Text -- Luke 16:1-21 (NET)

The Parable of the Clever Steward

16:1 Jesus also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who was informed of accusations that his manager was wasting his assets. 16:2 So he called the manager in and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Turn in the account of your administration, because you can no longer be my manager.’ 16:3 Then the manager said to himself, ‘What should I do, since my master is taking my position away from me? I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m too ashamed to beg. 16:4 I know what to do so that when I am put out of management, people will welcome me into their homes.’ 16:5 So he contacted his master’s debtors one by one. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 16:6 The man replied, ‘A hundred measures of olive oil.’ The manager said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and write fifty.’ 16:7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ The second man replied, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ The manager said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 16:8 The master commended the dishonest manager because he acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their contemporaries than the people of light. 16:9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by how you use worldly wealth, so that when it runs out you will be welcomed into the eternal homes. 16:10 “The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. 16:11 If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? 16:12 And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own? 16:13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot cannot serve God and money.”

More Warnings about the Pharisees

16:14 The Pharisees (who loved money) heard all this and ridiculed him. 16:15 But Jesus said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in men’s eyes, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly prized among men is utterly detestable in God’s sight. 16:16 “The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it. 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void. 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

16:19 “There was a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 16:20 But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores, 16:21 who longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. In addition, the dogs came and licked his sores.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Luk 16:1

Unto the disciples ( kai pros tous mathētas ).

The three preceding parables in chapter 15 exposed the special faults of the Pharisees, "their hard exclusiveness, self-righteousness, and contempt for others"(Plummer). This parable is given by Luke alone. The kai (also) is not translated in the Revised Version. It seems to mean that at this same time, after speaking to the Pharisees (chapter 15), Jesus proceeds to speak a parable to the disciples (Luk 16:1-13), the parable of the Unjust Steward. It is a hard parable to explain, but Jesus opens the door by the key in Luk 16:9.

Robertson: Luk 16:1

Which had a steward ( hos ēichen oikonomon ).

Imperfect active, continued to have. Steward is house-manager or overseer of an estate as already seen in Luk 12:42.

Robertson: Luk 16:1

Was accused ( dieblēthē ).

First aorist indicative passive, of diaballō , an old verb, but here only in the N.T. It means to throw across or back and forth, rocks or words and so to slander by gossip. The word implies malice even if the thing said is true. The word diabolos (slanderer) is this same root and it is used even of women, she-devils (1Ti 3:11).

Robertson: Luk 16:1

That he was wasting ( hōs diaskorpizōn ).

For the verb, see note on Luk 15:13. The use of hōs with the participle is a fine Greek idiom for giving the alleged ground of a charge against one.

Robertson: Luk 16:1

His goods ( ta huparchonta autou ).

"His belongings,"a Lukan idiom.

Robertson: Luk 16:2

What is this that I hear? ( ti touto akouō̱ ).

There are several ways of understanding this terse Greek idiom. The Revised Version (above) takes ti to be equal to ti estin touto ho akouō ; That is a possible use of the predicate touto . Another way is to take ti to be exclamatory, which is less likely. Still another view is that ti is "Why": "Why do I hear this about thee?"See Act 14:15 where that is the idiom employed.

Robertson: Luk 16:2

Render ( apodos ).

Second aorist active imperative of apodidōmi , Give back (and at once).

Robertson: Luk 16:2

The account ( ton logon ).

The reckoning or report. Common use of logos .

Robertson: Luk 16:2

Stewardship ( oikonomias ).

Same root as oikonomos (steward). This demand does not necessarily mean dismissal if investigation proved him innocent of the charges. But the reason given implies that he is to be dismissed:

Robertson: Luk 16:2

Thou canst no longer ( ou gar dunēi ).

||

Robertson: Luk 16:3

Within himself ( en heautōi ).

As soon as he had time to think the thing over carefully. He knew that he was guilty of embezzlement of the Master’ s funds.

Robertson: Luk 16:3

Taketh away ( aphaireitai ).

Present (linear) middle indicative of aphaireō , old verb to take away. Here the middle present means, He is taking away for himself.

Robertson: Luk 16:3

To beg I am not ashamed ( epaitein aischunomai ).

The infinitive with aischunomai means ashamed to begin to beg. The participle, epaitōn aischunomai would mean, ashamed while begging, ashamed of begging while doing it.

Robertson: Luk 16:4

I am resolved ( egnōn ).

Second aorist active indicative of ginōskō . A difficult tense to reproduce in English. I knew, I know, I have known, all miss it a bit. It is a burst of daylight to the puzzled, darkened man: I’ ve got it, I see into it now, a sudden solution.

Robertson: Luk 16:4

What to do ( ti poiēsō ).

Either deliberative first aorist active subjunctive or deliberative future active indicative.

Robertson: Luk 16:4

When I am put out ( hotan metastathō ).

First aorist passive subjunctive of methistēmi , (meta , histēmi ), old verb, to transpose, transfer, remove. He is expecting to be put out.

Robertson: Luk 16:4

They may receive me ( dexōntai ).

First aorist middle subjunctive of dechomai , common verb. Subjunctive with final particle hina . He wishes to put the debtors under obligation to himself.

Robertson: Luk 16:4

Debtors ( tōn chreophiletōn ).

A late word. In the N.T. only here and Luk 7:41 from chreos , loan, and opheiletēs , debtor. It is probable that he dealt with "each one"separately.

Robertson: Luk 16:6

Measures ( batous ).

Transliterated word for Hebrew bath , between eight and nine gallons. Here alone in the N.T. Not the same word as batos ( bush ) in Luk 6:44.

Robertson: Luk 16:6

Thy bond ( sou ta grammata ).

Thy writings, thy contracts, thy note.

Robertson: Luk 16:6

Quickly ( tacheōs ).

It was a secret arrangement and speed was essential.

Robertson: Luk 16:7

Measures ( korous ).

Another Hebrew word for dry measure. The Hebrew cor was about ten bushels. Data are not clear about the Hebrew measures whether liquid ( bath ) or dry ( cor ).

Robertson: Luk 16:8

His lord commended ( epēinesen ho kurios ).

The steward’ s lord praised him though he himself had been wronged again (see Luk 16:1 "wasting his goods").

Robertson: Luk 16:8

The unrighteous steward ( ton oikonomon tēs adikias ).

Literally, the steward of unrighteousness. The genitive is the case of genus, species, the steward distinguished by unrighteousness as his characteristic. See "the mammon of unrighteousness"in Luk 16:9. See "the forgetful hearer"in Jam 1:25. It is a vernacular idiom common to Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Koiné .

Robertson: Luk 16:8

Wisely ( phronimōs ).

An old adverb, though here alone in the N.T. But the adjective phronimos from which it comes occurs a dozen times as in Mat 10:16. It is from phroneō and that from phrēn , the mind (1Co 14:20), the discerning intellect. Perhaps "shrewdly"or "discreetly"is better here than "wisely."The lord does not absolve the steward from guilt and he was apparently dismissed from his service. His shrewdness consisted in finding a place to go by his shrewdness. He remained the steward of unrighteousness even though his shrewdness was commended.

Robertson: Luk 16:8

For ( hoti ).

Probably by this second hoti Jesus means to say that he cites this example of shrewdness because it illustrates the point. "This is the moral of the whole parable. Men of the world in their dealings with men like themselves are more prudent than the children of light in their intercourse with one another"(Plummer). We all know how stupid Christians can be in their co-operative work in the kingdom of God, to go no further.

Robertson: Luk 16:8

Wiser than ( phronimōteroi huper ).

Shrewder beyond, a common Greek idiom.

Robertson: Luk 16:9

By the mammon of unrighteousness ( ek tou mamōnā tēs adikias ).

By the use of what is so often evil (money). In Mat 6:24 mammon is set over against God as in Luk 16:13 below. Jesus knows the evil power in money, but servants of God have to use it for the kingdom of God. They should use it discreetly and it is proper to make friends by the use of it.

Robertson: Luk 16:9

When it shall fail ( hotan eklipēi ).

Second aorist active subjunctive with hotan , future time. The mammon is sure to fail.

Robertson: Luk 16:9

That they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles ( hina dexōntai humas eis tas aiōnious skēnas ).

This is the purpose of Christ in giving the advice about their making friends by the use of money. The purpose is that those who have been blessed and helped by the money may give a welcome to their benefactors when they reach heaven. There is no thought here of purchasing an entrance into heaven by the use of money. That idea is wholly foreign to the context. These friends will give a hearty welcome when one gives him mammon here. The wise way to lay up treasure in heaven is to use one’ s money for God here on earth. That will give a cash account there of joyful welcome, not of purchased entrance.

Robertson: Luk 16:10

Faithful in a very little ( pistos en elachistōi ).

Elative superlative. One of the profoundest sayings of Christ. We see it in business life. The man who can be trusted in a very small thing will be promoted to large responsibilities. That is the way men climb to the top. Men who embezzle in large sums began with small sums. Luk 16:10-13 here explain the point of the preceding parables.

Robertson: Luk 16:11

Faithful in the unrighteous mammon ( en tōi adikōi mamōnāi ).

In the use of what is considered "unrighteous"as it so often is. Condition of the first class, "if ye did not prove to be"(ei ouk egenesthe ). Failure here forfeits confidence in "the true riches"(to alēthinon ). There is no sadder story than to see a preacher go down by the wrong use of money, caught in this snare of the devil.

Robertson: Luk 16:12

That which is your own ( to hūmeteron ).

But Westcott and Hort read to hēmeteron (our own) because of B L Origen. The difference is due to itacism in the pronunciation of hū - and hē alike (long i ). But the point in the passage calls for "yours"as correct. Earthly wealth is ours as a loan, a trust, withdrawn at any moment. It belongs to another (en tōi allotriōi ). If you did not prove faithful in this, who will give you what is really yours forever? Compare "rich toward God"(Luk 12:21).

Robertson: Luk 16:13

Servant ( oiketēs ).

Household (oikos ) servant. This is the only addition to Mat 6:24 where otherwise the language is precisely the same, which see note. Either Matthew or Luke has put the logion in the wrong place or Jesus spoke it twice. It suits perfectly each context. There is no real reason for objecting to repetition of favourite sayings by Jesus.

Robertson: Luk 16:14

Who were lovers of money ( philarguroi huparchontes ).

Literally, being lovers of money. Philarguroi is an old word, but in the N.T. only here and 2Ti 3:2. It is from philos and arguros .

Robertson: Luk 16:14

Heard ( ēkouon ).

Imperfect active, were listening (all the while Jesus was talking to the disciples (Luk 16:1-13).

Robertson: Luk 16:14

And they scoffed at him ( kai exemuktērizon ).

Imperfect active again of ekmuktērizō . lxx where late writers use simple verb. In the N.T. only here and Luk 23:35. It means to turn out or up the nose at one, to sneer, to scoff. The Romans had a phrase, naso adunco suspendere , to hang on the hooked nose (the subject of ridicule). These money-loving Pharisees were quick to see that the words of Jesus about the wise use of money applied to them. They had stood without comment the three parables aimed directly at them (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son). But now they do not remain quiet while they hear the fourth parable spoken to the disciples. No words were apparently spoken, but their eyes, noses, faces were eloquent with a fine disdain.

Robertson: Luk 16:15

That justify yourselves ( hoi dikaiountes heautous ).

They were past-masters at that and were doing it now by upturned noses.

Robertson: Luk 16:15

An abomination in the sight of God ( bdelugma enōpion tou theou ).

See note on Mat 24:15 and note on Mar 13:14 for this lxx word for a detestable thing as when Antiochus Epiphanes set up an altar to Zeus in place of that to Jehovah. There is withering scorn in the use of this phrase by Jesus to these pious pretenders.

Robertson: Luk 16:16

Entereth violently into it ( eis autēn biazetai ).

A corresponding saying occurs in Mat 11:12 in a very different context. In both the verb biazetai , occurs also, but nowhere else in the N.T. It is present middle here and can be middle or passive in Matthew, which see note. It is rare in late prose. Deissmann ( Bible Studies , p. 258) cites an inscription where biazomai is reflexive middle and used absolutely. Here the meaning clearly is that everyone forces his way into the kingdom of God, a plea for moral enthusiasm and spiritual passion and energy that some today affect to despise.

Robertson: Luk 16:17

One tittle ( mian kerean ).

See note on Mat 5:18.

Robertson: Luk 16:18

Committeth adultery ( moicheuei ).

Another repeated saying of Christ (Mat 5:32; Mar 10:11.; Mat 19:9.). Adultery remains adultery, divorce or no divorce, remarriage or no marriage.

Robertson: Luk 16:19

He was clothed ( enedidusketo ).

Imperfect middle of endiduskō , a late intensive form of enduō . He clothed himself in or with. It was his habit.

Robertson: Luk 16:19

Purple ( porphuran ).

This purple dye was obtained from the purple fish, a species of mussel or murex (1 Maccabees 4:23). It was very costly and was used for the upper garment by the wealthy and princes (royal purple). They had three shades of purple (deep violet, deep scarlet or crimson, deep blue). See also Mar 15:17, Mar 15:20; Rev 18:12.

Robertson: Luk 16:19

Fine linen ( busson ).

Robertson: Luk 16:19

Byssus

or Egyptian flax (India and Achaia also). It is a yellowed flax from which fine linen was made for undergarments. It was used for wrapping mummies. "Some of the Egyptian linen was so fine that it was called woven air "(Vincent). Here only in the N.T. for the adjective bussinos occurs in Rev 18:12; Rev 19:8, Rev 19:14.

Robertson: Luk 16:19

Faring sumptuously ( euphrainomenos lamprōs ).

Robertson: Luk 16:19

Making merry brilliantly.

The verb euphrainomai we have already had in Luk 12:19; Luk 15:23, Luk 15:25, Luk 15:32. Lamprōs is an old adverb from lampros , brilliant, shining, splendid, magnificent. It occurs here only in the N.T. This parable apparently was meant for the Pharisees (Luk 16:14) who were lovers of money. It shows the wrong use of money and opportunity.

Robertson: Luk 16:20

Beggar ( ptōchos ).

Original meaning of this old word. See note on Mat 5:3. The name Lazarus is from Eleazaros , "God a help,"and was a common one.

Robertson: Luk 16:20

Lazar

in English means one afflicted with a pestilential disease.

Robertson: Luk 16:20

Was laid ( ebeblēto ).

Past perfect passive of the common verb ballō . He had been flung there and was still there, "as if contemptuous roughness is implied"(Plummer).

Robertson: Luk 16:20

At his gate ( pros ton pulōna autou ).

Right in front of the large portico or gateway, not necessarily a part of the grand house, porch in Mat 26:71.

Robertson: Luk 16:20

Full of sores ( heilkōmenos ).

Perfect passive participle of helkoō , to make sore, to ulcerate, from helkos , ulcer (Latin ulcus ). See use of helkos in Luk 16:21. Common in Hippocrates and other medical writers. Here only in the N.T.

Robertson: Luk 16:21

With the crumbs that fell ( apo tōn piptontōn ).

From the things that fell from time to time. The language reminds one of Luk 15:16 (the prodigal son) and the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mar 7:28). Only it does not follow that this beggar did not get the scraps from the rich man’ s table. Probably he did, though nothing more. Even the wild street dogs would get them also.

Robertson: Luk 16:21

Yea, even the dogs ( alla kai hoi kunes ).

For alla kai see also Luk 12:7; Luk 24:22. Alla can mean "yea,"though it often means "but."Here it depends on how one construes Luke’ s meaning. If he means that he was dependent on casual scraps and it was so bad that even the wild dogs moreover were his companions in misery, the climax came that he was able to drive away the dogs. The other view is that his hunger was unsatisfied, but even the dogs increased his misery.

Robertson: Luk 16:21

Licked his sores ( epeleichon ta helkē autou ).

Imperfect active of epileichō , a late vernacular Koiné verb, to lick over the surface. It is not clear whether the licking of the sores by the dogs added to the misery of Lazarus or gave a measure of comfort, as he lay in his helpless condition. "Furrer speaks of witnessing dogs and lepers waiting together for the refuse"(Bruce). It was a scramble between the dogs and Lazarus.

Vincent: Luk 16:1

Steward ( οἰκονόμον )

From οἶκος , a house, and νέμω , to distribute or dispense. Hence, one who assigns to the members of the household their several duties, and pays to each his wages. The paymaster. He kept the household stores under lock and seal, giving out what was required; and for this purpose received a signet-ring from his master. Wyc., fermour, or farmer. Here probably the land-steward.

Vincent: Luk 16:1

Was accused ( διεβλήθη )

Only here in New Testament. From διά , over, across, and βάλλω , to throw. To carry across, and hence to carry reports, etc., from one to another; to carry false reports, and so to calumniate or slander. See on devil, Mat 4:1. The word implies malice, but not necessarily falsehood. Compare Latin traducere ( trans, over, ducere, to ad), whence traduce.

Vincent: Luk 16:1

Had wasted ( ὡς διασκορπίζων )

Lit., as wasting. Rev., was wasting; not merely a past offence, but something going on at the time of the accusation. See Luk 15:13.

Vincent: Luk 16:2

How is it that I hear this ( τί τοῦτο ἀκούω )

Better as Rev., What is this that I hear?

Vincent: Luk 16:2

Give an account ( ἀπόδος τὸν λόγον )

Lit., " give back " (ἀπό ). Rev., render. The (τὸν ) account which is due. Aristophanes has a striking parallel: " And now give back my signet; for thou shalt no longer be my steward" (" Knights," 947).

Vincent: Luk 16:2

Thou mayest ( δυνήσῃ )

More strictly, as Rev., thou canst.

Vincent: Luk 16:3

Taketh away

Or is taking away. He was not yet dispossessed, as is shown by what follows.

Vincent: Luk 16:3

I cannot ( οὐκ ἰσχύω )

See on Luk 14:30. " I have not strength." His luxurious life had unfitted him for hard labor. In Aristophanes (" Birds," 1431), a sycophant is asked: " Tell me, being a young man, do you lodge informations against strangers?" He replies: " Yes; why should I suffer, for I know not how to dig ?"

Vincent: Luk 16:3

To beg ( ἐπαιτεῖν )

See on besought, Mat 15:23.

Vincent: Luk 16:4

They may receive

The debtors of his master (Luk 16:5).

Vincent: Luk 16:5

He called

Alford and Trench think that the debtors were together; but the words seem to me to indicate that he dealt with them separately. He called to him each one, and said unto the first; after that (ἔπειτα ) another.

Vincent: Luk 16:6

Measures ( βάτους )

Lit., baths. The bath was a Hebrew measure, but the amount is uncertain, since, according to Edersheim, there were three kinds of measurement in use in Palestine: the original Mosaic, corresponding with the Roman; that of Jerusalem, which was a fifth larger; and the common Galilaean measurement, which was more than a fifth larger than the Jerusalem. Assuming the first standard, the bath would be about fifty-six pints, and the debt, therefore, a large one.

Vincent: Luk 16:6

Take thy bill ( δέξαι σου τὰ γράμματα )

Lit., take back thy writings. Rev., bond. Wyc., obligation; and in Luk 16:7, letters . The plural is used for a single document. The bill is the bond which the buyer has given, and which is in the steward's keeping. He gives it back to the debtor for him to alter the figures.

Vincent: Luk 16:6

Sit down quickly

It was a secret transaction, to be hurried through.

Vincent: Luk 16:7

To another ( ἑτέρῳ )

A different one with a different debt, and his circumstances demanding a different rate of discount.

Vincent: Luk 16:7

Measures ( κόρους )

Cors. A cor was ten baths; the dry and the fluid measures being the same.

Vincent: Luk 16:8

The lord

Of the steward. Rev., properly, " his lord."

Vincent: Luk 16:8

Commended

Admiring his shrewdness, though he himself was defrauded.

Vincent: Luk 16:8

Unjust steward

Lit., steward of injustice. See on forgetful hearer, Jam 1:25; and compare words of grace, Luk 4:22; unjust judge, Luk 18:6; son of his love, Col 1:13; lust of uncleanness, 2Pe 2:10. The idiom is a Hebrew one. The phrase expresses Jesus' judgment on what the steward's master praised.

Vincent: Luk 16:8

Wisely ( φρονίμως )

See on Mat 10:16. Wyc., prudently . I would suggest shrewdly, though in the modern sense of sagaciously, since the earlier sense of shrewd was malicious, or wicked. Plato says: " All knowledge separated from righteousness and other virtue appears to be cunning and not wisdom. " In Mat 7:24-26, it is applied to the sagacious man who built his house on the rock, opposed to the foolish (μωρός ) man who built on the sand. " It is a middle term, not bringing out prominently the moral characteristics, either good or evil, of the action to which it is applied, but recognizing in it a skilful adaptation of the means to the end - affirming nothing in the way of moral approbation or disapprobation, either of means or end, but leaving their worth to be determined by other considerations" (Trench, " Parables" ).

Vincent: Luk 16:8

In their generation ( εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν )

The A. V. misses the point, following Wyc. Lit., in reference to their own generation; i.e., the body of the children of this world to which they belong, and are kindred. They are shrewd in dealing with their own kind; since, as is shown in the parable, where the debtors were accomplices of the steward they are all alike unscrupulous. Tynd., in their kind.

Vincent: Luk 16:8

Than the children of light

Lit., sons of the light. The men of the world make their intercourse with one another more profitable than the sons of light do their intercourse with their own kind. The latter " forget to use God's goods to form bonds of love to the contemporaries who share their character" (Godet); forget to " make friends of the mammon," etc.

Vincent: Luk 16:9

Make to yourselves friends

Compare Virgil, " Aeneid," vi., 664:. Among the tenants of Elysium he sees " those who, by good desert, made others mindful of them."

Vincent: Luk 16:9

Of the mammon of unrighteousness ( ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας )

The same idiom as in Luk 16:8, steward of injustice. Compare unrighteous mammon, Luk 16:11. Mammon should be spelt with one m. It is a Chaldee word, meaning riches. It occurs only in this chapter and at Mat 6:24. " Of the mammon" is, literally, by means of. In the phrase of unrighteousness, there is implied no condemnation of property as such; but it is styled unrighteous, or belonging to unrighteousness, because it is the characteristic and representative object and delight and desire of the selfish and unrighteous world: their love of it being a root of all evil (1Ti 6:10). Wyc., the riches of wickedness .

Vincent: Luk 16:9

Ye fail ( ἐκλίπητε )

But all the best texts read ἐκλίπῃ , " when it (the mammon) fails."

Vincent: Luk 16:9

They may receive

The friends.

Vincent: Luk 16:9

Habitations ( σκηνάς )

Lit., tents or tabernacles .

Vincent: Luk 16:10

That which is least

A general proposition, yet with a reference to mammon as the least of things. See Luk 16:11.

Vincent: Luk 16:11

Faithful

Fidelity is, therefore, possible toward the unrighteous mammon.

Vincent: Luk 16:12

That which is another's

God's. Riches are not ours, but given us in trust.

Vincent: Luk 16:12

Your own

Equivalent to the true riches . That which forms part of our eternal being - the redeemed self. Compare the parable of the Rich Fool (Luk 12:20), where the life or soul is distinguished from the possessions. " Thy soul shall be required; whose shall the wealth be?" Compare, also, rich to ward God (Luk 12:21). Chrysostom, cited by Trench, says of Abraham and Job, " They did not serve mammon, but possessed and ruled themselves, and were masters, and not servants."

Vincent: Luk 16:13

Servant ( οἰκέτης )

Properly, household servant.

Vincent: Luk 16:13

Serve

See on minister, Mat 20:26.

Vincent: Luk 16:13

The other

See on Mat 6:24.

Vincent: Luk 16:13

Hold to

See on Mat 6:24.

Vincent: Luk 16:14

Covetous ( φιλάργυροι )

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

Vincent: Luk 16:14

Derided ( ἐξεμυκτήριζον )

Only here and Luk 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 one 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.

Vincent: Luk 16:15

Abomination

See on Mat 24:15.

Vincent: Luk 16:16

Presseth

Rev., entereth violently. See on Mat 11:12. Wyc., maketh violence into it. Tynd., striveth to go in.

Vincent: Luk 16:17

Tittle

See on Mat 5:18.

Vincent: Luk 16:19

Was clothed

Imperfect, and frequentative; denoting his habitual attire.

Vincent: Luk 16:19

Purple ( πορφύραν )

Originally the purple fish from which the color was obtained, and thence applied to the color itself. Several kinds of these were found in the Mediterranean. The color was contained in a vein about the neck. Under the term purple the ancients included three distinct colors: 1. A deep violet, with a black or dusky tinge; the color meant by Homer in describing an ocean wave: " As when the great sea grows purple with dumb swell" (" Iliad," xiv., 16). 2. Deep scarlet or crimson - the Tyrian purple. 3. The deep blue of the Mediterranean. The dye was permanent. Alexander is said by Plutarch to have found in the royal palace at Susa garments which preserved their freshness of color though they had been laid up for nearly two hundred years; and Mr. St. John (" Manners and Customs of Ancient Greece" ) relates that a small pot of the dye was discovered at Pompeii which had preserved the tone and richness attributed to the Tyrian purple. This fixedness of color is alluded to in Isa 1:18 - though your sins were as scarlet, the term being rendered in the Septuagint φοινικοῦν , which, with its kindred words, denoted darker shades of red. A full and interesting description of the purple may be found in J. A. St. John's " Manners and Customs of Ancient Greece," iii., 224: sq.

Vincent: Luk 16:19

Fine linen ( βύσσον )

Byssus . A yellowish flax, and the linen made from it. Herodotus says it was used for enveloping mummies (ii., 86), a statement confirmed by microscopic examinations. He also speaks of it as a bandage for a wound (vii., 181). It is the word used by the Septuagint for linen (Exodus 25:4; 28:5; 35:6, etc.). Some of the Egyptian linen was so fine that it was called woven air. Sir Gardner Wilkinson says that some in his possession was, to the touch, comparable to silk, and not inferior in texture to the finest cambric. It was often as transparent as lawn, a fact illustrated by the painted sculptures, where the entire form is often made distinctly visible through the outer garment. Later Greek writers used the word for cotton and for silk. See Wilkinson's " Ancient Egyptians," first series, iii., 114 sq., and Rawlinson's " History of Ancient Egypt," i., 4:87, 512. A yellow byssus was used by the Greeks, the material for which grew around Elis, and which was enormously costly. See Aeschylus, " Persae," 127.

Vincent: Luk 16:19

Fared sumptuously ( εὐφραινόμενος λαμπρῶς )

Lit., making merry in splendor. Compare Luk 15:23, Luk 15:24, Luk 15:29, Luk 15:32. Wyc., he ate, each day, shiningly.

Vincent: Luk 16:20

Beggar

See on poor , Mat 5:3.

Vincent: Luk 16:20

Lazarus

Abbreviated from Ἐλεάζαρος , Eleazar, and meaning God a help. " It is a striking evidence of the deep impression which this parable has made on the mind of Christendom, that the term azar should have passed into so many languages as it has, losing altogether its signification as a proper name" (Trench).

Vincent: Luk 16:20

Was laid ( ἐβέβλητο )

Lit., was thrown: east carelessly down by his bearers and left there.

Vincent: Luk 16:20

Gate ( πυλῶνα )

The gateway , often separated from the house or temple. In Mat 26:71, it is rendered porch.

Vincent: Luk 16:20

Full of sores ( εἱλκωμένος )

Only here in New Testament. The regular medical term for to be ulcerated. John uses the kindred noun ἕλκος , an ulcer (Rev 16:2). See next verse.

Vincent: Luk 16:21

Desiring ( ἐπιθυμῶν )

Eagerly, and not receiving what he desired. The same thing is implied in the story of the prodigal, where the same word is used, " he would fain have been filled" (Luk 15:16), but the pods did not satisfy his hunger.

Vincent: Luk 16:21

The crumbs that fell ( τῶν πιπτόντων )

Lit., the things falling. The best texts omit ψιχίων , crumbs .

Vincent: Luk 16:21

Moreover ( ἀλλὰ καὶ )

Lit., but even . " But (instead of finding compassion), even the dogs," etc.

Vincent: Luk 16:21

Licked ( ἐπέλειχον )

Only here in New Testament. Cyril, cited by Hobart, says: " The only attention, and, so to speak, medical dressing, which his sores received, was from the dogs who came and licked them."

Wesley: Luk 16:1

Not only to the scribes and Pharisees to whom he had hitherto been speaking, but to all the younger as well as the elder brethren: to the returning prodigals who were now his disciples.

Wesley: Luk 16:1

Christ here teaches all that are now in favour with God, particularly pardoned penitents, to behave wisely in what is committed to them.

Wesley: Luk 16:3

But not ashamed to cheat! This was likewise a sense of honour! "By men called honour, but by angels pride."

Wesley: Luk 16:4

That is, I am resolved, what to do.

Wesley: Luk 16:8

Namely, in this respect, because he had used timely precaution: so that though the dishonesty of such a servant be detestable, yet his foresight, care, and contrivance, about the interests of this life, deserve our imitation, with regard to the more important affairs of another.

Wesley: Luk 16:8

Those who seek no other portion than this world: Are wiser - Not absolutely, for they are, one and all, egregious fools; but they are more consistent with themselves; they are truer to their principles; they more steadily pursue their end; they are wiser in their generation - That is, in their own way, than the children of light - The children of God, whose light shines on their hearts.

Wesley: Luk 16:9

Be good stewards even of the lowest talents wherewith God hath intrusted you. Mammon means riches or money. It is termed the mammon of unrighteousness, because of the manner wherein it is commonly either procured or employed. Make yourselves friends of this, by doing all possible good, particularly to the children of God: that when ye fail, when your flesh and your heart faileth, when this earthly tabernacle is dissolved, those of them who have gone before may receive, may welcome you into the everlasting habitations.

Wesley: Luk 16:10

And whether ye have more or less, see that ye be faithful as well as wise stewards. He that is faithful in what is meanest of all, worldly substance, is also faithful in things of a higher nature; and he that uses these lowest gifts unfaithfully, is likewise unfaithful in spiritual things.

Wesley: Luk 16:11

How should God intrust you with spiritual and eternal, which alone are true riches?

Wesley: Luk 16:12

None of these temporal things are yours: you are only stewards of them, not proprietors: God is the proprietor of all; he lodges them in your hands for a season: but still they are his property. Rich men, understand and consider this. If your steward uses any part of your estate (so called in the language of men) any farther or any otherwise than you direct, he is a knave: he has neither conscience nor honour. Neither have you either one or the other, if you use any part of that estate, which is in truth God's, not yours, any otherwise than he directs.

Wesley: Luk 16:12

Heaven, which when you have it, will be your own for ever.

Wesley: Luk 16:13

And you cannot be faithful to God, if you trim between God and the world, if you do not serve him alone. Mat 6:24.

Wesley: Luk 16:15

The sense of the whole passage is, that pride, wherewith you justify yourselves, feeds covetousness, derides the Gospel, Luk 16:14, and destroys the law, Luk 16:18. All which is illustrated by a terrible example.

Wesley: Luk 16:15

Ye think yourselves righteous, and persuade others to think you so.

Wesley: Luk 16:16

The law and the prophets were in force until John: from that time the Gospel takes place; and humble upright men receive it with inexpressible earnestness. Mat 11:13.

Wesley: Luk 16:17

Not that the Gospel at all destroys the law. Mat 5:18.

Wesley: Luk 16:18

But ye do; particularly in this notorious instance. Mat 5:31; Mat 19:7.

Wesley: Luk 16:19

Very probably a Pharisee, and one that justified himself before men; a very honest, as well as honourable gentleman: though it was not proper to mention his name on this occasion: who was clothed in purple and fine linen - and doubtless esteemed on this account, (perhaps not only by those who sold it, but by most that knew him,) as encouraging trade, and acting according to his quality: And feasted splendidly every day - And consequently was esteemed yet more, for his generosity and hospitality in keeping so good a table.

Wesley: Luk 16:20

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, (according to the Greek pronunciation) or Eleazer. By his name it may be conjectured, he was of no mean family, though it was thus reduced. There was no reason for our Lord to conceal his name, which probably was then well known. Theophylact observes, from the tradition of the Hebrews, that he lived at Jerusalem. Yea, the dogs also came and licked his sores - It seems this circumstance is recorded to show that all his ulcers lay bare, and were not closed or bound up.

JFB: Luk 16:1

Manager of his estate.

JFB: Luk 16:1

Informed upon.

JFB: Luk 16:1

Rather, "was wasting."

JFB: Luk 16:3

Therefore, when dismissed, shall be in utter want.

JFB: Luk 16:4

Observe his one object--when cast out of one home to secure another. This is the key to the parable, on which there have been many differing views.

JFB: Luk 16:5-7

Deducting a half from the debt of the one, and a fifth from that of the other.

JFB: Luk 16:8

Evidently the steward's lord, so called in Luk 16:3, Luk 16:5.

JFB: Luk 16:8

Not for his "injustice," but "because he had done wisely," or prudently; with commendable foresight and skilful adaptation of means to end.

JFB: Luk 16:8

So Luk 20:34; compare Psa 17:14 ("their portion in this life"); Phi 3:19 ("mind earthly things"); Psa 4:6-7.

JFB: Luk 16:8

Or "for their generation"--that is, for the purposes of the "world" they are "of." The greater wisdom (or shrewdness) of the one, in adaptation of means to ends, and in energetic, determined prosecution of them, is none of it for God and eternity--a region they were never in, an atmosphere they never breathed, an undiscovered world, an unborn existence to them--but all for the purposes of their own grovelling and fleeting generation.

JFB: Luk 16:8

(so Joh 12:36; Eph 5:8; 1Th 5:5). Yet this is only "as night-birds see better in the dark than those of the day owls than eagles" [CAJETAN and TRENCH]. But we may learn lessons from them, as our Lord now shows, and "be wise as serpents."

JFB: Luk 16:9

Turn to your advantage; that is, as the steward did, "by showing mercy to the poor" (Dan 4:27; compare Luk 12:33; Luk 14:13-14).

JFB: Luk 16:9

Treacherous, precarious. (See on Mat 6:24).

JFB: Luk 16:9

In respect of life.

JFB: Luk 16:9

Not generally, "ye may be received" (as Luk 6:38, "shall men give"), but "those ye have relieved may rise up as witnesses for you" at the great day. Then, like the steward, when turned out of one home shall ye secure another; but better than he, a heavenly for an earthly, an everlasting for a temporary habitation. Money is not here made the key to heaven, more than "the deeds done in the body" in general, according to which, as a test of character--but not by the merit of which--men are to be judged (2Co 5:10, and see Mat 25:34-40).

JFB: Luk 16:10

A maxim of great pregnancy and value; rising from the prudence which the steward had to the fidelity which he had not, the "harmlessness of the dove, to which the serpent" with all his "wisdom" is a total stranger. Fidelity depends not on the amount entrusted, but on the sense of responsibility. He that feels this in little will feel it in much, and conversely.

JFB: Luk 16:11-12

To the whole of this He applies the disparaging term "what is least," in contrast with "the true riches."

JFB: Luk 16:12

An important turn to the subject. Here all we have is on trust as stewards, who have an account to render. Hereafter, what the faithful have will be their own property, being no longer on probation, but in secure, undisturbed, rightful, everlasting possession and enjoyment of all that is graciously bestowed on us. Thus money is neither to be idolized nor despised: we must sit loose to it and use it for God's glory.

JFB: Luk 16:13

Be entirely at the command of; and this is true even where the services are not opposed.

JFB: Luk 16:13

Showing that the two here intended are in uncompromising hostility to each other: an awfully searching principle!

JFB: Luk 16:14-18

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.

JFB: Luk 16:15

Make a show of righteousness.

JFB: Luk 16:15

Generally carried away by plausible appearances. (See 1Sa 16:7; and Luk 14:11).

JFB: Luk 16:16

(See Mat 11:13).

JFB: Luk 16:16

Publicans and sinners, all indiscriminately, are eagerly pressing into it; and ye, interested adherents of the mere forms of an economy which is passing away, "discerning not the signs of this time," will allow the tide to go past you and be found a stranded monument of blindness and obstinacy.

JFB: Luk 16:17

(See on Mat 5:17-18)

JFB: Luk 16:18

(See on Mat 19:3-9). Far from intending to weaken the force of the law, in these allusions to a new economy, our Lord, in this unexpected way, sends home its high requirements with a pungency which the Pharisees would not fail to feel.

