steward, makes himself friends of the unrighteous Mammon, is received into the eternal tabernacles; whoever, out of pride and selfishness, does not expend his treasure to this end, is appointed to everlasting torment!

In particular, the first part of the parable, Luk_16:19-26, has this definite purpose, while Luk_16:27-31 must be regarded more as an appendix, which in a parabolical form occupies the place of an application of the whole delineation. In this representation, also, some (De Wette, Strauss, the Tübingen school) have been disposed to see a proof that the Saviour found in earthly riches something to be reprobated, and in poverty itself something meritorious, and have appealed for the truth of this to the fact that here there is no more mention of the moral demerit of the rich man than of the piety of the poor man, and that Abraham only refers to the different lot of the two here below (Luk_16:25), which is now reversed. Yet the onesidedness and superficiality of this inference is obvious of itself. Faults of the rich man in act, definite examples of his want of love, it is true, do not appear in the parable; yet from this very fact appears the beauty of the representation, the deep earnestness of the moral: not the good which the rich man does, but the good which he omits, is sufficient to condemn him before God. Could the Saviour make His teaching, Luk_16:9, more impressive than by a representation which shows how a man who omitted this, and gave ear not to love but to selfishness, became everlastingly unhappy? In order to be banished into eternal torment, it was not even necessary that one should have maltreated a poor Lazarus upon earth; even those who allowed him to pine helplessly away and left him to the care of the dogs would have to give a heavy reckoning of it! Just such an apparently blameless gormandizer was the one to be held up as a mirror to the Pharisees who appeared pious before men; in the rich man too there was nothing, so the common opinion was, to blame, and yet—he came to the place of torment. Besides, there are not wanting indirect proofs of the moral condemnableness of the rich man; in Gehenna he still desires bodily refreshment; he repeatedly imagines himself capable of directing Lazarus, as if the latter were in his service; nay, in the entreaty that one might go from the dead to his brothers (Luk_16:30), there is implied the indirect confession that he himself had not been converted. As respects Lazarus now, he is in this delineation not the chief but a subordinate character, who appears more as suffering than as acting. But hardly would the Saviour have represented him as carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom if he could have shown to his ancestor no other letter of recommendation than his former poverty. And have we here liberty so entirely to overlook the high significance which is implied in his humble silence?

It is, finally, entirely unnecessary, with some expositors, to assume that the Saviour here wished to give a true history of a living or deceased man. Even if it is true, according to tradition, that at that time there had been a well-known beggar at Jerusalem who bore the name of Lazarus, yet it is entirely accidental that the poor man in the parable had the same name with him. The conjecture, indeed, is obvious that the Saviour in naming him so was thinking especially of His but just deceased friend at Bethany, whither His own journey was now directed; but this does not admit of proof. But least of all have we here to find allusion to Annas, with his five sons and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, whose Sadducean frivolity the Saviour in such a way is supposed to have held up to view. Such a thing, certainly, was not according to His spirit, and might also have had the appearance of a personal feud. Had this set at that moment risen before the Saviour’s mind, He would, perhaps, have chosen other numbers, in order to avoid even the appearance of so unseemly an allusion. But that here something higher than an isolated historical truth, that the highest ideal really lies at the basis of this whole parabolic discourse, we hope we need not now for the first time remind our readers.

Luk_16:19. A certain rich man.—The omission of the name is no sign of reprobacy (Euthym. Zigab. and others), but a means of generalizing the representation. That the Saviour undertook to draw from life one of Sadducean sentiments is entirely without proof. “Nullum adest vestigium vel mentio transitus ullius a Pharisœis ad Sadducœos,” says Bengel with justice; and it can scarcely be doubted that among the Pharisees also there were not a few to whom the description of the rich man’s sumptuous manner of life was fully applicable, comp. Psa_73:4-9. As entirely without proof is it that our Lord had the history of historical characters of earlier times, Saul, Laban, or others, in mind.—In purple and fine linen.—The first the designation of the Syrian upper garments; the other of the Egyptian upper garments. Fine linen, byssus, an Egyptian linen that was sold for twice its weight in gold, mentioned also in Rev_18:12, in association with silk, comp. Pliny, H. iv. 19, 1, and many other passages gathered by Wetstein, ad loc. That the rich man was accordingly clothed above his position (Starke), we do not for this reason alone need to assume. But that under the byssus garment no heart full of love and sympathy beat, appears sufficiently from the sequel of the parable.

Luk_16:20. Named Lazarus.—Perhaps a symbolical name, לֹא עֵזֶר, the Helpless, Forsaken (Olshausen, Baumgarten, Cramer, Lange). According to Lightfoot and Meyer, a contracted name, which denotes Deus auxilium (Eleazar, Godhelp). If we assume that the Saviour was in His thoughts with the dying friend at Bethany (see above), then the giving of the name is sufficiently explained. In no event is there here (De Wette) a traditional confusion with John 11.

Laid at his gate, ἐβέβλητο.—He had been laid there by others, who either wished to rid themselves of him, or to secure to him what fell from the rich man’s table (Stier, Meyer), and he remained lying there helpless, as if for a daily silent reproach to the unloving temper of the rich man.—Full of sores (entirely covered therewith, ἡλκωμένος)—Desiring to be fed.—Comp. Mat_15:27. Whether this wish was fulfilled or not the Saviour does not directly say; yet quite early the gloss crept into the text, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ, See the Vulgate and Luk_15:16. Critically untenable, yet as an explanation correct, so far as this, that the wish of Lazarus, as a rule, was not fulfilled, as appears from what follows.

Luk_16:21.Nay, even the dogs came and licked his sores.—The enigmatical ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ κ. appears to be best understood in such a sense that thereby not a diminution but an augmentation of his misery is stated. That the poor man got no crumbs at all from the rich man’s table, the parable, it is true, does not say; how could he indeed have then remained lying at the gate without famishing? But although he now and then got only the crumbs and scarcely the crumbs, he yet saw even this meagre fare partially disputed him by the dogs. Understand masterless dogs which ran around on the streets of the capital [as everywhere in Western Asia, comp. Psa_59:6.—C. C. S.], and allured by so rich a fall of crumbs as that from the table of the rich man, now robbed even the poor beggar of a part of that which perhaps had now and then fallen to his share. [The crumbs are, of course, not the trifling fragments which would fall from one of our tables, but the soft part of the thin cakes of bread in use in the East, which the wealthy, it appears, are sometimes accustomed to wipe their fingers with, and throw it under the table, themselves eating only the crust—C. C. S.] These wild and unclean brutes, moreover, licked his sores, and thereby increased the pain of the helpless Lazarus. To describe his suffering as mitigated through the compassion of the brutes, would be directly opposite to the intention of our Lord. The antithesis of ἀλλά and ἐπιθυμῶν gives us occasion here to suppose a climax in the mournful scene, rather than an anti-climax. Neither is the suffering of the rich man in Sheol mitigated by anything; and even though we assume that it was the Saviour’s intention to oppose the compassion of the brutes for the fate of Lazarus to that of the rich man, a sympathy of this kind, if it stopped there, must have heightened his misery the more. Comp. Meyer, ad loc. [It is undoubtedly true that the mention of the dogs licking the sores of Lazarus is meant to heighten our conception of his misery. There are two ways now of heightening this; one is to represent the dogs licking his sores as a new infliction, the other is to represent his misery as so great that the very dogs had pity on him. The latter, which is the common view, appears at once more forcible and more natural, to say nothing of its agreement with the effects of the touch of a dog’s tongue, whose grateful smoothness every one is acquainted with. The view of the author, therefore, though supported by Meyer, is justly rejected by Bleek, De Wette, and Alford.—C. C. S.]