JFB: Luk 16:19

(Compare Est 8:15; Rev 18:12); wanting nothing which taste and appetite craved and money could procure.

JFB: Luk 16:20-21

Having to be carried and put down.

JFB: Luk 16:20-21

Open, running, "not closed, nor bound up, nor mollified with ointment" (Isa 1:6).

JFB: Luk 16:21

But was not [GROTIUS, BENGEL, MEYER, TRENCH, &c.]. The words may mean indeed "was fain to feed on," or "gladly fed on," as in Luk 15:16 [ALFORD, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c.]. But the context rather favors the former.

JFB: Luk 16:21

A touching act of brute pity, in the absence of human relief. It is a case of heartless indifference, amidst luxuries of every kind, to one of God's poorest and most afflicted ones, presented daily before the eye.

Clarke: Luk 16:1

A steward - Οικονομος, from οικος, a house, or οικια, a family, and νεμω, I administer; one who superintends domestic concerns, and ministers to the support of the family, having the products of the field, business, etc., put into his hands for this very purpose. See on Luk 8:3 (note)

There is a parable very like this in Rab. Dav. Kimchi’ s comment on Isaiah, Isa 40:21 : "The whole world may be considered as a house builded up: heaven is its roof; the stars its lamps; and the fruits of the earth, the table spread. The owner and builder of this house is the holy blessed God; and man is the steward, into whose hands all the business of the house is committed. If he considers in his heart that the master of the house is always over him, and keeps his eye upon his work; and if, in consequence, he act wisely, he shall find favor in the eyes of the master of the house: but if the master find wickedness in him, he will remove him, מן יפקדתו min pakidato , from his Stewardship. The foolish steward doth not think of this: for as his eyes do not see the master of the house, he saith in his heart, ‘ I will eat and drink what I find in this house, and will take my pleasure in it; nor shall I be careful whether there be a Lord over this house or not.’ When the Lord of the house marks this, he will come and expel him from the house, speedily and with great anger. Therefore it is written, He bringeth the princes to nothing."As is usual, our Lord has greatly improved this parable, and made it in every circumstance more striking and impressive. Both in the Jewish and Christian edition, it has great beauties

Clarke: Luk 16:1

Wasted his goods - Had been profuse and profligate; and had embezzled his master’ s substance.

Clarke: Luk 16:2

Give an account of thy, etc. - Produce thy books of receipts and disbursements, that I may see whether the accusation against thee be true or false. The original may be translated, Give up the business, τον λογον, of the stewardship.

Clarke: Luk 16:3

I cannot dig - He could not submit to become a common day-laborer, which was both a severe and base employment: To beg I am ashamed. And as these were the only honest ways left him to procure a morsel of bread, and he would not submit to either, he found he must continue the system of knavery, in order to provide for his idleness and luxury, or else starve. Wo to the man who gets his bread in this way! The curse of the Lord must be on his head, and on his heart; in his basket, and is his store.

Clarke: Luk 16:4

They may receive me - That is, the debtors and tenants, who paid their debts and rents, not in money, but in kind; such as wheat, oil, and other produce of their lands.

Clarke: Luk 16:6

A hundred measures of oil - Ἑκατον βατους, A hundred baths. The בת bath was the largest measure of capacity among the Hebrews, except the homer, of which it was the tenth part: see Eze 45:11, Eze 45:14. It is equal to the ephah, i.e. to seven gallons and a half of our measure

Clarke: Luk 16:6

Take thy bill - Thy account - το γραμμα . The writing in which the debt was specified, together with the obligation to pay so much, at such and such times. This appears to have been in the hand-writing of the debtor, and probably signed by the steward: and this precluded imposition on each part. To prevent all appearance of forgery in this case, he is desired to write it over again, and to cancel the old engagement. In carrying on a running account with a tradesman, it is common among the Hindoos for the buyer to receive from the hands of the seller a daily account of the things received; and according to this account, written on a slip of paper, and which remains in the hands of the buyer, the person is paid.

Clarke: Luk 16:7

A hundred measures of wheat - Ἑκατον κορους, a hundred cors. Κορος, from the Hebrew כר cor , was the largest measure of capacity among the Hebrews, whether for solids or liquids. As the bath was equal to the ephah, so the cor was equal to the homer. It contained about seventy-five gallons and five pints English. For the same reason for which I preserve the names of the ancient coins, I preserve the names of the ancient measures. What idea can a mere English reader have of the word measure in this and the preceding verse, when the original words are not only totally different, but the quantity is as seven to seventy-five? The original terms should be immediately inserted in the text, and the contents inserted in the margin. The present marginal reading is incorrect. I follow Bishop Cumberland’ s weights and measures. See on Luk 15:8 (note)

In the preceding relation, I have no doubt our Lord alluded to a custom frequent in the Asiatic countries: a custom which still prevails, as the following account, taken from Capt. Hadley’ s Hindostan Dialogues, sufficiently proves. A person thus addresses the captain: "Your Sirkar’ s deputy, whilst his master was gone to Calcutta, established a court of justice

"Having searched for a good many debtors and their creditors, he learned the accounts of their bonds

"He then made an agreement with them to get the bonds out of the bondsmen’ s hands for half the debt, if they would give him one fourth

"Thus, any debtor for a hundred rupees, having given fifty to the creditor, and twenty-five to this knave, got his bond for seventy-five rupees

"Having seized and flogged 125 bondholders, he has in this manner determined their loans, and he has done this business in your name."Hadley’ s Gram. Dialogues, p. 79. 5th edit. 1801.

Clarke: Luk 16:8

The lord commended - Viz. the master of this unjust steward. He spoke highly of the address and cunning of his iniquitous servant. He had, on his own principles, made a very prudent provision for his support; but his master no more approved of his conduct in this, than he did in his wasting his substance before. From the ambiguous and improper manner in which this is expressed in the common English translation, it has been supposed that our blessed Lord commended the conduct of this wicked man: but the word κυριος, there translated lord, simply means the master of the unjust steward

Clarke: Luk 16:8

The children of this world - Such as mind worldly things only, without regarding God or their souls. A phrase by which the Jews always designate the Gentiles

Clarke: Luk 16:8

Children of light - Such as are illuminated by the Spirit of God, and regard worldly things only as far as they may subserve the great purposes of their salvation, and become the instruments of good to others. But ordinarily the former evidence more carefulness and prudence, in providing for the support and comfort of this life, than the latter do in providing for another world.

Clarke: Luk 16:9

The mammon of unrighteousness - Μαμωνα της αδικιας - literally, the mammon, or riches, of injustice. Riches promise Much, and perform Nothing: they excite hope and confidence, and deceive both: in making a man depend on them for happiness, they rob him of the salvation of God and of eternal glory. For these reasons, they are represented as unjust and deceitful. See the note on Mat 6:24, where this is more particularly explained. It is evident that this must be the meaning of the words, because the false or deceitful riches, here, are put in opposition to the true riches, Luk 16:11; i.e. those Divine graces and blessings which promise all good, and give what they promise; never deceiving the expectation of any man. To insinuate that, if a man have acquired riches by unjust means, he is to sanctify them, and provide himself a passport to the kingdom of God, by giving them to the poor, is a most horrid and blasphemous perversion of our Lord’ s words. Ill gotten gain must be restored to the proper owners: if they are dead, then to their successors

Clarke: Luk 16:9

When ye fail - That is, when ye die. The Septuagint use the word εκλειπειν in this very sense, Jer 42:17, Jer 42:22. See the note on Gen 25:8. So does Josephus, War, chap. iv. 1, 9

Clarke: Luk 16:9

They may receive you - That is, say some, the angels. Others, the poor whom ye have relieved will welcome you into glory. It does not appear that the poor are meant

1.    Because those who have relieved them may die a long time before them; and therefore they could not be in heaven to receive them on their arrival

2.    Many poor persons may be relieved, who will live and die in their sins, and consequently never enter into heaven themselves

The expression seems to be a mere Hebraism: - they may receive you, for ye shall be received; i.e. God shall admit you, if you make a faithful use of his gifts and graces. He who does not make a faithful use of what he has received from his Maker has no reason to hope for eternal felicity. See Mat 25:33; and, for similar Hebraisms, consult in the original, Luk 6:38; Luk 12:20; Rev 12:6; Rev 16:15.

Clarke: Luk 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least, etc. - He who has the genuine principles of fidelity in him will make a point of conscience of carefully attending to even the smallest things; and it is by habituating himself to act uprightly in little things that he acquires the gracious habit of acting with propriety fidelity, honor, and conscience, in matters of the greatest concern. On the contrary, he who does not act uprightly in small matters will seldom feel himself bound to pay much attention to the dictates of honor and conscience, in cases of high importance. Can we reasonably expect that a man who is continually falling by little things has power to resist temptations to great evils?

Clarke: Luk 16:12

That which is another man’ s - Or rather another’ s, τῳ αλλοτριω . That is, worldly riches, called another’ s

1.    Because they belong to God, and he has not designed that they should be any man’ s portion

2.    Because they are continually changing their possessors, being in the way of commerce, and in providence going from one to another

This property of worldly goods is often referred to by both sacred and profane writers. See a fine passage in Horace, Sat. l. ii. s. 2. v. 129

Nam propriae telluris herum natura neque illum

Nec me, nec quemquam statuit

Nature will no perpetual heir assign

Nor make the farm his property, or mine

Franci

And the following in one of our own poets: -

"Who steals my purse steals trash; ’ tis something, nothing

’ Twas mine, ’ tis his, and has been slave to thousands.

Clarke: Luk 16:12

That which is your own? - Grace and glory, which God has particularly designed for you; which are the only proper satisfying portion for the soul, and which no man can enjoy in their plenitude, unless he be faithful to the first small motions and influences of the Divine Spirit.

Clarke: Luk 16:13

No servant can serve two masters - The heart will be either wholly taken up with God, or wholly engrossed with the world. See on Mat 6:24 (note).

Clarke: Luk 16:14

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!

Clarke: Luk 16:15

Ye - justify yourselves - Ye declare yourselves to be just. Ye endeavor to make it appear to men that ye can still feel an insatiable thirst after the present world, and yet secure the blessings of another; that ye can reconcile God and mammon, - and serve two masters with equal zeal and affection; but God knoweth your hearts, - and he knoweth that ye are alive to the world, and dead to God and goodness. Therefore, howsoever ye may be esteemed among men, ye are an abomination before him. See the note on Luk 7:29.

Clarke: Luk 16:16

The law and the prophets were until John - The law and the prophets continued to be the sole teachers till John came, who first began to proclaim the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and now, he who wishes to be made a partaker of the blessings of that kingdom must rush speedily into it; as there will be but a short time before an utter destruction shall fall upon this ungodly race. They who wish to be saved must imitate those who take a city by storm - rush into it, without delay, as the Romans are about to do into Jerusalem. See also on Mat 11:12 (note).

Clarke: Luk 16:17

For heaven and earth to pass - See on Mat 5:17, Mat 5:18 (note).

Clarke: Luk 16:18

Putteth away (or divorceth) his wife - See on Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32 (note); Mat 19:9, Mat 19:10 (note); Mar 10:12 (note); where the question concerning divorce is considered at large. These verses, from the 13th to the 18th inclusive, appear to be part of our Lord’ s sermon on the mount; and stand in a much better connection there than they do here; unless we suppose our Lord delivered the same discourse at different times and places, which is very probable.

Clarke: Luk 16:19

There was a certain rich man - In the Scholia of some MSS. the name of this person is said to be Ninive. This account of the rich man and Lazarus is either a parable or a real history. If it be a parable, it is what may be: if it be a history, it is that which has been. Either a man may live as is here described, and go to perdition when he dies; or, some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the torments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in whichsoever of these lights it is viewed. Let us carefully observe all the circumstances offered hereto our notice, and we shall see - I. The Crime of this man; and II. His Punishment

I.    The Crime of this man

1.    There was a certain rich man in Jerusalem. Provided this be a real history, there is no doubt our Lord could have mentioned his name; but, as this might have given great offense, he chose to suppress it. His being rich is, in Christ’ s account, the first part of his sin. To this circumstance our Lord adds nothing: he does not say that he was born to a large estate; or that he acquired one by improper methods; or that he was haughty or insolent in the possession of it. Yet here is the first degree of his reprobation - he got all he could, and kept all to himself

2.    He was clothed with purple and fine linen. Purple was a very precious and costly stuff; but our Lord does not say that in the use of it he exceeded the bounds of his income, nor of his rank in life; nor is it said that he used his superb dress to be an agent to his crimes, by corrupting the hearts of others. Yet our Lord lays this down as a second cause of his perdition

3.    He fared sumptuously every day. Now let it be observed that the law of Moses, under which this man lived, forbade nothing on this point, but excess in eating and drinking; indeed, it seems as if a person was authorized to taste the sweets of an abundance, which that law promised as a reward of fidelity. Besides, this rich man is not accused of having eaten food which was prohibited by the law, or of having neglected the abstinences and fasts prescribed by it. It is true, he is said to have feasted sumptuously every day; but our Lord does not intimate that this was carried to excess, or that it ministered to debauch. He is not accused of licentious discourse, of gaming, of frequenting any thing like our modern plays, balls, masquerades, or other impure and unholy assemblies; of speaking an irreverent word against Divine revelation, or the ordinances of God. In a word, his probity is not attacked, nor is he accused of any of those crimes which pervert the soul or injure civil society. As Christ has described this man, does he appear culpable? What are his crimes? Why

1.    He was rich

2.    He was finely clothed. An

3.    He feasted well

No other evil is spoken of him. In comparison of thousands, he was not only blameless, but he was a virtuous man

4.    But it is intimated by many that "he was an uncharitable, hard-hearted, unfeeling wretch."Yet of this there is not a word spoken by Christ. Let us consider all the circumstances, and we shall see that our blessed Lord has not represented this man as a monster of inhumanity, but merely as an indolent man, who sought and had his portion in this life, and was not at all concerned about another

Therefore we do not find that when Abraham addressed him on the cause of his reprobation, Luk 16:25, that he reproached him with hard-heartedness, saying, "Lazarus was hungry, and thou gavest him no meat; he was thirsty, and thou gavest him no drink, etc.;"but he said simply, Son, remember that thou didst receive thy good things in thy lifetime, Luk 16:25. "Thou hast sought thy consolation upon the earth, thou hast borne no cross, mortified no desire of the flesh, received not the salvation God had provided for thee; thou didst not belong to the people of God upon earth, and thou canst not dwell with them in glory.

There are few who consider that it is a crime for those called Christians to live without Christ, when their lives are not stained with transgression. If Christianity only required men to live without gross outward sin, paganism could furnish us with many bright examples of this sort. But the religion of Christ requires a conformity, not only in a man’ s conduct, to the principles of the Gospel; but also a conformity in his heart to the spirit and mind of Christ.

Clarke: Luk 16:20

There was a certain beggar named Lazarus - His name is mentioned, because his character was good, and his end glorious; and because it is the purpose of God that the righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance. Lazarus, לעזר is a contraction of the word אלעזר Eliezar , which signifies the help or assistance of God - a name properly given to a man who was both poor and afflicted, and had no help but that which came from heaven.

Clarke: Luk 16:21

And desiring to be fed with the crumbs - And it is likely this desire was complied with, for it is not intimated that he spurned away the poor man from the gate, or that his suit was rejected. And as we find, Luk 16:24, that the rich man desired that Lazarus should be sent with a little water to him, it is a strong intimation that he considered him under some kind of obligation to him; for, had he refused him a few crumbs in his lifetime, it is not reasonable to suppose that he would now have requested such a favor from him; nor does Abraham glance at any such uncharitable conduct on the part of the rich man

We may now observe

II.    In what the punishment of this man consisted

1.    Lazarus dies and is carried into Abraham’ s bosom. By the phrase, Abraham’ s bosom, an allusion is made to the custom at Jewish feasts, when three persons reclining on their left elbows on a couch, the person whose head came near the breast of the other, was said to lie in his bosom. So it is said of the beloved disciple, Joh 13:25. Abraham’ s bosom was a phrase used among the Jews to signify the paradise of God. See Josephus’ s account of the Maccabees, chap. xiii.

Calvin: Luk 16:1

The leading object of this parable is, to show that we ought to deal kindly and generously with our neighbors; that, when we come to the judgment seat of God, we may reap the fruit of our liberality. Though the parable appears to be harsh and far-fetched, yet the conclusion makes it evident, that the design of Christ was nothing else than what I have stated. And hence we see, that to inquire with great exactness into every minute part of a parable is an absurd mode of philosophizing. Christ does not advise us to purchase by large donations the forgiveness of fraud, and of extortion, and of wasteful expenditure, and of the other crimes associated with unfaithful administration. But as all the blessings which God confers upon us are committed by Him to our administration, our Lord now lays down a method of procedure, which will protect us against being treated with rigor, when we come to render our account.

They who imagine that alms are a sufficient compensation for sensuality and debauchery, do not sufficiently consider, that the first injunction given us is, to live in sobriety and temperance; and that the next is, that the streams which flow to us come from a pure fountain. It is certain that no man is so frugal, as not sometimes to waste the property which has been entrusted to him; and that even those who practice the most rigid economy are not entirely free from the charge of unfaithful stewardship. Add to this, that there are so many ways of abusing the gifts of God, that some incur guilt in one way, and some in another. I do not even deny, that the very consciousness of our own faulty stewardship ought to be felt by us as an additional excitement to kind actions.

But we ought to have quite another object in view, than to escape the judgment of God by paying a price for our redemption; and that object is, first, that seasonable and well-judged liberality may have the effect of restraining and moderating unnecessary expenses; and, secondly, that our kindness to our brethren may draw down upon us the mercy of God. It is very far from being the intention of Christ to point out to his disciples a way of escape, when the heavenly Judge shall require them to give their account; but he warns them to lose no time in guarding against the punishment which will await their cruelty, if they are found to have swallowed up the gifts of God, and to have paid no attention to acts of beneficence. ²⁹⁷ We must always attend to this maxim, that

with what measure a man measures, it shall be recompensed to him again,
(Mat 7:2.)

Calvin: Luk 16:8

8.And the master commended the unjust steward Here it is obvious that if we were to attempt to find a meaning for every minute circumstance, we would act absurdly. To make donations out of what belongs to another man, is an action which is very far from deserving applause; and who would patiently endure that an unprincipled villain should rob him of his property, and give it away according to his own fancy? It were indeed the grossest stupidity, if that man who beheld a portion of his substance taken away, should commend the person who stole the remainder of it and bestowed it on others. But Christ only meant what he adds a little afterwards, that ungodly and worldly men are more industrious and skillful in conducting the affairs of this fading life, than the children of God are anxious to obtain the heavenly and eternal life, or careful to make it the subject of their study and meditation.

By this comparison he charges us with highly criminal indifference, in not providing for the future, with at least as much earnestness as ungodly men display by attending to their own interests in this world. How disgraceful is it that the children of light, whom God enlightens by his Spirit and word, should slumber and neglect the hope of eternal blessedness held out to them, while worldly men are so eagerly bent on their own accommodations, and so provident and sagacious! Hence we infer, that our Lord does not intend to compare the wisdom of the Spirit to the wisdom of the flesh, (which could not have been done without pouring contempt on God himself,) but only to arouse believers to consider more attentively what belongs to the future life, and not to shut their eyes against the light of the Gospel, when they perceive that even the blind, amidst their darkness, see more clearly. And, indeed, the children of light ought to be more powerfully excited, when they behold the children of this world making provision against a distant period, for a life which is fading, and which passes in a moment.

Calvin: Luk 16:9

9.Make to yourselves friends As in the words which were last considered Christ did not enjoin us to offer sacrifices to God out of the fruits of extortion, so now he does not mean that we ought to search for defenders or advocates, who will throw around us the shield of their protection; but teaches us that by acts of charity we obtain favor with God, who has promised, that to the merciful he will show himself merciful, (Psa 18:25.) It is highly foolish and absurd to infer from this passage, that the prayers or approbation of the dead are of service to us: for, on that supposition, all that is bestowed on unworthy persons would be thrown away; but the depravity of men does not prevent the Lord from placing on his records all that we have expended on the poor. The Lord looks not to the persons, but to the work itself, so that our liberality, though it may happen to be exercised towards ungrateful men, will be of avail to us in the sight of God. But then he appears to intimate that eternal life depends on our merits. I reply: it is sufficiently plain from the context that he speaks after the manner of men. One who possesses extensive influence or wealth, if he procure friends during his prosperity, has persons who will support him when he is visited by adversity. In like manner, our kindness to the poor will be a seasonable relief to us; for whatever any man may have generously bestowed on his neighbors the Lord acknowledges as if it had been done to himself.

When you fail By this word he expresses the time of death, and reminds us that the time of our administration will be short, lest the confident expectation of a longer continuance of life should make us take a firmer grasp. The greater part are sunk in slumber through their wealth; many squander what they have on superfluities; while the niggardliness of others keeps it back, and deprives both themselves and others of the benefit. Whence comes all this, but because they are led astray by an unfounded expectation of long life, and give themselves up to every kind of indulgence?

Of the mammon of unrighteousness By giving this name to riches, he intends to render them an object of our suspicion, because for the most part they involve their possessors in unrighteousness Though in themselves they are not evil, yet as it rarely happens that they are obtained without deceit, or violence, or some other unlawful expedient, or that the enjoyment of them is unaccompanied by pride, or luxury, or some other wicked disposition, Christ justly represents them as worthy of our suspicion; just as on another occasion he called them thorns, (Mat 13:7.) It would appear that a contrast, though not expressed, is intended to be supplied, to this effect; that riches, which otherwise, in consequence of wicked abuse, polluted their possessors, and are almost in every ease allurements of sin, ought to be directed to a contrary object, to be the means of procuring favor for us. Let us also remember what I have formerly stated, that God does not demand sacrifice to be made from booty unjustly acquired, as if he were the partner of thieves, and that it is rather a warning given to believers to keep themselves free from unrighteousness

Calvin: Luk 16:10

10.He who is faithful in that which is least Those maxims are proverbs taken from ordinary practice and experience, and it is quite enough if they are generally true. It will sometimes happen, no doubt, that a deceiver, who had disregarded a small gain, shall display his wickedness in a matter of importance. Nay, many persons, by affecting honesty in trifling matters, are only in pursuit of an enormous gain; ²⁹⁸ as that author ²⁹⁹ says: “Fraud establishes confidence in itself in small matters, that, when a fit opportunity shall arrive, it may deceive with vast advantage.” And yet the statement of Christ is not inaccurate; for in proverbs, as I have mentioned, we attend only to what usually happens.

Christ, therefore, exhorts his disciples to act faithfully in small matters, in order to prepare themselves for the exercise of fidelity in matters of the highest importance. He next applies this doctrine to the proper stewardship of spiritual graces, which the world, indeed, does not estimate according to their value, but which far surpass, beyond all question, the fading riches of this world. Those persons, he tells us, who act improperly and unfaithfully in things of small value, such as the transitory riches of the world, do not deserve that God should entrust to them the inestimable treasure of the Gospel, and of similar gifts. There is, therefore, in these words an implied threatening, that there is reason to fear lest, on account of our abuse of an earthly stewardship, we fail to obtain heavenly gifts. In this sense, what is true is contrasted with riches, as what is solid and lasting is contrasted with what is shadowy and fading. ³⁰⁰

Calvin: Luk 16:12

12.And if you have not been faithful in what belongs to another By the expression, what belongs to another, he means what is not within man; for God does not bestow riches upon us on condition that we shall be attached to them, but makes us stewards of them in such a manner, that they may not bind us with their chains. And, indeed, it is impossible that our minds should be free and disengaged for dwelling in heaven, if we did not look upon every thing that is in the world as belonging to another

Who shall entrust to you what is your own? Spiritual riches, on the other hand, which relate to a future life, are pronounced by him to be our own, because the enjoyment of them is everlasting. But now he employs a different comparison. There is no reason, he tells us, to expect that we shall make a proper and moderate use of our own property, if we have acted improperly or unfaithfully in what belonged to another. Men usually care less about abusing, and allow themselves greater liberty in squandering, their own property, because they are not afraid that any person will find fault with them; but when a thing has been entrusted to them either in charge or in loan, and of which they must afterwards render an account, they are more cautious and more timid.

We thus ascertain Christ’s meaning to be, that they who are bad stewards of earthly blessings would not be faithful guardians of spiritual gifts. He next introduces a sentence: You cannot serve God and mammon; which I have explained at Mat 6:24. There the reader will find an explanation of the word Mammon ³⁰¹

Calvin: Luk 16:14

14.And the Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things. They who imagine that Christ was ridiculed by the Pharisees, because he chose to employ a plain and familiar style, and made no use of swelling words, ³⁰² do not sufficiently comprehend what Luke means. Haughty and disdainful men, I do acknowledge, view the doctrine of the Gospel with contempt; but Luke expressly declares the reason why Christ was the object of their derision to have been, that they were covetous Entertaining a firm and deep-seated conviction that the rich are happy, and that there is nothing better for men than to increase their wealth by every possible method, and earnestly to guard whatever they have acquired, they reject as foolish paradoxes ³⁰³ all the sayings of Christ which had a contrary tendency. And, certainly, any one that speaks of despising riches, or bestowing alms on the poor, is regarded by the covetous as a madman. Horace’s words on this subject are well known: ³⁰⁴ “The people hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself.” ³⁰⁵ But if, even when they are condemned by universal opinion, they continue to flatter themselves, how much more will they ridicule as a fable that philosophy of Christ which is far removed from the ordinary belief?

Some other pretense, I have no doubt, was held out by the Pharisees for ridiculing and evading a doctrine which opposed their vice. But we must attend to the motive by which they were actuated; for it is a disease which almost always prevails in the world, that the greater part of men affect to despise whatever does not fall in with their corrupt morals. Hence the ridicule, and jest, and merriment, with which the word of God is frequently assailed; for every man fights in defense of his own vices, and all imagine that their witticisms will serve for a cloud to screen their criminality.

Calvin: Luk 16:15

15.It is you that justify yourselves before men We see that Christ does not give way to their disdainful conduct, but constantly maintains the authority of his doctrine in opposition to their mockery; and it is the duty of all the ministers of the Gospel to pursue the same course, by meeting ungodly despisers with the dreadful judgment of God. He declares that the hypocrisy, with which they deceive the eyes of men, will be of no avail to them at the judgment-seat of God. They were unwilling to have it thought that their mockery was intended as a defense of their covetousness. But Christ affirms that this venom breaks out from a concealed ulcer; just as if one were to tell the mitred prelates of our own day, that their hostility to the Gospel arises from the severity with which it attacks their hidden vices.

But God knoweth your hearts He says that they reckon it enough if they appear to be good in the eyes of men, and if they can boast of a pretended sanctity; but that God, who knoweth the hearts, is well acquainted with the vices which they conceal from the view of the world. And here we must attend to the distinction between the judgments of God and the judgments of men; for men bestow approbation on outward appearances, but at the judgment-seat of God nothing is approved but an upright heart. There is added a striking observation:

What is highly esteemed by men is abomination in the sight of God Not that God rejects those virtues, the approbation of which He hath engraved on the hearts of men; but that God detests whatever men are disposed, of their own accord, to applaud. Hence it is evident in what light we ought to view all pretended acts of worship which the world contrives according to its own fancy. How much soever they may please their inventors, Christ pronounces that they are not only vain and worthless, but are even detestable.

Calvin: Luk 16:16

Luk 16:16.The Law and the Prophets were till John Our Lord had said that the earnestness of the people was a prelude to those things which the Prophets had foretold as to the future renovation of the Church. He now compares the ministry of John to the Law and the Prophets “It is not wonderful,” he tells us, “that God should now act so powerfully on the minds of men; for he is not as formerly, seen at a distance under dark shadows, but appears openly and at hand for the establishment of his kingdom.” Hence it follows, that those who obstinately reject John’s doctrine are less excusable than those who despised the Law and the Prophets

Calvin: Luk 16:19

Though Luke introduces some things between them, there can be no doubt that this example was intended by Christ to confirm the discourse which we have last examined. He points out what condition awaits those ³⁰⁷ who neglect the care of the poor, and indulge in all manner of gluttony; who give themselves up to drunkenness and other pleasures, and allow their neighbors to pine with hunger; nay, who cruelly kill with famine those whom they ought to have relieved, when the means of doing so were in their power. Some look upon it as a simple parable; but, as the name Lazarus occurs in it, I rather consider it to be the narrative of an actual fact. But that is of little consequence, provided that the reader comprehends the doctrine which it contains.

19.There was a certain rich man He is, first of all, described as clothed in purple and fine linen, and enjoying every day splendor and luxury. This denotes a life spent amidst delicacies, and superfluity, and pomp. Not that all elegance and ornaments of dress are in themselves displeasing to God, or that all the care bestowed on preparing victuals ought to be condemned; but because it seldom happens that such things are kept in moderation. He who has a liking for fine dress will constantly increase his luxury by fresh additions; and it is scarcely possible that he who indulges in sumptuous and well garnished tables shall avoid falling into intemperance. But the chief accusation brought against this man is his cruelty in suffering Lazarus, poor and full of sores, to lie out of doors at his gate.

These two clauses Christ has exhibited in contrast. The rich man, devoted to the pleasures of the table and to display, swallowed up, like an unsatiable gulf, his enormous wealth, but remained unmoved by the poverty and distresses of Lazarus, and knowingly and willingly suffered him to pine away with hunger, cold, and the offensive smell of his sores. In this manner Ezekiel (Eze 16:49) accuses Sodom of not stretching out her hand to the poor amidst fullness of bread and wine. The fine linen, which is a peculiarly delicate fabric, is well-known to have been used by the inhabitants of eastern countries for elegance and splendor; a fashion which the Popish priests have imitated in what they call their surplices.

Calvin: Luk 16:21

21.And even the dogs came It was quite enough to prove the hardened cruelty of the rich man, that the sight of wretchedness like this did not move him to compassion. Had there been a drop of humanity in him, he ought at least to have ordered a supply from his kitchen for the unhappy man. But the crowning exhibition of his wicked, and savage, and worse than brutal disposition was, that he did not learn pity even from the dogs There can be no doubt that those dogs were guided by the secret purpose of God, to condemn that man by their example. Christ certainly produces them here as witnesses to convict him of unfeeling and detestable cruelty. What could be more monstrous than to see the dogs taking charge of a man, to whom his neighbor is paying no attention; and, what is more, to see the very crumbs of bread refused to a man perishing of hunger, while the dogs are giving him the service of their tongues for the purpose of healing his sores? When strangers, or even brute animals, supply our place, by performing an office which ought rather to have been discharged by ourselves, let us conclude that they are so many witnesses and judges appointed by God, to make our criminality the more manifest.

Defender: Luk 16:8

It is obvious that the Lord's commendation of the unjust steward was not for his dishonesty but for his practical wisdom in using his personal means to provide for his earthly future. As Jesus said, it is commonly true that men of this world exhibit more acumen in such matters than Christians do."

Defender: Luk 16:9

Mammon was an Aramaic term meaning "wealth" or "money." As "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1Ti 6:10), mammon can easily become "the mammon of unrighteousness." As the Lord says (Luk 16:13): "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Nevertheless, He exhorts the "children of light" to make friends with this mammon of unrighteousness. That is, we should use it for spiritual purposes that will make eternal friends.

Defender: Luk 16:9

As the unjust steward was using mammon to assure his own future earthly habitation, so the believer can use whatever wealth (or other gifts he may have) to win others to forgiveness in Christ. Then, when his own life "fails," he will find many friends waiting for him in "everlasting habitations" in heaven."

Defender: Luk 16:10

The context indicates that the Lord is stressing here the vital importance of faithfulness in the use of our money. This will be a measure of our faithfulness in other matters. As the next verse says, this will determine whether He will commit to our trust "the true riches" in the age to come."

Defender: Luk 16:16

John the Baptist was not the last Old Testament prophet, for the law and the prophets were in existence until John. John was the first New Testament prophet, preaching the kingdom of God (Mat 3:1, Mat 3:2) through the work of Jesus Christ (Joh 1:15-18, Joh 1:29-34)."

Defender: Luk 16:17

See notes on Mat 5:17, Mat 5:18."

Defender: Luk 16:19

Whether or not this is an actual event or intended parable, it is clear that its description of life after death is intensely real and relevant."

Defender: Luk 16:20

One indication that Jesus was relating a real event and not a parable is that the name of the beggar is given. No other parable includes personal names. At the same time, the rich man is left unnamed, suggesting that personal identities are forgotten in hell: "The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot" (Pro 10:7).

Defender: Luk 16:20

Lazarus was "laid" (literally "thrown down") daily at the rich man's gate."

TSK: Luk 16:1

a certain : Mat 18:23, Mat 18:24, 25:14-30

a steward : Luk 8:3, Luk 12:42; Gen 15:2, Gen 43:19; 1Ch 28:1; 1Co 4:1, 1Co 4:2; Tit 1:7; 1Pe 4:10

wasted : Luk 16:19, Luk 15:13, Luk 15:30, Luk 19:20; Pro 18:9; Hos 2:8; Jam 4:3

TSK: Luk 16:2

How : Gen 3:9-11, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:10, Gen 18:20,Gen 18:21; 1Sa 2:23, 1Sa 2:24; 1Co 1:11; 1Ti 5:24

give : Luk 12:42; Ecc 11:9, Ecc 11:10, Ecc 12:14; Mat 12:36; Rom 14:12; 1Co 4:2, 1Co 4:5; 2Co 5:10; 1Pe 4:5, 1Pe 4:10; 1Ti 4:14; Rev 20:12

for : Luk 12:20, Luk 19:21-26

TSK: Luk 16:3

said : Luk 18:4; Est 6:6

What : Luk 12:17; Isa 10:3; Jer 5:31; Hos 9:5; Act 9:6

I cannot : Pro 13:4, Pro 15:19, Pro 18:9, Pro 19:15, Pro 21:25, Pro 21:26, Pro 24:30-34, Pro 26:13-16, Pro 27:23-27; Pro 29:21; 2Th 3:11

to beg : Luk 16:20,Luk 16:22; Pro 20:4; Mar 10:46; Joh 9:8; Act 3:2

TSK: Luk 16:4

Pro 30:9; Jer 4:22; Jam 3:15

TSK: Luk 16:5

his : Luk 7:41, Luk 7:42; Mat 18:24

TSK: Luk 16:6

measures : The word Batos in the original containeth nine gallons, three quarts. See Eze 45:10-14.

Take : Luk 16:9, Luk 16:12; Tit 2:10

TSK: Luk 16:7

An hundred : Luk 20:9, Luk 20:12; Son 8:11, Son 8:12

measures : ""The word here interpreted a measure, in the original containeth about fourteen bushels and a pottle. Gr.""