Luk_16:22.And it came to pass.—With this transition the theatre of the history is at once transferred into another world. “En subita mutatio: qui modo non hominum tantum, sed et canum ludibrium fuerat, repente Angelorum ministerio honoratur.” Grotius.—Carried by the angels.—As, of course, is understood, as to his soul. That Lazarus is not buried at all, but carried, soul and body, into Abraham’s bosom, where he now lives again and is happy (Meyer), is an explanation incapable of proof. Respecting other Israelites, concerning whom it is said that they have come into Abraham’s bosom, no one doubts that nevertheless their bodies, as usual, were committed to the earth. Why then should it have been otherwise with Lazarus? No, his burial was (Euthymius) so mean, that in comparison with that of the rich man it deserves no mention, and the contrast lies rather in the honor that was shown to the two, to the rich man here, to the poor man yonder—to the rich man by pall-bearers, to the poor man by angels—to the rich man as to his body, to the poor man as to his soul.—Into Abraham’s bosom.—A metaphorical expression of the blessedness which immediately after death was prepared for pious Israelites in common with their blessed ancestor (Joh_8:56). In all probability the expression is synonymous with Paradise, Luk_23:43 (Light foot). In Sheol, the general appellation for the abode of departed spirits, the Jews, as is known, distinguish, on the one hand, a place of punishment, Gehenna; on the other hand, Paradise, for the pious. We have to understand the rich man as being in the former; Lazarus as being in the other. The two are so near one another that the inhabitants can see each other and hold converse. See De Wette, Bibl. Dogm. §§ 178–182.

Luk_16:28. And in Hades, ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ.—General designation of the abode of departed spirits, while from the immediately following ἐν βασάνοις it appears that he found himself in that special place which is named the place of punishment, the γέεννα τ. πυρός. As this was conceived as being in the deepest part of Hades, one would have had to look up (Lange) in order to be able to discover the condition of the blessed. The rich man is now represented as awakening from a condition of momentary unconsciousness to full consciousness, and one of the objects which he first discovers in Abraham’s bosom (κόλποις, the customary plural of the Greeks also) is the familiar Lazarus reposing there.

Luk_16:24.Father Abraham.—He knows Abraham, therefore, and recognizes him as his ancestor; as Abraham also afterwards does not refuse to address him as τέκνον, without, however, this merely outward relationship availing him anything. He desires that Lazarus may be sent to him to cool with a single waterdrop his burning tongue. The gastronome feels him self now so severely punished, precisely in that part of his frame with which he had so long sinned, and desires only a brief refreshment, “perhaps only so slight a one because he had seen the man in the uncleanness of his sores” (Lange). It is noticeable that he still imagines himself able to direct Lazarus, whom he had all his life lightly esteemed. Even so does he afterwards despise Moses also (Luk_16:30). Only his external condition, what surrounds him, is altered, but not his individuality.

Luk_16:25. Son, remember.—It looks very much as if, according to Abraham’s declaration, Lazarus is only comforted for the reason that he has suffered on earth, and the rich man only tormented for the reason that he on earth had received only good. But in order to be fair, this answer must be complemented with all which the parable gives us on good grounds to conjecture of the moral condition of both, while at the same time the antithesis between τὰ ἀγαθά σου and τὰ κακά without a pronoun, is not to be overlooked. What the rich man had enjoyed was really his good, had been in his eyes the highest good; the κακά, on the other hand, which came upon Lazarus, were not actually his, but as providences of God he had borne them with meekness.—Now he is here comforted.—The ὧδε received into the text strengthens the local character of the representation, but the νῦν by no means warrants us in assuming that it is not an irrevocable and final term that is spoken of (Stier). One may surely, in a place of torment, still have room for reflections, without, for that, a better future being disclosed along with this possibility. Or was, forsooth, the παράκλησις of Lazarus also merely something provisional ?

Luk_16:26. And besides all this.—Statement of the ground why it is literally impossible to him to fulfil the rich man’s wish, even if he desired it. Χάσμα, literally a cleft when “two places are so parted from one another by a torrent or fall of earth, that an unfathomable depth or immeasurable breadth is between,” 2Sa_18:17; Zec_14:4. The here-indicated thought of an irrevocable separation is in itself intelligible enough, but the form in which the Saviour here expresses it is entirely peculiar. The Greeks, it is true, know of a χάσμα in Tartarus; this; however, is not regarded as a space separating two regions; but the Rabbins speak only of a dividing wall between the two parte of Hades, or of an intervening space of an hand-breadth, nay, even only of a hair’s breadth. Then also the hope of, perhaps, even yet getting over this χάσμα is very much weakened by the statement of the particular purpose for which this cleft is established, namely, for the very purpose (ὅπως) of rendering the transition from one to the other side impossible. For the explanation of the imagery, compare the well-known passage of Virgil, Æneid, 6:126.:

“Facilis descensus Averni,

Noctes atque dies patet atri janua Ditis:

Sed revocare gradus, superasque evadere ad auras,

Hoc opus, hic labor est.”

Luk_16:27. I pray thee, therefore.—It appears almost as if the unhappy man sought some mitigation of this torment in continuing the conversation, although he could scarcely have hoped for the granting of his petition. For the second time he addresses himself to Abraham, that he may send Lazarus to his brethren. Perhaps he remembers that he by word and example had encouraged them in their sinful life, and feels himself, therefore, the more constrained to adventure an attempt for their delivery.—Ὅπως διαμαρτύρηται αὐτοῖς, here without definite object (otherwise, Act_20:21, and elsewhere). Διαμαρτύρομαι. Wahl; per deum hominumque fidem testor vel affirmo; de adhortantibus: graviter moneo. An actual statement that sin is so terribly punished, he does not consider as any longer necessary for his brothers, but so much the more ardently does he long that by irrefragable testimony that may be confirmed to them, which they know indeed, but in their hearts do not believe.

Luk_16:29. They have Moses and the prophets.—This time the compassionate τέκνον is omitted, and the tone becomes sterner, in order in the last answer of Abraham, Luk_16:31, to pass over into a distinct and inexorable refusal. Moses and the prophets here appear as the summary of a Divine revelation of all that which was needful for Israel in order to find the way to life. To hear these means, of course, not simply to listen to them externally, but designates also at the same time an actual obedience and following of their precepts. That the Hagiographa are included in this mere summary of the Old Testament is, of course, understood.

Luk_16:30. Nay, Father Abraham.—The unhappy one now pretends to know his brothers better than Abraham himself, but acknowledges at the same time thereby that he had not repented, and therefore his condemnation was a righteous one.

Luk_16:31. If they hear not Moses and the prophets.—Comp. Isa_8:19; Isa_34:16; Joh_5:45. A reference to Elijah’s appearance (Baumgarten-Crusius) is by no means contained here. But the resurrection of Jesus, which was announced to the Jews without moving them to faith, may in a certain measure serve as an indirect confirmation of this declaration of our Lord. The enmity against Lazarus also, who had risen from the dead, Joh_12:10, although he, it is true, had brought them no positive intelligence from Hades, affords the proof that no extraordinary signs can constrain the impenitent man to faith when he once refuses to give heed to the word of God and His ambassadors extraordinary. As to the rest, this conclusion of the parable must have shamed the Pharisees the more deeply the less it gave them ground to hope that their unappeasable thirst for miracles (Joh_4:48) would afterwards find yet more satisfaction. Quite natural, therefore, that they now again give unmistakable signs of how deeply they are offended with the word of the Saviour, which gave Him then occasion for the immediately succeeding warning in reference to σκάνδαλα.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The distinction which appears to exist between the Saviour and Paul, when the former brings forward with emphasis the perfect inviolableness and eternal validity of the law, the other proclaims the abrogation of the law through the New Testament, by no means warrants the hypothesis that the Master thought differently, respecting this question of controversy, from His highly enlightened Apostle, and that, therefore, Christianity in Paul took a step beyond Jesus. On the contrary, here also the well-known rule is applicable: “distingue tempora, et concordabit scriptura.” The Saviour, who was speaking to His contemporaries in Israel, could not do otherwise than emphasize the relative truth that the law and the prophets remain in force; but Paul, who appeared in the midst of heathenism, must immediately proclaim that the ministry which preaches condemnation, the ministration of the letter, was abrogated. The word of the Saviour aims exclusively at the spirit, the heart; the eternal substance; the word of the Apostle, on the other hand, at the form, the letter, the external constraining authority of the Old Testament. How far Paul was in principle from Antinomism appears from Rom_3:31.

2. “ Whosoever putteth away his wife committeth adultery.” According to this saying literally interpreted, it certainly appears as if our Lord declared Himself unconditionally against all divorce, and as if the Roman Catholic Church were fully right when she permits at the most a separatio quoad torum et mensam, but never quoad vinculum. We must, however, complement this declaration of the Saviour from Mat_5:32; Mat_19:9, and assume that the transgression by which marriage is dishonored by the one party gives to the other party also liberty—we by no means say obligation—to regard it on his or her side also as broken. Whether it is more Christian to make use of this permission or not, this is not to be deduced from the letter of the Saviour’s words, although we believe that it is in His spirit if the question is answered negatively. But, certainly, he who in the case stated avails himself of his liberty for a divorce, is not on this account alone to be condemned, and the innocent party, therefore, of two married people separated on this legitimate ground, need not be forbidden to conclude a new connection. The limitation μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ is therefore here also by no means to be left out of consideration, for in the case of πορνεία an actual divorce has already taken place, so that the legal one is only the normal continuation of it, and the injured spouse in this case does not abandon “ his wife,” but an adulteress, who has ceased to conduct herself as his wife. In short: “Jesus negatives the question whether the man could arbitrarily divorce the woman, and declares Himself against every one-sided and arbitrary divorce.” De Wette.

3. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is the sublimest delineation of this side and of that side of the grave in its astounding antitheses. What is the trilogy of a Dante, in which he sings Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, compared with the trilogy of this parable, which places with few but speaking strokes the great whole of Earth, Gehenna, and Paradise at once before our eyes ? In the vesture of a figurative discourse which is taken from the eschatology of His time, the Saviour gives here the most astonishing disclosures, and lifts the veil which covers the secrets of the future.

4. The antithesis which in the parable takes place between the rich man and the poor man on earth, exhibits to us the picture of the most mournful reality. Comp. Pro_22:2. The Saviour, like Moses, is far from wishing to annihilate the distinction between the rich and the poor as if by a stroke of magic, Deu_15:7-11; Mar_14:7. He permits the antithesis here on earth to exist, and therein one of the greatest riddles of the righteous administration of Providence. But at the same time He removes the stumbling-block, inasmuch as He depicts to us this life not as the life, but only as the first half of our being, and inasmuch as He causes the light of eternity to rise over the dark night of this earth.

5. Although it is not the immediate purpose of this parable (see above), to give a special instruction about future things, yet many a question about the other world is here answered in a satisfactory manner. So much is shown to us at once: after death the life of the pious continues uninterruptedly, as well as that of the ungodly. Far from teaching a sleep of souls, the Saviour declares on the other hand that consciousness continues beyond the grave. The rich man sees, it is true, his external condition altered, but in his inner man he has remained the same. He knows who and where he is; he recognizes Lazarus; can speak of his father’s house, and his five brothers, and their moral condition is to him not unknown. Quite as puffed up as before, he looks down upon Lazarus, and his character yonder, therefore, still shows the same shadows as here. The pain which he suffers consists in a righteous retribution of the evil which he has done here; to Lazarus the crumb was refused, to him a drop is forbidden. [A refinement hardly borne out by the text.—C. C. S.] Traces of true repentance he does not show, but he does of suffering and despair. He calls not on God but on father Abraham, and is not grieved at his sins but only at their consequences. Natural feeling for his brethren makes him tremble at the thought that they also may come to the place of torment, but indirectly he still excuses himself as if he had been in this life not sufficiently warned. No wonder that when such an inward difference exists between him and the blessed, an outward cleft also exists which can no more be filled up than passed over. Although the Saviour here speaks of the condition immediately after death, not of that after the Parusia, it appears, however, that according to His conception the sharp separation beyond the grave, between the children of light and those of darkness, becomes in any event a cleft and abyss. As well the doctrine of purgatory, as that of the Apocatastasis, is opposed by this parable, and according to the last word of Abraham to the rich man, we can on this side expect nothing more for the unbeliever than an irrevocable silence.

6. The happiness of the life to come consists, according to this parable, in this, that the redeemed of the Lord is comforted (παρακαλεῖται, Luk_16:25). The soul, freed from the earthly probationary suffering, is carried by angels to a happier place. What the Saviour here teaches of the ministerium angelorum is indirectly confirmed by such passages as Luk_15:10; Heb_1:14, a. o. Paradise, which is here spoken of as the destined place of the blessed, must be carefully distinguished from the third heaven, 2Co_12:4, the dwelling-place of the perfected righteous. The Paradise is, on the other hand, in the intermediate state a place of incipient, although very refreshing, rest, in which the Jews conceived all the saints of the Old Testament as united in joy. By the bosom of Abraham, we are to understand the most swelling part of the garment, which is made by casting it around upon the breast. Here also, as in Mat_8:11-12; Luk_13:25-29, and other passages, future blessedness is designated under the image of a feast, where the favorite of the father of the family, in this case Abraham, so lies upon his couch that he can rest upon his bosom. The ideas of refreshment and fellowship are therefore here most intimately united. The poor Lazarus rests in the bosom of the rich Abraham, as if to show that not poverty or riches in itself, but faith and obedience, constitute the ground of their blessedness. This blessedness is experienced in union with others of the same character, as is also true of the state of perdition (comp. the μεταξὺ ἡμῶν καὶ ὑμῶν); but the thought of the fate of the damned does not disturb the rest of the blessed. With full composure Abraham can address the rich man, Lazarus can hear him without rejoicing, but also without giving him hope. How much more sublime is this representation than that in the Koran, e.g., where the blessed scoff at the damned, and gloat over the contemplation of their torments!

7. In our predilection for the first and chief end of the parable, we must not overlook the dogmatic and Christological importance of its second purpose. It is noticeable how the Saviour here also in unequivocal tone gives testimony for the sufficientia scripturœ V. T. A fortiori may this testimony be extended also to the Scriptures of the New Testament. United, these means of grace are, for the enlightenment, for the renewal and sanctification, of the sinner, so perfectly adequate, that it is as inconceivable as fruitless to expect even yet more powerful voices of instruction. That, moreover, if the word is to accomplish this purpose, the operation of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary, is by no means denied by our Lord. The word is the seed for the new birth, yet sunshine and rain from above must make the seed fruitful upon the field. But there is no operation of the Spirit to be expected where the power of the word is lightly esteemed; the narrative shows sufficiently, that any extraordinary awakening, which any one believes himself able to bring to pass in any other way than that of the living κήρυγμα, is of brief duration and doubtful significance. No sufferer can, therefore, reckon upon being saved by God in extraordinary ways, if he has despised the common way described in God’s word; and could even the sign of Jonah be again repeated, it would be in vain for him who despises the preaching of Jonah.