TSK: Luk 16:8

unjust : Luk 16:10, Luk 18:6

done : Luk 16:4; Gen 3:1; Exo 1:10; 2Sa 13:3; 2Ki 10:19; Pro 6:6-8

children of this : Luk 20:34; Psa 17:14; 1Co 3:18; Phi 3:19

in : Psa 49:10-19; Mat 17:26

children of light : Joh 12:36; Eph 5:8; 1Th 5:5; 1Pe 2:9; 1Jo 3:10

TSK: Luk 16:9

Make : Luk 11:41, Luk 14:14; Pro 19:17; Ecc 11:1; Isa 58:7, Isa 58:8; Dan 4:27; Mat 6:19, Mat 19:21; Mat 25:35-40; Act 10:4, Act 10:31; 2Co 9:12-15; 1Ti 6:17-19; 2Ti 1:16-18

of the : Luk 16:11, Luk 16:13

mammon : or, riches, Pro 23:5; 1Ti 6:9, 1Ti 6:10,1Ti 6:17

when : Psa 73:26; Ecc 12:3-7; Isa 57:16

into : 2Co 4:17, 2Co 4:18, 2Co 5:1; 1Ti 6:18; Jud 1:21

TSK: Luk 16:10

faithful in : Luk 16:11, Luk 16:12, Luk 19:17; Mat 25:21; Heb 3:2

he that is unjust : Joh 12:6, Joh 13:2, Joh 13:27

TSK: Luk 16:11

in : Luk 16:9

true : Luk 12:33, Luk 18:22; Pro 8:18, Pro 8:19; Eph 3:8; Jam 2:5; Rev 3:18

TSK: Luk 16:12

in : Luk 19:13-26; 1Ch 29:14-16; Job 1:21; Eze 16:16-21; Hos 2:8; Matt. 25:14-29

that which is your : Luk 10:42; Col 3:3, Col 3:4; 1Pe 1:4, 1Pe 1:5

TSK: Luk 16:13

servant : Luk 9:50, Luk 11:23; Jos 24:15; Mat 4:10, Mat 6:24; Rom 6:16-22, Rom 8:5-8; Jam 4:4; 1Jo 2:15, 1Jo 2:16

hate : Luk 14:26

TSK: Luk 16:14

who : Luk 12:15, Luk 20:47; Isa 56:11; Jer 6:13, Jer 8:10; Eze 22:25-29, Eze 33:31; Mat 23:14

derided : Luk 8:53, Luk 23:35; Psa 35:15, Psa 35:16, Psa 119:51; Isa 53:3; Jer 20:7, Jer 20:8; Heb 11:36; Heb 12:2, Heb 12:3

TSK: Luk 16:15

Ye : Luk 10:29, Luk 11:39, Luk 18:11, Luk 18:21, Luk 20:20,Luk 20:47; Pro 20:6; Mat 6:2, Mat 6:5, Mat 6:16, Mat 23:5, Mat 23:25-27; Rom 3:20; Jam 2:21-25

God : 1Sa 16:7; 1Ch 29:17; 2Ch 6:30; Psa 7:9, Psa 139:1, Psa 139:2; Jer 17:10; Joh 2:25; Joh 21:17; Act 1:18, Act 15:8; 1Co 4:5; Rev 2:23

for : Psa 10:3, Psa 49:13, Psa 49:18; Pro 16:5; Isa 1:10-14; Amo 5:21, Amo 5:22; Mal 3:15; 1Pe 3:4, 1Pe 5:5

TSK: Luk 16:16

Law : Luk 16:29, Luk 16:31; Mat 11:9-14; Joh 1:45; Act 3:18, Act 3:24, Act 3:25

the kingdom : Luk 9:2, Luk 10:9, Luk 10:11; Mat 3:2, Mat 4:17, Mat 10:7; Mar 1:14

and every : Luk 7:26-29; Mat 21:32; Mar 1:45; Joh 11:48, Joh 12:19

TSK: Luk 16:17

it : Luk 21:33; Psa 102:25-27; Isa 51:6; Mat 5:18; 2Pe 3:10; Rev 20:11, Rev 21:1, Rev 21:4

than : Isa 40:8; Rom 3:31; 1Pe 1:25

TSK: Luk 16:18

Mat 5:32, Mat 19:9; Mar 10:11, Mar 10:12; 1Co 7:4, 1Co 7:10-12

TSK: Luk 16:19

rich : Luk 12:16-21, Luk 18:24, Luk 18:25; Jam 5:1-5

clothed : Luk 16:1, Luk 15:13; Job 21:11-15; Psa 73:3-7; Eze 16:49; Amo 6:4-6; Rev 17:4; Rev 18:7, Rev 18:16

purple : Jdg 8:26; Est 8:15; Eze 16:13, Eze 27:7; Mar 15:17, Mar 15:20

TSK: Luk 16:20

a certain : Luk 18:35-43; 1Sa 2:8; Jam 1:9, Jam 2:5

Lazarus : Joh 11:1

was laid : Act 3:2

full : Luk 16:21; Job 2:7; Psa 34:19, Psa 73:14; Isa 1:6; Jer 8:22

TSK: Luk 16:21

desiring : 1Co 4:11; 2Co 11:27

crumbs : Mat 15:27; Mar 7:28; Joh 6:12

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Luk 16:1

His disciples - The word "disciples,"here, is not to be restricted to the twelve apostles or to the seventy. The parable appears to have been addressed to all the professed followers of the Saviour who were present when it was delivered. It is connected with that in the preceding chapter. Jesus had there been discoursing with the scribes and Pharisees, and vindicating his conduct in receiving kindly publicans and sinners. These "publicans and sinners"are here particularly referred to by the word "disciples."It was with reference to "them"that the whole discourse had arisen. After Jesus had shown the Pharisees, in the preceding chapter, the propriety of his conduct, it was natural that he should turn and address his disciples. Among them there might have been some who were wealthy. The "publicans"were engaged in receiving taxes, in collecting money, and their chief danger arose from that quarter - from covetousness or dishonesty.

Jesus always adapted his instructions to the circumstances of his hearers, and it was proper, therefore, that he should give "these disciples"instructions about their "special"duties and dangers. He related this parable, therefore, to show them "the danger of the love of money;"the guilt it would lead to Luk 16:1; the perplexities and shifts to which it would drive a man when once he had been dishonest Luk 16:3-7; the necessity of using money aright, since it was their chief business Luk 16:9; and the fact that if they would serve God aright they must give up supreme attachment to money Luk 16:13; and that the first duty of religion demanded that they should resolve to serve God, and be honest in the use of the wealth intrusted to them. This parable has given great perplexity, and many ways have been devised to explain it. The above solution is the most simple of any; and if these plain principles are kept in view, it will not be difficult to give a consistent explanation of its particular parts. It should be borne in mind, however, that in this, as well as in other parables, we are not to endeavor to spiritualize every circumstance or allusion. We are to keep in view the great moral truth taught in it, that we cannot serve God and mammon, and that all attempts to do this will involve us in difficulty and sin.

A steward - One who has charge of the affairs of a family or household; whose duty it is to provide for the family, to purchase provisions, etc. This is, of course, an office of trust and confidence. It affords great opportunity for dishonesty and waste, and for embezzling property. The master’ s eye cannot always be on the steward, and he may, therefore, squander the property, or hoard it up for his own use. It was an office commonly conferred on a slave as a reward for fidelity, and of course was given to him that, in long service, had shown himself most trustworthy. By the "rich man,"here, is doubtless represented God. By the "steward,"those who are his professed followers, particularly the "publicans"who were with the Saviour, and whose chief danger arose from the temptations to the improper use of the money intrusted to them.

Was accused - Complaint was made.

Had wasted - Had squandered or scattered it; had not been prudent and saving.

Barnes: Luk 16:2

Give an account - Give a statement of your expenses and of your conduct while you have been steward. This is not to be referred to the day of judgment. It is a circumstance thrown into the parable to prepare the way for what follows. It is true that all will be called to give an account at the day of judgment, but we are not to derive that doctrine from such passages as this, nor are we to interpret this as teaching that our conscience, or the law, or any beings will "accuse us"in the day of judgment. All that will be indeed true, but it is not the truth that is taught in this passage.

Barnes: Luk 16:3

Said within himself - Thought, or considered.

My lord - My master, my employer.

I cannot dig - This may mean either that his employment had been such that he could not engage in agriculture, not having been acquainted with the business, or that he was "unwilling"to stoop to so low an employment as to work daily for his support. "To dig,"here, is the same as to till the earth, to work at daily labor.

To beg - These were the only two ways that presented themselves for a living - either to work for it, or to beg.

I am ashamed - He was too proud for that. Besides, he was in good health and strength, and there was no good reason "why"he should beg - nothing which he could give as a cause for it. It is proper for the sick, the lame, and the feeble to beg; but it is "not"well for the able-bodied to do it, nor is it well to aid them, except by giving them employment, and compelling them to work for a living. He does a beggar who is able to work the most real kindness who sets him to work, and, as a general rule, we should not aid an able-bodied man or woman in any other way. Set them to work, and pay them a fair compensation, and you do them good in two ways, for the habit of labor may be of more value to them than the price you pay them.

Barnes: Luk 16:4

I am resolved - He thought of his condition. He looked at the plans which occurred to him. He had been dishonest, and knew that he must lose his place. It would have been better to have "considered before this,"and resolved on a proper course of life, and to be faithful to his trust; and his perplexity here teaches us that dishonesty will sooner or later lead us into difficulty, and that the path of honesty is not only the "right"path, but is the path that is filled with most comfort and peace.

When I am put out ... - When I lose my place, and have no home and means of support.

They may receive me ... - Those who are now under me, and whom I am resolved now to favor. He had been dishonest to his master, and, having "commenced"a course of dishonesty, he did not shrink from pursuing it. Having injured his master, and being now detected, he was willing still farther to injure him, to take revenge on him for removing him from his place, and to secure his own interest still at his expense. He was resolved to lay these persons under such obligations, and to show them so much kindness, that they could not well refuse to return the kindness to him and give him a support. We may learn here,

1.    That one sin leads on to another, and that one act of dishonesty will be followed by many more, if there is opportunity.

2.    Men who commit one sin cannot get along "consistently"without committing many more. One lie will demand many more to make it "appear"like the truth, and one act of cheating will demand many more to avoid detection. The beginning of sin is like the letting out of waters, and no man knows, if he indulges in one sin, where it will end.

3.    Sinners are selfish. They care more about "themselves"than they do either about God or truth. If they seek salvation, it is only for selfish ends, and because they desire a comfortable "abode"in the future world rather than because they have any regard to God or his cause.

Barnes: Luk 16:5

Called every one - As he was "steward,"he had the management of all the affairs, and, of course, debts were to be paid to him.

Debtors - Those who "owed"his master, or perhaps "tenants;"those who rented land of his master.

Barnes: Luk 16:6

A hundred measures - The measure here mentioned is the "bath"which contained, according to Dr. Arbuthnot’ s tables, 7 12 gallons, or, according to the marginal note, about 9 gallons and 3 quarts.

Oil - Oil of olives, or sweet oil. It was much used for lamps, as an article of food Exo 29:2, and also for anointing, and, of course, as an article of commerce, 1Ki 5:11. These were persons, doubtless, who had "rented"land of the rich man, and who were to give him a certain proportion of the produce.

Thy bill - The contract, obligation, or "lease."It was probably written as a "promise"by the debtor and signed by the steward, and thus became binding. Thus he had power to alter it, without supposing that his master would detect it. The bill or contract was in the hands of the steward, and he gave it back to him to write a new one.

Quickly - He supposed that his master would soon remove him, and he was, therefore, in haste to have all things secure beforehand. It is worthy of remark, also, that "all"this was wrong. His master had called for the account: but, instead of rendering it, he engaged in other business, disobeyed his lord still, and, in contempt of his commands, sought his own interest. All sinners would be slow to give in their account to God if they could do it; and it is only because, when God calls them by death, they "cannot but go,"that they do not engage still in their own business and disobey him.

Barnes: Luk 16:7

Measures of wheat - The measure here mentioned - the "kor,"or homer - contained, according to the tables of Dr. Arbuthnot, about 32 pecks, or 8 bushels; or, according to the marginal note, about 14 bushels and a "pottle."A "pottle"is 4 pints. The Hebrew "kor," כר kor , or "homer," חמר chomer , was equal to 10 baths or 70 gallons, and the actual amount of the measure, according to this, was not far from 8 gallons. Robinson, Lexicon), however, supposes that the bath was 11 12 gallons, and the kor or homer 14 to 45 bushels. The amount is not material to the proper understanding of the parable.

Fourscore - Eighty.

Barnes: Luk 16:8

The lord commended - Praised, or expressed admiration at his wisdom. These are not the words of Jesus, as commending him, but a part of the narrative or parable. His "master"commended him - saw that he was wise and considerate, though he was dishonest.

The unjust steward - It is not said that his master commended him because he was "unjust,"but because he was "wise."This is the only thing in his conduct of which there is any approbation expressed, and this approbation was expressed by "his master."This passage cannot be brought, therefore, to prove that Jesus meant to commend his dishonesty. It was a commendation of his "shrewdness or forethought;"but the master could no more "approve"of his conduct as a moral act than he could the first act of cheating him.

The children of this world - Those who are "devoted"to this world; who live for this world only; who are careful only to obtain property, and to provide for their temporal necessities. It does not mean that they are especially wicked and profligate, but only that they are "worldly,"and anxious about earthly things. See Mat 13:22; 2Ti 4:10.

Are wiser - More prudent, cunning, and anxious about their particular business. They show more skill, study more plans, contrive more ways to provide for themselves, than the children of light do to promote the interests of religion.

In their generation - Some have thought that this means "in their manner of living, or in managing their affairs."The word "generation"sometimes denotes the manner of life, Gen 6:9; Gen 37:2. Others suppose that it means "toward or among the people of their own age."They are more prudent and wise than Christians in regard to the people of their own time; they turn their connection with them to good account, and make it subserve their worldly interests, while Christians fail much more to use the world in such a manner as to subserve their spiritual interests.

Children of light - Those who have been enlightened from above - who are Christians. This may be considered as the application of the parable. It does not mean that it is more wise to be a worldly man than to be a child of light, but that those who "are"worldly show much prudence in providing for themselves; seize occasions for making good bargains; are active and industrious; try to turn everything to the best account, and thus exert themselves to the utmost to advance their interests; while Christians often suffer opportunities of doing good to pass unimproved; are less steady, firm, and anxious about eternal things, and thus show less wisdom. Alas! this is too true; and we cannot but reflect here how different the world would be if all Christians were as anxious, and diligent, and prudent in religious matters as others are in worldly things.

Barnes: Luk 16:9

I say unto you - I, Jesus, say to you, my disciples.

Make to yourselves friends - Some have understood the word "friends,"here, as referring to the poor; others, to holy angels; and others, to God. Perhaps, however, the word should not be considered as referring to any particular "persons,"but is used in accordance with the preceding parable; for in the application our Saviour uses the "language"appropriated to the conduct of the steward to express the "general"truth that we are to make a proper use of riches. The steward had so managed his pecuniary affairs as to secure future comfort for himself, or so as to find friends that would take care of him "beyond"the time when he was put out of the office. That is, he would not be destitute, or cast off, or without comfort, when he was removed from his office. So, says our Saviour to the publicans and those who had property, so use your property as "to secure"happiness and comfort beyond the time when you shall be removed from the present life. "Have reference,"in the use of your money, to the future.

Do not use it so that it shall not avail you anything hereafter; but so employ it that, as the steward found friends, comfort, and a home by "his"wisdom in the use of it, so "you"may, after you are removed to another world, find friends, comfort, and a home - that is, may be happy in heaven. Jesus, here, does not say that we should do it "in the same way"that the steward did, for that was unjust; but only that we should "secure the result."This may be done by using our riches as we "should do;"that is, by not suffering them to entangle us in cares and perplexities dangerous to the soul, engrossing the time, and stealing away the affections; by employing them in works of mercy and benevolence, aiding the poor, contributing to the advance of the gospel, bestowing them where they will do good, and in such a manner that God will "approve"the deed, and will bless us for it. Commonly riches are a "hindrance"to piety. To many they are snares; and, instead of positively "benefiting"the possessor, they are an injury, as they engross the time and the affections, and do not contribute at all to the eternal welfare of the soul. Everything may, by a proper use, be made to contribute to our welfare in heaven. Health, wealth, talents, and influence may be so employed; and this is what our Saviour doubtless means here.

Of the mammon - "By means"of the mammon.

Mammon - A Syriac word meaning riches. It is used, also, as an idol the god of riches.

Of unrighteousness - These words are an Hebrew expression for "unrighteous mammon,"the noun being used for an adjective, as is common in the New Testament. The word "unrighteous,"here, stands opposed to "the true riches"in Luk 16:11, and means "deceitful, false, not to be trusted."It has this meaning often. See 1Ti 6:17; Luk 12:33; Mat 6:19; Mat 19:21. It does not signify, therefore, that they had acquired the property "unjustly,"but that property was "deceitful"and not to be trusted. The wealth of the steward was deceitful; he could not rely on its continuance; it was liable to be taken away at any moment. So the wealth of the world is deceitful. We cannot "calculate"on its continuance. It may give us support or comfort now, but it may be soon removed, or we taken from "it,"and we should, therefore, so use it as to derive benefit from it hereafter.

When ye fail - When ye "are left,"or when ye "die."The expression is derived from the parable as referring to the "discharge"of the steward; but it refers to "death,"as if God then "discharged"his people, or took them from their stewardship and called them to account.

They may receive you - This is a form of expression denoting merely "that you may be received."The plural form is used because it was used in the corresponding place in the parable, Luk 16:4. The direction is, so to use our worldly goods that "we may be received"into heaven when we die. "God"will receive us there, and we are to employ our property so that he will not cast us off for abusing it.

Everlasting habitations - Heaven, the eternal "home"of the righteous, where all our wants will be supplied, and where there can be no more anxiety, and no more removal from enjoyments, 2Co 5:1.

Barnes: Luk 16:10

He that is faithful ... - This is a maxim which will almost universally hold true. A man that shows fidelity in small matters will also in large; and he that will cheat and defraud in little things will also in those involving more trust and responsibility. Fidelity is required in small matters as well as in those of more importance.

Barnes: Luk 16:11

Who will commit ... - If you are not faithful in the small matters pertaining to this world, if you do not use aright your property and influence, you cannot expect that God will commit to you the true riches of his grace. Men who are dishonest and worldly, and who do not employ the deceitful mammon as they ought, cannot expect to grow in grace. God does not confer grace upon them, and their being unfaithful in earthly matters is evidence that they "would be"also in much greater affairs, and would likewise "misimprove"the true riches.

True riches - The graces of the gospel; the influences of the Spirit; eternal life, or religion. The riches of this world are false, deceitful, not to be trusted Luk 16:9; the treasures of heaven are "true,"faithful, never-failing, Mat 6:19-20.

Barnes: Luk 16:12

Another man’ s - The word "man’ s"is not in the original. It is, "If ye have been unfaithful managers for another."It refers, doubtless, to "God."The wealth of the world is "his."It is committed to us as his stewards. It is uncertain and deceitful, and at any moment he can take it away from us. It is still "his;"and if, while intrusted with "this,"we are unfaithful, we cannot expect that he will confer on us the rewards of heaven.

That which is your own - The riches of heaven, which, if once given to us, may be considered as "ours"- that is, it will be permanent and fixed, and will not be taken away "as if"at the pleasure of another. We may "calculate"on it, and look forward with the assurance that it will "continue"to be "ours"forever, and will not be taken away like the riches of this world, "as if"they were not ours. The meaning of the whole parable is, therefore, thus expressed: If we do not use the things of this world as we ought - with honesty, truth, wisdom, and integrity, we cannot have evidence of piety, and shall not be received into heaven. If we are true to that which is least, it is an evidence that we are the children of God, and he will commit to our trust that which is of infinite importance, even the eternal riches and glory of heaven.

Barnes: Luk 16:13

See the notes at Mat 6:24.

Barnes: Luk 16:14-15

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.

Barnes: Luk 16:16

See the notes at Mat 11:12-14.

Every man - Many people, or multitudes. This is an expression that is very common, as when we say everybody is engaged in a piece of business, meaning that it occupies general attention.

Barnes: Luk 16:17

See the notes at Mat 5:18.

Barnes: Luk 16:18

See the notes at Mat 5:32. These verses occur in Matthew in a different order, and it is not improbable that they were spoken by our Saviour at different times. The design, here, seems to be to reprove the Pharisees for not observing the law of Moses, notwithstanding their great pretensions to external righteousness, and to show them that they had "really"departed from the law.

Barnes: Luk 16:19

There was a certain rich man - Many have supposed that our Lord here refers to a "real history,"and gives an account of some man who had lived in this manner; but of this there is no evidence. The probability is that this narrative is to be considered as a parable, referring not to any particular case which "had"actually happened, but teaching that such cases "might"happen. The "design"of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation. He had taught the danger of the love of money Luk 16:1-2; the deceitful and treacherous nature of riches Luk 16:9-11; that what was in high esteem on earth was hateful to God Luk 16:15; that people who did not use their property aright could not be received into heaven Luk 16:11-12; that they ought to listen to Moses and the prophets Luk 16:16-17; and that it was the duty of people to show kindness to the poor. The design of the parable was to impress all these truths more vividly on the mind, and to show the Pharisees that, with all their boasted righteousness and their external correctness of character, they might be lost. Accordingly he speaks of no great fault in the rich man - no external, degrading vice - no open breach of the law; and leaves us to infer that the "mere possession of wealth"may be dangerous to the soul, and that a man surrounded with every temporal blessing may perish forever. It is remarkable that he gave no "name"to this rich man, though the poor man is mentioned by name. If this was a parable, it shows us how unwilling he was to fix suspicion on anyone. If it was not a parable, it shows also that he would not drag out wicked people before the public, but would conceal as much as possible all that had any connection with them. The "good"he would speak well of by name; the evil he would not "injure"by exposing them to public view.

Clothed in purple - A purple robe or garment. This color was expensive as well as splendid, and was chiefly worn by princes, nobles, and those who were very wealthy. Compare Mat 27:28. See the notes at Isa 1:18.

Fine linen - This linen was chiefly produced of the flax that grew on the banks of the Nile, in Egypt, Pro 7:16; Eze 27:7. It was especially soft and white, and was, therefore, much sought as an article of luxury, and was so expensive that it could be worn only by princes, by priests, or by those who were very rich, Gen 41:42; 1Ch 15:27; Exo 28:5.

Fared sumptuously - Feasted or lived in a splendid manner.

Every day - Not merely occasionally, but constantly. This was a mark of great wealth, and, in the view of the world, evidence of great happiness. It is worthy of remark that Jesus did not charge on him any crime. He did not say that he had acquired this property by dishonesty, or even that he was unkind or uncharitable; but simply that he "was a rich man,"and that his riches did not secure him from death and perdition.

Barnes: Luk 16:20-21

Beggar - Poor man. The original word does not mean "beggar,"but simply that he was "poor."It should have been so translated to keep up the contrast with the "rich man."

Named Lazarus - The word Lazarus is Hebrew, and means a man destitute of help, a needy, poor man. It is a name given, therefore, to denote his needy condition.

Laid at his gate - At the door of the rich man, in order that he might obtain aid.

Full of sores - Covered with ulcers; afflicted not only with poverty, but with loathsome and offensive ulcers, such as often are the accompaniments of poverty and want. These circumstances are designed to show how different was his condition from that of the rich man. "He"was clothed in purple; the poor man was covered with sores; "he"fared sumptuously; the poor man was dependent even for the crumbs that fell from the rich man’ s table.

The dogs came - Such was his miserable condition that even the dogs, as if moved by pity, came and licked his sores in kindness to him. These circumstances of his misery are very touching, and his condition, contrasted with that of the rich man, is very striking. It is not affirmed that the rich man was unkind to him, or drove him away, or refused to aid him. The narrative is designed simply to show that the possession of wealth, and all the blessings of this life, could not exempt from death and misery, and that the lowest condition among mortals may be connected with life and happiness beyond the grave. There was no provision made for the helpless poor in those days, and consequently they were often laid at the gates of the rich, and in places of public resort, for charity. See Act 3:2. The gospel has been the means of all the public charity now made for the needy, as it has of providing hospitals for those who are sick and afflicted. No pagan nation ever had a hospital or an almshouse for the needy, the aged, the blind, the insane. Many heathen nations, as the Hindoos and the Sandwich Islanders, destroyed their aged people; and "all"left their poor to the miseries of public begging, and their sick to the care of their friends or to private charity.

Poole: Luk 16:1

Luk 16:1-13 The parable of the unjust steward.

Luk 16:14-18 Christ reproveth the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who

were covetous, and derided him.

Luk 16:19-31 The parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

Ver. 1-8. Hierom of old thought this parable was very obscure; and Julian and other apostates, together with some of the heathen philosophers, took occasion from it to reproach the doctrine of Christ, as teaching and commanding acts of unrighteousness. But there will appear no such difficulty in it, nor cause of reproach to Christ and his doctrine from it, if we consider what I have before hinted, that it is no more necessary to a parable that all the actions in it supposed be just and honest, than that all the parts of it be true in matter of fact, whether past or possible to be; for a parable is not designed to inform us in a matter of fact, but to describe to us our duty, under a fictitious representation: nor doth every part of a parable point at some correspondent duty to be done by us; but the main scope for which it is brought is principally to be attended to by us, and other pieces of duty which may be hinted to us, are to be judged of and proved not from the parable, but from other texts of holy writ where they are inculcated. The main things in which our Saviour seemeth desirous by this parable to instruct us, are,

1. That we are but stewards of the good things God lends us, and must give an account to our Master of them.

2. That being no more than stewards intrusted with some of our Master’ s goods for a time, it is our highest prudence, while we have them in our trust, to make such a use of them as may be for our advantage when we give up our account.

Thus we shall hear our Lord in the following verses expounding his own meaning. To this purpose he supposed a rich man to have a steward, and to have received some accusation against him, as if he embezzled his master’ s goods committed to his trust. Upon which he calleth him to account, and tells him that he should be his steward no longer. He supposes this steward to be one who had no other means of livelihood and subsistence than what his place afforded him, a than not used to labour, and too proud to beg. At length he fixed his resolution, to send for his master’ s debtors, and to abate their obligations, making them debtors to his master for much less than indeed they were; by this means he probably hoped, that when he was turned off from his master he should be received by them. He supposes his master to have heard of it, and to have commended him, not for his honesty, but for his wit in providing for the time to come. What was knavery in this steward, is honest enough in those who are the stewards of our heavenly Lord’ s goods, suppose riches, honours, parts, health, life, or any outward accommodation, viz. to use our Lord’ s goods for the best profit and advantage to ourselves, during such time as we are intrusted with them. For though an earthly lord and his steward have particular divided interests, and he that maketh use of his lord’ s goods for his own best advantage cannot at the same time make use of them for the best advantage of his master, yet the case is different betwixt our heavenly Lord and us. It hath pleased God so to twist the interest of his glory with our highest good, that no man can better use his Master’ s goods for the advantage of his glory, than he who best useth them for the highest good, profit, and advantage to himself; nor doth any man better use them for his own interest, than he who best useth them for God’ s glory. So as here the parable halteth, by reason of the disparity betwixt the things that are compared. And though the unjust steward could not be commended for the honesty, but only for the policy, of his action, yet we who are stewards of the gifts of God, in doing the like, that is, making use of our Master’ s goods for our own best profit and advantage, may act not only wisely, but also honestly; and indeed Christ in this parable blames men for not doing so:

The children of this world (saith he) are wiser in their generation than the children of light By the children of this world he meaneth such as this steward was, men who regard not eternity or the concerns of their immortal souls, but only regard the things of this life, what they shall eat, or drink, or put on. By

the children of light he meaneth such as live under the light of the gospel, and receive the common illumination of the gospel; though if we yet understand it more strictly, of those who are

translated out of darkness into marvellous light it is too true, they are not so wise, and politic, and industrious for heaven, as worldly men are to obtain their ends in getting the world. He saith,

the men of this world are wiser in their generation that is, in their kind, as to those things about which they exercise their wit and policy, than the children of God.

Poole: Luk 16:5

Ver. 5 See Poole on "Luk 16:1"

Poole: Luk 16:7

Ver. 7 See Poole on "Luk 16:1"

Poole: Luk 16:9

That by mammon here is meant riches is universally agreed, but whether it originally be a Chaldaic, or Syriac, or Punic word is not so well agreed. The Chaldee paraphrast useth it, Hos 5:11 ; but the Hebrew there is quite otherwise, (according to our translation), he willingly walked after the commandment. But if the notion of those be true, that some of those nations had an idol called Mammon, whom they made the god of riches, answering the Grecian Plutus, it fairly interprets the Chaldee paraphrast. They followed the command for idolatry, for such was Jeroboam’ s commandment, mentioned in that text, and from thence it might be that the Syrians and Punics called riches mammon. We have the word in the New Testament four times, thrice in this chapter, once Mat 6:24 . It is called the mammon of unrighteousness, by a Hebraism; it is as much as, the unrighteous mammon: by which we must not understand ill gotten goods, (for God hateth robbery for a burnt offering), we must restore such goods, not make friends of them; but riches are so called, because of the manifold temptations to sin which arise from them, upon which account they are also called deceitful. But others think that it is so called in opposition to the true riches , mentioned Luk 16:11 . So that the mammon of unrighteousness is the mammon of falsehood, or hurtful riches, riches of hurtfulness (adicia sometimes signifies hurt or wrong, and adicein , laedere, nocere ). Of these riches, which are no true riches, and which deceive the soul, and do hurt and mischief to a soul, exposing it to temptation, Christ commands us to make friends either,

1. To make God our friend, not by meriting from him any thing by our disposal of them, but by obedience to his will in our distribution of them. Or:

2. To make poor Christians our friends, so as we may have their prayers. So that, when ye fail, when you die, when you fail of any more comfort from them, they may receive you into everlasting habitations the holy Trinity, or the blessed angels, (whose work it is, as we shall hear, to carry souls into Abraham’ s bosom), may receive you into heaven.

Poole: Luk 16:10

This is a usual sentence, (our Saviour made use of many such), as to which kind of speeches it is not necessary they should be universally true, it is sufficient if they generally be so. Besides that, our Saviour plainly speaketh here according to the common opinion and judgment of men. Men ordinarily judge that he who is faithful in a little thing, of no high concern or moment, will be faithful in what is of a higher concern, or greater moment; and if they have found a person unfaithful in a small thing, they will conclude that he will he so in a greater, and not trust him: though sometimes it falls out otherwise, that one who is faithful enough in some trifling things, prove unfaithful in a greater trust, where unfaithfulness will turn more to his profit; and on the contrary, he that is untruthful in a little thing, may prove more faithful in a greater; but none will trust to that: and that is our Saviour’ s design, to teach us that God will do by us as we in the like case do by our servants or neighbours.

Poole: Luk 16:11

This verse now opposeth the unrighteous mammon to the true riches , which would strongly incline one to think, that by the mammon of unrighteousness , before mentioned, our Saviour meant only false and deceitful riches. By the true riches I cannot think is meant the gospel, which indeed is said to be committed to trust of the ministers, but not of all Christians. I had rather interpret it of special, effectual grace, which is of all other the true riches: and so it teacheth us this great truth, That God is justified in the denial of his special grace to those who do not make a due use of his common gifts and grace; and indeed here will lie men’ s damnation, because they do not make a just use of that common grace which they have, and might make a better use of it than they do. If they would be faithful in that, God would not deny them the true riches.

Poole: Luk 16:12

Let it be questioned whether allotrion might not have been translated foreign as well as another man’ s , for so interpreters expound that phrase: If you have not been faithful in things that are without you, which are little, compared with things that are within us. Yet riches are indeed properly not ours, we are but the stewards of them, and part of them are other men’ s, and only trusted into our hands, to dispense to them according to our Master’ s order. Grace is our own, especially justifying and sanctifying grace; because it is given us of God solely for our own use and advantage. We use to say, That those who have been, bad servants seldom prove good masters. In the trust of our riches we are but servants; God will not give out of his special saving grace to those that abuse the trust of his common gifts and grace.

Poole: Luk 16:14

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.

Poole: Luk 16:15

By justifying here is to be understood either an appearing before men as just, and strict observers of the law, or a predicating of themselves as just: You (saith our Saviour) make a fine show, and great brags amongst men; but God’ s eye goeth deeper, he knoweth the heart, what pride, and covetousness, and hypocrisy lodge there. Men do not know your hearts, but God knoweth them. All is not gold by God’ s touchstone that glitters in man’ s eyes. Nay, many things which are highly esteemed amongst men, as matters of great devotion and piety and merit, and which they applaud others for, are in the sight of God no better than abominations. This highly obliges all not to make their estimate of things, from the value and estimate which men put upon them; not every thing, but many things which are highly esteemed amongst men are abomination in the sight of God.

Poole: Luk 16:16

We had the sum of these words: See Poole on "Mat 11:12" and See Poole on "Mat 11:13" . The connection of these words in this place seems to be this: Do not think it strange that I preach some doctrines to you which seem new to you, though indeed they are no other than was before contained in the precepts of the Old Testament; for the law and the prophets, the preaching of them, held but till John, since whose time the gospel hath been preached, which gives you a clearer light into the will of God than you had before; and it pleaseth God to give it a great acceptation in the world, though you reject it;

every man presseth that is, many press, into it so as God will not want a people, though you mock and deride the gospel, instead of embracing of it, as you ought to do.

Poole: Luk 16:17

Neither do you scandalize me, as if I came to teach a new doctrine, contrary to the law and the prophets. I tell you the quite contrary; heaven and earth shall pass away, before one tittle of the law shall pass. Your vain interpretations of the law shall be destroyed, or amended, but the law of my Father shall remain as a certain rule of life to his people until the world shall have an end.

Poole: Luk 16:19-22

Ver. 19-22. It is a question of no great concern for us to be resolved about, whether this be a history, or narrative of matter of fact, or a parable. Those that contend on either side have probable arguments for their opinion, and it may be they best judge who determine it to be neither the one nor the other, but a profitable discourse, that hath in it something of both. Our chief concern is to consider what our Lord by it designed to instruct us in. And certainly those do not judge amiss who think that this discourse hath a great reference to what went before, Luk 16:9,10 , where our Saviour had been exhorting his hearers to make themselves

friends of the mammon of unrighteousness as also to the Pharisees deriding him for his doctrine, Luk 16:14 ; our Lord by this discourse letting them know the danger of covetousness and uncharitableness, and also letting them know that what is highly esteemed among men may be abomination in the sight of God. He telleth them there was a certain rich man, who lived in great plenty and splendour; his clothing was purple and fine linen, that is, exceeding costly and splendid; his fare, or diet, was delicate and sumptuous, and that every day, from whence may easily be concluded, that if he had had a heart thereunto, he might have spared something for the poor. Nor were the objects of his charity far off.

There was a certain beggar named Lazarus poor enough, for he was full of sores, and would have been glad of the offal of the rich man’ s table; but the dogs were more charitable than their master; we read of nothing which the rich man gave him, but

the dogs came and licked his sores What was the end of this? The beggar died, and he was by the angels carried into the bosom of Abraham, that is, into heaven; some will have the phrase signify, one of the chiefest mansions in heaven. Abraham was the father of believers, and an hospitable person while he lived upon the earth. Lazarus is expressed to have been conveyed to him. There are many things discoursed by men of wit and learning about this Abraham’ s bosom, but the best centre here, that by it is meant heaven: and from hence two great points are proved:

1. That the soul is capable of an existence separated from the body, and therefore is not, as some atheists dream, a mere affection of that, and an accident, but a distinct spiritual subsistence.

2. That the souls of the good, when they depart from their bodies, immediately pass into an eternal state of blessedness.

Lightfoot: Luk 16:1

And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.   

[Which had a steward.] This parable seems to have relation to the custom of letting out grounds, which we find discoursed of, Demai; cap. 6, where it is supposed a ground is let by its owner to some tenant upon this condition, that he pay half, or one third or fourth part of the products of the ground, according as is agreed betwixt them as to the proportion and quantity. So, also, he supposes an olive-yard let out upon such kind of conditions. And there it is disputed about the payment of the tithes, in what manner it should be compounded between the owner and him that occupies the ground.  

Steward with Kimchi is pakidh; where he hath a parable not much unlike this: "The world (saith he) is like unto a house built; the heaven is the covering of the house; the stars are the candles in the house; the fruits of the earth are like a table spread in the house; the owner of the house, and he indeed that built it, is the holy blessed God. Man in the world is as it were the steward of the house, into whose hands his lord hath delivered all his riches, if he behave himself well, he will find favour in the eyes of his lord; if ill, he will remove him from his stewardship."

Lightfoot: Luk 16:3

Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.   

[I cannot dig, to beg I am ashamed.] Is there not some third thing betwixt digging and begging? The distinction betwixt artificers and labourers; mentioned in Bava Mezia; hath place here. This steward, having conversed only with husbandmen, must be supposed skilled in no other handicraft; but that if he should be forced to seek a livelihood, he must be necessitated to apply himself to digging in the vineyards, or fields, or olive-yards.

Lightfoot: Luk 16:6

And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.   

[Take thy bill, etc.] that is, "Take from me the scroll of thy contract; which thou deliveredst to me; and make a new one, of fifty measures only, that are owing by thee." But it seems a great inequality, that he should abate one fifty in a hundred measures of oil, and the other but twenty out of a hundred measures of wheat; unless the measures of wheat exceeded the measure of oil ten times: so that when there were twenty cori of wheat abated the debtor, there were abated to him two hundred baths or ephahs.