8. In the conclusion of this parable the Saviour utters at the same time a condemnation of all extraordinary attempts which are made in our time also by knocking-spirits, table-tippings, appearances of ghosts, somnambulism, &c., to come upon the trace of the secrets of the future world. Such a superstition is the less to be excused, because it is commonly united with secret unbelief in God’s word and testimony. It appears in this, moreover, only too plainly, that even those who fancy themselves in possession of such extraordinary energies and revelations, yet are often not converted, and therefore their obstinacy itself confirms the last word which Abraham has here uttered.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The truth, recognized by the conscience, opposed by the sinful heart.—The enmity of the Pharisees against the preaching of the law of love.—The Pharisaical temper exists in every natural man; they wish to appear righteous before God.—“God knoweth your hearts;” this truth may be considered: 1. As a certain; 2. as a terrifying; 3. as a comforting, truth.—The heaven-wide distinction between the judgment of God and the judgment of man, 1Sa_16:7.—The Old Testament period, a period of preparation.—So soon as the kingdom of God is proclaimed with power it is vehemently opposed.—The inviolableness of the law: 1. In what sense? 2. with what right? 3. for what purpose, does the Saviour proclaim the inviolableness of the law?—Married life transfigured by the Spirit of Christ.—Divorce not something relatively good, but a necessary evil.

The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them both.—How poor a rich man, how rich a poor man, may be: 1. In the present; 2. in the future, world.—The rich man, a. poor in true joy; b. in sympathizing love; c. in well-grounded hope; d. in eternal happiness.—The poor man, a. rich in calamities; b. rich in pain; c. rich in everlasting consolation.—The comedy and the tragedy of earthly life only a few steps removed from one another.—How the good living of the earth does not soften, but hardens, the heart.—The inexcusableness of an unloving temper exhibited in the person of the rich man: 1. The poor man is alone; 2. hard by the door; 3. well known; 4. daily before his eyes; 5. incapable of labor; 6. modest enough not to complain; 7. content even with crumbs; 8. an object of the attention of the dogs, and yet is he contemned by the rich man.—Death the end of the inequality of life. Comp. Job_3:17-19.—Death to one the greatest gain, to the other the most terrible loss.—The care of angels for the dying saint, on its undoubtedly certain, on its indescribably consoling, side.—What avails the last honor shown the dying sinner, if it is immediately after death followed by eternal ignominy?—The awakening in the morning of eternity: 1. What there continues of that which we here possess at every awakening: a. our consciousness, b. our personality, c. our memory; 2. what there falls away of that which we here recover at every awakening: a. the illusive joy of the sinner, b. the perplexing trial of the saint, c. the work of the grace of God on both; 3. what there begins of that which we here at every awakening see approaching somewhat nearer: a. a surprising meeting again, b. a righteous retribution, c. an eternal separation.—The mutual beholding of each other by the blessed and the damned.—The carnal relationship with Abraham is in the spiritual world not denied, but it avails nought.—The Jus talionis in the future life.—The sorrow of the damned: 1. Over that which they lack; 2. behold; 3. endure; 4. expect.—Woe to the man who knows no higher good than that which he has received in this life!—The great cleft: 1. Its depth; 2. its duration; 3. its two opposing sides.—Not earthly suffering opens the way to heaven, but the manner in which it is borne.—The terrible recollection, in the place of torment, of relatives whom one has left behind on earth.—If natural relationship does not become a spiritual one, it becomes at last only a source of suffering the more.—If sinners really believed how terrible hell is, they would without doubt be converted.—God’s word the only and adequate means for the conversion of the sinner. Whoever contemns this means, has no other to expect.—One risen from the dead even would not be able to bring the sinner to true faith.—Whoever expects another means of grace, outside of those ordained by God; 1. Such an one miscalculates fearfully; 2. such an one sins deeply.

Starke:—Quesnel:—There comes a time when God, in turn, scoffs at those who have scoffed at His truth.—The avaricious man likes to deck himself with feathers of hypocrisy.—Cramer:—There are two kinds of pride—spiritual and worldly; neither pleases God, both are an abomination to Him.—Brentius:—The New Testament age requires New Testament people. Heathen sumptuousness of living prophesies for Christendom nothing good.—Hedinger:—Piety goes often a-begging, but is rich in God.—Quesnel:—Sickness of body serves often for healing of the soul; happy he whom the Chief Physician counts worthy to be thus cured.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Shame on you, ye uncompassionate rich! The rational man is shamed by irrational beasts!—Those who become everlastingly glorious, must before have been wretched.—Ah, how is the leaf turned after death!—Canstein:—False trust in the outward fellowship of the covenant with God is found even in the damned.—Hedinger:—In cruel eternity all grace and comfort has an end. Pro_11:7.—The condemned have in their pain longing for mitigation, but obtain it not, and the vain longing will increase their pain.—They who, through a bad example, give others too occasion to sin, will, in hell, on this account, be tormented by their consciences.—Majus:—Each one must indeed have concern for the salvation of his friends, but early and betimes. Jam_5:20.—Canstein:—Evil men will not accommodate themselves to God’s dispensation, but despise and censure it, and will, according to their own fancy, manage yet more conveniently for themselves.—Hedinger:—Out of love to atheists and those who do not like the Scriptures, God will do no miracles.—Ungodly men do not change, and fear not God, even in hell: let no one wonder at this.—Nova. Bibl. Tub.:—Faith is content with the word of God, which is full of miracle and proof; but unbelief nothing will suit.—Heubner:—God will hereafter destroy all seeming.—The more lofty one’s schemes have been, the deeper will he fall.—Riches easily mislead to living well without doing well.—To be voluptuous and without love is quite enough to be damned for.—Of rich men like Dives, there are enough; of poor men like Lazarus, few.—Death for the pious sufferer a wished-for friend, who brings him redemption.—How various is the entering of men into the other world!—Short pleasure followed by eternal torment.—God punishes not with vehement indignation, but with composed righteousness.—Whoever seeks heaven in earthly things will hereafter lose the true heaven.—One need not be poor and full of sores, and yet may be like Lazarus.—Take heed against building the foundation of salvation on natural kindness of heart.—The damned torment one another.—It may be that the dead think oftener of the living than the living of them.—Faith is content with the proofs which God gives, but unbelief has never enough of them.—Man has no right to prescribe to God how He will lead him to salvation.—Here have we also the ground why Christ, after His resurrection, did not appear to the unbelieving.

On the Pericope, comp. four sermons of Chrysostom on this section. Ed. Montfaucon, tom. 1.—The sermon of Massillon, Sur le Mauvais Riche.—Lisco:—Of the unbelief of false citizens of the kingdom.—How we have to judge the complaint of the inaccessibleness of the Christian means of salvation.—Schultz:—Our soul retains in the future life its consciousness and its memory.—Florey:—Four declarations in the New Testament, which this Gospel proclaims and confirms to us: 1. Mat_19:23; Matthew 2. 1Jn_2:17; 1 John 3. Jam_1:12; James 4. 2Ti_3:14-15.—Wolf:—That death alters the fate of earthly-minded men, but not their temper.—Dettinger:—Eternity—how it judges, how it parts, how it brings together.—Ruling:—The gulf between the child of the world and the child of God is not filled up by death, but only fixed in reverse order.—Fuchs:—1. The poor Lazarus, a. a poor man, but also a rich man, b. a sick man, but also a well man, c. a sojourner, but also a citizen; 2. the rich man, a. a rich man and yet a poor man, b. a well man and yet a sick man, c. a citizen and yet a vagrant.—L. A. Petri:—The worldly man’s wretched life and fate: 1. Poor in life; 2. wretched in death; 3. lost in eternity.—Rautenberg:—Death on two sides: 1. Oh death, how bitter art thou! 2. oh death, how beneficent art thou!—Von Kapff:—What Jesus here teaches of the condition, of souls after death: 1. Of those that live without God; 2. of those that live in God.—Uhle:—Some glimpses over the grave out into the still realm of the dead.—Couard:—Voluptuousness: 1. Its nature; 2. its source; 3. its consequences.—Saurin:—The sermon Sur le suffisance de la Révélation. Serm., tom. i. p. 404.

Footnotes:

[5][Luk_16:16.—Εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται. Van Oosterzee translates this: thut Gewalt dawider, “uses violence against it.” For his vindication of this rendering, see Exegetical and Critical remarks.—C. C. S.]

[6]Luk_16:18.—The second πᾶς of the Recepta is merely a mechanical repetition of the first, and therefore properly omitted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles.]

[7]Luk_16:20.—The words of the Recepta, ἧν…ὅς, are wanting in B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., X., and on this ground were already suspected by Griesbach and Lachmann. With Tischendorf [Tregelles] we believe we should omit them and give the preference to the shorter reading. [Meyer contends for the Recepta.—C. C. S.]

[8]Luk_16:25.—Ὧδε, which is wanting in the Recepta, is supported by a preponderance of external authority. [All the uncials.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PRIDE

Luk 16:14-15. “And the Pharisees, being money lovers, were hearing all these things, and murmuring against Him.” If you preach holiness like lightning, as Jesus did, money-loving Church members will raise a lugubrious howl. “He said to them, You are those justifying yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts; because that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” The very things which exalt you in the estimation of the people; i.e., wealth, position, human honor, office, and aggrandizement — unless accompanied by the true sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, sweetening all with perfect meekness, humility, and love, are an abomination in the sight of God. Lord, open our eyes to the abominations abounding in the popular Churches!

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16:14 The Pharisees . . . heard all this and scoffed: Wealth was commonly believed to be a reward from God, so the Pharisees derided Jesus’ warning against riches.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 16:14. Καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, the Pharisees also) His words were addressed to the disciples in the hearing of the Pharisees.—φιλάργυροι, covetous) A class of persons who are the most ready of all to take offence.—ἐξεμυκτήριζον, they began to deride Him) who was the teacher of singleness of heart. [Whereas they fancied themselves to be accomplished in (furnished with) such prudence as to be able admirably to combine the service of God and that of mammon.—V. g.]

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_16:14-15. The mocking sneer (ἑκμυκτηρίζειν, Luk_23:35; 2Sa_19:21; Psa_2:4; Psa_34:19; Psalms 3 Esdr. Luk_1:53) of the Pharisees, who indeed so well knew their pretended sanctity to be compatible with their striving after temporal possessions, Jesus, in Luk_16:15, discloses at its source, which was the self-conceit of their righteousness. ὑμεῖς ἐστε κ.τ.λ., ye are the people who make yourselves righteous (i.e. declare yourselves as righteous) before men. Contrast: the divine δικαίωσις as it especially became the substance of the Pauline Gospel.[201] The Pharisee in the temple, Luk_18:11 f., gives a repulsive illustration of the δικαιοῦν ἑαυτόν, and he even ventures it in the presence of God.

ὅτι τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑψ. κ.τ.λ.] since, indeed, that which is lofty (standing in high estimation) among men is an abomination before God. Comp. Psa_138:6. Thence it is plainly evident that God knows your (evil) hearts, otherwise that which is lofty among men would also be highly esteemed with Him, and not appear as an abomination. This generally expressed judgment of God has as its concrete background the seemingly holy condition of the Pharisees, and hence is not indeed to be arbitrarily limited (multa, quae, etc., Kuinoel); but, moreover, neither is it to be pressed to an absolute and equal application to all, although in relative variation of degrees it is valid without exception. Schleiermacher and Paulus find a concealed reference to Herod Antipas; but this without the slightest hint in the connection could not possibly present itself to the hearers; the less that even Luk_16:18 cannot be referred to the relation of Herod to Herodias (see already Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 34), since this latter was not forsaken by Philip, but had separated herself arbitrarily from him.

[201] To attribute δικαιοσύνη as the fundamental demand of Christianity to the influence of Pharisaism on the development of Christ (see especially, Keim, Der Geschichtl. Chr. p. 35) is the more doubtful, as this fundamental thought prevails throughout the whole Old Testament.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 16:14-18 form a “somewhat heavily built bridge” (H. C.) between the two parables, which set forth the right and the wrong use of riches.

Luk 16:14 . φιλάργυροι · an interesting and very credible bit of information concerning the Pharisees (2Ti 3:2 ). ἐξεμυκτήριζον ( ἐκ and μύκτηρ , the nose), turned up the nose at, in contempt, again in Luk 23:35 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2 d. Luk 16:14-31. The Wicked Rich Man.

The introduction (Luk 16:14-18) is composed of a series of sayings which at first sight appear to have no connection with one another. Holtzmann thinks that Luke collects here at random sayings scattered throughout the Logia, for which till now he had not found any place. But there are only two leading ideas in this introduction: the rejection of the Pharisees, and the permanence of the law. Now these are precisely the two ideas which are exhibited in action in the following parable: the one in the condemnation of the wicked rich man, that faithful Pharisee (“father Abraham,” Luk 16:24; Luk 16:27; Luk 16:30); the other in the manner in which Abraham asserts, even in Hades, the imperishable value of the law and the prophets. The relation between these two essential ideas of the introduction and of the parable is this: the law on which the Pharisees staked their credit will nevertheless be the instrument of their eternal condemnation. This is exactly what Jesus says to the Jews, Joh 5:45: “There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.” It must be confessed, however, that this introduction, Luk 16:14-18, has a very fragmentary character. It contains the elements of a discourse, rather than the discourse itself. But this very fact proves that St. Luke has not taken the liberty of composing this introduction arbitrarily and independently of his sources. What historian would compose in such a manner? A discourse invented by the evangelist would not have failed to present an evident logical connection, as much as the discourses which Livy or Xenophon put into the mouth of their heroes. The very brokenness suffices to prove that the discourse was really held, and existed previously to this narrative.