Lightfoot: Luk 16:9

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

There needs no commentator to shew what the Targumists mean by mammon of falsehood; or mammon of unrighteousness. They themselves explain it, when they render it sometimes by mammon of violence; sometimes by mammon of wickedness. Kimchi, by mammon of rapine; upon Isaiah_33.  

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

Seeing it appears before that mammon of unrighteousness; is the same in the Greek with mammon of falsity or false mammon in the Targumists, who speak in the common language of that nation, there is no reason why it should not be taken here in the very same sense. Think but what word our Saviour would use to express unrighteousness by, and then think, if there can be any word more probable than that which was so well known, and so commonly in use in that nation. Indeed the word unrighteousness; in this place, is softened by some, that it should denote no further than false; as not true and substantial: so that the mammon of unrighteousness should signify deceitful mammon; not opposing riches well got to those that are ill got; but opposing earthly riches to spiritual; which rendering of the word took its rise from hence especially, that it looked ill and unseemly, that Christ should persuade any to make to themselves friends by giving alms out of an ill-gotten estate: not to mention that, Luk 16:11, unrighteous mammon; is opposed to true riches.  

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

IV. It is a continued discourse in this place with that in the foregoing chapter, only that he does more particularly apply himself to his disciples, Luk 16:1, He said unto his disciples; where the particle and joins what is discoursed here with what went before. Now who were his disciples? Not the twelve apostles only, nor the seventy disciples only: but, Luk 15:1, all the publicans and sinners that came to hear him. For we needs must suppose them in the number of disciples, if we consider the distinction of the congregation then present, being made between scribes and Pharisees, and those that came to him with a good mind to hear: besides that we may observe how Christ entertains them, converseth with them, and pleads for them in the parable of the foregoing chapter. Which plea and apology for them against the scribes and Pharisees being finished, he turns his discourse to them themselves, and under the parable of an Unjust Steward, instructs them how they may make to themselves friends of the wealth they had unjustly gained, as he had done. And, indeed, what could have been more seasonably urged before the unjust and covetous Pharisees, than to stir up his followers, that, if they had acquired any unrighteous gains before their conversion, they would now honestly restore them, piously distribute them, that so they may make themselves friends of them, as the Unjust Steward had done?  

And for a comment upon this doctrine, let us take the instance of Zacchaeus, Luk 19:2-5. If Christ, while entertained in his house, had said to him what he said to his disciples here, Zacchaeus, make to thyself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; would Zacchaeus himself, or those that stood by, have understood him any otherwise, than that he should make friends to himself of that wealth he had gotten dishonestly? And why they may not be so understood here, I profess I know not; especially when he discourses amongst those disciples that had been publicans and sinners; and scarce any of them, for aught we know, but before his conversion had been unjust and unrighteous enough.  

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

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

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

Lightfoot: Luk 16:11

If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?   

[If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, etc.] the Vulgar, If ye have not been faithful in the unjust mammon; it is not ill rendered. But can any one be faithful in the unrighteous mammon? As to that, let us judge from the example of Zaccaeus: although he was not faithful in scraping together any thing unjustly, yet was he eminently faithful in so piously distributing it.

Lightfoot: Luk 16:12

And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?   

[If ye have not been faithful in that which was another man's, etc.] to apply another man's to that wealth which is given us by God, is something harsh and obscure; but to apply it to the riches of other men, makes the sense a little more easy: "If ye have been unjust in purloining the goods of other men, and will still as unjustly keep them back, what reason have you to think that others will not deal as unjustly with you, and keep back even what is yours?"

Lightfoot: Luk 16:16

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.   

[And every one presseth into it.] These words may be varied into a sense plainly contrary; so far that they may either denote the entertainment or the persecution of the gospel. Saith Beza: Every one breaketh into it by force; which points at the former sense of these words. Vulgar: Every one commits violence upon it; which points to the latter. I have admitted of the former, as that which is the most received sense of that passage in Mat 11:12; but the latter seems more agreeable in this place, if you will suppose a continued discourse in our Saviour from Luk 16:15, and that one verse depends upon another. They do indeed seem independent, and incoherent one with another; and yet there is no reason why we may not suppose a connexion, though at the first view it is not so perspicuous. We may observe the manner of the schools in this very difficulty. In both the Talmuds, what frequent transitions are there infinitely obscure and inextricable at first sight, and seemingly of no kind of coherence; which yet the expositors have made very plain and perspicuous, very coherent with one another.  

I would therefore join and continue the discourse in some such way as this: "You laugh me to scorn; and have my doctrine in derision, boasting yourselves above the sphere of it, as if nothing I said belonged at all to you. Nor do I wonder at it; for whereas the Law and the Prophets were until John, yet did you deal no otherwise with them, but changed and wrested them at your pleasure by your traditions and the false glosses ye have put upon them. And when with John Baptist the kingdom of heaven arose and made its entry among you, every one useth violence and hostility against it; by contradiction, persecution, and laughing it to scorn. And yet, though you by your foolish traditions have made even the whole law void and of none effect, it is easier certainly for heaven and earth to pass away, than that one tittle of the law should fail. Take but an instance in the first and most ancient precept of the law, 'The man shall cleave unto his wife'; which you, by your traditions and arbitrary divorces, have reduced to nothing; but that still remains, and will remain for ever, in its full force and virtue; and he that puts away his wife (according to the licentiousness of your divorces) and marrieth another, committeth adultery."

Lightfoot: Luk 16:19

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:   

[There was a certain rich man.] Whoever believes this not to be a parable, but a true story, let him believe also those little friars, whose trade it is to shew the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point exactly to the place where the house of the 'rich glutton' stood. Most accurate keepers of antiquity indeed! who, after so many hundreds of years, such overthrows of Jerusalem, such devastations and changes, can rake out of the rubbish the place of so private a house, and such a one too as never had any being, but merely in parable. And that it was a parable, not only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it.  

The main scope and design of it seems this, to hint the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they had Moses and the Prophets, did not believe them, nay, would not believe, though one (even Jesus) arose from the dead. For that conclusion of the parable abundantly evidenceth what it aimed at: "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

Lightfoot: Luk 16:20

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,   

[Lazarus.] I. We shew in our notes upon St. Joh 11:1; in several instances, that the word Lazar is by contraction used by the Talmudists for Eleazar. The author of Juchasin attests it: in the Jerusalem Talmud every R. Eleazar is written without an Aleph, R. Lazar.  

II. In Midras Coheleth there is a certain beggar called Diglus Patragus or Petargus: poor, infirm, naked, and famished. But there could hardly be invented a more convenient name for a poor beggar than Lazar; which signifies the help of God; when he stands in so much need of the help of men.  

But perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his servant, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse the heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into Abraham's bosom? Which I leave to the judgment of the reader, whether it might not hint the calling of the Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.  

The Gemarists make Eliezer to accompany his master even in the cave of Machpelah: "R. Baanah painted the sepulchres: when he came to Abraham's cave, he found Eliezer standing at the mouth of it. He saith unto him, 'What is Abraham doing?' To whom he, He lieth in the embraces of Sarah. Then said Baanah, 'Go and tell him that Baanah is at the door,' " etc.  

[Full of sores.] In the Hebrew language, stricken with ulcers. Sometimes his body full of ulcers; as in this story: "They tell of Nahum Gamzu, that he was blind, lame of both hands and of both feet, and in all his body full of sores. He was thrown into a ruinous house, the feet of his bed being put into basins full of water, that the ants might not creep upon him. His disciples ask him, 'Rabbi, how hath this mischief befallen thee, when as thou art a just man?' " He gives the reason himself; viz. Because he deferred to give something to a poor man that begged of him. We have the same story in Hieros Peah; where it were worth the while to take notice how they vary in the telling it.

Haydock: Luk 16:1

There was a certain rich man, &c. By this parable, our Saviour advises his disciples to accompany their penitential works with deeds of mercy to the poor. (Ven. Bede) ---

There is a certain erroneous opinion, that obtains pretty generally amongst mankind, and which tends to increase crimes, and to lessen good works: and this is, the foolish persuasion that men are not accountable to any one, and that we can dispose as we please of the things in our possession. (St. John Chrysostom) ---

Whereas we are here informed, that we are only the dispensers of another's property, viz. God's. (St. Ambrose) ---

When, therefore, we employ it not according to the will of our Master, but fritter and squander it away in pleasure, and in the gratification of our passions, we are, beyond all doubt, unjust stewards. (Theophylactus) ---

And a strict account will be required of what we have thus dissipated, by our common Lord and Master. If then we are only stewards of that which we possess, let us cast from our minds that mean superciliousness and pride which the outward splendour of riches is so apt to inspire; and let us put on the humility, the modesty of stewards, knowing well that to whom much is given, much will be required. Abundance of riches makes not a man great, but the dispensing them according to the will and intention of his employer. (Haydock) ---

The intention of this parable, is to shew what use each one ought to make of the goods which God has committed to his charge. In the three former parables, addressed to the murmuring Scribes and Pharisees, our Saviour shews with what goodness he seeks the salvation and conversion of a sinner; in this, he teaches how the sinner, when converted, ought to correspond to his vocation, and preserve with great care the inestimable blessing of innocence. (Calmet) ---

A steward, &c. The parable puts us in mind, that let men be ever so rich or powerful in this world, God is still their master; they are his servants, and must be accountable to him how they have managed his gifts and favours; that is, all things they have had in this world. (Witham)

Haydock: Luk 16:2

And he called him, &c. Such are the words which our Lord daily addresses to us. We daily see persons equally healthy, and likely to live as ourselves, suddenly summoned by death, to give an account of their stewardship. Happy summons to the faithful servant, who has reason to hope in his faithful administration. Not so to the unfaithful steward, whose pursuits are earthly: death to him is terrible indeed, and his exit is filled with sorrow. All thunder-stricken at these words, "now thou canst be steward no longer," he says within himself, what shall I do! (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Haydock: Luk 16:8

And the lord commanded, &c. By this we are given to understand, that if the lord of this unjust steward could commend him for his worldly prudence, though it were an overt act of injustice; how much more will the Almighty be pleased with those who, obedient to his command, seek to redeem their sins by alms-deeds? (St. Thomas Aquinas) ---

"Give alms out of thy substance," says holy Tobias to his son, "and turn not thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass, that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee. According to thy abilities be merciful. If thou hast much, give abundantly; if thou hast little, take care, even of that little, to bestow willingly a little. For thus thou storest up to thyself a good reward, for the day of necessity. For alms deliver from sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness." (Tobias iv. 7, 8, &c.) (St. Thomas Aquinas) ---

Children of this world, &c. are more prudent and circumspect as to what regards their temporal concerns, than they who profess themselves servants of God, are about the concerns of eternity. ---

Commended the unjust steward. [1] Literally, the steward of iniquity: not for his cheating and injustice, but for his contrivances in favour of himself. ---

In their generation; i.e. in their concerns of this life. They apply themselves with greater care and pains, in their temporal affairs, than the children of light, whom God has favoured with the light of faith, do to gain heaven. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Villicum iniquitatis, i.e. iniquum, Greek: oikonomon tes adikias.

Haydock: Luk 16:9

Make for yourselves friends, &c. Not that we are authorized to wrong our neighbour, to give to the poor: evil is never to be done, that good may come from it. (St. Thomas Aquinas) ---

But we are exhorted to make the poor our friends before God, by relieving them with the riches which justly indeed belong to us, but are called the mammon of iniquity, because only the iniquitous man esteems them as riches, on which he sets his affections; whilst the riches of the virtuous are wholly celestial and spiritual. (St. Augustine, de quæst. Evang.) ---

Of the mammon of iniquity. Mammon is a Syriac word for riches; and so it might be translated, of the riches of iniquity. Riches are called unjust, and riches of iniquity, not of themselves, but because they are many times the occasion of unjust dealings, and of all kind of vices. (Witham) ---

Mammon signifies riches. They are here called the mammon of iniquity, because oftentimes ill-gotten, ill-bestowed, or an occasion of evil; and at the best are but worldly, and false: and not the true riches of a Christian. ---

They may receive. By this we see, that the poor servants of God, whom we have relieved by our alms, may hereafter, by their intercession, bring our souls to heaven. (Challoner) ---

They may receive you into their eternal tabernacles. What a beautiful thought this! What a consolation to the rich man, when the terms of his mortal existence is approaching, to think he shall have as many advocates to plead for his admittance into the eternal mansions of rest, as he has made friends among the poor by relieving their temporal wants. The rich give to the poor earthly treasures, the latter return in recompense eternal and infinite happiness. Hence we must infer, that the advantage is all on the side of the giver; according to the saying of our Lord, happier is the condition of him who gives, than of him who receives. (Haydock)

Haydock: Luk 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least. This seems to have been a common saying, and that men judged of the honesty of their servants by their fidelity in lesser matters. For example, a master that sees his servant will not steal a little thing, judges that he will not steal a greater, &c. ---

And he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater. The interpreters take notice, that here temporal goods are called little, and spiritual goods are called greater; so that the sense is, that such men as do not make a right use of their temporal goods, in the service of God, will not make a good use of spiritual graces as they ought to do. See Maldonatus. (Witham)

Haydock: Luk 16:11

If then you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon; [2] i.e. in fading and false riches, which are the occasion of unjust and wicked proceedings. ---

Who will trust you with that which is the true? i.e. God will not intrust you with the true and spiritual riches of his grace. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In iniquo mammona, Greek: en to adiko Mammona.

Haydock: Luk 16:12

And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's: so again is called false worldly wealth, which passeth from one to another; so that it cannot be called a man's own, who will give you that which is your own? i.e. how can you hope that God will bestow upon you, or commit to your care, spiritual riches or gifts, which, when rightly managed, would by your own for all eternity? See St. Augustine, lib. ii. qq. Evang. q. 35. p. 263. (Witham) ---

That which is another's. Temporal riches may be said to belong to another, because they are the Lord's; and we have only the dispensing of them: so that when we give alms, we are liberal of another's goods. But if we are not liberal in giving what is another's, how shall we be so in giving our own? Nothing one would have thought so properly belonged to the Jews, as the kingdom of heaven, the preaching of the gospel, and the knowledge of heavenly things. But they were deprived of all for their infidelity in the observance of the law, which was first intrusted to them. (Calmet)

Haydock: Luk 16:13

No servant can serve two masters, &c. This is added to shew us, that to dispose of our riches according to the will of the Almighty, it is necessary to keep our minds free from all attachment to them. (Theophylactus) ---

Let the avaricious man here learn, that to be a lover of riches, is to be an enemy of Christ. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Luk 16:14

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)

Haydock: Luk 16:15

Who justify yourselves, &c. But our Lord, detecting their hidden malice, shews that their pretended justice is all hypocrisy. (Theophylactus) ---

But God knoweth, &c. They justify themselves before men, whom they look upon as despicable, and abandoned sinners, and esteem themselves as not standing in need of giving alms as a remedy of sin; but he who shall lay open the secrets of hearts, sees the base atrocity of that pride which thus blinds them, and swells within their breasts. (Ven. Bede) ---

Yes, all those exterior actions which appeared great, and which were admired by men, being vitiated with improper motives and sinister designs, are an abomination in the sight of God. (Haydock)

Haydock: Luk 16:16

The law and the prophets, &c. Not that the law was made void by the coming of John [the Baptist], but that what the law and the prophets had taught, had been suited to the very imperfect dispositions of the Jews, who as yet were incapable of relishing perfect virtue. At the coming of John, the gospel began to be preached, and this called men to a life of perfect sanctity. (St. Thomas Aquinas) ---

Our Saviour came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law and the prophets. (Matthew v. 17.)

Haydock: Luk 16:19

There was a certain rich man, &c. By this history of the rich man and Lazarus, he declares that those who are placed in affluent circumstances, draw upon themselves a sentence of condemnation, if seeing their neighbour in want, they neglect to succour him. (St. Cyril, in Cat. Græc. patrum.) ---

He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shut up his bowels against him, how doth the charity of God abide in him? (1 John iii. 17.) A received tradition of the Jews informs us, that this Lazarus was a beggar, then at Jerusalem, suffering in the most wretched condition of poverty, and infirmity: him our Saviour introduces, to manifest more plainly the truth of what he had been saying (St. Cyril, in Cat. Græc. patrum.) ---

By this, we are not to understand that all poverty is holy, and the possession of riches criminal; but, as luxury is the disgrace of riches, so holiness of life is the ornament of poverty. (St. Ambrose) ---

A man may be reserved and modest in the midst of riches and honours, as he may be proud and avaricious in the obscurity of a poor and wretched life. ---

Divers interpreters have looked upon this as a true history; but what is said of the rich man seeing Lazarus, of his tongue, of his finger, cannot be literal: souls having no such parts. (Witham) ---

In this parable, which St. Ambrose takes to be a real fact, we have the name of the poor mendicant; but our Lord suppresses the name of the rich man, to signify that his name is blotted out of the book of life: besides, the rich man tells Abraham, that he has five brothers, who were probably still living; wherefore, to save their honour, our Lord named not their reprobated brother.

Gill: Luk 16:1

And he said also to his disciples,.... The Syriac version adds, "a parable", as the following is; and which is directed to the disciples, as those in the preceding chapter are to the Pharisees; and who also are designed in this; though it is particularly spoken to the disciples, because it might be of some use to them, with respect, to the stewardship they were in. The Persic and Ethiopic versions read, "Jesus", or "the Lord Jesus said": and which is to be understood, though not expressed; for the parable was delivered by him, and is as follows:

there was a certain rich man: by whom God is meant, who is rich in the perfections of his nature, in the works of his hands, in his government, and the administration of it, in providential goodness, and in the large revenues of glory due to him from his creatures; for all temporal riches are from him; and so are all the riches of mercy, grace, and glory:

which had a steward; by whom is designed, not all mankind; for though all men are, in a sense, stewards under God, and are entrusted with the good things of life, the gifts of nature, endowments of mind, health, strength of body, time, &c. yet all cannot be meant, because some are distinguished from this steward, Luk 16:5 nor are the disciples intended, though the parable is directed to them; and they were stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God; and one among them was an unfaithful one, and was turned out of his stewardship; but the character of an unjust man will not suit with them: and besides, this steward was of the children of this world, Luk 16:8 but the Pharisees are meant: for these are taken notice of as gravelled at this parable, Luk 16:14 and to them agrees the character of the men of this world, who were worldly wise men; as also that of a steward; these are the tutors and governors mentioned in Gal 4:2 who had the care of the house of Israel, the family of God, under the legal dispensation; and to whom were committed the oracles of God, the writings of Moses, and the prophets; and whose business it was to open and explain them to the people.

And the same was accused unto him, that he had wasted his goods; put false glosses upon the Scriptures; fed the family with bad and unwholesome food, the traditions of the elders, called the leaven of the Pharisees: made havoc of the souls of men; and made the hearts of the righteous sad: and hardened sinners in their wicked ways: and fed themselves, and not the flock; and plundered persons of their temporal substance; of all which they were accused by Moses, in whom they trusted; by his law which they violated; and by their own consciences, which witnessed against them; and by the cries of those whom they abused, which came into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.

Gill: Luk 16:2

And he called him,.... By the prophets, sent one after another; by John the Baptist, by Christ himself, and by his apostles:

and said unto him, how is it that I hear this of thee? of thy corrupting the word; of thy covetousness, rapine, and theft; of thy adultery and idolatry, and sad violation of the law; see Rom 2:21

give an account of thy stewardship: what improvement is made of thy gifts; what care has been taken of my vineyard, the Jewish church; and where are the fruits that might be expected to have been received at your hands:

for thou mayest be no longer steward. This was foretold by the prophets, that God would write a "Loammi" upon the people of the Jews; that he would cut off three shepherds in one month, and particularly lay aside the idol shepherd, by whom the Pharisees may be meant, Zec 11:8 and by John the Baptist, who declared the axe was laid to the root of the tree, and it was just ready to be cut down, Mat 3:10 and by Christ, that the kingdom of God should be taken from them, Mat 21:43 and by the apostles, who turned from them to the Gentiles, Act 13:46.

Gill: Luk 16:3

Then the steward said within himself,.... As the Scribes and Pharisees were wont to do, Mat 3:9

what shall I do? he does not say, what will become of me? I am undone, and what shall I do to be saved? or what shall I do for my Lord and Master I have so much injured? or what shall I do to make up matters with him? or what account shall I give? but what shall I do for a maintenance? how shall I live? what shall I do to please men, and gain their opinion and good will, and so be provided for by them? of this cast were the Pharisees, men pleasers, and self-seekers:

for my Lord taketh away from me the stewardship: the priesthood was changed, and there was a change also of the law; the ceremonial law was abrogated, and the ordinances of the former dispensation were shaken and removed; so that these men must of course turn out of their places and offices:

I cannot dig; or "plough", as the Arabic version renders it; or do any part of husbandry, particularly that which lies in manuring and cultivating the earth; not but that he was able to do it; but he could not tell how to submit to such a mean, as well as laborious way of life; for nothing was meaner among the Jews than husbandry: they have a saying, that אין לך אומנות פחותה מן הקרקע, "you have no trade", or business, "lesser", or meaner "than husbandry" ^g:

and to beg I am ashamed; for nothing could be more disagreeable, to one who had lived so well in his master's house, and in so much fulness and luxury, as the Scribes and Pharisees did. The Jews have a saying, that ^h.

"want of necessaries, טוב משאלתו, "is better than begging": (and says one) I have tasted the bitterness of all things, and I have not found any thing more bitter "than begging:"''

and which was literally true of the Jews, after the destruction of Jerusalem; when multitudes of them were condemned to work in the mines; and vast numbers were scattered about every where as vagabonds, begging their bread; both which were very irksome to that people: though both these phrases may be mystically understood: and "digging" may intend a laborious searching into the Scriptures, and a diligent performance of good works: neither of which the Pharisees much cared for, though they made large pretensions to both; nor did they dig deep to lay a good foundation whereon to build eternal life and happiness: nor could they attain to the law of righteousness by all their toil and labour, they would be thought to have taken: and for "begging", they were above that: read the Pharisee's prayer in Luk 18:11 and you will not find one petition in it. To ask any thing at the throne of grace, in a way of mere grace and favour, and not merit: or to beg any thing at the hands of Christ, as life, righteousness, pardon, cleansing, healing, food, &c. they were ashamed of, and cared not for.

Gill: Luk 16:4

I am resolved what to do,.... Or "I know what to do"; I have a scheme in my head, and I am determined to execute it, which will provide for me, and secure me a maintenance:

that when I am put out of the stewardship; drove from Jerusalem, and from the temple and the synagogues:

they may receive me into their houses; either Jews or Gentiles, after their dispersion.

Gill: Luk 16:5

So he called every one of his Lord's debtors,.... Either the Gentiles, who were greatly indebted to God, having sinned against him, and the law, and light of nature, at a great rate; into whose affections, houses, and palaces, the Jews found ways and means to introduce themselves; and, in process of time, got leave to have synagogues built, and their worship set up again: or else the Jews, their countrymen; since these were under those stewards, tutors, and governors, and were debtors to do the whole law; and had, by breaking the law, contracted large debts; and against whom the ceremonial law stood as an handwriting: these the steward called

unto him, and said unto the first, how much owest thou unto my Lord? and it is observable, that the debts of these men, of the first, lay in oil, and of the other in wheat; things much used in the ceremonial law, in the observance of which they had been, greatly deficient; see Exo 29:40

Gill: Luk 16:6

And he said an hundred measures of oil,.... Or "baths of oil", the same quantity as in Ezr 7:22 where Aben Ezra ⁱ calls them, מדות, "measures", as we do here; and Jarchi ^k observes, that they were, לבלול מנחות, "to mingle with the meal, or flour offerings"; which illustrates the above observation, that they were for the temple service; and the bath was the measure of oil, as the ephah was of wheat ^l; and they were both of the same quantity, Eze 45:11. According to Godwin ^m it held four gallons and a half; so that a hundred of them contained four hundred and fifty gallons; though some make the measure much larger. Some say the "bath" held six gallons, one pottle, and half a pint; and others, seven gallons, two quarts, and half a pint; and others, nine gallons, and three quarts.

Take thy bill, or "writing"; which showed the bargain made for so many measures; and which acknowledged the receipt of them, and promised payment:

and sit down quickly; for his case required haste;

and write fifty; just half; that it might appear he had bought but fifty, and was accountable for no more.

Gill: Luk 16:7

Then said he to another, and how much owest thou?.... To my Lord, as before:

and he said, an hundred measures of wheat, or "cors of wheat"; the same with "homers", Eze 45:14 the same quantity as in Ezr 7:22 where, as here, they are called an hundred measures of wheat; and were, as Jarchi on the place observes, למנחות, "for the meal, or flour offerings": according to the above writer ⁿ, this measure held five bushels, and five gallons; so that the whole was five hundred, sixty bushels, and a half: some make the measure to hold eight bushels and a half; and others, fourteen bushels and a pottle, which greatly increases the quantity.

And he said unto him, take thy bill and write fourscore. The Persic version reads "seventy". Inasmuch now as oil and wheat were things expended in the observance of the ceremonial law, and these men's debts lay in them, it may have regard to the deficiency of the Jews in those things: wherefore by "the bill" may be meant the law; and which is sometimes called by the same name as here, γραμμα, the "writing", or "letter", 2Co 3:6 and is so called, not merely because it was written in letters; but because it is a mere letter, showing only what is to be done and avoided, without giving strength to perform, or pointing where it is to be had; and it is so, as obeyed by an unregenerate man; and as abstracted from the spirituality of it; and as weak, and without efficacy, to quicken, justify, or sanctify: and whereas the steward, the Scribes and Pharisees, ordered the debtors to write a lesser sum; this may regard the lessening, and even laying aside of many things in the law, after the destruction of the temple; as particularly the daily sacrifice, and other things; see Dan 9:27 and the doctrine of the Pharisees was always a curtailing of the law, and making less of it than it was; as appears from the glosses they put upon it, refuted by our Lord in Mat 5:1. They compounded the matter with the people, as some men do now, and taught them, that an imperfect righteousness would do in the room of a perfect one: a doctrine very pleasing to men, and which never fails of gaining an access into the hearts and houses of carnal men; though very injurious to God, and to his divine perfections, particularly his justice and holiness; as the methods this steward took were unjust to his Lord, though very agreeable to his debtors, and were well calculated to answer the end he proposed, an after provision for himself. I am much indebted to a learned writer ^o, whose name is in the margin, for several thoughts and hints in the explanation of this parable; and also of that of the rich man and Lazarus, in the latter part of this chapter.

Gill: Luk 16:8

And the Lord commended the unjust steward,.... Not the Lord Jesus Christ, who delivered this parable, as the Syriac version seems to suggest, rendering it, "our Lord"; but the Lord of the steward, or "God", as the Ethiopic version reads: not that he commended him for the fact he did, or the injustice of it for this is contrary to his nature and perfections; but for his craft and cunning in providing himself a maintenance for time to come: for he is on that account branded as an "unjust steward", as he was, in wasting his Lord's goods; putting false glosses on the Scriptures; doing damage both to the souls and worldly estates of men: and in neglecting and despising lawful and honest ways of living, by digging or begging, asking favours at the hand of God, and doing good works; and in falsifying accounts; breaking the least of the commandments, and teaching men so to do; and in corrupting others, making proselytes twofold more the children of hell than himself; and in being liberal with another's property, to wrong objects, and for a wrong end. It was not therefore because he had done justly to his Lord, or right to others, that he is commended; but

became he had done wisely for himself: the wit, and not the goodness of the man is commended; which, in the language and sense of the Jews, may be thus expressed ^p:

"because a man, עושה טובה לעצמו, "does good" for himself with "mammon" which is not his own.''

For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light: by "the children of this world" may be meant the Israelites, who belonged to the Jewish nation and church, called the "world", and "this world", 1Co 10:11 especially the princes of it, the ecclesiastical doctors and rulers: and who also were the men of this present world; in general they were such who were, as they were born into the world; in their sins, in the pollution, and under the guilt of them; were carnal, in the flesh, or unregenerate, and in darkness and blindness: they were such as were not only in the world, but of it; they belonged to it, having never been called out of it; and were under the influence of the God of it; and were taken with the things of it, its riches, honours, and pleasures; and had their portion in it, and were of worldly spirits; all which agrees with the Scribes and Pharisees; see Psa 17:14 and Aben Ezra on it, who has the very phrase here used: איניס דעלמא, a "man of the world", is sometimes ^q distinguished from a scholar, or a wise man; but בני עלמא, "the children of the world", as they frequently intend the inhabitants of the world ^r, are sometimes distinguished from בן עלמא דאתי, "a son of the world to come" ^s; and from "the children of faith" ^t, the same as "the children of light" here; by whom are meant the children of the Gospel dispensation; or persons enlightened by the Spirit and grace of God, to see the sinfulness of sin, and their wretched state my nature; the insufficiency of their own righteousness to justify them before God; the way of life, righteousness, and salvation by Christ; who see that the several parts of salvation, and the whole, are of grace; have some light into the Scriptures of truth, and doctrines of the Gospel; and some glimpse of heaven, and the unseen glories of another world, though attended with much darkness in the present state: and who shall enjoy the light of glory. Now, the men of the world, or carnal men, are, generally speaking, wiser than these; not in things spiritual, but in things natural, in the affairs of life, in worldly matters. The phrase seems to answer to תולדות, "generations" used in Gen 6:9 "these are the generations of Noah", &c. and "the generations of Jacob"; by which are meant, not the genealogies of them, but their affairs; what befell them in life: as so the Jewish writers ^u explain the phrase by הקורות, "the things which happened" unto them in this world, in the course of their pilgrimage: or they are wise, εις την γενεαν την εαυτων, "for their own generation": for the temporal good of their posterity, than saints are for the spiritual good of theirs: or they are wiser for the time that is to come in this life, than good men are concerning themselves for the time to come in the other world: or they are wiser, and more prudent in disposing of their worldly substance for their own secular good, and that of their offspring, than men of spiritual light and knowledge are, in disposing of their worldly substance for the glory of God, the interest of Christ, the honour of religion, their own spiritual good, and that of their posterity.

Gill: Luk 16:9

And I say unto you,.... These are the words of Christ, as are also the latter part of the preceding verse, accommodating and applying the parable to his disciples, and for their instruction:

make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness: by "mammon" are designed riches, wealth, and substance; See Gill on Mat 6:24 and is called "mammon of unrighteousness", because such wealth is often unrighteously detained, and is not made use of to right and good purposes, by the owners of it; or because, generally speaking, it is possessed by unrighteous men; and, for the most part, used in an unrighteous manner, in luxury, pride and intemperance, and is the root, instrument, and means of such unrighteousness: or it maybe rendered "mammon of hurt", or "hurtful mammon"; as it often is to those who are over anxious and desirous of it, or other disuse or misuse of it: or, as best of all, "mammon of falsehood", or "deceitful mammon"; so in the Targum ^w, frequent mention is made of ממון דשקר, "mammon of falsity"; and stands opposed to "true riches" in Luk 16:10 for worldly riches are very empty and fallacious; wherefore deceitfulness is ascribed to them; and they are called uncertain riches, which are not to be depended upon. Mat 13:22 unless it should be rather thought that it is so called, because gotten in an unrighteous way; as it was by Zacchaeus, and might be by Matthew, one of the disciples, Christ now speaks to, and the publicans and sinners, who were lately become his followers, and whom he advises, as the highest piece of wisdom and prudence, to dispose of in such a manner, as of it to "make" themselves "friends"; not God, Father, Son, and Spirit. These indeed are friends to the saints, but they are not made so by money; reconciliation and redemption are not procured this way; nor is the favour of the judge to be got by such means; the only means of reconciliation, are the blood and death of Christ; though indeed acts of beneficence, rightly performed, are well pleasing to God: nor are the angels meant, who are very friendly to all good men; nor rich men, to whom riches are not to be given, Pro 22:16 but rather riches themselves, which, if not rightly used, and so made friends of, will cry, and be a witness against the owners of them, Jam 5:1 though it may be the poor saints are intended; who by their prayers are capable of doing either a great deal of hurt, or a great deal of good; and it is the interest of rich men to make them their friends:

that when ye fail: of money; or "that fails", as the Ethiopic version reads; or rather, when ye leave that, that is, when ye die; so in Jer 42:22 "know certainly that ye shall die"; the Septuagint renders it, εκλειψετε, "ye shall fall by the sword", &c.

they may receive you into everlasting habitations: the mansions of glory, which are many, and of an eternal duration: this is to be understood of their being received thither, not by the poor, to whom they have been benefactors; for though these may now pray for their reception to glory when they die, and will hereafter rejoice at their reception thither; yet they themselves will not be receivers of them, or their introducers into the everlasting tents, or tabernacles: nor are the angels intended, who carry the souls of the righteous into Abraham's bosom, and will gather the elect together at the last day; for not they, but God and Christ, receive the saints to glory: the words may be rendered impersonally, "you may be received"; in a way of welldoing, though not for it; mention is made of the "everlasting tabernacles", in

"Their glory also will I take unto me, and give these the everlasting tabernacles, which I had prepared for them.'' (2 Esdras 2:11)

and so the phrase may be rendered here, as opposed to the earthly and perishable tabernacles of the body 2Co 5:1

Gill: Luk 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least,.... In quantity and quality, especially the latter; in that which is of little value and worth, at least when compared with other things:

is faithful also in much: in matters of greater consequence and importance: the sense of the proverb is, that, generally speaking, a man that acts a faithful part in a small trust committed to him, does so likewise in a much larger; and being tried, and found faithful in things of less moment, he is intrusted with things of greater importance; though this is not always the case: for sometimes a man may behave with great integrity in lesser matters, on purpose that he might gain greater confidence, which, when he has obtained, he abuses in the vilest manner; but because it is usually otherwise, our Lord uses the common proverb; and of like sense is the following;

and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much: that man that acts the unfaithful part in a small matter, and of little worth, generally does the same, if a greater trust is committed to him.

Gill: Luk 16:11

If therefore ye have not been faithful,.... This is the application of the above proverbial expressions, and seems to be directed to the disciples of Christ, though not without a view to the covetous Scribes and Pharisees, who were in hearing of it, and were disturbed at it, Luk 16:14 and the meaning is, that whereas some of them might have been unfaithful, and have acted the unjust part of gathering of riches, as Matthew, and other publicans, that were now become the followers of Christ; if therefore they should be unfaithful

in the unrighteous mammon; in the disposing of it to improper uses, which was either unrighteously gotten, and therefore called, as it sometimes was, ממון דרשע, "mammon of ungodliness", or "ungodly mammon" ^x; or, which was fallacious, deceitful, vain, and transitory:

who will commit to your trust the true riches; or mammon? that is, how should you expect to be intrusted with the riches of grace, as the blessings and promises of the covenant of grace, the graces of the Spirit of God, which truly enrich persons, and are solid and durable? or the riches of glory, the better and more enduring substance in heaven, signified by a kingdom, and an inheritance that fadeth not away? so the Jews call the good things of another world, and say ^y, that

"all the good things of this world are not טובות אמתיות, "true good things", in comparison of the good things of the world to come.''

And they use the same distinction with respect to "mammon", as here:

"the holy, blessed God, they say ^z, gives him, ממון של אמת, "mammon of truth", or true mammon; and he makes it שקר, "false", or deceitful:''

or rather the rich treasure of the Gospel is meant, called a treasure in earthen vessels, and the unsearchable riches of Christ; and is comparable to, and of more worth than gold, silver, and precious stones. And so the Syriac version renders it, "who will trust you with the truth?" with the truth of the Gospel.

Gill: Luk 16:12

And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's,.... Which is not a man's own, but what is committed to him by another; בממון אחרים, "with the mammon of others ^a", to speak in the language of the Jews; and of mammon, our Lord is speaking, and here of another man's, of which they were only stewards, as he in the preceding parable was: hence we read ^b of שומרי ממון, "keepers of mammon", who were intrusted with another's substance; and such are here supposed, which, if unfaithful in,

who shall give you that which is your own? that is, should you unjustly detain, or make an ill use of another man's substance lodged in your hands, how can you expect but that you will be dealt with in like manner by others, who will not pay you yours, they have in their possession, but convert it to their own use? A like distinction of another's and a man's own, may be observed among the Jews:

"there are (say they ^c,) four sorts of men in respect of giving alms; he that would give, but would not have others give, his eye is evil, בשל אחרים, "in that which is other men's" (i.e. as the commentator observes ^d, lest the goods of others should be increased, and they get a good name); he that would that others should give, but he will not give himself, his eye is evil, בשלו, "in that which is his own"; he that gives, and would have others give, he is a "good man"; he that neither gives, nor would have others give, he is an "ungodly man";''

see Rom 5:7. Interpreters generally understand by "that which is another man's", in the first clause, the things of this world, which men are possessed of, because these are not of themselves, but from another, from God; and they are but stewards, rather than proprietors of them; and they are for the good of others, and not for themselves; and are not lasting, but in a little while will pass from them to others: and by "that which is your own", they understand the good things of grace and glory, which, when once bestowed on man, are his own property, and for his own use, and will never be alienated from him, but will always abide with him: but if he is unfaithful in the former, how should he expect the latter to be given to him?

Gill: Luk 16:13

No servant can serve two masters,.... See Gill on Mat 6:24.

Gill: Luk 16:14

And the Pharisees also who were covetous,.... Or lovers of money, the love of which is the root of all evil; and that they were, is evident from their devouring widows' houses, under a pretence of making long prayers for them, Mat 23:14

heard all these things; as well as the disciples, being in company with them, Luk 15:2 even the parable concerning the unjust steward, and the application of it; and the directions given about using the things of this world, and the distributing of them to the poor, and showing a greater concern for riches of an higher nature:

and they derided him: lift up their nose, or drew it out to him, as the word signifies, in a sneering way; they rejected and despised what he said about their injustice, in their stewardship; the calling of them to an account for it, and the turning of them out of it; and concerning the true use of worldly riches, and the contempt of them; they looked upon themselves safe and secure in the good opinion of the people, and happy in the enjoyment of worldly things; and looked upon him as a weak man, to talk in the manner he did.

Gill: Luk 16:15

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.

Gill: Luk 16:16

The law and the prophets were until John,.... Till the time that John the Baptist began his ministry; for till then, the law and the prophets, with the Hagiographa, or holy writings, for into these three parts the Jews divided the books of the Old Testament, were the only writings they had; and which contained the whole of the revelation granted to them; and which they wrested, and put false glosses on; and therefore it was no wonder that they derided Christ, and despised his ministry: and whereas spiritual things were promised in these writings, under the notion of temporal ones; which they not understanding, might imagine the doctrine of Christ, concerning the contempt of worldly riches, was contrary to: and since they valued themselves on having the law and the prophets, Christ observes, that

since that time, the kingdom of God is preached; the Gospel, and the mysteries of relating to the kingdom of the Messiah, his person, office, and grace; and to the kingdom of grace, which lies not in outward, but in inward and spiritual things; and to the kingdom of heaven, or glory hereafter; and which is a superior dispensation to that of the law and the prophets, and sets things in a clearer, plainer, and better light:

and every man presseth into it; the Gospel dispensation, the kingdom of the Messiah; "that he may enter into it", as the Syriac and Persic versions add; which the Scribes and Pharisees did all they could to hinder; see Mat 23:13 large multitudes crowded the ministry of John, of Christ, and of his apostles; the people flocked in great numbers to hear the word, and seemed disposed to embrace the doctrines of the Gospel, and the ordinances of it; they pressed on one another to hear it, and through many difficulties, discouragements, and obstacles, the Pharisees threw in their way; there was scarce a man but seemed very desirous of attending upon the preaching of it, and pressed hard for it; and with much force and violence, with great eagerness and endeavour broke his way to it; though a different sense is given by others reading the words, and "every one suffers violence to himself for it", as the Arabic version; or "is oppressed for it", as the Ethiopic; that is, suffers reproach, contradiction, and persecution, for the sake of hearing it.

Gill: Luk 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,.... This is said by Christ, lest it should be thought by his saying, that the law and the prophets were until John, that they were no longer, nor of any more use; but were now abrogated and laid aside; whereas heaven and earth might sooner pass away, and the whole frame of nature be dissolved:

than one tittle of the law to fail; which, and the prophets, in all the precepts, promises, types, figures, prophecies, &c. thereof, had their full accomplishment in the person, miracles, obedience, sufferings, and death of Christ; see Mat 5:18.

Gill: Luk 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife,.... For any other cause than for adultery, as the Jews used to do upon every trifling occasion, and for every little disgust: by which instance our Lord shows, how the Jews abused and depraved the law, and as much as in them lay, caused it to fail; and how he, on the other hand, was so far from destroying and making it of none effect, that he maintained the purity and spirituality of it; putting them in mind of what he had formerly said, and of many other things of the like kind along with it; how that if a man divorces his wife, for any thing else but the defiling his bed,

and marrieth another, committeth adultery: with her that he marries: because his marriage with the former still continues, and cannot be made void by, such a divorce:

and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband; the phrase "from her husband", is omitted in the Syriac and Persic versions:

committeth adultery; with her that he marries, because notwithstanding her husband's divorce of her, and his after marriage with her, she still remains his lawful and proper wife; See Gill on Mat 5:32. The Ethiopic version reads this last clause, quite different from all others, thus, "and whosoever puts away her husband, and joins to another, commits adultery", agreeably to See Gill on Mar 10:12.

Gill: Luk 16:19

There was a certain rich man,.... In Beza's most ancient copy, and in another manuscript of his it is read by way of preface, "he said also another parable": which shows, that this is not a history of matter of fact, or an historical account of two such persons, as the "rich" man and the beggar, who had lately lived at Jerusalem; though the Papists pretend, to this day, to point out the very spot of ground in Jerusalem, where this rich man's house stood: nor is it to be understood parabolically of any particular rich man, or prince; as Saul the first king of Israel; or Herod, who now was reigning, and was clothed in purple, and lived in a sumptuous manner: nor of rich men in general, though it greatly describes the characters of such, at least of many of them; who only take care of their bodies, and neglect their souls; adorn and pamper them, live in pleasure, and grow wanton, and have no regard to the poor saints; and when they die go to hell; for their riches will not profit them in a day of wrath, nor deliver from it, or be regarded by the Judge, any more than hills and mountains will hide them from his face: but by the rich man are meant, the Jews in general; for that this man is represented, and to be considered as a Jew, is evident from Abraham being his father, and his calling him so, and Abraham again calling him his son, Luk 16:24 of which relation the Jews much boasted and gloried in; and from his brethren having Moses and the prophets, Luk 16:29 which were peculiar to the Jewish people; and from that invincible and incurable infidelity in them, that they would not believe, though one rose from the dead, Luk 16:31 as the Jews would not believe in Christ though he himself rose from the dead, which was the sign he gave them of his being the Messiah: and the general design of the parable, is to expose the wickedness and unbelief of the Jews, and to show their danger and misery, for their contempt and rejection of the Messiah; and particularly the Pharisees are designed, who being covetous, had derided Christ for what he had before said; and, who though high in the esteem of men, were an abomination to God, Luk 16:14. These more especially boasted of Abraham being their father; and of their being the disciples of Moses, and trusted in him, and in his law; and thought they should have eternal life through having and reading the books of Moses and the prophets: these may be called "a man", because this was the name by which the Jews style themselves, in distinction from the Gentiles, whom they compare to beasts; See Gill on Mat 15:26 and this they ground on a passage in Eze 34:31 "and ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men": upon which their note is ^e,

"ye are called, אדם, "men", but the nations of the earth are not called men.''

And they may be called a "certain" man, a famous man, a man of note, as the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, thought themselves to be; and therefore coveted the chief places in the synagogues, and at feasts, and loved salutations and greetings in market places, and to be called of men Rabbi, and master: as also a "rich man"; for the Jews in general were a wealthy people, lived in a very fruitful country, and were greatly indulged with the riches of providential goodness; and particularly the Pharisees, many of whom were of the great sanhedrim, and rulers of synagogues, and elders of the people; and who by various methods, amassed to themselves great riches, and even devoured widows' houses; see Luk 6:24 and they were also rich in outward means and ordinances, having the oracles of God, his word, worship, and service; and as to their spiritual and eternal estate, in their own esteem; though they were not truly rich in grace, not in faith, nor in spiritual knowledge, nor even in good works, of which they so much boasted; but in appearance, and in their own conceit, they were rich in the knowledge of the law, and in righteousness, which they imagined was perfect, and so stood in need of nothing; no, not of repentance, and especially of Christ, or of any thing from him:

which was clothed in purple and fine linen; or "byssus", which is said to ^f grow on a tree, in height equal to a poplar, and in leaves like a willow, and was brought out of India into Egypt, and much used there, as it also was among the Jews: hence we often read ^g of בוצא or לבושין דבוץ "garments of byssus", or fine linen: the Jews in general dressed well; their common apparel were fine linen and silk; see Eze 16:10 and so the Arabic version here renders it, "silk and purple"; and the Persic version, "silks and bombycines": and the priests particularly, were arrayed in such a habit; the robe of the ephod, and also its curious girdle, were of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, and at the hem of it were pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet, Exo 28:6. And as for the Pharisees, they loved to go in long robes, and to make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, which were fringes of blue, joined unto them; and which may figuratively express the fine outside show of holiness and righteousness, they made;

and fared sumptuously every day. The Jews in common lived well, being in a land that flowed with milk and honey; see Eze 16:13 and especially the priests, who offered up lambs every day, besides other offerings, of which they had their part; as also the Pharisees, who were often at feasts, where they loved the chief places: and this may signify the easy and jocund life they lived; knowing no sorrow upon spiritual accounts, having no sense of sin, nor sight of the spirituality of the law, nor view of danger; but at perfect ease, and not emptied from vessel to vessel.

Gill: Luk 16:20

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,.... By whom is designed, not any particular beggar in the times of Christ, that went by this name; though there were such persons in Israel, and in the times of our Lord; as blind Bartimaeus, and others: nor David, in the times of Saul, who was poor and needy; and who sometimes wanted bread, and at a certain time went to Abimelech for some: nor the godly poor in common, though the heirs of the heavenly kingdom are, generally speaking, the poor of this world; these receive Christ and his Gospel, and have their evil things here, and their good things hereafter; they are now slighted and neglected by men, but shall hereafter have a place in Abraham's bosom, and be for ever with the Lord: nor are the Gentiles intended; though they may be said to be poor and helpless, as they were without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, and without hope and God in the world; and were despised and rejected by the Jews, and not suffered to come into their temple, and were called and treated as dogs; though, as the Syrophenician woman pleaded, the dogs might eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table; and who, upon the breaking down of the middle wall of partition, were called by grace, and drawn to Christ, and were blessed with faithful Abraham, and made to sit down with him in the kingdom of heaven: but our Lord Jesus Christ himself is here meant; as appears from the cause and occasion of this parable, which was the derision of Christ by the covetous Pharisees, who, though high in the esteem of men, were an abomination to God; and from the scope and design of it, which is to represent the mean and despicable condition of Christ in this world, whilst the Pharisees, his enemies, lived in great pomp and splendour; and the exaltation of Christ hereafter, when they would be in the utmost distress; and also the infidelity of that people, who continued in their unbelief, notwithstanding the resurrection of Christ from the dead: the name Lazarus well agrees with him. The Syriac version calls him "Loozar", as if it signified one that was helpless, that had no help, but wanted it, and so a fit name for a beggar; and well suits with Christ, who looked, and there was none to help, Isa 63:5 nor did he receive any help from men; though rather, the word is the contraction of Eleazar, and so the Ethiopic version reads it here; and it is easy to observe, that he who is called R. Eleazar in the Babylonian Talmud, is in the Jerusalem called, times without number, רב לעזר, R. Lazar ^h; and R. Liezer, is put for R. Eliezer: it is a rule given by one of the Jewish writers ⁱ, that

"in the Jerusalem Talmud, wherever R. Eleazar is written without an "aleph", R. Lazar ben Azariah is intended.''

And Christ may very well be called by this name; since this was the name of one of his types, Eleazer the son of Aaron, and one of his ancestors, who is mentioned in his genealogy, Mat 1:15 and especially as the name signifies, that the Lord was his helper: see Exo 18:4. Help was promised him by God, and he expected it, and firmly believed he should have it, and accordingly he had it: God did help him in a day of salvation: and which was no indication of weakness in him, who is the mighty God, and mighty to save; but of the Father's regard to him as man, and mediator; and of the concern that each of the divine persons had for, and in man's salvation: and on account of his circumstances of life, he might be called πτωχος, a "poor man", as he is in 2Co 8:9 and frequently in prophecy; see Psa 34:6 Zec 9:9 and though by assuming human nature, he did not cease to be God, or to lose the riches of his divine nature and perfections, yet his divine perfections, and the glory of them, were much hid and covered in his state of humiliation; and he was much the reverse of many of them in his human nature; in which he was exposed to much outward poverty and meanness: he was born of poor parents; had no liberal education; was brought up to a trade: had not a foot of ground to call his own, nor where to lay his head: and lived upon the ministrations of others to him; and when he died, had nothing to bequeath his mother, but left her to the care of a disciple: and he is further described, by his posture and situation,

which was laid at his gate; that is, at the "rich man's", as is expressed in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions: this was the place where beggars stood, or were laid, and asked alms; hence is that rule with the Jews ^k, and in many other places the following phrase;

"if a man dies and leaves sons and daughters---if he leaves but a small substance, the daughters shall be taken care of, and the sons, ישאלו על הפתחים, "shall beg at the gates."''

This denotes the rejection of Christ by the Jews; he came to them, and they received him not; he had no entrance into their hearts, and was admitted but into few of their houses; they put those that confessed him out of their synagogues; and caused him himself to depart out of some of their cities; they delivered him up unto the Gentiles that were without; and at last led him without the gate of Jerusalem, where he suffered:

full of sores; so Nahum Gamzu ^l is said to have his whole body, מלא שחין, "full of ulcers": sometimes the Jewish phrase, which answers to the word here used, is מוכה שחין, "one plagued with ulcers" ^m; and this by the commentators ⁿ, is explained of a "leprous" person; so one of the names of the Messiah is with the Jews ^o, חיוורא, which signifies "leprous", in proof of which, they produce Isa 53:4. "Surely he hath borne our griefs", &c. By these "sores" may be meant, sins; see Psa 38:5. Christ was holy and righteous in himself, in his nature, life, and conversation; he was without both original, and actual sins, yet he was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was reproached and calumniated by men as a sinner; and had really and actually all the sins of his people on him, by imputation; and was made even sin itself, for them; so that in this sense he might be said to be full of them, though in himself he was free from them: they may also intend the temptations of Satan, those fiery darts which were flung at him, and by which he suffered; as also the reproaches and persecutions of men, which attended him more or less, from the cradle to the cross; together with all his other sorrows and sufferings, being scourged, buffeted, and beaten, and wounded for our sins, and bruised for our transgressions; of which wounds and bruises he might be said to be full.

Gill: Luk 16:21

And desiring to be fed with the crumbs,.... The offal food, broken bread, fragments of meat: that food which falls from the knife, or plate, in eating, and from thence on the ground; and literally understood, may express the low condition Christ was in, in his human nature: he assumed a true body, like to ours, and partook of the same flesh and blood with us, and was liable to the same infirmities as ours, which are sinless; and among the rest, was subject to hunger and thirst, and was obliged to the ministration of others for a subsistence: and it may also express his contentment in such a condition; he never murmured at the providence of God, but was entirely, resigned to his will; he did not desire to live in fulness and affluence, but avoided and shunned every step that led unto it; nor did he envy the plenty of others, and was fully satisfied with his meanness; nor did he ever work a miracle for the sake of feeding himself. Moreover, the words being understood mystically, may design the elect of God among the Jews, who, like crumbs, were few in number, a seed, a remnant, according to the election of grace; there were but few among them that were chosen of God, and effectually called by his grace; and but a little flock to whom he gave the kingdom; and a small number, who entered in at the strait gate, and were saved; and these few were very mean and despicable for their outward poverty; for the poor had the Gospel preached to them, and they received it, when the rich, and the rulers of the people, rejected it: and they were like crumbs their small degree of worldly wisdom and knowledge, being babes, simple, and foolish, who followed Christ, while the learned, wise, and prudent despised him; and for their sinfulness and vileness, being, generally speaking, notorious sinners, publicans and harlots; and of these it may be said what follows,

which fell from the rich man's table; being originally of the Jews, but separated from them by the grace of God, and rejected by them with scorn and contempt. These Christ "desired"; see Son 7:10 his desire was towards them from everlasting, when he asked them of his Father, and they were given to him; and it was not only after their persons, but after their salvation, and that both in eternity and in time; and which he signified by various words and actions; and it is towards them, while in a state of unregeneracy, that they may be converted, and believe in him; and when they are called, he delights in the grace he puts in them, and in the righteousness he puts upon them; he takes pleasure in their company; he desires them for his habitation; he stands at the door and knocks for admission to them; and nothing is he more earnestly solicitous for, and eager after, than their being with him in glory to all eternity; and his end in all, "is to be fed" or "satisfied with them"; see Isa 53:11 he came into the world to gather these scattered crumbs and fragments together; it was his meat and drink, to work out their salvation; and it will be his highest joy and pleasure to present them to his Father, and himself, complete and perfect, and introduce them into his kingdom and glory: he will be fully satisfied in them, and they in him, when they shall awake in his likeness. Then will all Christ's desires, prayers, and intercessions, have their full accomplishment. The Vulgate Latin adds, "and no man gave to him"; which seems to be transcribed from Luk 15:16 and is not supported by any copy or version.

Moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores: by the dogs are meant not the Jews, though they are sometimes so called, and especially the Scribes and Pharisees, Psa 22:16 for these made his sores and wounds, or were the authors of his sorrows and sufferings; but rather the Gentiles, who were so called by the Jews; See Gill on Mat 15:26 because these creatures were unclean by the law, and had in the greatest contempt by the Jews; and for their barbarity, malice, and cruelty, Deu 23:18 as the Gentiles were by the Jews esteemed unclean and unfit, either for civil or religious conversation; and were treated as aliens by them; and were indeed in their Heathenish state, barbarous and inhuman, and lived in malice, hateful, and hating one another: these, some of them came to Christ in person, as the centurion, and Syrophenician woman, many of the Samaritans, who, with the Jews, were all one as Heathens, and several Grecians at the feast; and many of them also came to him by faith, through the ministry of his servants, under the influence of divine grace, and that according to various prophecies in the Old Testament, concerning the calling and gathering of the Gentiles to him: these embraced a crucified Christ; and fed upon the slain Lamb of God; eat his flesh, and drank his blood; stretched forth the hand of faith, and thrust it into his bleeding wounds; and lived by faith on him, who was wounded and bruised for their sins, and whose blood was shed for the remission of them.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Luk 16:1

¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn These are not formal legal charges, but reports from friends, acquaintances, etc.; Grk “A certain man was rich who had a manager, and this one was reported to him as wasting his property.”

³ sn His manager was the steward in charge of managing the house. He could have been a slave trained for the role.

⁴ tn Or “squandering.” This verb is graphic; it means to scatter (L&N 57.151).

NET Notes: Luk 16:2

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the result of the reports the man received about his manager.

² tn Grk “him”; the referent (the manager) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ sn Although phrased as a question, the charges were believed by the owner, as his dismissal of the manager implies.

⁴ tn Or “stewardship”; the Greek word οἰκονομία (oikonomia) is cognate with the noun for the manager (οἰκονόμος, oikonomo").

NET Notes: Luk 16:3

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events in the parable.

² tn Grk “the stewardship,” “the management.”

³ tn Here “dig” could refer (1) to excavation (“dig ditches,” L&N 19.55) or (2) to agricultural labor (“work the soil,” L&N 43.3). In either case this was labor performed by the uneducated, so it would be an insult as a job for a manager.

⁴ tn Grk “I do not have strength to dig; I am ashamed to beg.”

sn To beg would represent a real lowering of status for the manager, because many of those whom he had formerly collected debts from, he would now be forced to beg from.

NET Notes: Luk 16:4

¹ tn This is a dramatic use of the aorist and the verse is left unconnected to the previous verse by asyndeton, giving the impression of a sudden realization.

² sn Thinking ahead, the manager develops a plan to make people think kindly of him (welcome me into their homes).

NET Notes: Luk 16:5

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the result of the manager’s decision.

² tn Grk “summoning.” The participle προσκαλεσάμενος (proskalesameno") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

NET Notes: Luk 16:6

¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the first debtor) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² sn A measure (sometimes translated “bath”) was just over 8 gallons (about 30 liters). This is a large debt – about 875 gallons (3000 liters) of olive oil, worth 1000 denarii, over three year’s pay for a daily worker.

³ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the manager) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here δέ (de) has not been translated for stylistic reasons.

⁴ sn The bill was halved (sit down quickly, and write fifty). What was the steward doing? This is debated. 1) Did he simply lower the price? 2) Did he remove interest from the debt? 3) Did he remove his own commission? It is hard to be sure. Either of the latter two options is more likely. The goal was clear: The manager would be seen in a favorable light for bringing a deflationary trend to prices.

NET Notes: Luk 16:7

¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the second debtor) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here δέ (de) has not been translated for stylistic reasons.

² sn The hundred measures here was a hundreds cors. A cor was a Hebrew dry measure for grain, flour, etc., of between 10-12 bushels (about 390 liters). This was a huge amount of wheat, representing the yield of about 100 acres, a debt of between 2500-3000 denarii.

³ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the manager) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ sn The percentage of reduction may not be as great because of the change in material.

NET Notes: Luk 16:8

¹ tn Grk “And the.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

² sn Is the manager dishonest because of what he just did? Or is it a reference to what he had done earlier, described in v. 1? This is a difficult question, but it seems unlikely that the master, having fired the man for prior dishonesty, would now commend those same actions. It would also be unusual for Jesus to make that point of the story the example. Thus it is more likely the reference to dishonesty goes back to the earliest events, while the commendation is for the cleverness of the former manager reflected in vv. 5-7.

³ sn Where this parable ends is debated: Does it conclude with v. 7, after v. 8a, after v. 8b, or after v. 9? Verse 8a looks as if it is still part of the story, with its clear reference to the manager, while 8b looks like Jesus’ application, since its remarks are more general. So it is most likely the parable stops after v. 8a.

⁴ tn Grk “sons” (an idiom).

⁵ tn Grk “with their own generation.”

⁶ tn Grk “sons.” Here the phrase “sons of light” is a reference to the righteous. The point is that those of the world often think ahead about consequences better than the righteous do.

NET Notes: Luk 16:9

¹ tn Grk “unrighteous mammon.” Mammon is the Aramaic term for wealth or possessions. The point is not that money is inherently evil, but that it is often misused so that it is a means of evil; see 1 Tim 6:6-10, 17-19. The call is to be generous and kind in its use. Zacchaeus becomes the example of this in Luke’s Gospel (19:1-10).

² sn The passive refers to the welcome of heaven.

³ tn Grk “eternal tents” (as dwelling places).

NET Notes: Luk 16:10

¹ sn The point of the statement faithful in a very little is that character is shown in how little things are treated.

NET Notes: Luk 16:11

¹ tn Or “faithful.”

² tn Grk “the unrighteous mammon.” See the note on the phrase “worldly wealth” in v. 9.

³ sn Entrust you with the true riches is a reference to future service for God. The idea is like 1 Cor 9:11, except there the imagery is reversed.

NET Notes: Luk 16:12

¹ tn Or “faithful.”

² tn Grk “have not been faithful with what is another’s.”

³ tn Grk “what is your own.”

NET Notes: Luk 16:13

¹ sn The contrast between hate and love here is rhetorical. The point is that one will choose the favorite if a choice has to be made.

² tn Or “and treat [the other] with contempt.”

³ tn Grk “God and mammon.” This is the same word (μαμωνᾶς, mamwnas; often merely transliterated as “mammon”) translated “worldly wealth” in vv. 9, 11.

sn The term money is used to translate mammon, the Aramaic term for wealth or possessions. The point is not that money is inherently evil, but that it is often misused so that it is a means of evil; see 1 Tim 6:6-10, 17-19. God must be first, not money or possessions.

NET Notes: Luk 16:14

¹ sn See the note on Pharisees in 5:17.

² tn A figurative extension of the literal meaning “to turn one’s nose up at someone”; here “ridicule, sneer at, show contempt for” (L&N 33.409).

NET Notes: Luk 16:15

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “before men.” The contrast is between outward appearance (“in people’s eyes”) and inward reality (“God knows your hearts”). Here the Greek term ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") is used twice in a generic sense, referring to both men and women, but “men” has been retained in the text to provide a strong verbal contrast with “God” in the second half of the verse.

⁴ tn Or “exalted.” This refers to the pride that often comes with money and position.

⁵ tn Or “is an abomination,” “is abhorrent” (L&N 25.187).

NET Notes: Luk 16:16

¹ tn There is no verb in the Greek text; one must be supplied. Some translations (NASB, NIV) supply “proclaimed” based on the parallelism with the proclamation of the kingdom. The transitional nature of this verse, however, seems to call for something more like “in effect” (NRSV) or, as used here, “in force.” Further, Greek generally can omit one of two kinds of verbs – either the equative verb or one that is already mentioned in the preceding context (ExSyn 39).

² sn John refers to John the Baptist.

³ sn Until John; since then. This verse indicates a shift in era, from law to kingdom.

⁴ sn The kingdom of God is a major theme of Jesus. It is a realm in which Jesus rules and to which those who trust him belong. See Luke 6:20; 11:20; 17:20-21.

⁵ tn Many translations have “entereth violently into it” (ASV) or “is forcing his way into it” (NASB, NIV). This is not true of everyone. It is better to read the verb here as passive rather than middle, and in a softened sense of “be urged.” See Gen 33:11; Judg 13:15-16; 19:7; 2 Sam 3:25, 27 in the LXX. This fits the context well because it agrees with Jesus’ attempt to persuade his opponents to respond morally. For further discussion and details, see D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1352-53.

NET Notes: Luk 16:17

¹ tn Or “one small part of a letter” (L&N 33.37).

² tn Grk “to fall”; that is, “to drop out of the text.” Jesus’ point may be that the law is going to reach its goal without fail, in that the era of the promised kingdom comes.

NET Notes: Luk 16:18

¹ sn The examples of marriage and divorce show that the ethical standards of the new era are still faithful to promises made in the presence of God. To contribute to the breakup of a marriage, which involved a vow before God, is to commit adultery. This works whether one gets a divorce or marries a person who is divorced, thus finalizing the breakup of the marriage. Jesus’ point concerns the need for fidelity and ethical integrity in the new era.

NET Notes: Luk 16:19

¹ sn Purple describes a fine, expensive dye used on luxurious clothing, and by metonymy, refers to clothing colored with that dye. It pictures someone of great wealth.

² tn Or “celebrated with ostentation” (L&N 88.255), that is, with showing off. Here was the original conspicuous consumer.

NET Notes: Luk 16:20

¹ tn The passive verb ἐβέβλητο (ebeblhto) does not indicate how Lazarus got there. Cf. BDAG 163 s.v. βάλλω 1.b, “he lay before the door”; Josephus, Ant. 9.10.2 (9.209).

² sn This is the one time in all the gospels that a figure in a parable is mentioned by name. It will become important later in the account.

³ tn Or “was covered with ulcers.” The words “whose body” are implied in the context (L&N 23.180).

NET Notes: Luk 16:21

¹ tn Grk “to eat his fill,” but this phrase has been simplified as “to eat” for stylistic reasons.

² tn The term κύνες (kunes) refers to “wild” dogs (either “street” dogs or watchdogs), not house pets (L&N 4.34).

³ sn When the dogs came and licked his sores it meant that he was unclean. See the negative image of Rev 22:15 that draws on this picture.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:1

And he said also unto his disciples, ^{( 1 )} There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

^{( 1 )} Seeing that men often purchase friendship for themselves at the expense of others, we are to be ashamed if we do not please the Lord or procure the good will of our neighbours with the goods which the Lord has bestowed on us freely and liberally, making sure that by this means riches, which are often occasions of sin, are used for another end and purpose.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:8

And the lord commended ^{( a )} the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the ^{( b )} children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

^{( a )} This parable does not approve the steward's evil dealing, for it was definitely theft: but parables are set forth to show a thing in a secret way, and as it were, to present the truth by means of an allegory, even though it may not be exact: so that by this parable Christ means to teach us that worldly men are more clever in the affairs of this world than the children of God are diligent for everlasting life.

^{( b )} Men that are given to this present life, contrary to whom are the children of light: Paul calls the former carnal and the latter spiritual.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:9

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon ^{( c )} of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting ^{( d )} habitations.

^{( c )} This is not spoken of goods that are gotten wrongly, for God will have our bountifulness to the poor proceed and come from a good fountain: but he calls those things riches of iniquity which men use wickedly.

^{( d )} That is, the poor Christians: for they are the inheritors of these habitations; Theophylact.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:10

^{( 2 )} He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

^{( 2 )} We ought to take heed that we do not abuse our earthly work and duty and so be deprived of heavenly gifts: for how can they properly use spiritual gifts who abuse worldly things?

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:11

If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the ^{( c )} true [riches]?

^{( c )} That is, heavenly and true riches, which are contrary to material wealth which is worldly and quickly departing.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:12

And if ye have not been faithful in that which is ^{( f )} another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?

^{( f )} In worldly goods, which are called other men's because they are not ours, but rather entrusted to our care.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:13

^{( 3 )} No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

^{( 3 )} No man can love God and riches simultaneously.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:15

^{( 4 )} 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.

^{( 4 )} Our sins are not hidden to God, although they may be hidden to men, yea although they may be hidden to those who committed them.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:16

^{( 5 )} The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

^{( 5 )} The Pharisees despised the excellency of the new covenant with respect to the old, being ignorant of the perfect righteousness of the law; and Christ declares by the seventh commandment how they were false expounders of the law.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her ^{( g )} that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

^{( g )} They that gather by this passage that a man cannot be married again after he has divorced his wife for adultery, while she lives, reason incorrectly: for Christ speaks of those divorces which the Jews had which were not because of adultery, for adulterers were put to death by the law.

Geneva Bible: Luk 16:19

^{( 6 )} There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in ^{( h )} purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

^{( 6 )} The end of the poverty and misery of the godly will be everlasting joy, as the end of riotous living and the cruel pride of the rich will be everlasting misery, without any hope of mercy.

^{( h )} Very gorgeously and sumptuously, for purple garments were costly, and this fine linen, which was a kind of linen that came out of Achaia, was as precious as gold.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Luk 16:1-31

1 The parable of the unjust steward.

14 Christ reproves the hypocrisy of the covetous Pharisees.

19 The parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

Maclaren: Luk 16:8

The Follies Of The Wise

The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.'--Luke 16:8.

THE parable of which these words are the close is remarkable in that it proposes a piece of deliberate roguery as, in some sort, a pattern for Christian people. The steward's conduct was neither more nor less than rascality, and yet, says Christ, Do like that!'

The explanation is to be found mainly in the consideration that what was faithless sacrifice of his master's interests, on the part of the steward, is, in regard to the Christian man's use of earthly gifts, the right employment of the possessions which have been entrusted to him. But there is another vindication of the singular selection of such conduct as an example, in the consideration that what is praised is not the dishonesty, but the foresight, realisation of the facts of the ease, promptitude, wisdom of various kinds exhibited by the steward. And so says our Lord--shutting out the consideration of ends, and looking only for a moment at means,--the world can teach the Church a great many lessons; and it would be well for the Church if its members lived in the fashion in which the men of the world do. There is eulogium here, a recognition of splendid qualities, prostituted to low purposes; a recognition of wisdom in the adaptation of means to an end; and a limitation of the recognition, because it is only in their generation that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light.'

I. So We May Look, First, At These Two Classes, Which Our Lord Opposes Here To One Another.

The children of this world' would have, for their natural antithesis, the children of another world. The children of light' would have, for their natural antithesis, the children of darkness.' But our Lord so orders His words as to suggest a double antithesis, one member of which has to be supplied in each case, and He would teach us that whoever the children of this world may be, they are children of darkness ; and that the children of light' are so, just because they are the children of another world than this. Thus He limits His praise, because it is the sons of darkness that, in a certain sense, are wiser than the enlightened ones. And that is what makes the wonder and the inconsistency to which our Lord is pointing. We can understand a man being a consistent, thorough-paced fool all through. But men whose folly is so dashed and streaked with wisdom, and others whose wisdom is so spotted and blurred with folly, are the extraordinary paradoxes which experience of life presents to us.

The children of this world are of darkness; the children of light are the children of another world. Now I need not spend more than a sentence or two in further explaining these two antitheses. I do not intend to vindicate them, or to vindicate our Lord's distinct classification of men into these two halves. What does He mean by the children of this world? The old Hebrew idiom, the children of so-and-so, simply suggests persons who are so fully possessed and saturated with a given quality, or who belong so entirely to a given person, as that they are spoken of as if they stood to it, or to him, in the relation of children to their parents. And a child of this world is a man whose whole thoughts, aims, and objects of life are limited and conditioned by this material present. But the word which is employed here, translated rightly enough world,' is not the same as that which is often used, especially in John's writings, for the same idea. Although it conveys a similar idea, still it is different. The characteristic quality of the visible and material world which is set forth by the expression here employed is its transiency. The children of this epoch' rather than of this world' is the meaning of the phrase. And it suggests, not so much the inadequacy of the material to satisfy the spiritual, as the absurdity of a man fixing his hopes and limiting his aims and life-purpose within the bounds of what is destined to fade and perish. Fleeting wealth, fleeting honours, mortal loves, wisdom, and studies that pass away with the passing away of the material; these, however elevating some of them may be, however sweet some of them may be, however needful all of them are in their places, are not the things to which a man can safely lash his being, or entrust his happiness, or wisely devote his life. And therefore the men who, ignoring the fact that they live and the world passes, make themselves its slaves, and itself their object, are convicted by the very fact of the disproportion between the duration of themselves and of that which is their aim, of being children of the darkness.

Then we come to the other antithesis. The children of light are so in the measure in which their lives are not dependent exclusively upon, nor directed solely towards, the present order and condition of things. If there be a this, then there is a that. If there be an age which is qualified as being present, then that implies that there is an age or epoch which is yet to come. And that coming age' should regulate the whole of our relations to that age which at present is. For life is continuous, and the coming epoch is the outcome of the present. As truly as the child is father of the man,' so truly is Eternity the offspring of Time, and that which we are to-day determines that which we shall be through the ages. He that recognises the relations of the present and the future, who sees the small, limited things of the moment running out into the dim eternity beyond, and the track unbroken across the gulfs of death and the broad expanse of countless years, and who therefore orders the little things here so as to secure the great things yonder, he, and only he, who has made time the lackey to eternity,' and in his pursuit of the things seen and temporal, regards them always in the light of things unseen and eternal, is a child of light.

II. The Second Consideration Suggested Here Is The Limited And Relative Wisdom Of The Fools.

The children of this world, who are the children of darkness, and who at bottom are thoroughly unwise, considered relatively, are wiser than the children of light.' The steward is the example. A rogue is always'--as one of our thinkers puts it--a roundabout fool.' He would have been a much wiser man if he had been an honester one; and, instead of tampering with his lord's goods, had faithfully administered them.

But, shutting out the consideration of the moral quality of his action, look how much there was in it that was wise, prudent, and worthy of praise. There were courage, fertility of resource, a clear insight into what was the right thing to do. There was a wise adaptation of means to an end. There was promptitude in carrying out the wise means that suggested themselves to him. The design was bad. Granted. We are not talking about goodness, but about cleverness. So, very significantly, in the parable the person cheated cannot help saying that the cheat was a clever one. The lord,' although he had suffered by it, commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely.'

Did you never know in Manchester some piece of sharp practice, about which people said, A h, well, he is a clever fellow,' and all but condoned the immorality for the sake of the smartness? The lord and the steward belong to the same level of character; and vulpine sagacity, astuteness, and qualities which ensure success in material things seem to both of them to be of the highest value. The children of this world, in their generation '--but only in it--are wiser than the children of light.'