Vers. 14 and 15. “The Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things; and they derided Him. 15. And He said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”

The last words of Jesus on the impossibility of combining the service of God and mammon, fell full on the heads of the Pharisees, those pretended servants of Jehovah, who nevertheless in their lives showed themselves such zealous worshippers of riches (Matthew 6, transition between Luk 16:18-19). Hence their sneers (ἐκμυκτηρίζειν). The poverty of Jesus Himself was perhaps the theme of their derision: “It is easy to speak of money with such disdain...when one is destitute as thou art.” In His answer (Luk 16:15), Jesus gives them to understand that the judgment of God is regulated by another standard than that of the men who are at their side. It is at the heart that God looks; and the reign of a single passion, such as that avarice which devours them, suffices to render odious in His eyes that whole righteousness of outward observances which gains for them the favour of the world. The phrase: Ye are they which justify yourselves, signifies, “your business is to pass yourselves off as righteous.” The ὅτι, for, is explained by the idea of condemnation, which here attaches to that of knowledge: “God knows you [and rejects you], for...” ᾿Εν ἀνθρώποις, on the part of men, may mean: among men, or in the judgment of men. In connection with the idea of being highly esteemed, those two ideas are combined. Jesus means: “What men extol and glorify, consequently the ambitious, who, like you, by one means or another push themselves into the front rank, become an object of abomination to God.” For all glorification of man rests on falsehood. God alone is great and deserving to be praised.

What had chiefly irritated the Pharisees in the preceding was the spiritual sense in which Jesus understood the law, unveiling under their airs of sanctity the stain of shameful avarice which defiled them. This idea affords the point of connection for what follows (Luk 16:16-18).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

covetous . . . derided him--sneered at Him; their master sin being too plainly struck at for them to relish. But it was easier to run down than to refute such teaching.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 14. They derided him] Or rather, They treated him with the utmost contempt. So we may translate the original words εξεμυκτηριζον αυτον, which literally signifies, in illum emunxerunt-but must not be translated into English, unless, to come a little near it, we say, they turned up their noses at him; and why! Because they were lovers of money, and he showed them that all such were in danger of perdition. As they were wedded to this life, and not concerned for the other, they considered him one of the most absurd and foolish of men, and worthy only of the most sovereign contempt, because he taught that spiritual and eternal things should be preferred before the riches of the universe. And how many thousands are there of the very same sentiment to the present day!

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(14) And the Pharisees also, who were covetous.—The words are important as showing that they had been listening during the previous parable, and that the words, though addressed to the disciples, had been meant also for them. (See Note on Luk_16:1.) The word for “covetous” is literally lovers of money, as distinct from more general cupidity, and as being used by St. Paul in 2Ti_3:2, and nowhere else in the New Testament, furnishes another instance of community of language between him and the Evangelist.

Derided him.—The verb implies visible rather than audible signs of scorn—the distended nostril, and the sneering lip, the naso suspendere adunco of the Roman satirist. It is, i.e., a word that forcibly expresses the physiognomy of contempt (see Gal_6:7). Here again we have a word common to the two writers just named. The motive of the derision lies on the surface. That they, the teachers of Israel, should be told that they were like the Unjust Steward, that they were wasting their Lord’s goods, that they must make friends with the unrighteous mammon of quite another kind than those whom they were wont to court—this was more than they could stand. They have felt the force of the rebuke, and therefore they stifle it with mockery—

“A little grain of conscience made them sour.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14-31. Dives and Lazarus,—a Parable to the Covetous, Preceded By Rebukes To The Pharisees.

14. who were covetous] Rather, lovers of money, 2Ti_3:2. The charge is amply borne out by the references in the Talmud to the rapacity shewn by the Rabbis and Priests of the period. See Mat_23:13.

they derided him] The word is one expressive of the strongest and most open insolence, Luk_23:35. There is a weaker form of the word in Gal_6:7. Here the jeering was doubtless aimed by these haughty and respected plutocrats at the deep poverty of Jesus and His humble followers. It marks however the phase of daring opposition which was not kindled till the close of His ministry. They thought it most ridiculous to suppose that riches hindered religion—for were not they rich and religious?

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he said unto them,.... That is, Jesus said unto them, as the Syriac and Persic versions express it: "ye are they which justify yourselves before men": from the sins of injustice, unfaithfulness, covetousness, and all others; and would be thought, and appear to be righteous; but it is only in the sight of men, who can only see the outside of things, and judge thereby:

but God knoweth your hearts; and what is in them, the deceitfulness, hypocrisy, covetousness, and cruelty of them, which are hid from the eyes of men:

for that which is highly esteemed among men; or what is high in the account and esteem of men, as the outward appearance of these men for morality, religion, and holiness; their zeal for the ceremonies of the law, and the traditions of the elders:

is abomination in the sight of God; who knew full well from what principles, and with what views they acted, to gain popular applause, and amass riches to themselves, without any concern for the glory of God, and the good of men: see Isa 65:5.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Ver. 14. And they derided him] Gr. εξεμυκτηριζον, they blew their noses at him in scorn and derision. They fleered and jeered, when they should have feared, and fled from the wrath to come. Naso suspendere adunco. Horat.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They derided him - The fact that they were “covetous” is here stated as the reason why they derided him, or, as it is literally, “they turned up the nose at him.” They contemned or despised the doctrine which he had laid down, probably because it showed them that with their love of money they could not be the true friends of God, or that their profession of religion was really false and hollow. They were “attempting” to serve God and mammon, and they, therefore, looked upon his doctrine with contempt and scorn.

Justify yourselves - “Attempt” to appear just; or; you aim to appear righteous in the sight of people, and do not regard the heart.

That which is highly esteemed - That is, mere external works, or actions performed merely to “appear” to be righteous.

Is abomination - Is abominable, or hateful. The word used here is the one that in the Old Testament is commonly given to “idols,” and denotes God’s “abhorrence” of such conduct. These words are to be applied “chiefly” to what Jesus was discoursing about. There are many things esteemed among people which are “not” abomination in the sight of God; as, for example, truth, parental and filial affection, industry, etc. But many things, much sought and admired, “are” hateful in his sight. The love of wealth and show, ambition and pride, frivolous and splendid vices, and all the wickedness that people contrive to “gild” and to make appear like virtue - external acts that “appear” well while the heart is evil - are abominable in the sight of God, and “should be” in the sight of people. Compare Luk 18:11-14; 1Sa 16:7.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Now the Pharisees, &c. Christ had admonished the Scribes and Pharisees not to presume too much on their own sanctity, but to receive repenting sinners, and to redeem their own sins with alms. But they derided these precepts of mercy and humility; either because they esteemed what he commanded them to be useless, or because they thought they had already complied with them. (Ven. Bede) --- The Pharisees considered temporal riches as true goods, and the recompense which God had promised to such as observed his laws; they therefore laughed at the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which extolled liberality and alms-deeds, and despised the Master who, on all occasions, testified his great regard for poverty in his discourses, in his conduct, in the choice of his apostles, who were all poor, and had no pretensions whatever to exterior pomp or show. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Concerning the Pharisees’ covetousness we have often heard before; and indeed they were so from this principle, that none but the rich were happy and blessed, and that all poor people were cursed, Joh 7:49; in opposition to whom some think that our Saviour, Luk 6:20, blessed the poor. The promises relating to the Old Testament, and made to the Jews, were generally of temporal blessings, though under them spiritual mercies were also understood. As hypocrites can never endure to have their beloved lusts touched, and persons that have drank in an error have no patience to hear it contradicted; so the Pharisees had no patience to hear that doctrine, which crossed what they had taught, and struck at their darling lusts.

They derided him: the word used signifieth a deriding with the highest degree of scorn and contempt.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. This shows that many of the dominant sect had been present and had listened to the parable of the unjust steward. Although scrupulous, and in a way religious men, these Pharisees were notorious for their respect and regard for riches, and all that riches purchase, and they felt, no doubt deeply, the Lord"s bitter reproach of covetousness. They, the rulers and leaders of Israel, the religious guides, were evidently attacked in such teaching as they had been lately listening to, not the common people whom they so despised. The scornful words alluded to in the expression, "they derided him," were no doubt directed against the outward poverty of the popular Galilaean Teacher. "It is all very well," they would say, "for one springing from the ranks of the people, landless, moneyless, to rail at wealth and the possessors of wealth; we can understand such teaching from one such as you.

The explanation of false judgment.

"Herein is a marvellous thing," that the men who were reputed to be the best and wisest among the people of God went so far astray in their judgment and their behaviour that they treated with positive contempt the Good and the Wise One when he lived before their eyes and spoke in their hearing. It demands explanation.

I AN APPARENTLY UNACCOUNTABLE FACT. Here we have:

1. Heavenly wisdom derided by those who were divinely instructed. ThePharisees had the Law of God in their hands. Moreover, they had it in their minds and memories; they were perfectly familiar with it; they knew it well to the last letter. They had the great advantage of the devotional Scriptures following the legal, and the didactic and the illuminating prophetic Scriptures added to both. Then, to crown all, came the enlightening truths of the great Teacher himself; yet they failed to appreciate and even to understand him. Nor did they simply turn from him without response; they took up the position of acute and active opposition derided him;" they sought to bring his doctrine into popular contempt.

2. Divine goodness derided by those who were exceptionally devout. Noman could impeach the devoutness of the Pharisees, that is to say, so far as manner and habit were concerned. Their outward behaviour was reverent in the extreme; their habit of life was regulated by rules that brought them into frequent formal connection with God and with his Word. Yet with all their exterior piety they saw the Holy One of God living his transcendently beautiful his positively perfect life before them, and, instead of worshipping him as the Son of God, instead of honouring him as one of the worthiest of the sons of men, they actually judged him to be unholy and unworthy, and they endeavoured to bring him under the contempt of all good men! Such was their moral perversity, their spiritual contradictoriness.

II THE TRUE EXPLANATION OF IT. That which accounts for this radical and criminal mistake of theirs was spiritual unsoundness. They were all wrong at heart; they loved the wrong thing, and a false affection led them, as it will lead all men, very far astray. Everything is explained in the parenthetical clause, "who were covetous." For covetousness is an unholy selfishness. It is a mean and a degrading carefulness about a man"s own circumstances, a small and a withering desire for an enrichment at other men"s expense; it is an affection which lowers and which enslaves the soul, ever dragging downwards and deathwards. And it is also a guilty worldliness. It is not that ambition to make the most and best of the present, which may be a very honourable aspiration; for "all things are ours as Christian men, things present" as well as things to come; (1Co_3:22) it is rather the moral weakness which allows itself to be lost and buried in the pursuits and pleasures of earth and time; it is the narrowing of the range of human attachment and endeavour to that which is sensuous and temporal, excluding the nobler longings after the spiritual and the eternal. This worldliness is not only a guilty thing, condemned of God; but it is a disastrous thing, working most serious evils to mankind.

1. It distorts the judgment.

2. It leads men into wrong and mischievous courses of action; it led the Pharisees to take such an attitude and to initiate such proceedings against Christ as culminated in his murder.

3. It ends in condemnation such severe judgment as the Lord passed on these blind guides. (see Mt 23) If we would be right at heart and in the sight of God, it is clear that "our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

(1) Multiplied ceremonialism will not suffice.

(2) Perfected proprieties will not avail.

(3) Only a humble, trustful, loving heart will make us right.

A true affection, the love of Christ, will lead us into truth and wisdom, will commend us to God, will land us in heaven. C.

Vers. 14-31. The misuse of money.

The possibility of making "friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" has been clearly set before us by our Lord in the preceding parable. The "eternal tents" may afford us warmest welcome if we have conscientiously used our money. But the Pharisees who needed the warning against covetousness only derided him for his pains. It is supposed that it was his poverty which they thought took away his right to speak as he did of riches. He is consequently compelled to turn upon them a severer rebuke, and he does so in the sentences preceding, as well as in the substance of, the next parable. The intermediate sentences need not long detain us. Christ charges the Pharisees with self-justification. Now, this can only take place "before men." It is an appeal to a mere human tribunal to those who can only judge by the appearance, but cannot search the heart. God, he tells them plainly, will not endorse this justification. He will reverse the sentence of self-complacency. He follows up this by stating the permanence of the Law. The reputation of the Pharisees may wither and decay, but not one tittle of the Law shall fail. And in present circumstances he declares that the Divine kingdom is being stormed by anxious men who have learned to humble themselves in penitence and pass into exaltation through pardon. They ought to see to it that they are not induced by lust to play fast and loose with the unchanging Law, and to imagine that they can divorce their wives on the usual pretexts, and be guiltless. Bat now we must proceed to the striking parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Upon the details of the story we do not tarry. It is an exquisitely powerful picture. The artist is here at his best. The rich man in his "purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day;" the poor man "laid at his gate, full of sores," and thankful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man"s table and for the attention of the dogs; then two deaths, when lo! the positions are reversed, and the poor man finds himself in the bosom of Abraham and with his good things all about him, while the rich man finds himself in utter poverty, in need of everything and sure of nothing. The picture closes, too, all hope for such a selfish soul as the rich man proved himself to be. The following lessons are here taught us.

I EVERY ONE WITH MEANS HAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS LIFE OF BEING GENEROUS. (Ver. 20) The friends of the poor man laid him, or, as the word (ebeblhto) may mean, threw him down" at the rich man"s gate. There could be no doubt about the rich man"s opportunity; it was pressed upon his notice. And amid all the artificial separations which civilization makes between rich and poor, there is always some friendly hand to force opportunity upon us. "The poor we have with us always." They appear, do what we may, at the feast of life, and we cannot exclude them from our considerations. It requires an effort to be utterly ungenerous. Now, we ought to bless God that he has not left us with any excuse for hard-heartedness. He brings the world"s needs to our very gates. He emphasizes opportunity. He gives us outflow for our generosities, He will not leave us in our hard-heartedness, but calls us evermore to nobler things.

II SELF-INDULGENCE MAKES PEOPLE ABSOLUTELY PITILESS. (Ver. 21) Mosheim, in a suggestive discourse from this parable, reminds us at the outset of the words of Peter about fleshly lusts warring against the soul." It is wonderful how hardhearted luxurious living can make people. The rich man in the parable can find in his heart to pass out and in and never once to relieve his poor brother. The latter may have got crumbs from the rich man"s table, but if he did, it was more likely by the servants" charity than by the master"s orders. From the self-indulgent worldling he got no consideration. He is ignored, for the selfish soul has become pitiless. When self is supreme, it can shut out all consideration of others from one"s thoughts. When they obtrude themselves or are obtruded upon our attention, we say, alas! that they have no claim upon us, forgetting that they are our brothers. Against such hardheartedness we should all be upon our guard.

III DEATH, IN DEPRIVING THE SELFISH SOUL OF HIS GOOD THINGS, LEAVES HIM NECESSARILY IN TORMENT. (Vers. 22, 23) Good living is a most dangerous habit when it constitutes any man"s all. A soul, to be confined to this tariff, is in danger of dying into utter want. The round of sensual indulgence goes on day after day, the appetites are gorged, and man sinks down into the animal pure and simple. Now, if the world beyond makes no provision for such gross indulgences; if it has no venison and champagne; if the appetites are left without a larder and the famine of the senses has come; what kind of life must the poor soul have? It needs no furnace of actual fire to secure his torment. The burning desire, within which nothing can quench, leaves him of necessity in torment. If God has made no provision for the intemperate, for the gourmand, for the dissolute, in their environment beyond the grave, must not their lusts, denied satisfaction, be perpetual torment? The torment of unsatisfied desire, the hunger of a self-centred spirit, must be terrible!