Now I draw a very simple, practical lesson, and it is just this, that if Christian men, in their Christian lives, would practise the virtues that the world practises, in pursuit of its shabby aims and ends, their whole Christian character would be revolutionised. Why, a boy will spend more pains in learning to whistle than half of you do in trying to cultivate your Christian character. The secret of success religiously is precisely the same as the secret of success in ordinary things. Look at the splendid qualities that go to the making of a successful housebreaker. Audacity, resource, secrecy, promptitude, persistence, skill of hand, and a hundred others, are put into play before a man can break into your back kitchen and steal your goods. Look at the qualities that go to the making of a successful amuser of people. Men will spend endless time and pains, and devote concentration, persistence, self-denial, diligence, to learning how to play upon some instrument, how to swing upon a trapeze, how to twist themselves into abnormal contortions. Jugglers and fiddlers, and circus-riders and dancers, and people of that sort spend far more time upon efforts to perfect themselves in their profession, than ninety-nine out of every hundred professing Christians do to make themselves true followers of Jesus Christ. They know that nothing is to be got without working for it, and there is nothing to be got in the Christian life without working for it any more than in any other.

Shut out the end for a moment, and look at the means. From the ranks of criminals, of amusers, and of the purely worldly men of business that we come in contact with every day, we may get lessons that ought to bring a blush to all our cheeks, when we think to ourselves how a wealth of intellectual and moral qualities and virtues, such as we do not bring to bear on our Christian lives, are by these men employed in regard of their infinitely smaller pursuits.

Oh, brethren! we ought to be our own rebukes, for it is not only other people who show forth in other fields of life the virtues that would make so much better Christians of us, if we used them in ours, but that we ourselves carry within ourselves the condemning contrast. Look at your daily life! Do you give anything like the effort to grow in the knowledge of your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, that you do to make or maintain your position in the world? When you are working side by side with the children of this world for the same objects, you keep step with them, and are known to be diligent in business as they are. When you pass into the church, what do you do there? Are we not ice in one half of our lives' and fire in the other? We may well lay to heart these solemn words of our Lord, and take shame when we think that not only do the unwise, who choose the world as their portion, put us to shame in their self-denial, their earnestness, their absorption, their clear insight into facts, their swiftness in availing themselves of every opportunity, their persistence and their perseverance, but that we rebuke ourselves because of the difference between the earnestness with which we follow the things that are of this world, and the languor of our pursuit after the things that are unseen and eternal.

Of course the reasons for the contrast are easy enough to apprehend, and I do not need to spend time upon them. The objects that so have power to stimulate and to lash men into energy, continuously through their lives, lie at hand, and a candle near will dim the sunshine beyond. These objects appeal to sense, and such make a deeper impression than things that are shown to the mind, as every picture-book may prove to us. And we, in regard to the aims of our Christian life, have to make a continual effort to bring and keep them before us, or they are crowded out by the intrusive vulgarities and dazzling brilliances of the present. And so it comes to pass that the men who hunt after trifles that are to perish set examples to the men who say that they are pursuing eternal realities. Go to the ant, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise.' Go to the men of the world, thou Christian, and do not let it be said that the devil's scholars are more studious and earnest than Christ's disciples.

III. Lastly, Note The Conclusive Folly Of The Partially Wise.

In their generation,' says Christ; and that is all that can be said. The circle runs round its 360 degrees, and these people take a segment of it, say forty-five degrees, and all the rest is as non-existent. If I am to call a man a wise man out and out, there are two things that I shall have to be satisfied about concerning him. The one is, what is he aiming at? and the other, how does he aim at it? In regard to the means, the men of the world bear the bell, and carry away the supremacy. Let in the thought of the end, and things change. Two questions reduce all the world's wisdom to stark, staring insanity. The first question is, What are you doing it for?' And the second question is,' And suppose you get it, what then?' Nothing that cannot pass the barrier of these two questions satisfactorily is other than madness, if taken to be the aim of a man's life. You have to look at the end, and the whole circumference of the circle of the human being, before you serve out the epithets of wise' and' foolish.'

I need not dwell on the manifest folly of men who give their lives to aims and ends of which I have already said that they are disproportioned to the capacity of the pursuer. Look at yourselves, brothers; these hearts of yours that need an infinite love for their satisfaction, these active spirits of yours that can never be at rest in creatural perfection; these troubled consciences of yours that stir and moan inarticulately over unperceived wounds until they are healed by Christ. How can any man with a heart and a will, and a progressive spirit and intellect, find what he needs in anything beneath the stars? Whose image and superscription hath it? They say unto Him, Caesar's'; we say' God's.' Render unto God the things that are God's.' The man who makes anything but God his end and aim is relatively wise and absolutely foolish.

Let me remind you too, that the same sentence of folly passes, if we consider the disproportion between the duration of the objects and of him who makes them his aim. You live, and if you are a wise man, your treasures will be of the kind that last as long as you. They call their lands after their own name; they think that their houses shall continue for ever. They go down into the dust. Their glory shall not descend after them,' and, therefore, this, their way, is their folly.'

Brethren, all that I would say may be gathered into two words. Let there be a proportion between your aims and your capacity. That signifies, let God be your end. And let there be a correspondence between your end and your means. That signifies, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind.' Or else, when everything comes to be squared up and settled, the epitaph on your gravestone will deservedly be: Thou fool!'

Maclaren: Luk 16:10-12

Two Kinds Of Riches

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? '--Luke 16:10-12.

THAT is a very strange parable which precedes my text, in which our Lord takes a piece of crafty dishonesty on the part of a steward who had been embezzling his lord's money as in some sense an example for us Christian people. There are other instances in which He does the same thing, finding a soul of goodness in things evil, as, for instance, in the parable of the Unjust Judge. Similar is the New Testament treatment of war or slavery, both of which diabolical things are taken as illustrations of what in the highest sphere are noble and heavenly things.

But having delivered the parable, our Lord seems, in the verses that I have read, to anticipate the objection that the unfaithfulness of the steward can never be an example for God's stewards; and in the words before us, amongst other things, He says substantially this, that whilst the steward's using his lord's wealth in order to help his lord's debtors was a piece of knavery and unfaithfulness, in us it is not unfaithfulness, but the very acme of faithfulness. In the text we have the thought that there are two kinds of valuable things in the world, a lower and a higher; that men may be very rich in regard to the one, and very poor in regard to the other. In respect to these, There is that maketh himself rich, and yet hath nothing; there is that maketh himself poor, and yet hath great riches.' More than that, the noblest use of the lower kind of possessions is to secure the possession of the highest. And so He teaches us the meaning of life, and of all that we have.

Now, there are three things in these words to which I would turn your attention--the two classes of treasure, the contrast of qualities between these two, and the noblest use of the lower.

I. The Two Classes Of Treasure.

Now, we shall make a great mistake if we narrow down the interpretation of that word mammon' in the context (which is that which is least,' etc., here) to be merely money. It covers the whole ground of all possible external and material possessions, whatsoever things a man can only have in outward seeming, whatsoever things belong only to the region of sense and the present. All that is in the world, in fact, is included in the one name. And you must widen out your thoughts of what is referred to here in this prolonged contrast which our Lord runs between the two sets of treasures, so as to include, not only money, but all sorts of things that belong to this sensuous and temporal scene. And, on the other hand, there stands opposite to it, as included in, and meant by, that which is most,' that which is the true riches,' that which is your own'; everything that holds of the unseen and spiritual, whether it be treasures of intellect and lofty thought, or whether it be pure and noble aims, or whether it be ideals of any kind, the ideals of art, the aspirations of science, the lofty aims of the scholar and the student--all these are included. And the very same standard of excellence which declares that the treasures of a cultivated intellect, of a pure mind, of a lofty purpose, are higher than the utmost of material good, and that wisdom is better than rubies,' the very same standard, when applied in another direction, declares that above the treasures of the intellect and the taste are to be ranked all the mystical and great blessings which are summoned up in that mighty word salvation. And we must take a step further, for neither the treasures of the intellect, the mind, and the heart, nor the treasures of the spiritual life which salvation implies, can be realised and reached unless a man possesses God. So in the deepest analysis, and in the truest understanding of these two contrasted classes of wealth you have but the old antithesis: the world--and God. He that has God is rich, however poor he may be in reference to the other category; and he that has Him not is poor, however rich he may be. The lines are fallen to me in pleasant places,' says the Psalmist; and I have a goodly heritage,' because he could also say, God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever.' So there is the antithesis, the things of time and sense, the whole mass of them knit together on the one hand; the single God alone by Himself on the other. Of these two classes of valuable things our Lord goes on next to tell us the relative worth. For we have here,

II. The Contrast Between The Two.

That contrast is threefold, as you observe, that which is least,' or, perhaps better,' that which is very little,' and that which is much.' That is a contrast in reference to degree. But degree is a shallow word, which does not cover the whole ground, nor go down to the depths. So our Lord comes next to a contrast in regard to essential nature, the unrighteous mammon' and the true riches.' But even these contrasts in degree and in kind do not exhaust all the contrasts possible, for there is another, the contrast in reference to the reality of our possession: that which is another's'; that which is your own.' Let us, then, take these three things, the contrast in degree, the contrast in kind, the contrast in regard to real possession.

First, then, and briefly, mental and spiritual and inward blessings, salvation, God, are more than all externals. Our Lord gathers all the conceivable treasures of earth, jewels and gold and dignities, and scenes of sensuous delights, and everything that holds to the visible and the temporal, and piles them into one scale, and then He puts into the other the one name, God; and the pompous nothings fly up and are nought, and have no weight at all. Is that not true? Does it need any demonstration, any more talk about it? No!

But then comes in sense and appeals to us, and says, You cannot get beyond my judgment. These things are good.' Jesus Christ does not say that they are not, but sense regards them as far better than they are. They are near us, and a very small object near us, by the laws of perspective, shuts out a mightier one beyond us. We in Manchester live in a community which is largely based on, and actuated and motived in its diligence by the lie that material good is better than spiritual good, that it is better to be a rich man and a successful merchant than to be a poor and humble and honest student; that it is better to have a balance at your bankers than to have great and pure and virginal thoughts in a clean heart; that a man has done better for himself when he has made a fortune than when he has God in his heart. And so we need, and God knows it was never more needed in Manchester than to-day, that we should preach and preach and preach, over and over again, this old-fashioned threadbare truth, which is so threadbare and certain that it has lost its power over the lives of many of us, that all that, at its mightiest, is very little, and that this, at its least, is very much. Dear brethren, you and I know how hard it is always, especially how hard it is in business lives, to keep this as our practical working faith. We say we believe, and then we go away and live as if we believed the opposite. I beseech you listen to the scale laid down by Him who knew all things in their measure and degree, and let us settle it in our souls, and live as if we had settled it, that it is better to be wise and good than to be rich and prosperous, and that God is more than a universe of worlds, if we have Him for our own.

But to talk about a contrast in degree degrades the reality, for it is no matter of difference of measurement, but it is a matter of difference of kind. And so our Lord goes on to a deeper phase of the contrast, when He pits against one another the unrighteous mammon' and the true riches.' Now, there is some difficulty in that contrast. The two significant terms do not seem to be precise opposites, and possibly they are not intended to be logically accurate counterparts of each other. But what is meant by the unrighteous mammon'? I do not suppose that the ordinary explanation of that verse is quite adequate. We usually suppose that by so stigmatising the material good, He means to suggest how hard it is to get it--and you all know that--and how hard it is to keep it, and how hard it is to administer it, without in some measure falling into the sin of unrighteousness. But whilst I dare say that may be the signification intended, if we were to require that the word here should be a full and correct antithesis to the other phrase, the true riches,' we should need to suppose that unrighteous' here meant that which falsely pretended to be what it was not. And so we come to the contrast between the deceitfulness of earthly good and the substantial reality of the heavenly. Will any fortune, even though it goes into seven figures, save a man from the miseries, the sorrows, the ills that flesh is heir to? Does a great estate make a man feel less desolate when he stands by his wife's coffin? Will any wealth minister to a mind diseased'? Will a mountain of material good calm and satisfy a man's soul? You see faces just as discontented, looking out of carriage windows, as you meet in the street. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.' There is no proportion between abundance of external good of any kind and happy hearts. We all know that the man who is rich is not happier than the poor man. And I, for my part, believe that the raw material of happiness is very equally distributed through the world, and that it is altogether a hallucination by which a poor man thinks, If I were wealthy like that other man, how different my life would be.' No, it would not; you would be the same man. The rich man that fancies that because he is rich he is better off,' as they say, than his poor brother, and the poor man who thinks that he would be better off' if he were richer than he is now, are the same man turned inside out, so to speak; and common to both of them is that fallacy, that wealth and material good contribute much to the real blessedness and nobleness of the man who happens to own it.

But then, perhaps, we have rather to regard this unrighteous mammon as so designated from another point of view. You will remember that all through the context our Lord has been insisting on the notion of stewardship. And I take it that what He means here is to remind us that whenever we claim any of our possessions, especially our external ones, as our own, we thereby are guilty of defrauding both God and man, and are unrighteous, and it is unrighteous thereby. Stewardship is a word which describes our relation to all that we have. Forget that, and then whatever you have becomes the unrighteous mammon.' There is the point in which Christ's teaching joins hands with a great deal of unchristian teaching in this present day which is called Socialism and Communism. Christianity is not communistic. It asserts as against other men your right of property, but it limits that right by this, that if you interpret your right of property to mean the right to do what you like with your own,' ignoring your stewardship to God, and the right of your fellows to share in what you have, then you are an unfaithful steward, and your mammon is unrighteous. And that principle, the true communism of Christianity, has to be worked into modern society in a way that some of us do not dream of, before modern society win be organised on Christian principles. These words of my text are no toothless words which are merely intended to urge Christian people on to a sentimental charity, and to a niggardly distribution of part of their possessions: but they underlie the whole conception of ownership, as the New Testament sets it forth. Wherever the stewardship that we owe to God, and the participation that we owe to men, are neglected in regard to anything that we have, there God's good gifts are perverted and have become unrighteous mammon.'

And, then, on the other hand, our Lord sets forth here the contrast in regard to' the true riches,' which are such, inasmuch as they really correspond to the idea of wealth being a true good to a man, and making him rich to all the intents of bliss. He that has the treasures of a pure mind, of a lofty aim, of a quiet conscience, of a filled and satisfied and therefore calmed heart; he that has the treasure of salvation; he that has the boundless wealth of God--he has the bullion, while the poor rich people that have the material good have the scrip of an insolvent company, which is worth no more than the paper on which it is written. There are two currencies--one solid metal, the other worthless paper. The one is true riches,' and the other the unrighteous mammon.'

Then there is a last contrast, and that is with regard to the reality of our possession. On the one hand, that which I fondly call my own is by our Lord stamped with the proprietor's mark, of somebody else, that which is Another's.' It was His before He gave it, it was His when He gave it, it is His after He has given it. My name is never to be written on my property so as to erase the name of the Owner. I am a steward; I am a trustee; it all belongs to Him. That is one rendering of this word. But the phrase may perhaps point in another direction. It may suggest how shadowy and unreal, as being merely external, and how transitory is our ownership of wealth and outward possessions. A man says, It is mine.' What does he mean by that? It is not his own in any real sense. I get more good out of a rich man's pictures, or estate, if I look at them with an eye that loves them, than he does. The world belongs to the man that can enjoy it and rightly use it. And the man that enjoys it and uses it aright is the man who lives in God. Nothing is really yours except that which has entered into the substance of your soul, and become incorporated with your very being, so that, as in wool dyed in the grain, the colour will never come out. What I am, that I have, what I only have, that, in the deepest sense, I have not. Shrouds have no pockets,' says the Spanish proverb. His glory will not descend after him,' says the psalm. That is a poor possession which only is outward whilst it lasts, and which ends so soon. But there is wealth that comes into me. There are riches that cannot be parted from me. I can make my own a great inheritance, which is wrought into the very substance of my being, and will continue so inwrought, into whatsoever worlds or states of existence any future may carry me. So, and only so, is anything my own. Let these contrasts dominate our lives.

I see our space is gone; I must make this sermon a fragment, and leave what I intended to have made the last part of it for possible future consideration. Only let me press upon you in one closing word this, that the durable riches are only found in God, and the riches that can be found in God are brought to every one of us by Him' in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' of goodness and grace. If we will make ourselves poor, by consciousness of our need, and turn with faith to Jesus, then we shall receive from Him those riches which are greatest, which are true, which are our own in that they pass into our very being, in that they were destined for us from all eternity by the love of God; and in having them we shall be rich indeed, and for ever.

Maclaren: Luk 16:12

The Gains Of The Faithful Steward

If ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?'--Luke 16:12.

IN a recent sermon on this context I dealt mainly with the threefold comparison which our Lord runs between the higher and the lower kind of riches. The one is stigmatised as that which is least,' the unrighteous mammon," that which is another's'; whilst the higher is magnified as being that which is most,' the true riches," your own.' What are these two classes? On the one hand stand all possessions which, in and after possession, remain outside of a man, which may survive whilst he perishes, or perish while he survives. On the other hand are the riches which pass into him, and become inseparable from him. Noble aims, high aspirations, pure thoughts, treasures of wisdom, treasures of goodness--these are the real wealth corresponding to man's nature, destined for his enrichment, and to last with him for ever. But we may gather the whole contrast into two words: the small, the unrighteous,' the wealth which being mine is not mine but remains another's, and foreign to me, is the world. The great riches, the true riches,' the good destined for me, and for which I am destined, is God. In these two words you have the antithesis, the real antithesis, God versus the world.

Now let us turn rather to the principle which our Lord here lays down, in reference to these two classes of good, or of possessions. He tells us that the faithful use of the world helps us to the possession of God; or, to put it into other words, that how we handle money and what money can buy, has a great deal to do with our religious enjoyment and our religious life, and that that is true, both in regard to our partial possession of God here and now, and to our perfect possession of Him in the world to come.

Now I wish to say one or two very plain things about this matter, and I hope that you will not turn away from them because they are familiar and trite. Considering how much of your lives, especially as regards men of business, is taken up with money, its acquisition, its retention, its distribution, there are few things that have more to do with the vigour or feebleness of your Christian life than the way in which you handle these perishable things.

I wish to say a word or two, first, about,

I. What Our Lord Means By This Faithfulness To Which He Attaches Such Tremendous Issues.

Now, you will remember, that the starting point of my text is that parable of the unjust steward, whose conduct, knavish as it was, is in some sense presented by our Lord to His disciples, and to us, as a pattern. But my text, and the other two verses which are parallel with it, seem to have amongst their other purposes thisverse to put in a caveat against supposing that it is the unfaithfulness of the steward which is recommended for our imitation. And so the first point that is suggested in regard to this matter of faithfulness about the handling of outward good is that we have to take care that it is rightly acquired, for though the unjust steward was commended for the prudent use that he made of dishonestly acquired gain, it is the prudent use, and not the manner of the acquisition which we are to take as our examples. Initial unfaithfulness in acquisition is not condoned or covered over by any pious and benevolent use hereafter. Mediaeval barons left money for masses. Plenty of Protestants do exactly the same thing. Brewers will build cathedrals, and found picture galleries, and men that have made their money foully will fancy that they atone for that by leaving it for some charitable purpose. The caustic but true wit of a Scottish judge said about a great bequest which was supposed to be--whether rightly or wrongly, I know not--of that sort, that it was' the heaviest fire insurance premium that had been paid in the memory of man.' The money does not stink,' said the Roman Emperor, about the proceeds of an unsavoury tax. But the money unfaithfully won does stink when it is thrown into God's treasury. The price of a dog shall not come into the sanctuary of the Lord.' Do not think that money doubtfully won is consecrated by being piously spent.

But there are more things than that here, for our Lord sums up the whole of a Christian man's duties in regard to the use of this external world and all its good, in that one word faithful,' which implies discharge of responsibility, recognition of obligation, the continual consciousness that we are not proprietors but stewards. Unless we carry that consciousness with us into all the phases of our connection with perishable goods they become as I shall have to show you in a moment,--hindrances instead of helps to our possession of God.

I am not going to talk revolutionary socialism, or anything of that sort, but I am bound to reiterate my own solemn conviction that until, practically as well as theoretically, the Christian Church in all its branches brings into its creed, and brings out in its practice, the great thought of stewardship, especially in regard to material and external good, but also in regard to the durable riches of salvation, the nations will be full of unrest, and thunder-clouds heavily boding storm and destruction will lower on the horizon. What we have, we have that we may impart; what we have in all forms of having, we have because we have received. We are distributing centres, that is all--I was going to say like a nozzle, perforated with many holes, at the end of the spout of a watering-can. That is a Christian man's relation to his possessions. We are stewards. It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.'

Now let me ask you to notice--

II. The Bearing Of This Faithfulness In Regard To The Lower Wealth On Our Possession Of The Higher.

Jesus says in this context, twice over, that faithfulness with regard to the former is the condition of our being entrusted with the latter. Now, remember, by way of illustration of this thought, what all this outward world of goodness and beauty is mainly meant for. What? It is all but scaffolding by which, and within the area of which, the building may arise. The meaning of the world is to make character. All that we have, aye! and all that we do, and the whole of the events and circumstances with which we come in contact here on earth, are then lifted to their noblest function, and are then understood in their deepest meaning when we look upon them as we do upon the leaping-poles and bars and swings of a gymnasium,--as meant to develop thews and muscles, and make men of us. That is what they are here for, and that is what we are here for. Not enjoyment, and not sorrow, except in so far as these two are powers in developing character, not plunging ourselves in the enjoyments of sense. Wealth and poverty, gain and loss, love gratified and love marred, possessions sweet, when preserved, and possessions that become sweeter by being removed; all these are simply meant as whetstones on which the keen blade may be sharpened, as forces against which, trying ourselves, our deftness and strength may be increased. They are all meant to make us men, and if we faithfully use these externals with a recognition of their source, with a wise estimate of their subordination so as that our desires shall not cleave to them solely, and with a fixed determination to use them as ministers to make ourselves nobler, wiser, stronger, liker to God and His Christ, then the world will minister to our possession of God, and being faithful in that which is least,' we shall thereby be more capable of receiving that which is greatest. But if, on the other hand, we so forget our true wealth, and become so besotted and absorbed in our adhesion to, and our desires after, fleeting good, then the capacities that were noble will fade and shrivel, being unused; aims and purposes that were elevated and pure will die out unsatisfied; windows in our souls which commanded a wide, glorious prospect will gradually be bricked up; burdens which hinder our running will be piled upon our backs, and the world will have conquered us, whilst we are dreaming that we have conquered the world. You look at a sea anemone in a pool on the rocks when the tide is out, all its tendrils outstretched, and its cavity wide open. Some little bit of seaweed, or some morsel of half-putrefying matter, comes in contact with it, and instantly every tentacle is retracted, and the lips are tightly closed, so that you could not push a bristle in. And when your tentacles draw themselves in to clutch the little portion of worldly good, of whatever sort it is, that has come into your hold, there is no room to get God in there, and being unfaithful in that which is least' you have made it impossible that you should possess that which is most.' Ah! there are some of us that were far better Christians long ago, when we were poorer men, than we are to-day, and there are some of us that know what it is to have the heart so filled with baser liquors that there is no room for the ethereal nectar. If the world has filled my soul, where is God to dwell?

There is another way in which we may look at this matter. I have said that the main use of these perishable and fragmentary good things around us is to develop character, by our administration of them. Another way of putting the same thought is that their main use is to show us God. If we faithfully use the lesser good it will become transparent, and reveal to us the greater. We hear a great deal about deepening the spiritual life by prayers, and conventions, and Bible readings and the like. I have no word to say except in full sympathy with all such. But I do believe that the best means, the most powerful means, by which the great bulk of Christian men could deepen their spiritual lives would be a more honest and thoroughgoing attempt to' be faithful in that which is least.' We have so much to do with it necessarily, that few, if any, things have more power in shaping our whole characters than our manner of administering the wealth, the material good, that comes to our hands.

And so, dear brethren, I beseech you remember that the laws of perspective are such as that a minute thing near at hand shuts out the vision of a mighty thing far off, and a hillock by my side will hide the Himalayas at a distance, and a sovereign may block out God; and that which is least' has the diabolical power of seeming greater to us than, and of obscuring our vision of, that which is most.'

May I remind you that all these thoughts about the bearing of faithfulness in administering the lower of our possessions, on the attainment of higher, apply to us whatever be the amount of these outward goods that we have? I suppose there were not twelve poorer men in all Palestine that day than the twelve to whom my text was originally addressed. Three of them had left their nets and their fishing-boats, one of them we know had left his counting-house, as a publican, and all his receipts and taxes behind him. What they had we know not, but at all events they were the poor of this world. Do not any of you that happen to be modestly or poorly off think that my sermon is a sermon for rich men. It is not what we have, but how we handle it, that is in question. The cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches,' were bracketed together by Jesus Christ as the things that choke the word,' and make it unfruitful. The poor man who wants, and the rich man who uses unfaithfully, are alike hit by the words of my text.

Now, further, let me ask you to look at,

III. The Bearing Of Faithfulness In This Life On The Fuller Possession Of Our True Riches in the life hereafter.

There lies under this whole context a striking conception of life here in its relation to the life hereafter. A father sets his son, or a master sets his apprentice, to some small task, an experiment made upon a comparatively worthless body, supplies him with material which it does not much matter whether he spoils or not, and then if by practice the hand becomes deft, he is set to better work. God sets us to try our prentice hands here in the world, and if we administer that rightly, not necessarily perfectly, but so as to show that there are the makings of a good workman in us by His gracious help, then the next life comes, with its ampler margin, with its wider possibilities, with its nobler powers, and there we are set to use in loftier fashion the powers which we made our own being here. Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things.'

I have said that the great use of the world and all its wealth is to make character. I have said that, that character determines our capacity for the possession of God. I have said that our administration of worldly wealth is one chief factor in determining our character. Now I say that that character persists. There are great changes, changes the significance and the scope and the consequences of which we can never know here. But the man remains, in the main direction of his being, in the character which he has made for himself by his use of God's world and of Christ's Spirit. And so the Hay in which we handle the trivialities and temporalities here has eternal consequences. We sit in a low room with the telegraph instrument in front of us, and we click off our messages, and they are recorded away yonder, and we shall have to read them one day. Transient causes produce permanent effects. The seas which laid down the great sandstone deposits that make so large a portion of the framework of this world have long since evaporated. But the footprints of the seabird that stalked across the moist sand, and the little pits made by the raindrops that fell countless millenniums ago on the red ooze, are there yet, and you may see them in our museums. And so our faithfulness, or our unfaithfulness, here has made the character which is eternal, and on which will depend whether we shall, in the joys of that future life, possess God in fullness, or whether we shall lose Him, as our portion and our Friend.

Now, dear brethren, do not forget that all this that I have been saying is the second page in Christ's teaching; and the first page is an entirely different one. I have been saying that we make character, and that character determines our possession of God and His grace. But there is another thing to be said. The central thought of Christ's gospel is that God, in His sweetness, in His pardoning mercy, in His cleansing Spirit, is given to the very men whose characters do not deserve it. And the same Lord who said, If ye have not been faithful in that which is least, who shall give you that which is greatest?' says also from the heavens,' I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich.' My text, and the principle that is involved in it, do not contradict the great truth that we are saved by simple faith, however unworthy we are. That is the message to begin with. And unless you have received it you are not standing in the place where the message that I have been insisting upon has a personal bearing on you. But if you have taken Christ for your salvation, remember, Christian brother and sister, that it is not the same thing in regard either to your Christian life on earth, or to your heavenly glory, whether you have been living faithfully as stewards in your handling of earth's perishable good, or whether you have clung to it as your real portion, have used it selfishly, and by it have hidden God from your hearts. To Christian men is addressed the charge that we trust not in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, and that we be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, that we lay up in store for ourselves a good foundation against the time to come'; and so lay hold on the life that is life indeed.'

Maclaren: Luk 16:19-31

Dives And Lazarus

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21. And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22. And 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 buried; 23. And in" hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24. And 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. 25. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28. For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them lest they also come into this place of torment. 29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'--Luke 16:19-31.

THIS, the sternest of Christ's parables, must be closely connected with verses 13 and 14. Keeping them in view, its true purpose is plain. It is meant to rebuke, not the possession of wealth, but its heartless, selfish use. Christ never treats outward conditions as having the power of determining either character or destiny. What a man does with his conditions settles what he is and what becomes of him. Nor does the parable teach that the use of wealth is the only determining factor, but, as every parable must do, it has to isolate the lesson it teaches in order to burn it into the hearers.

There are three parts in the story--the conduct of the rich man, his fate, and the sufficiency of existing warnings to keep us from his sin and his end.

I. Properly Speaking, We Have Here, Not A Parable,

That is, a representation of physical facts which have to be translated into moral or religious truths--but an imaginary narrative, embodying a normal fact in a single case. The rich man does not stand for something else, but is one of the class of which Jesus wishes to set forth the sin and fate. It is very striking that neither he nor the beggar is represented as acting, but each is simply described. The juxtaposition of the two figures carries the whole lesson.

It has sometimes been felt as a difficulty that the one is not said to have done anything bad, nor the other to have been devout or good; and some hasty readers have thought that Jesus was here teaching the communistic doctrine that wealth is sin, and that poverty is virtue. No such crude trash came from His lips. But He does teach that heartless wallowing in luxury, with naked, starving beggars at the gate, is sin which brings bitter retribution. The fact that the rich man does nothing is His condemnation. He was not damned because he had a purple robe and fine linen undergarments, nor because he had lived in abundance, and every meal had been a festival, but because, while so living, he utterly ignored Lazarus, and used his wealth only for his own gratification. Nothing more needs to be said about his character; the facts sufficiently show it.

Still less needs to be said about that of Lazarus. In this part of the narrative he comes into view simply as the means of bringing out the rich man's heartlessness and self-indulgence. For the purposes of the narrative his disposition was immaterial; for it is not our duty to help only deserving or good people. Manhood and misery are enough to establish the right to sympathy and succour. There may be a hint of character in the name Lazarus,' which probably means God is help.' Since this is the, only name in the parables, it is natural to give it significance, and it most likely suggests that the beggar clung to God as his stay. It may glance, too, at the riddle of life, which often seems to mock trust by continued trouble. Little outward sign had Lazarus of divine help, yet he did not cast away his confidence. No doubt, he sometimes got some crumbs from Dives' table, but not from Dives. That the dogs licked his sores does not seem meant as either alleviation or aggravation, but simply as vividly describing his passive helplessness and utterly neglected condition. Neither he nor any one drove them off.

But the main point about him is that he was at Dives' gate, and therefore thrust before Dives' notice, and that he got no help. The rich man was not bound to go and hunt for poor people, but here was one pushed under his nose, as it were. Translate that into general expressions, and it means that we all have opportunities of beneficence laid in our paths, and that our guilt is heavy if we neglect these. The poor ye have always with you.' The guilt of selfish use of worldly possessions is equally great whatever is the amount of possessions. Doing nothing when Lazarus lies at our gate is doing great wickedness. These truths have a sharp edge for us as well as for the Pharisees who were covetous'; and they are wofully forgotten by professing Christians.

II. In The Second Part Of The Narrative, Our Lord Follows The Two,

Who had been so near each other and yet so separated, into the land beyond the grave. It is to be especially noticed that, in doing so, He adopts the familiar Rabbinical teaching as to Hades. He does not thereby stamp these conceptions of the state of the dead with His assent; for the purpose of the narrative is not to reveal the secrets of that land, but to impress the truth of retribution for the sin in question. It would not be to a group of Pharisaic listeners that He would have unveiled that world.

He takes their own notions of it--angel bearers, Abraham's bosom, the two divisions in Hades, the separation, and yet communication, between them. These are Rabbis' fancies, not Christ's revelations. The truths which He wished to force home lie in the highly imaginative conversation between the rich man and Abraham, which also has its likeness in many a Rabbinical legend.

The difference between the ends of the two men has been often noticed, and lessons, perhaps not altogether warranted, drawn from it. But it seems right to suppose that the omission of any notice of the beggar's burial is meant to bring out that the neglect and pitilessness, which had let him die, left his corpse unburied. Perhaps the dogs that had licked his sores tore his flesh. A fine sight that would be from the rich man's door! The latter had to die too, for all his purple, and to be swathed in less gorgeous robes. His funeral is mentioned, not only because pomp and ostentation went as far as they could with him, but to suggest that he had to leave them all behind. His glory shall not descend after him.'

The terrible picture of the rich man's torments solemnly warns us of the necessary end of a selfish life such as his. The soul that lives to itself does not find satisfaction even here; but, when all externals are left behind, it cannot but be in torture. That is not drapery. Character makes destiny, and to live to self is death. Observe, too, that the relative positions of Dives and Lazarus are reversed--the beggar being now the possessor of abundance and delights, while the rich man is the sufferer and the needy.

Further note that the latter now desires to have from the former the very help which in life he had not given him, and that the retribution for refusing succour here is its denial hereafter. There had been no sharing of good things" in the past life, but the rich man had asserted his exclusive rights to them. They had been thy good things' in a very sinful sense, and Lazarus had been left to carry his evil things alone. There shall be no communication of good now. Earth was the place for mutual help and impartation. That world affords no scope for it; for there men reap what they have sown, and each character has to bear its own burden.

Finally, the ineffaceableness of distinctions of character, and therefore of destiny, is set forth by the solemn image of the great gulf which cannot be crossed. It is indeed to be remembered that our Lord is speaking of' the intermediate state,' before resurrection and final judgment, and that, as already remarked, the intention of the narrative is not to reveal the mysteries of the final state. But still the impression left by the whole is that life here determines life hereafter, and that character, once set and hardened here, cannot be cast into the melting-pot and remoulded there.

III. The Last Part Of The Narrative Teaches That The Fatal Sin Of Heartless Selfishness Is Inexcusable.

The rich man's thought for his brethren was quite as much an excuse for himself. He thought that, if he had only known, things would have been different. He shifts blame from himself on to the insufficiency of the warnings given him. And the two answers put into Abraham's mouth teach the sufficiency of Moses and the prophets,' little as these say about the future, and the impossibility of compelling men to listen to a divine message to which they do not wish to listen.

The fault lies, not in the deficiency of the warnings, but in the aversion of the will. No matter whether it is Moses or a spirit from Hades who speaks, if men do not wish to hear, they will not hear. They will not be persuaded--for persuasion has as much, or more, to do with the heart and inclination than with the head. We have as much witness from heaven as we need. The worst man knows more of duty than the best man does. Dives is in torments because he lived for self; and he lived for self, not because he did not know that it was wrong, but because he did not choose to do what he knew to be right.

MHCC: Luk 16:1-12

Whatever we have, the property of it is God's; we have only the use of it, according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. This steward wasted his lord's goods. And we are all liable to the same charge; we have not made due improvement of what God has trusted us with. The steward cannot deny it; he must make up his accounts, and be gone. This may teach us that death will come, and deprive us of the opportunities we now have. The steward will make friends of his lord's debtors or tenants, by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord. The lord referred to in this parable commended not the fraud, but the policy of the steward. In that respect alone is it so noticed. Worldly men, in the choice of their object, are foolish; but in their activity, and perseverance, they are often wiser than believers. The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object. The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence.

MHCC: Luk 16:13-18

To this parable our Lord added a solemn warning. Ye cannot serve God and the world, so divided are the two interests. When our Lord spoke thus, the covetous Pharisees treated his instructions with contempt. But he warned them, that what they contended for as the law, was a wresting of its meaning: this our Lord showed in a case respecting divorce. There are many covetous sticklers for the forms of godliness, who are the bitterest enemies to its power, and try to set others against the truth.

MHCC: Luk 16:19-31

Here the spiritual things are represented, in a description of the different state of good and bad, in this world and in the other. We are not told that the rich man got his estate by fraud, or oppression; but Christ shows, that a man may have a great deal of the wealth, pomp, and pleasure of this world, yet perish for ever under God's wrath and curse. The sin of this rich man was his providing for himself only. Here is a godly man, and one that will hereafter be happy for ever, in the depth of adversity and distress. It is often the lot of some of the dearest of God's saints and servants to be greatly afflicted in this world. We are not told that the rich man did him any harm, but we do not find that he had any care for him. Here is the different condition of this godly poor man, and this wicked rich man, at and after death. The rich man in hell lifted up his eyes, being in torment. It is not probable that there are discourses between glorified saints and damned sinners, but this dialogue shows the hopeless misery and fruitless desires, to which condemned spirits are brought. There is a day coming, when those who now hate and despise the people of God, would gladly receive kindness from them. But the damned in hell shall not have the least abatement of their torment. Sinners are now called upon to remember; but they do not, they will not, they find ways to avoid it. As wicked people have good things only in this life, and at death are for ever separated from all good, so godly people have evil things only in this life, and at death they are for ever put from them. In this world, blessed be God, there is no gulf between a state of nature and grace, we may pass from sin to God; but if we die in our sins, there is no coming out. The rich man had five brethren, and would have them stopped in their sinful course; their coming to that place of torment, would make his misery the worse, who had helped to show them the way thither. How many would now desire to recall or to undo what they have written or done! Those who would make the rich man's praying to Abraham justify praying to saints departed, go far to seek for proofs, when the mistake of a damned sinner is all they can find for an example. And surely there is no encouragement to follow the example, when all his prayers were made in vain. A messenger from the dead could say no more than what is said in the Scriptures. The same strength of corruption that breaks through the convictions of the written word, would triumph over a witness from the dead. Let us seek to the law and to the testimony, Isa 8:19, Isa 8:20, for that is the sure word of prophecy, upon which we may rest, 2Pe 1:19. Circumstances in every age show that no terrors, or arguments, can give true repentance without the special grace of God renewing the sinner's heart.

Matthew Henry: Luk 16:1-18

We mistake if we imagine that the design of Christ's doctrine and holy religion was either to amuse us with notions of divine mysteries or to entertain us with notions of divine mercies. No, the divine revelation of both these in the gospel is intended to engage and quicken us to the practice of Christian duties, and, as much as any one thing, to the duty of beneficence and doing good to those who stand in need of any thing that either we have or can do for them. This our Saviour is here pressing us to, by reminding us that we are but stewards of the manifold grace of God; and since we have in divers instances been unfaithful, and have forfeited the favour of our Lord, it is our wisdom to think how we may, some other way, make what we have in the world turn to a good account. Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord, but that, in the general, we must so lay out what we have in works of piety and charity as that we may meet it again with comfort on the other side death and the grave. If we would act wisely, we must be diligent and industrious to employ our riches in the acts of piety and charity, in order to promote our future and eternal welfare, as worldly men are in laying them out to the greatest temporal profit, in making to themselves friends with them, and securing other secular interests. So Dr. Clarke. Now let us consider,

I. The parable itself, in which all the children of men are represented as stewards of what they have in this world, and we are but stewards. Whatever we have, the property of it is God's; we have only the use of it, and that according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. Rabbi Kimchi, quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, says, "This world is a house; heaven the roof; the stars the lights; the earth, with its fruits, a table spread; the Master of the house is the holy and blessed God; man is the steward, into whose hands the goods of this house are delivered; if he behave himself well, he shall find favour in the eyes of his Lord; if not, he shall be turned out of his stewardship."Now,

1. Here is the dishonesty of this steward. He wasted his lord's goods, embezzled them, misapplied them, or through carelessness suffered them to be lost and damaged; and for this he was accused to his lord, Luk 16:1. We are all liable to the same charge. We have not made a due improvement of what God has entrusted us with in this world, but have perverted his purpose; and, that we may not be for this judged of our Lord, it concerns us to judge ourselves.

2. His discharge out of his place. His lord called for him, and said, " How is it that I hear this of thee? I expected better things from thee."He speaks as one sorry to find himself disappointed in him, and under a necessity of dismissing him from his service: it troubles him to hear it; but the steward cannot deny it, and therefore there is no remedy, he must make up his accounts; and be gone in a little time, Luk 16:2. Now this is designed to teach us, (1.) That we must all of us shortly be discharged from our stewardship in this world; we must not always enjoy those things which we now enjoy. Death will come, and dismiss us from our stewardship, will deprive us of the abilities and opportunities we now have of doing good, and others will come in our places and have the same. (2.) That our discharge from our stewardship at death is just, and what we have deserved, for we have wasted our Lord's goods, and thereby forfeited our trust, so that we cannot complain of any wrong done us. (3.) That when our stewardship is taken from us we must give an account of it to our Lord: After death the judgment. We are fairly warned both of our discharge and our account, and ought to be frequently thinking of them.

3. His after-wisdom. Now he began to consider, What shall I do? Luk 16:3. He would have done well to have considered this before he had so foolishly thrown himself out of a good place by his unfaithfulness; but it is better to consider late than never. Note, Since we have all received notice that we must shortly be turned out of our stewardship, we are concerned to consider what we shall do then. He must live; which way shall he have a livelihood? (1.) He knows that he has not such a degree of industry in him as to get his living by work: " I cannot dig; I cannot earn by bread by my labour."But why can he not dig? It does not appear that he is either old or lame; but the truth is, he is lazy. His cannot is a will not; it is not a natural but a moral disability that he labours under; if his master, when he turned him out of the stewardship, had continued him in his service as a labourer, and set a task-master over him, he would have made him dig. He cannot dig, for he was never used to it. Now this intimates that we cannot get a livelihood for our souls by any labour for this world, nor indeed do any thing to purpose for our souls by any ability of our own. (2.) He knows that he has not such a degree of humility as to get his bread by begging: To beg I am ashamed. This was the language of his pride, as the former of his slothfulness. Those whom God, in his providence, has disabled to help themselves, should not be ashamed to ask relief of others. This steward had more reason to be ashamed of cheating his master than of begging his bread. (3.) He therefore determines to make friends of his lord's debtors, or his tenants that were behind with their rent, and had given notes under their hands for it: " I am resolved what to do, Luk 16:4. My lord turns me out of his house. I have none of my own to go to. I am acquainted with my lord's tenants, have done them many a good turn, and now I will do them one more, which will so oblige them that they will bid me welcome to their houses, and the best entertainment they afford; and so long as I live, at least till I can better dispose of myself, I will quarter upon them, and go from one good house to another."Now the way he would take to make them his friends was by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord, and giving it in his accounts so much less than it was. Accordingly, he sent for one, who owed his lord a hundred measures of oil (in that commodity he paid his rent): Take thy bill, said he, here it is, and sit down quickly, and write fifty (Luk 16:6); so he reduced his debt to the one half. Observe, he was in haste to have it done: " Sit down quickly, and do it, lest we be taken treating, and suspected."He took another, who owed his lord a hundred measures of wheat, and from his bill he cut off a fifth part, and bade him write fourscore (Luk 16:7); probably he did the like by others, abating more or less according as he expected kindness from them. See here what uncertain things our worldly possessions are; they are most so to those who have most of them, who devolve upon others all the care concerning them, and so put it into their power to cheat them, because they will not trouble themselves to see with their own eyes. See also what treachery is to be found even among those in whom trust is reposed. How hard is it to find one that confidence can be reposed in! Let God be true, but every man a liar. Though this steward is turned out for dealing dishonestly, yet still he does so. So rare is it for men to mend of a fault, though they smart for it.

4. The approbation of this: The lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely, Luk 16:8. It may be meant of his lord, the lord of that servant, who, though he could not but be angry at his knavery, yet was pleased with his ingenuity and policy for himself; but, taking it so, the latter part of the verse must be the words of our Lord, and therefore I think the whole is meant of him. Christ did, as it were, say, "Now commend me to such a man as this, that knows how to do well for himself, how to improve a present opportunity, and how to provide for a future necessity."He does not commend him because he had done falsely to his master, but because he had done wisely for himself. Yet perhaps herein he did well for his master too, and but justly with the tenants. He knew what hard bargains he had set them, so that they could not pay their rent, but, having been screwed up by his rigour, were thrown behindhand, and they and their families were likely to go to ruin; in consideration of this, he now, at going off, did as he ought to do both in justice and charity, not only easing them of part of their arrears, but abating their rent for the future. How much owest thou? may mean, "What rent dost thou sit upon? Come, I will set thee an easier bargain, and yet no easier than what thou oughtest to have."He had been all for his lord, but now he begins to consider the tenants, that he might have their favour when he had lost his lord's. The abating of their rent would be a lasting kindness, and more likely to engage them than abating their arrears only. Now this forecast of his, for a comfortable subsistence in this world, shames our improvidence for another world: The children of this world, who choose and have their portions in it, are wiser for their generation, act more considerately, and better consult their worldly interest and advantage, than the children of light, who enjoy the gospel, in their generation, that is, in the concerns of their souls and eternity. Note, (1.) The wisdom of worldly people in the concerns of this world is to be imitated by us in the concerns of our souls: it is their principle to improve their opportunities, to do that first which is most needful, in summer and harvest to lay up for winter, to take a good bargain when it is offered them, to trust the faithful and not the false. O that we were thus wise in our spiritual affairs! (2.) The children of light are commonly outdone by the children of this world. Not that the children of this world are truly wise; it is only in their generation. But in that they are wiser than the children of light in theirs; for, though we are told that we must shortly be turned out of our stewardship, yet we do not provide as we were to be here always and as if there were not another life after this, and are not so solicitous as this steward was to provide for hereafter. Though as children of the light, that light to which life and immortality are brought by the gospel, we cannot but see another world before us, yet we do not prepare for it, do not send our best effects and best affections thither, as we should.

II. The application of this parable, and the inferences drawn from it (Luk 16:9): " I say unto you, you my disciples"(for to them this parable is directed, Luk 16:1), "though you have but little in this world, consider how you may do good with that little."Observe,

1. What it is that our Lord Jesus here exhorts us to; to provide for our comfortable reception to the happiness of another world, by making good use of our possessions and enjoyments in this world: " Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, as the steward with his lord's goods made his lord's tenants his friends."It is the wisdom of the men of this world so to manage their money as that they may have the benefit of it hereafter, and not for the present only; therefore they put it out to interest, buy land with it, put it into this or the other fund. Now we should learn of them to make use of our money so as that we may be the better for it hereafter in another world, as they do in hopes to be the better for it hereafter in this world; so cast it upon the waters as that we may find it again after many days, Ecc 11:1. And in our case, though whatever we have are our Lord's goods, yet, as long as we dispose of them among our Lord's tenants and for their advantage, it is so far from being reckoned a wrong to our Lord, that it is a duty to him as well as policy for ourselves. Note, (1.) The things of this world are the mammon of unrighteousness, or the false mammon, not only because often got by fraud and unrighteousness, but because those who trust to it for satisfaction and happiness will certainly be deceived; for riches are perishing things, and will disappoint those that raise their expectations from them. (2.) Though this mammon of unrighteousness is not to be trusted to for a happiness, yet it may and must be made use of in subserviency to our pursuit of that which is our happiness. Though we cannot find true satisfaction in it, yet we may make to ourselves friends with it, not by way of purchase or merit, but recommendation; so we may make God and Christ our friends, the good angels and saints our friends, and the poor our friends; and it is a desirable thing to be befriended in the account and state to come. (3.) At death we must all fail, hotan eklipēte - when ye suffer an eclipse. Death eclipses us. A tradesman is said to fail when he becomes a bankrupt. We must all thus fail shortly; death shuts up the shop, seals up the hand. Our comforts and enjoyments on earth will all fail us; flesh and heart fail. (4.) It ought to be our great concern to make it sure to ourselves, that when we fail at death we may be received into everlasting habitations in heaven. The habitations in heaven are everlasting, not made with hands, but eternal, 2Co 5:1. Christ is gone before, to prepare a place for those that are his, and is there ready to receive them; the bosom of Abraham is ready to receive them, and, when a guard of angels carries them thither, a choir of angels is ready to receive them there. The poor saints that are gone before to glory will receive those that in this world distributed to their necessities. (5.) This is a good reason why we should use what we have in the world for the honour of God and the good of our brethren, that thus we may with them lay up in store a good bond, a good security, a good foundation for the time to come, for an eternity to come. See 1Ti 6:17-19, which explains this here.

2. With what arguments he presses this exhortation to abound in works of piety and charity.

(1.) If we do not make a right use of the gifts of God's providence, how can we expect from him those present and future comforts which are the gifts of his spiritual grace? Our Saviour here compares these, and shows that though our faithful use of the things of this world cannot be thought to merit any favour at the hand of God, yet our unfaithfulness in the use of them may be justly reckoned a forfeiture of that grace which is necessary to bring us to glory, and that is it which our Saviour here shows, Luk 16:10-14.

[1.] The riches of this world are the less; grace and glory are the greater. Now if we be unfaithful in the less, if we use the things of this world to other purposes than those for which they were given us, it may justly be feared that we should be so in the gifts of God's grace, that we should receive them also in vain, and therefore they will be denied us: He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. He that serves God, and does good, with his money, will serve God, and do good, with the more noble and valuable talents of wisdom and grace, and spiritual gifts, and the earnests of heaven; but he that buries the one talent of this world's wealth will never improve the five talents of spiritual riches. God withholds his grace from covetous worldly people more than we are aware of. [2.] The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain; they are the unrighteous mammon, which is hastening from us apace, and, if we would make any advantage of it, we must bestir ourselves quickly; if we do not, how can we expect to be entrusted with spiritual riches, which are the only true riches? Luk 16:11. Let us be convinced of this, that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich towards God, rich in Christ, in the promises, and in the earnests of heaven; and therefore let us lay up our treasure in them, expect our portion from them, and mind them in the first place, the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof, and then, if other things be added to us, use them in ordine ad spiritualia - with a spiritual reference, so that by using them well we may take the faster hold of the true riches, and may be qualified to receive yet more grace from God; for God giveth to a man that is good in his sight, that is, to a free-hearted charitable man, wisdom, and knowledge, and joy (Ecc 2:26); that is, to a man that is faithful in the unrighteous mammon, he gives the true riches. [3.] The riches of this world are another man's. They are ta allotria , not our own; for they are foreign to the soul and its nature and interest. They are not our own; for they are God's; his title to them is prior and superior to ours; the property remains in him, we are but usufructuaries. They are another man's; we have them from others; we use them for others, and what good has the owner from his goods that increase, save the beholding of them with his eyes, while still they are increased that eat them; and we must shortly leave them to others, and we know not to whom? But spiritual and eternal riches are our own (they enter into the soul that becomes possessed of them) and inseparably; they are a good part that will never be taken away from us. If we make Christ our own, and the promises our own, and heaven our own, we have that which we may truly call our own. But how can we expect God should enrich us with these if we do not serve him with our worldly possessions, of which we are but stewards?

(2.) We have no other way to prove ourselves the servants of God than by giving up ourselves so entirely to his service as to make mammon, that is, all our worldly gain, serviceable to us in his service (Luk 16:13): No servant can serve two masters, whose commands are so inconsistent as those of God and mammon are. If a man will love the world, and hold to that, it cannot be but he will hate God and despise him. He will make all his pretensions of religion truckle to his secular interests and designs, and the things of God shall be made to help him in serving and seeking the world. But, on the other hand, if a man will love God, and adhere to him, he will comparatively hate the world (whenever God and the world come in competition) and will despise it, and make all his business and success in the world some way or other conducive to his furtherance in the business of religion; and the things of the world shall be made to help him in serving God and working out his salvation. The matter is here laid plainly before us: Ye cannot serve God and mammon. So divided are their interests that their services can never be compounded. If therefore we be determined to serve God, we must disclaim and abjure the service of the world.

3. We are here told what entertainment this doctrine of Christ met with among the Pharisees, and what rebuke he gave them.

(1.) They wickedly ridiculed him, Luk 16:14. The Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things, and could not contradict him, but they derided him. Let us consider this, [1.] As their sin, and the fruit of their covetousness, which was their reigning sin, their own iniquity. Note, Many that make a great profession of religion, have much knowledge, and abound in the exercise of devotion, are yet ruined by the love of the world; nor does any thing harden the heart more against the word of Christ. These covetous Pharisees could not bear to have that touched, which was their Delilah, their darling lust; for this they derided him, exemuktērizon auton - they snuffled up their noses at him, or blew their noses on him. It is an expression of the utmost scorn and disdain imaginable; the word of the Lord was to them a reproach, Jer 6:10. They laughed at him for going so contrary to the opinion and way of the world, for endeavouring to recover them from a sin which they were resolved to hold fast. Note, It is common for those to make a jest of the word of God who are resolved that they will not be ruled by it; but they will find at last that it cannot be turned off so. [2.] As his suffering. Our Lord Jesus endured not only the contradiction of sinners, but their contempt; they had him in derision all the day. He that spoke as never man spoke was bantered and ridiculed, that his faithful ministers, whose preaching is unjustly derided, may not be disheartened at it. It is no disgrace to a man to be laughed at, but to deserve to be laughed at. Christ's apostles were mocked, and no wonder; the disciple is not greater than his Lord.

(2.) He justly reproved them; not for deriding him (he knew how to despise the shame ), but for deceiving themselves with the shows and colours of piety, when they were strangers to the power of it, Luk 16:15. Here is,

[1.] Their specious outside; nay, it was a splendid one. First, They justified themselves before men; they denied whatever ill was laid to their charge, even by Christ himself. They claimed to be looked upon as men of singular sanctity and devotion, and justified themselves in that claim: " You are they that do that, so as none ever did, that make it your business to court the opinion of men, and, right or wrong, will justify yourselves before the world; you are notorious for this." Secondly, They were highly esteemed among men. Men did not only acquit them from any blame they were under, but applauded them, and had them in veneration, not only as good men, but as the best of men. Their sentiments were esteemed as oracles, their directions as laws, and their practices as inviolable prescriptions.

[2.] Their odious inside, which was under the eye of God: "He knows your heart, and it is in his sight an abomination; for it is full of all manner of wickedness."Note, First, It is folly to justify ourselves before men, and to think this enough to bear us out, and bring us off, in the judgment of the great day, that men know no ill of us; for God, who knows our hearts, knows that ill of us which no one else can know. This ought to check our value for ourselves, and our confidence in ourselves, that God knows our hearts, and how much deceit is there, for we have reason to abase and distrust ourselves. Secondly, It is folly to judge of persons and things by the opinion of men concerning them, and to go down with the stream of vulgar estimate; for that which is highly esteemed among men, who judge according to outward appearance, is perhaps an abomination in the sight of God, who sees things as they are, and whose judgment, we are sure, is according to truth. On the contrary, there are those whom men despise and condemn who yet are accepted and approved of God, 2Co 10:18.

(3.) He turned from them to the publicans and sinners, as more likely to be wrought upon by his gospel than those covetous conceited Pharisees (Luk 16:16): "The law and the prophets were indeed until John; the Old Testament dispensation, which was confined to you Jews, continued till John Baptist appeared, and you seemed to have the monopoly of righteousness and salvation; and you are puffed up with this, and this gains you esteem among men, that you are students in the law and the prophets; but since John Baptist appeared the kingdom of God is preached, a New Testament dispensation, which does not value men at all for their being doctors of the law, but every man presses into the gospel kingdom, Gentiles as well as Jews, and no man thinks himself bound in good manners to let his betters go before him into it, or to stay till the rulers and the Pharisees have led him that way. It is not so much a political national constitution as the Jewish economy was, when salvation was of the Jews; but it is made a particular personal concern, and therefore every man that is convinced he has a soul to save, and an eternity to provide for, thrusts to get in, lest he should come short by trifling and complimenting."Some give this sense of it; they derided Christ or speaking in contempt of riches, for, thought they, were there not many promises of riches and other temporal good things in the law and the prophets? And were not many of the best of God's servants very rich, as Abraham and David? "It is true,"saith Christ, "so it was, but now that the kingdom of God is begun to be preached things take a new turn; now blessed are the poor, and the mourners, and the persecuted."The Pharisees, to requite the people for their high opinion of them, allowed them in a cheap, easy, formal religion. "But,"saith Christ, "now that the gospel is preached the eyes of the people are opened, and as they cannot now have a veneration for the Pharisees, as they have had, so they cannot content themselves with such an indifferency in religion as they have been trained up in, but they press with a holy violence into the kingdom of God."Note, Those that would go to heaven must take pains, must strive against the stream, must press against the crowd that are going the contrary way.

(4.) Yet still he protests against any design to invalidate the law (Luk 16:17): It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, parelthein - to pass by, to pass away, though the foundations of the earth and the pillars of heaven are so firmly established, than for one tittle of the law to fail. The moral law is confirmed and ratified, and not one tittle of that fails; the duties enjoined by it are duties still; the sins forbidden by it are sins still. Nay, the precepts of it are explained and enforced by the gospel, and made to appear more spiritual. The ceremonial law is perfected in the gospel colours; not one tittle of that fails, for it is found printed off in the gospel, where, though the force of it is as a law taken off, yet the figure of it as a type shines very brightly, witness the epistle to the Hebrews. There were some things which were connived at by the law, for the preventing of greater mischiefs, the permission of which the gospel has indeed taken away, but without any detriment or disparagement to the law, for it has thereby reduced them to the primitive intention of the law, as in the case of divorce (Luk 16:18), which we had before, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9. Christ will not allow divorces, for his gospel is intended to strike at the bitter root of men's corrupt appetites and passions, to kill them, and pluck them up; and therefore they must not be so far indulged as that permission did indulge them, for the more they are indulged the more impetuous and headstrong they grow.

Matthew Henry: Luk 16:19-31

As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious. The tendency of the gospel of Christ is both to reconcile us to poverty and affliction and to arm us against temptations to worldliness and sensuality. Now this parable, by drawing the curtain, and letting us see what will be the end of both in the other world, goes very far in prosecuting those two great intentions. This parable is not like Christ's other parables, in which spiritual things are represented by similitudes borrowed from worldly things, as those of the sower and the seed (except that of the sheep and goats), the prodigal son, and indeed all the rest but this. But here the spiritual things themselves are represented in a narrative or description of the different state of good and bad in this world and the other. Yet we need not call it a history of a particular occurrence, but it is matter of fact that is true every day, that poor godly people, whom men neglect and trample upon, die away out of their miseries, and go to heavenly bliss and joy, which is made the more pleasant to them by their preceding sorrows; and that rich epicures, who live in luxury, and are unmerciful to the poor, die, and go into a state of insupportable torment, which is the more grievous and terrible to them because of the sensual lives they lived: and that there is no gaining any relief from their torments. Is this a parable? What similitude is there in this? The discourse indeed between Abraham and the rich man is only an illustration of the description, to make it the more affecting, like that between God and Satan in the story of Job. Our Saviour came to bring us acquainted with another world, and to show us the reference which this world has to that; and here is does it. In this description (for so I shall choose to call it) we may observe,

I. The different condition of a wicked rich man, and a godly poor man, in this world. We know that as some of late, so the Jews of old, were ready to make prosperity one of the marks of a true church, of a good man and a favourite of heaven, so that they could hardly have any favourable thoughts of a poor man. This mistake Christ, upon all occasions, set himself to correct, and here very fully, where we have,

1. A wicked man, and one that will be for ever miserable, in the height of prosperity (Luk 16:19): There was a certain rich man. From the Latin we commonly call him Dives - a rich man; but, as Bishop Tillotson observes, he has no name given him, as the poor man has, because it had been invidious to have named any particular rich man in such a description as this, and apt to provoke and gain ill-will. But others observe that Christ would not do the rich man so much honour as to name him, though when perhaps he called his lands by his own name he thought it should long survive that of the beggar at his gate, which yet is here preserved, when that of the rich man is buried in oblivion. Now we are told concerning this rich man,

(1.) That he was clothed in purple and fine linen, and that was his adorning. He had fine linen for pleasure, and clean, no doubt, every day; night-linen, and day-linen. He had purple for state, for that was the wear of princes, which has made some conjecture that Christ had an eye to Herod in it. He never appeared abroad but in great magnificence.

(2.) He fared deliciously and sumptuously every day. His table was furnished with all the varieties and dainties that nature and art could supply; his side-table richly adorned with plate; his servants, who waited at table, in rich liveries; and the guests at his table, no doubt, such as he thought graced it. Well, and what harm was there in all this? It is no sin to be rich, no sin to wear purple and fine linen, nor to keep a plentiful table, if a man's estate will afford it. Not are we told that he got his estate by fraud, oppression, or extortion, no, nor that he was drunk, or made others drunk; but, [1.] Christ would hereby show that a man may have a great deal of the wealth, and pomp, and pleasure of this world, and yet lie and perish for ever under God's wrath and curse. We cannot infer from men's living great either that God loves them in giving them so much, or that they love God for giving them so much; happiness consists not in these things. [.2] That plenty and pleasure are a very dangerous and to many a fatal temptation to luxury, and sensuality, and forgetfulness of God and another world. This man might have been happy if he had not had great possessions and enjoyments. [3.] That the indulgence of the body, and the ease and pleasure of that, are the ruin of many a soul, and the interests of it. It is true, eating good meat and wearing good clothes are lawful; but it is true that they often become the food and fuel of pride and luxury, and so turn into sin to us. [4.] That feasting ourselves and our friends, and, at the same time, forgetting the distresses of the poor and afflicted, are very provoking to God and damning to the soul. The sin of this rich man was not so much his dress or his diet, but his providing only for himself.

2. Here is a godly man, and one that will be for ever happy, in the depth of adversity and distress (Luk 16:20): There was a certain beggar, named Lazarus. A beggar of that name, eminently devout, and in great distress, was probably well known among good people at that time: a beggar, suppose such a one as Eleazar, or Lazarus. Some think Eleazar a proper name for any poor man, for it signifies the help of God, which they must fly to that are destitute of other helps. This poor man was reduced to the last extremity, as miserable, as to outward things, as you can lightly suppose a man to be in this world.

(1.) His body was full of sores, like Job. To be sick and weak in body is a great affliction; but sores are more painful to the patient, and more loathsome to those about him.

(2.) He was forced to beg his bread, and to take up with such scraps as he could get at rich people's doors. He was so sore and lame that he could not go himself, but was carried by some compassionate hand or other, and laid at the rich man's gate. Note, Those that are not able to help the poor with their purses should help them with their pains; those that cannot lend them a penny should lend them a hand; those that have not themselves wherewithal to give to them should either bring them, or go for them, to those that have. Lazarus, in his distress, had nothing of his own to subsist on, no relation to go to, nor did the parish take care of him. It is an instance of the degeneracy of the Jewish church at this time that such a godly man as Lazarus was should be suffered to perish for want of necessary food. Now observe,

[1.] His expectations from the rich man's table: He desired to be fed with the crumbs, Luk 16:21. He did not look for a mess from off his table, though he ought to have had one, one of the best; but would be thankful for the crumbs from under the table, the broken meat which was the rich man's leavings; nay, the leavings of his dogs. The poor use entreaties, and must be content with such as they can get. Now this is taken notice of to show, First, What was the distress, and what the disposition, of the poor man. He was poor, but he was poor in spirit, contentedly poor. He did not lie at the rich man's gate complaining, and bawling, and making a noise, but silently and modestly desiring to be fed with the crumbs. This miserable man was a good man, and in favour with God. Note, It is often the lot of some of the dearest of God's saints and servants to be greatly afflicted in this world, while wicked people prosper, and have abundance; see Psa 73:7, Psa 73:10, Psa 73:14. Here is a child of wrath and an heir of hell sitting in the house, faring sumptuously; and a child of love and an heir of heaven lying at the gate, perishing for hunger. And is men's spiritual state to be judged of then by their outward condition? Secondly, What was the temper of the rich man towards him. We are not told that he abused him, or forbade him his gate, or did him any harm, but it is intimated that he slighted him; he had no concern for him, took no care about him. Here was a real object of charity, and a very moving one, which spoke for itself; it was presented to him at his own gate. The poor man had a good character and good conduct, and every thing that could recommend him. A little thing would be a great kindness to him, and yet he took no cognizance of his case, did not order him to be taken in and lodged in the barn, or some of the out-buildings, but let him lie there. Note, It is not enough not to oppress and trample upon the poor; we shall be found unfaithful stewards of our Lord's goods, in the great day, if we do not succour and relieve them. The reason given for the most fearful doom is, I was hungry, and you gave me no meat. I wonder how those rich people who have read the gospel of Christ, and way that they believe it, can be so unconcerned as they often are in the necessities and miseries of the poor and afflicted.

[2.] The usage he had from the dogs; The dogs came and licked his sores. The rich man kept a kennel of hounds, it may be, or other dogs, for his diversion, and to please his fancy, and these were fed to the full, when poor Lazarus could not get enough to keep him alive. Note, Those will have a great deal to answer for hereafter that feed their dogs, but neglect the poor. And it is a great aggravation of the uncharitableness of many rich people that they bestow that upon their fancies and follies which would supply the necessity, and rejoice the heart, of many a good Christian in distress. Those offend God, nay, and they put a contempt upon human nature, that pamper their dogs and horses, and let the families of their poor neighbours starve. Now those dogs came and licked the sores of poor Lazarus, which may be taken, First, As an aggravation of his misery. His sores were bloody, which tempted the dogs to come, and lick them, as they did the blood of Naboth and Ahab, 1Ki 21:19. And we read of the tongue of the dogs dipped in the blood of enemies, Psa 68:23. They attacked him while he was yet alive, as if he had been already dead, and he had not strength himself to keep them off, nor would any of the servants be so civil as to check them. The dogs were like their master, and thought they fared sumptuously when they regaled themselves with human gore. Or, it may be taken, Secondly, as some relief to him in his misery; alla kai , the master was hard-hearted towards him, but the dogs came and licked his sores, which mollified and eased them. It is not said, They sucked them, but licked them, which was good for them. The dogs were more kind to him than their master was.

II. Here is the different condition of this godly poor man, and this wicked rich man, at and after death. Hitherto the wicked man seems to have the advantage, but Exitus acta probat - Let us wait awhile, to see the end hereof.

1. They both died (Luk 16:22): The beggar died; the rich man also died. Death is the common lot of rich and poor, godly and ungodly; there they meet together. One dieth in his full strength, and another in the bitterness of his soul; but they shall lie down alike in the dust, Job 21:26. Death favours not either the rich man for his riches or the poor man for his poverty. Saints die, that they may bring their sorrows to an end, and may enter upon their joys. Sinners die, that they may go to give up their account. It concerns both rich and poor to prepare for death, for it waits for them both. Mors sceptra ligonibus aequat - Death blends the sceptre with the spade.

- aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas,

Regumque turres .

With equal pace, impartial fate

Knocks at the palace, as the cottage gate.

2. The beggar died first. God often takes godly people out of the world, when he leaves the wicked to flourish still. It was an advantage to the beggar that such a speedy end was put to his miseries; and, since he could find no other shelter or resting-place, he was hid in the grave, where the weary are at rest.

3. The rich man died and was buried. Nothing is said of the interment of the poor man. They dug a hole any where, and tumbled his body in, without any solemnity; he was buried with the burial of an ass: nay, it is well if they that let the dogs lick his sores did not let them gnaw his bones. But the rich man had a pompous funeral, lay in state, had a train of mourners to attend him to his grave, and a stately monument set up over it; probably he had a funeral oration in praise of him, and his generous way of living, and the good table he kept, which those would commend that had been feasted at it. It is said of the wicked man that he is brought to the grave with no small ado, and laid in the tomb, and the clods of the valley, were it possible, are made sweet to him, Job 21:32, Job 21:33. How foreign is the ceremony of a funeral to the happiness of the man!

4. The beggar died and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. How much did the honour done to his soul, by this convoy of it to its rest, exceed the honour done to the rich man, by the carrying of his body with so much magnificence to its grave! Observe, (1.) His soul existed in a state of separation from the body. It did not die, or fall asleep, with the body; his candle was not put out with him; but lives, and acted, and knew what it did, and what was done to it. (2.) His soul removed to another world, to the world of spirits; it returned to God who gave it, to its native country; this is implied in its being carried. The spirit of a man goes upward. (3.) Angels took care of it; it was carried by angels. They are ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, not only while they live, but when they die, and have a charge concerning them, to bear them up in their hands, not only in their journeys to and fro on earth, but in their great journey to their long home in heaven, to be both their guide and their guard through regions unknown and unsafe. The soul of man, if not chained to this earth and clogged by it as unsanctified souls are, has in itself an elastic virtue, by which it springs upward as soon as it gets clear of the body; but Christ will not trust those that are his to that, and therefore will send special messengers to fetch them to himself. One angel one would think sufficient, but here are more, as many were sent for Elijah. Amasis king of Egypt had his chariot drawn by kings; but what was that honour to this? Saints ascend in the virtue of Christ's ascension; but this convoy of angels is added for state and decorum. Saints shall be brought home, not only safely, but honourably. What were the bearers at the rich man's funeral, though, probably, those of the first rank, compared with Lazarus's bearers? The angels were not shy of touching him, for his sores were on his body, not on his soul; that was presented to God without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. "Now, blessed angels,"said a good man just expiring, "now come and do your office."(4.) It was carried into Abraham's bosom. The Jews expressed the happiness of the righteous at death three ways: - they to go to the garden of Eden: they go to be under the throne of glory; and they go to the bosom of Abraham, and it is this which our Saviour here makes use of. Abraham was the father of the faithful; and whither should the souls of the faithful be gathered but to him, who, as a tender father, lays them in his bosom, especially at their first coming, to bid them welcome, and to refresh them when newly come from the sorrows and fatigues of this world? He was carried to his bosom, that is, to feast with him, for at feasts the guests are said to lean on one another's breasts; and the saints in heaven sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham was a great and rich man, yet in heaven he does not disdain to lay poor Lazarus in his bosom. Rich saints and poor meet in heaven. This poor Lazarus, who might not be admitted within the rich man's gate, is conducted into the dining-room, into the bed-chamber, of the heavenly palace; and he is laid in the bosom of Abraham, whom the rich glutton scorned to set with the dogs of his flock.

5. The next news you hear of the rich man, after the account of his death and burial, is, that in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, Luk 16:23.

(1.) His state is very miserable. He is in hell, in hades, in the state of separate souls, and there he is in the utmost misery and anguish possible. As the souls of the faithful, immediately after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity, so wicked and unsanctified souls, immediately after they are fetched from the pleasures of the flesh by death, are in misery and torment endless, useless, and remediless, and which will be much increased and completed at the resurrection. This rich man had entirely devoted himself to the pleasures of the world of sense, was wholly taken up with them, and took up with them for his portion, and therefore was wholly unfit for the pleasures of the world of spirits; to such a carnal mind as his they would indeed be no pleasure, nor could he have any relish of them, and therefore he is of course excluded from them. Yet this is not all; he was hard-hearted to God's poor, and therefore he is not only cut off from mercy, but he has judgment without mercy, and falls under a punishment of sense as well as a punishment of loss.

(2.) The misery of his state is aggravated by his knowledge of the happiness of Lazarus: He lifts up his eyes, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. It is the soul that is in torment, and they are the eyes of the mind that are lifted up. He now began to consider what was become of Lazarus. He does not find him where he himself is, nay, he plainly sees him, and with as much assurance as if he had seen him with his bodily eyes, afar off in the bosom of Abraham. This same aggravation of the miseries of the damned we had before (Luk 13:28): Ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. [1.] He saw Abraham afar off. To see Abraham we should think a pleasing sight; but to see him afar off was a tormenting sight. Near himself he saw devils and damned companions, frightful sights, and painful ones; afar off he saw Abraham. Note, Every sight in hell is aggravating. [2.] He saw Lazarus in him bosom. That same Lazarus whom he had looked upon with so much scorn and contempt, as not worthy his notice, he now sees preferred, and to be envied. The sight of him brought to his mind his own cruel and barbarous conduct towards him; and the sight of him in that happiness made his own misery the more grievous.

III. Here is an account of what passed between the rich man and Abraham in the separate state - a state of separation one from another, and of both from this world. Though it is probable that there will not be, nor are, any such dialogues or discourses between glorified saints and damned sinners, yet it is very proper, and what is usually done in descriptions, especially such as are designed to be pathetic and moving, by such dialogues to represent what will be the mind and sentiments both of the one and of the other. And since we find damned sinners tormented in the presence of the Lamb (Rev 14:10), and the faithful servants of God looking upon them that have transgressed the covenant, there where their worm dies not, and their fire is not quenched (Isa 66:23, Isa 66:24), such a discourse as this is not incongruous to be supposed. Now in this discourse we have,

1. The request which the rich man made to Abraham for some mitigation of his present misery, Luk 16:24. Seeing Abraham afar off, he cried to him, cried aloud, as one in earnest, and as one in pain and misery, mixing shrieks with his petitions, to enforce them by moving compassion. He that used to command aloud now begs aloud, louder than ever Lazarus did at his gate. The songs of his riot and revels are all turned into lamentations. Observe here,

(1.) The title he gives to Abraham: Father Abraham. Note, There are many in hell that can call Abraham father, that were Abraham's seed after the flesh, nay, and many that were, in name and profession, the children of the covenant made with Abraham. Perhaps this rich man, in his carnal mirth, had ridiculed Abraham and the story of Abraham, as the scoffers of the latter days do; but now he gives him a title of respect, Father Abraham. Note, The day is coming when wicked men will be glad to scrape acquaintance with the righteous, and to claim kindred to them, though now they slight them. Abraham in this description represents Christ, for to him all judgment is committed, and it is his mind that Abraham here speaks. Those that now slight Christ will shortly make their court to him, Lord, Lord.