IV UNBELIEF IS INEXCUSABLE, AND MAY BE INVINCIBLE. (Vers. 27-31) The selfish worldling had evidently been living without regard to a future life. In his torment he realizes that his five brethren are living the same heedless life. Lest, therefore, they should come and increase his torment, he asks that Lazarus be sent on a special mission to warn them about their doom. Now, it is plain that, with Moses and the prophets in their hands, they were without excuse. What, then, did Moses and the prophets teach? They do not teach with great distinctness the doctrine of a future life. They undoubtedly imply that doctrine. But the question is Did the rich man or his brethren need that doctrine to guard them against inhumanity of life? Must I tremble before prospective torment ere I am convinced that I ought to be generous and Considerate?nay, do I not know by the law of conscience that such conduct as is inhuman must incur the curse of God? Even the pagans are inexcusable when they live inhuman lives. Besides, we must not, with the rich man, imagine that a prescribed miracle may overbear all unbelief. Unbelief may be invincible. No miracle may be strong enough to defeat self-will. May we all be kept from such a hardened state!

V ABRAHAM, AS HE CHERISHES LAZARUS IN THE OTHER LIFE, SHOWS US HOW A RICH MAN MAY PERPETUATE HIS KINDLY OFFICES AND INFLUENCE. (Vers. 23-25) It has been very properly observed that in Abraham we have a rich man in blessedness, as a set-off to the other rich man in torment. Abraham was very probably the richer of the two while in life, but he had used his wealth for the good of his fellows. He had cherished the poor and needy. And so it is to good-hearted, faithful Abraham that the consolation of Lazarus is committed. Here the habits of helpfulness which the patriarch had cultivated upon earth find exercise in the better world. What a prospect is thus opened up to the large-hearted! Heaven will be full of opportunity for ministration. Those whose lot has been a hard one in this world will be taken to the bosom of the patriarchs of God those who have become "seniors" in his house of many mansions and receive from them the compensation which God has in store for all who have learned to love him. R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Pharisees were notoriously addicted to the sin of covetousness, accounting no man happy but them that were rich: and because the promises made to the Jews were generally, (though not only) of temporal blessings, they looked upon poverty as a curse, and esteemed the poor accursed, Joh 7:49 The Pharisees hearing their covetousness reproved, and the doctrine of charity and alms preached and enforced by our Saviour, they derided him in the shamefulest manner, with the highest degree of contempt and scorn, wringing the nose, and making mouths at him, as the original word seems to import.

Learn hence,

1. That sinners grow very angry and impatient under the ministry of the word, when they hear their darling sin, their beloved lust, struck at, and sharply reproved.

2. That covetous men who make wealth their idol, when they hear the doctrine of an holy comtempt for the world preached, and the great duty of alms giving urged and enforced, they make it the matter of their contempt and derision: The Pharisees heard and derided him.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14, 15. The Pharisees … covetous … scoffed. They understood the parable as an attack on covetousness and, like the worldly wise, thought his doctrine foolish.

Is an abomination. Man exalts wealth, but the love of wealth, “the root of all evil,” is “an abomination in the sight of God.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This is a break in Jesus teachings, as verse 14 tells us background information about how the Pharisees ridiculed Jesus. In verse 15, Jesus continues teaching and responds to the Pharisees. (See: Background Information)

Now

This word marks a shift to the background information.

who were lovers of money

"who loved having money" or "who where very greedy for money"

they ridiculed him

"the Pharisees ridiculed Jesus"

He said to them

"And Jesus said to the Pharisees"

You justify yourselves in the sight of men

"You try to make yourselves look good to people"

God knows your hearts

Here "hearts" refers to the desires of people. AT: "God understands your true desires" or "God knows your motives" (See: Metonymy)

That which is exalted among men is detestable in the sight of God

This can be stated in active form. AT: "Those things that men think are very important are things that God hates" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

Pharisee

lover

mock

just

heart

exalt

detest

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

14–31. DIVES AND LAZARUS: A PARABLE TO THE COVETOUS, PRECEDED BY REBUKES TO THE PHARISEES

14. φιλάργυροι. ‘Lovers of money,’ 2Ti 3:2. The charge is amply borne out by the references in the Talmud to the rapacity shewn by the Rabbis and Priests of the period. See Mat 23:13.

ἐξεμυκτήριζον. Kept scoffing at Him. Comp. LXX[301] 2Sa 19:21; Psa 2:4. The word is one expressive of the strongest and most open insolence, Luk 23:35. There is a weaker form of the word in Gal 6:7. Here the jeering was doubtless aimed by these haughty and respected plutocrats at the deep poverty of Jesus and His humble followers. It marks however the phase of daring opposition which was not kindled till the close of His ministry. They thought it most ridiculous to suppose that riches hindered religion—for were not they rich and religious? And had not Shammai mentioned ‘riches’ as one of a Rabbi’s qualifications?

[301] LXX. Septuagint.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14-31.] By occasion of the covetous Pharisees deriding Him, our Lord speaks the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The Pharisees were not slow in perceiving that the scope of ταῦτα πάντα was to place this world’s goods, and all that the covetous seek after, at a very low price. It will be observed that the sayings which follow, are in reference to matters mentioned during the discourses, or arising out of the character of the Pharisees as commented on in them.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14-18. Introduction to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

14. Ἤκουον δὲ ταῦτα πάντα. This shows that the occasion is the same; but the scoffs of the Pharisees diverted Christ’s words from the disciples (ver. 1) to themselves. Note the πάντα.

φιλάργυροι ὑπάρχοντεͅ Avarice was their constant characteristic: for the verb see on 8:41 and 23:50. The adj. occurs 2Ti 3:2 and nowhere else in bibl. Grk., but is quite classical., 2 Mac 10:20 we have φιλαργυρεῖν. The covetousness of the Pharisees is independently attested, and they regarded their wealth as a special blessing for their carefulness in observing the Law. Hence their contempt for teaching which declared that there is danger in wealth, and that as a rule it promotes unrighteousness. They considered themselves an abiding proof of the connexion between riches and righteousness: moreover, they had their own explanation of the reason why a Rabbi who was poor declaimed against riches. Comp. 20:47.

ἐξμυκτήριζον. “Turned up the nose (μυκτήρ) at”: 23:35; Psa 2:4, Psa 34:16. Here deridebant (f), inridebant (a), subsannabant (d). In class. Grk. μυκτηρίζειν is more usual: Gal 6:7; 2Ki 19:21; Pro 1:30; Isa 37:22; Jer 20:7. In medical writers it means “bleed at the nose.”

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Covetous [φιλαργυροι] . Rev. renders literally, according to the composition of the word, lovers of money. Only here and 2Ti 3:2. Compare the kindred noun, 1Ti 6:10. The usual word for covetous is pleonekthv (1Co 5:10, 11; 1Co 6:10).

Derided [εξεμυκτηριξον] . Only here and ch. 23 35. Lit., to turn up the nose at. The Romans had a corresponding phrase, naso adunco suspendere, to hang on the hooked nose : i e., to turn up the nose and make a hook of it, on which (figuratively) to hang the subject of ridicule. Thus Horace, in one of his satires, giving an account of a pretentious banquet at the house of a rich miser, describes on of the guests as hanging everything to his nose; i e., making a joke of everything that occurred. The simple verb occurs at Gal 6:7, of mocking God.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.