(2.) The representation he makes to him of his present deplorable condition: I am tormented in this flame. It is the torment of his soul that he complains of, and therefore such a fire as will operate upon souls; and such a fire the wrath of God is, fastening upon a guilty conscience; such a fire horror of mind is, and the reproaches of a self-accusing self-condemning heart. Nothing is more painful and terrible to the body than to be tormented with fire; by this therefore the miseries and agonies of damned souls are represented.

(3.) His request to Abraham, in consideration of this misery: Have mercy on me. Note, The day is coming when those that make light of divine mercy will beg hard for it. O for mercy, mercy, when the day of mercy is over, and offers of mercy are no more made. He that had no mercy on Lazarus, yet expects Lazarus should have mercy on him; "for,"thinks he, "Lazarus is better natured than ever I was."The particular favour he begs is, Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue. [1.] Here he complains of the torment of his tongue particularly, as if he were more tormented there than in any other part, the punishment answering the sin. The tongue is one of the organs of speech, and by the torment of that he is put in mind of all the wicked words that he had spoken against God and man, his cursing, and swearing, and blasphemy, all his hard speeches, and filthy speeches; by his words he is condemned, and therefore in his tongue he is tormented. The tongue is also one of the organs of tasting, and therefore the torments of that will remind him of his inordinate relish of the delights of sense, which he had rolled under his tongue. [2.] He desires a drop of water to cool his tongue. He does not say, "Father Abraham, order me a release from this misery, help me out of this pit,"for he utterly despaired of this; but he asks as small a thing as could be asked, a drop of water to cool his tongue for one moment. [3.] He sometimes suspected that he had herein an ill design upon Lazarus, and hoped, if he could get him within his reach, he should keep him from returning to the bosom of Abraham. The heart that is filled with rage against God is filled with rage against the people of God. But we will think more charitably even of a damned sinner, and suppose he intended here to show respect to Lazarus, as one to whom he would now gladly be beholden. He names him, because he knows him, and thinks Lazarus will not be unwilling to do him this good office for old acquaintance' sake. Grotius here quotes Plato describing the torments of wicked souls, and among other things he says, They are continually raving on those whom they have murdered, or been any way injurious to, calling upon them to forgive them the wrongs they did them. Note, There is a day coming when those that now hate and despise the people of God would gladly receive kindness from them.

2. The reply which Abraham gave to this request. In general, he did not grant it. He would not allow him one drop of water, to cool his tongue. Note, The damned in hell shall not have any the least abatement or mitigation of their torment. If we now improve the day of our opportunities, we may have a full and lasting satisfaction in the streams of mercy; but, if we now slight the offer, it will be in vain in hell to expect the least drop of mercy. See how justly this rich man is paid in his own coin. He that denied a crumb is denied a drop. Now it is said to us, Ask, and it shall be given you; but, if we let slip this accepted time, we may ask, and it shall not be given us. But this is not all; had Abraham only said, "You shall have nothing to abate your torment,"it had been sad; but he says a great deal which would add to his torment, and make the flame the hotter, for every thing in hell will be tormenting.

(1.) He calls him son, a kind and civil title, but here it serves only to aggravate the denial of his request, which shut up the bowels of the compassion of a father from him. He had been a son, but a rebellious one, and now an abandoned disinherited one. See the folly of those who rely on that plea, We have Abraham to our father, when we find one in hell, and likely to be there for ever, whom Abraham calls son.

(2.) He puts him in mind of what had been both his own condition and the condition of Lazarus, in their life-time: Son, remember; this is a cutting word. The memories of damned souls will be their tormentors, and conscience will then be awakened and stirred up to do its office, which here they would not suffer it to do. Nothing will bring more oil to the flames of hell than Son, remember. Now sinners are called upon to remember, but they do not, they will not, they find ways to avoid it. " Son, remember thy Creator, thy Redeemer, remember thy latter end;"but they can turn a deaf ear to these mementos, and forget that for which they have their memories; justly therefore will their everlasting misery arise from a Son, remember, to which they will not be able to turn a deaf ear. What a dreadful peal will this ring in our ears, " Son, remember the many warnings that were given thee not to come to this place of torment, which thou wouldest not regard; remember the fair offers made thee of eternal life and glory, which thou wouldest not accept!"But that which he is here put in mind of is, [1.] That thou in thy life-time receivedst thy good things. He does not tell him that he had abused them, but that he had received them: "Remember what a bountiful benefactor God has been to thee, how ready he was to do thee good; thou canst not therefore say he owes thee any thing, no, not a drop of water. What he gave thee thou receivedst, and that was all; thou never gavest him a receipt for them, in a thankful acknowledgment of them, much less didst thou ever make any grateful return for them or improvement of them; thou hast been the grave of God's blessings, in which they were buried, not the field of them, in which they were sown. Thou receivedst thy good things; thou receivedst them, and usedst them, as if they had been thine own, and thou hadst not been at all accountable for them. Or, rather, they were the things which thou didst choose for thy good things, which were in thine eye the best things, which thou didst content thyself with, and portion thyself in. Thou hadst meat, and drink, and clothes of the richest and finest, and these were the things thou didst place thy happiness in; they were thy reward, thy consolation, the penny thou didst agree for, and thou hast had it. Thou wast for the good things of thy life-time, and hadst no thought of better things in another life, and therefore hast no reason to expect them. The day of thy good things is past and gone, and now is the day of thy evil things, of recompence for all thy evil deeds. Thou hast already had the last drop of the vials of mercy that thou couldest expect to fall to thy share; and there remains nothing but vials of wrath without mixture."[2.] "Remember too what evil things Lazarus received. Thou enviest him his happiness here; but think what a large share of miseries he had in his life-time. Thou hast as much good as could be thought to fall to the lot of so bad a man, and he as much evil as could be thought to fall to the lot of so good a man. He received his evil things; he bore them patiently, received them from the hand of God, as Job did (Job 2:10, Shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil also? ) - he received them as physic appointed for the cure of his spiritual distempers, and the cure was effected."As wicked people have good things in this life only, and at death they are for ever separated from all good, so godly people have evil things only in this life, and at death they are for ever put out of the reach of them. Now Abraham, by putting him in mind of both these together, awakens his conscience to remind him how he had behaved towards Lazarus, when he was reveling in his good things and Lazarus groaning under his evil things; he cannot forget that then he would not help Lazarus, and how then could he expect that Lazarus should now help him? Had Lazarus in his life-time afterwards grown rich, and he poor, Lazarus would have thought it his duty to relieve him, and not to have upbraided him with his former unkindness; but, in the future state of recompence and retribution, those that are now dealt with, both by God and man, better than they deserve, must expect to be rewarded every man according to his works.

(3.) He puts him in mind of Lazarus's present bliss, and his own misery: But now the tables are turned, and so they must abide for ever; now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. He did not need to be told that he was tormented; he felt it to his cost. He knew likewise that one who lay in the bosom of Abraham could not but be comforted there; yet Abraham puts him in mind of it, that he might, by comparing one thing with another, observe the righteousness of God, in recompensing tribulation to them who trouble his people, and to those who are troubled rest, 2Th 1:6, 2Th 1:7. Observe, [1.] Heaven is comfort, and hell is torment: heaven is joy, hell is weeping, and wailing, and pain in perfection. [2.] The soul, as soon as it leaves the body, goes either to heaven or hell, to comfort or torment, immediately, and does not sleep, or go into purgatory. [3.] Heaven will be heaven indeed to those that go thither through many and great calamities in this world; of those that had grace, but had little of the comfort of it here (perhaps their souls refused to be comforted), yet, when they are fallen asleep in Christ, you may truly say, "Now they are comforted: now all their tears are wiped away, and all their fears are vanished."In heaven there is everlasting consolation. And, on the other hand, hell will be hell indeed to those that go thither from the midst of the enjoyment of all the delights and pleasures of sense. To them the torture is the greater, as temporal calamities are described to be to the tender and delicate woman, that would not set so much as the sole of her foot to the ground, for tenderness and delicacy. Deu 28:56.

(4.) He assures him that it was to no purpose to think of having any relief by the ministry of Lazarus; for (Luk 16:26), Besides all this, worse yet, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, an impassable one, a great chasm, that so there can be no communication between glorified saints and damned sinners. [1.] The kindest saint in heaven cannot make a visit to the congregation of the dead and damned, to comfort or relieve any there who once were their friends. " They that would pass hence to you cannot; they cannot leave beholding the face of their Father, nor the work about his throne, to fetch water for you; that is no part of their business."[2.] The most daring sinner in hell cannot force his way out of that prison, cannot get over that great gulf. They cannot pass to us that would come thence. It is not to be expected, for the door of mercy is shut, the bridge is drawn; there is no coming out upon parole or bail, no, not for one hour. In this world, blessed be God, there is no gulf fixed between a state of nature and grace, but we may pass from the one to thee other, from sin to God; but if we die in our sins, if we throw ourselves into the pit of destruction, there is no coming out. It is a pit in which there is no water, and out of which there is no redemption. The decree and counsel of God have fixed this gulf, which all the world cannot unfix. This abandons this miserable creature to despair; it is now too late for any change of his condition, or any the least relief: it might have been prevented in time, but it cannot now be remedied to eternity. The state of damned sinners is fixed by an irreversible and unalterable sentence. A stone is rolled to the door of the pit, which cannot be rolled back.

3. The further request he had to make to his father Abraham, not for himself, his mouth is stopped, and he has not a word to say in answer to Abraham's denial of a drop of water. Damned sinners are made to know that the sentence they are under is just, and they cannot alleviate their own misery by making any objection against it. And, since he cannot obtain a drop of water to cool his tongue, we may suppose he gnawed his tongue for pain, as those are said to do on whom one of the vials of God's wrath is poured out, Rev 16:10. The shrieks and outcries which we may suppose to be now uttered by him were hideous; but, having an opportunity of speaking to Abraham, he will improve it for his relations whom he has left behind, since he cannot improve it for his own advantage. Now as to this,

(1.) He begs that Lazarus might be sent to his father's house, upon an errand thither: I pray thee therefore, father, Luk 16:27. Again he calls upon Abraham, and in this request he is importunate: " I pray thee. O deny me not this."When he was on earth he might have prayed and been heard, but now he prays in vain. " Therefore, because thou hast denied me the former request, surely thou wilt be so compassionate as not to deny this:"or, " Therefore, because there is a great gulf fixed, seeing there is no getting out hence when they are once here, O send to prevent their coming hither:"or, "Though there is a great gulf fixed between you and me, yet, since there is no such gulf fixed between you and them, send them hither. Send him back to my father's house; he knows well enough where it is, has been there many a time, having been denied the crumbs that fell from the table. He knows I have five brethren there; if he appear to them, they will know him, and will regard what he saith, for they knew him to be an honest man. Let him testify to them; let him tell them what condition I am in, and that I brought myself to it by my luxury and sensuality, and my unmercifulness to the poor. Let him warn them not to tread in my steps, nor to go on in the way wherein I led them, and left them, lest they also come into this place of torment, "Luk 16:28. Some observe that he speaks only of five brethren, whence they infer that he had no children, else he would have mentioned them, and then it was an aggravation of his uncharitableness that he had no children to provide for. Now he would have them stopped in their sinful course. He does not say, "Give me leave to go to them, that I may testify to them;"for he knew that there was a gulf fixed, and despaired of a permission so favourable to himself: his going would frighten them out of their wits; but, "Send Lazarus, whose address will be less terrible, and yet his testimony sufficient to frighten them out of their sins. "Now he desired the preventing of their ruin, partly in tenderness to them, for whom he could not but retain a natural affection; he knew their temper, their temptations, their ignorance, their infidelity, their inconsideration, and wished to prevent the destruction they were running into: but it was partly in tenderness to himself, for their coming to him, to that place of torment, would but aggravate the misery to him, who had helped to show them the way thither, as the sight of Lazarus helped to aggravate his misery. When partners in sin come to be sharers in woe, as tares bound in bundles for the fire, they will be a terror to one another.

(2.) Abraham denies him this favour too. There is no request granted in hell. Those who make the rich man's praying to Abraham a justification of their praying to saints departed, as they have far to seek for proofs, when the practice of a damned sinner must be valued for an example, so they have little encouragement to follow the example, when all his prayers were made in vain. Abraham leaves them to the testimony of Moses and the prophets, the ordinary means of conviction and conversion; they have the written word, which they may read and hear read. " Let them attend to that sure word of prophecy, for God will not go out of the common method of his grace for them."Here is their privilege: They have Moses and the prophets; and their duty: " Let them hear them, and mix faith with them, and that will be sufficient to keep them from this place of torment."By this it appears that there is sufficient evidence in the Old Testament, in Moses and the prophets, to convince those that will hear them impartially that there is another life after this, and a state of rewards and punishments for good and bad men; for that was the thing which the rich man would have his brethren assured of, and for that they are turned over to Moses and the prophets.

(3.) He urges his request yet further (Luk 16:30): " Nay, father Abraham, give me leave to press this. It is true, they have Moses and the prophets, and, if they would but give a due regard to them, it would be sufficient; but they do not, they will not; yet it may be hoped, if one went to them from the dead, they would repent, that would be a more sensible conviction to them. They are used to Moses and the prophets, and therefore regard them the less; but this would be a new thing, and more startling; surely this would bring them to repent, and to change their wicked habit and course of life."Note, Foolish men are apt to think any method of conviction better than that which God has chosen and appointed.

Barclay: Luk 16:1-13

This is a difficult parable to interpret. It is a story about as choice a set of rascals as one could meet anywhere.

The steward was a rascal. He was a slave, but he was nonetheless in charge of the running of his master's estate. In Palestine there were many absentee landlords. The master may well have been one of these, and his business may well have been entrusted to his steward's hands. The steward had followed a career of embezzlement.

The debtors were also rascals. No doubt what they owed was rent. Rent was often paid to a landlord, not in money, but in kind. It was often an agreed proportion of the produce of the part of the estate which had been rented. The steward knew that he had lost his job. He, therefore, had a brilliant idea. He falsified the entries in the books so that the debtors were debited with far less than they owed. This would have two effects. First, the debtors would be grateful to him; and second, and much more effective, he had involved the debtors in his own misdemeanours, and, if the worst came to the worst, he was now in a strong position to exercise a little judicious blackmail!

The master himself was something of a rascal, for, instead of being shocked at the whole proceeding, he appreciated the shrewd brain behind it and actually praised the steward for what he had done.

The difficulty of the parable is clearly seen from the fact that Luke attaches no fewer than four different lessons to it.

(i) In Luk 16:8the lesson is that the sons of this world are wiser in their generation than the sons of light. That means that, if only the Christian was as eager and ingenious in his attempt to attain goodness as the man of the world is in his attempt to attain money and comfort, he would be a much better man. If only men would give as much attention to the things which concern their souls as they do to the things which concern their business, they would be much better men. Over and over again a man will expend twenty times the amount of time and money and effort on his pleasure, his hobby, his garden, his sport as he does on his church. Our Christianity will begin to be real and effective only when we spend as much time and effort on it as we do on our worldly activities.

(ii) In Luk 16:9the lesson is that material possessions should be used to cement the friendships wherein the real and permanent value of life lies. That could be done in two ways.

(a) It could be done as it affects eternity. The Rabbis had a saying, "The rich help the poor in this world, but the poor help the rich in the world to come." Ambrose, commenting on the rich fool who built bigger barns to store his goods, said, "The bosoms of the poor, the houses of widows, the mouths of children are the barns which last forever." It was a Jewish belief that charity given to poor people would stand to a man's credit in the world to come. A man's true wealth would consist not in what he kept, but in what he gave away.

(b) It could be done as it affects this world. A man can use his wealth selfishly or he can use it to make life easier, not only for himself, but for his friends and his fellow-men. How many a scholar is forever grateful to a rich man who gave or left money to found bursaries and scholarships which made a university career possible! How many a man is grateful to a better-off friend who saw him through some time of need in the most practical way! Possessions are not in themselves a sin, but they are a great responsibility, and the man who uses them to help his friends has gone far to discharge that responsibility.

(iii) In Luk 16:10-11the lesson is that a man's way of fulfilling a small task is the best proof of his fitness or unfitness to be entrusted with a bigger task. That is clearly true of earthly things. No man will be advanced to higher office until he has given proof of his honesty and ability in a smaller position. But Jesus extends the principle to eternity. He says, "Upon earth you are in charge of things which are not really yours. You cannot take them with you when you die. They are only lent to you. You are only a steward over them. They cannot, in the nature of things, be permanently yours. On the other hand, in heaven you will get what is really and eternally yours. And what you get in heaven depends on how you use the things of earth. What you will be given as your very own will depend on how you use the things of which you are only steward."

(iv) Luk 16:13lays down the rule that no slave can serve two masters. The master possessed the slave, and possessed him exclusively. Nowadays, a servant or a workman can quite easily do two jobs and work for two people. He can do one job in his working time and another in his spare time. He can, for instance, be a clerk by day and a musician by night. Many a man augments his income or finds his real interest in a spare-time occupation. But a slave had no spare time; every moment of his day, and every ounce of his energy, belonged to his master. He had no time which was his own. So, serving God can never be a part-time or a spare-time job. Once a man chooses to serve God every moment of his time and every atom of his energy belongs to God. God is the most exclusive of masters. We either belong to him totally or not at all.

Barclay: Luk 16:14-18

This passage falls into three sections.

(i) It begins with a rebuke to the Pharisees. It says that they derided Jesus. The word literally means that they turned up their noses at him. The Jew tended to connect earthly prosperity with goodness; wealth was a sign that a man was a good man. The Pharisees put-on a parade of goodness and they regarded material prosperity as a reward of that goodness; but the more they exalted themselves before men, the more they became an abomination to God. It is bad enough for a man to think himself a good man; it is worse when he points to material prosperity as an unanswerable proof of his goodness.

(ii) Before Jesus the law and the prophets had been the final word of God; but Jesus came preaching the kingdom. When he did, the most unlikely people, the tax-collectors and the sinners, came storming their way into the kingdom even when the scribes and Pharisees would have set up barriers to keep them out. But Jesus emphasized that the kingdom was not the end of the law. True, the little details and regulations of the ceremonial law were wiped out. No man was to think that Christianity offered an easy way in which no laws remained. The great laws stood unaltered and unalterable. Certain Hebrew letters are very like each other and are distinguished only by the serif, the little line at the top or bottom. Not even a serif of the great laws would pass away.

(iii) As an illustration of law that would never pass away Jesus took the law of chastity. This very definite statement of Jesus must be read against the contemporary background of Jewish life. The Jew glorified fidelity and chastity. The Rabbis said, "All things can God overlook except unchastity." "Unchastity causes the glory of God to depart." A Jew must surrender his life rather than commit idolatry, murder or adultery.

But the tragedy was that at this time the marriage bond was on the way to being destroyed. In the eyes of Jewish law a woman was a thing. She could divorce her husband only if he became a leper or an apostate or if he ravished a virgin. Otherwise a woman had no rights whatever and no redress, other than that the marriage dowry must be repaid if she was divorced. The law said, "A woman may be divorced with or without her will; a man only with his will." The Mosaic law (Deu 24:1) said, "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house." The bill of divorce had to be signed before two witnesses and ran, "Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt." Divorce was as simple and easy as that.

The matter turned on the interpretation of the phrase some indecency in the Mosaic regulation. There were two schools of thought. The school of Shammai said that meant adultery and adultery alone. The school of Hillel said it could mean "if she spoiled a dish of food; if she spun in the street; if she talked to a strange man; if she was guilty of speaking disrespectfully of her husband's relations in his hearing; if she was a brawling woman," which was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next house. Rabbi Akiba went so far as to say that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman who was fairer than she. Human nature being what it is, it was the school of Hillel which prevailed, so that, in the time of Jesus things were so bad that women were refusing to marry at all and family life was in danger.

Jesus here lays down the sanctity of the marriage bond. The saying is repeated in Mat 5:31-32where adultery is made the sole exception to the universal rule. We sometimes think our own generation is bad, but Jesus lived in a generation where things were every bit as bad. If we destroy family life, we destroy the very basis of the Christian life; and Jesus here lays down a law which men relax only at their peril.

Barclay: Luk 16:19-31

This is a parable constructed with such masterly skill that not one phrase is wasted. Let us look at the two characters in it.

(i) First, there is the rich man, usually called Dives, which is the Latin for rich. Every phrase adds something to the luxury in which he lived. He was clothed in purple and fine linen. That is the description of the robes of the High Priests, and such robes cost anything from L 30 to L 40, an immense sum in days when a working man's wage was about 4 p a day. He feasted in luxury every day. The word used for feasting is the word that is used for a gourmet feeding on exotic and costly dishes. He did this every day. In so doing he definitely and positively broke the fourth commandment. That commandment not only forbids work on the Sabbath; it also says six days you shall labour (Exo 20:9).

In a country where the common people were fortunate if they ate meat once in the week and where they toiled for six days of the week, Dives is a figure of indolent self-indulgence. Lazarus was waiting for the crumbs that fell from Dives's table. In that time there were no knives, forks or napkins. Food was eaten with the hands and, in very wealthy houses, the hands were cleansed by wiping them on hunks of bread, which were then thrown away. That was what Lazarus was waiting for.

(ii) Second, there is Lazarus. Strangely enough Lazarus is the only character in any of the parables who is given a name. The name is the Latinized form of Eleazar and means God is my help. He was a beggar; he was covered with ulcerated sores, and so helpless that he could not even ward off the street dogs, which pestered him.

Such is the scene in this world; then abruptly it changes to the next and there Lazarus is in glory and Dives is in torment. What was the sin of Dives? He had not ordered Lazarus to be removed from his gate. He had made no objections to his receiving the bread that was flung away from his table. He did not kick him in the passing. He was not deliberately cruel to him. The sin of Dives was that he never noticed Lazarus, that he accepted him as part of the landscape and simply thought it perfectly natural and inevitable that Lazarus should lie in pain and hunger while he wallowed in luxury. As someone said, "It was not what Dives did that got him into gaol; it was what he did not do that got him into hell."

The sin of Dives was that he could look on the world's suffering and need and feel no answering sword of grief and pity pierce his heart; he looked at a fellow-man, hungry and in pain, and did nothing about it. His was the punishment of the man who never noticed.

It seems hard that his request that his brothers should be warned was refused. But it is the plain fact that if men possess the truth of God's word, and if, wherever they look, there is sorrow to be comforted, need to be supplied pain to be relieved, and it moves them to no feeling and to no action, nothing will change them.

It is a terrible warning that the sin of Dives was not that he did wrong things, but that he did nothing.

Constable: Luk 9:51--19:28

V. Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem 9:51--19:27

This large section of the Book of Luke has no counterpart in the other Gospels, but some of the material in it occurs in other parts of the Gospels. The section consists largely of instruction that Jesus gave His disciples with only brief references to geographic movements. We have already noticed that Luke had more interest in lessons than in details of geography and chronology. The skeletal references to Jesus' movements show a general shift from Galilee toward Jerusalem (e.g., 9:52; 10:38; 13:22, 32-33; 17:11; 18:31, 35; 19:1, 28-29). However, His journey was not direct (cf. 10:38; 17:11). Jesus visited Jerusalem more than once, but this section records Jesus leaving Galilee and arriving in Jerusalem for the last time before His passion.

The ministry of Jesus during this journey was not just different because of where it took place. It took on new characteristics. His ministry to the disciples seems to have occupied His primary attention, though Luke featured this less than Mark. We have noted a strong emphasis on Jesus' identity (Christology) in the previous chapters. Now the disciples' mission becomes the dominant theme. There are many words of warning to the rich and the complacent as well as to the Pharisees in this section. Many students of Luke and Acts have noticed the common emphasis on travel that characterizes both books and have pointed out some significant comparisons. Jerusalem was for Jesus the destination toward which He pressed as Rome was for Paul.

Constable: Luk 16:1-31

G. Jesus' warnings about riches ch. 16

This section, as those immediately preceding and following it, contains parabolic teaching and other instruction that calls for a decision to believe in Jesus. All the teaching in this chapter deals with material possessions. The section begins with instruction for the disciples but then moves to a lesson for the Pharisees.

Constable: Luk 16:1-13

1. Discipleship as stewardship 16:1-13

Jesus instructed His disciples about their use of material possessions. He taught them to be prudent in the use of wealth and to beware of the danger of loving it (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10).

Constable: Luk 16:1-9

The parable of the shrewd manager 16:1-9

"Luke 16:1-8 contains probably the most difficult parable in Luke."³⁶⁷

16:1 The linguistic connection that ties this parable with its preceding context is the word "squander" (Gr. diaskorpizo, cf. 15:13). This is the clue to the thematic connection, namely the prudent use of money. The younger son in the parable of the lost son who represented the sinners whom Jesus received did not manage his inheritance well. He squandered, wasted, and dissipated it. The story that follows gives an example of a wise use of some money that a master entrusted to his servant.

As the story opens, the steward or agent (Gr. oikonomos) is in trouble for unwisely using his master's money. He was behaving as the younger son in the previous parable. In Jesus' day wealthy landowners often turned over the management of some of their money to an agent whose responsibility was to invest it to make more money for the master. Today a stock broker, a banker, or an investment counselor serves his or her clients in a similar way.

16:2 There is no indication in the parable whether the agent failed his master innocently or deliberately. That is unimportant. For whatever reason his boss fired him and asked him to turn in his account books that would show what he had done (cf. Matt. 12:36; Acts 19:40; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 4:5).

16:3-4 Before doing so the agent decided to do something that would enable him to get another job with one of the people who owed his master money. He realized that he had to use his head since he was not strong enough for manual labor, and he was too proud to resort to begging to earn a living. His plan of action would guarantee him a job and respectability, but immediate action was imperative.

16:5-7 The agent's plan involved discounting the debts of the people who owed his master money. The fact that he dealt in commodities rather than cash is inconsequential since many traders dealt on these terms in Jesus' day as they do in ours. The amounts these debtors owed were quite large. Therefore the discount each one received represented a significant amount of money and drew the goodwill of the debtors to the manager. The debtors were probably people who had received goods from the master's estate and had given the agent a promissory note rather than cash. This was and is a standard accepted way of doing business.

Did the manager dishonestly cheat his master out of what others owed him, or did he deduct the interest that would have come to him as the agent for each transaction? The first alternative is a real possibility.³⁶⁸ However it seems unlikely that Jesus would have proceeded to commend the manager and hold him up to the disciples as an example to follow if he was that dishonest (v. 9). Furthermore if the agent had chosen to cheat his employer further he probably would have ended up in jail rather than in the good graces of his master's debtors. The second alternative is possible and probable.³⁶⁹ The agent could well have received a commission for each of the transactions that he had negotiated for his employer and deducted these commissions from the debtors' costs. Even a 100% commission (v. 6) was not unknown in Jesus' culture.³⁷⁰ Probably the commission was part of the original bill.³⁷¹

16:8 Jesus commended the agent's shrewdness or prudence (Gr. phronimos, i.e., practical wisdom) in spending his wealth to secure his future (cf. 12:42). He did not, of course, approve of his squandering his master's money earlier through incompetence or dishonesty (v. 1), whichever may have characterized him. That simply marked him as an unrighteous man. The fact that he had not been shrewd at first sets off his later shrewdness as even more commendable.

The sons of this age are unrighteous unbelievers who live simply by the principles that govern most people in the present age. Sons of the light are people who live in the light of God's revelation and are therefore believers (cf. 11:33-36; Eph. 5:8). The implication is that they are believers who are in fellowship with God (cf. 1 John 1:7). Jesus' point was that prudent dealings characterize unbelievers more than believers. Disciples can do well by learning from them as we anticipate the future.

16:9 Jesus next explained the application of the parable for His disciples. They should spend their money to make friends who would welcome them into the kingdom and heaven when the disciples died. In other words, disciples should spend their money to bring others to faith in Jesus and so secure a warm reception into heaven. Jesus pictured the converts as dying before the disciples and welcoming them into heaven when the disciples arrived. Disciples should use our money to lead people to Jesus Christ. We should not consume it all on ourselves or pass it all on to our heirs or hoard it but invest it in "the Lord's work."

The word "mammon" is a transliteration of the Aramaic word mamon meaning "what one trusts" and therefore "wealth." "Mammon of unrighteousness" means worldly or material wealth, wealth associated with unrighteous living contrasted with heavenly treasure (cf. 12:21). The phrase does not mean wealth acquired by dishonest means. "When money fails" is another way of saying "when you die." Money no longer supports a person after he or she dies. Even though money will fail us when we die, those whom we have led to salvation will not die. They will welcome us into eternal, in contrast to temporal, dwellings. Thus Jesus contrasted the temporary nature of money with the eternal value of saved lives.

"A foolish person lives only for the present and uses personal wealth only for the present. A wise person considers the future and uses personal wealth to reap benefits in the future . . ."³⁷²

The reason Jesus taught this lesson appears to have been the Pharisees' money-grabbing reputation (cf. v. 14; 20:47). This should not characterize His disciples.

Constable: Luk 16:10-13

The implications of heavenly stewardship 16:10-13

Jesus proceeded to draw two more lessons from the parable He had just told. One was the importance of faithfulness for Jesus' agents. The other was the importance of undivided loyalty to Jesus.

16:10-12 Trustworthiness does not depend on the amount for which one is responsible but on character (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5). Faithfulness in the use of money now demonstrates a trustworthy character that God will reward with responsibility for greater riches in the kingdom. Unfaithfulness does not just demonstrate untrustworthiness but unrighteousness. By using the word "mammon" Jesus probably intended the disciples to include all the worldly things in which people trust, not just money. These would include one's time and talents as well as his or her treasure. If disciples squander what God has entrusted to their care on the earth, who will give them their own things to manage in heaven such as authority over others in the kingdom (cf. 1 Cor. 9:17)? The rhetorical question answers itself. God will not.

16:13 Even though one may have both God and mammon, namely be a believer and have earthly resources, it is impossible to serve them both. They both demand total allegiance (cf. Matt. 6:24). Love for God will result in mammon taking second place in life. Conversely if one puts mammon first, God can have only second place (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10). This fact should serve as a warning against unfaithfulness to God and as a warning against enslavement by mammon. Jesus' personified mammon to picture it as God's rival. Disciples obviously can serve God and mammon, but they cannot be the servant, in the true sense of that word, of both God and mammon. They can only be the servant of one.³⁷³

Constable: Luk 16:14-31

2. Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for their greed 16:14-31

The Pharisees who where listening to Jesus' instructions to His disciples scoffed at Him because they tried to serve both God and mammon (v. 13). They tried to appear pious and at the same time accumulate all the wealth they could (cf. 20:47). Jesus therefore addressed their greed (cf. 2 Tim. 3:2).

Constable: Luk 16:14-18

The importance of submission to God's Word 16:14-18

Jesus' began His response to the Pharisees' rejection of His teaching by pointing out the importance of submitting to God's Word.

16:14-15 Jesus rebuked His critics for their hypocrisy. They were able to explain their covetous practices to the Jews to their own satisfaction. Probably they reasoned that any wealth that they could accumulate was a sign of God's blessing on them. This was a common misinterpretation of the law in Jesus' day, as it is in ours. Their ostentatious display when giving alms may have been part of this hypocrisy too (cf. Matt. 6:2-4), but God was their real judge, and He knew their greedy hearts (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9; Ps. 7:10).

What people esteem highly is the pursuit of money. That is detestable to God because it is idolatry. It robs people of their future, and it insults God who alone is worthy of our supreme devotion. Jesus illustrated this point with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus that follows (vv. 19-31). The Pharisees' values were wrong. What really mattered and what they should have concentrated on was the kingdom and God's Word.

16:16 The Hebrew Scriptures should have been of primary importance to the Pharisees. They pointed to the coming of Messiah. Since John the Baptist had come the message that he and Jesus had proclaimed had been that the Messiah was present and the kingdom was at hand. A new era had begun with John's preaching. The Pharisees had disregarded that preaching and in doing so had rejected the teaching of the Old Testament even though their fellow Jews were trying to get into the kingdom (cf. 13:24; 14:15; Mark 7:8-9).

The fact that Jesus said something similar about the kingdom on another occasion that Matthew recorded has raised questions about Jesus' meaning here and there (cf. Matt. 11:12-13). In Matthew, Jesus' point was this. The Jewish religious leaders were trying to bring in the kingdom in their own carnal way while refusing to accept God's way that John and Jesus announced. In the different teaching situation that Luke recorded, Jesus said something similar but slightly different. His point here was that many of the Jews were eager to enter the kingdom, but the religious leaders were hindering them by rejecting John and Jesus' ministries.

16:17 Regardless of the Pharisees' views the Old Testament would stand as the final authority. Verse 17 is a very strong attestation to God's preservation of Scripture (cf. Matt. 5:18). The implication was that Jesus' teachings would likewise endure.

16:18 Jesus next cited an example of the continuing validity of the Old Testament and the Pharisees' disregard of it. God still expected and expects submission to His Word. The Pharisees did not condone adultery, though they permitted divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). Some Pharisees permitted a man to divorce his wife and then remarry another woman, though many of them did not grant women the same privilege.³⁷⁴ Jesus condemned such conduct as a violation of the seventh commandment. This was an example of the Pharisees justifying themselves in the eyes of men but not being just before God (v. 15). Jesus both affirmed and clarified the Old Testament revelation. Therefore for the Pharisees to disregard His teaching about money was equivalent to their rejecting other divine revelation.

This teaching on divorce supplements other statements that Jesus made on the same subject on other occasions (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11). Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11 evidently record one teaching incident. Matthew 5:32 occurs in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Luke's reference reflects a different context. As in Mark 10:11, Jesus omitted the exception clause here (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9). He evidently did not want to draw attention to the exceptional case because to do so would weaken His main point, namely that people should not divorce and then remarry another person. Matthew included Jesus' permission to divorce for fornication because the subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews.

"The basic application to this small unit is to respond with obedience to the kingdom demand for ethical integrity, whether it be in how we deal with our resources or how we approach our marriages."³⁷⁵

Constable: Luk 16:19-31

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus 16:19-31

In this parable the rich man and his brothers who did not listen to Moses and the prophets (vv. 29-31) represent the Pharisees (vv. 16-17). The Pharisees believed in a future life and a coming judgment, but they, as the rich man, did not allow those beliefs to deter them from the pursuit of present wealth (v. 14). Jesus announced that even His resurrection would not change them (v. 31). This parable also affirmed Jesus' teaching on a future reversal of fortunes (1:53; 6:20-26; 12:16-21; 13:30; 14:11) and the fact that present decisions affect future destiny for the saved and the unsaved.

The rabbinic story of how Abraham sent his steward Eliezer, of which Lazarus is the Greek form, to Sodom to test the hospitality of its citizens may lie behind this parable.³⁷⁶ Jesus may have built this parable on that story, which was extra-biblical but perhaps factual or fictional.

16:19-21 Jesus began the parable by introducing its two main characters. He presented the rich man as living in luxury and rejoicing in his present earthly prosperity (cf. 16:1). Only the very wealthy of Jesus' day could afford to dress in the expensive purple garments that kings wore. The rich man also possessed the best undergarments made of fine linen. Lazarus on the other hand was poor, incapacitated, begging, diseased, hungry, unclean, and despised. These descriptions prepare for the dramatic reversal in the conditions of these two men that follows (vv. 22-24).

The fact that Jesus named the beggar and not the rich man hints at the ultimate greater importance of Lazarus. He was not the brother of Mary and Martha (John 11). This is the only parable that Jesus taught in which He named one of the characters. The fact that Jesus mentioned his name does not necessarily mean that he was a real person.³⁷⁷ Everything else about this story indicates that this was a typical invented parable.

"The naming of the poor man as Lazarus and the failure to name the rich man personalizes the level of concern for the poor man, while making clear that the rich man is a representative figure. God cares for each poor person and is fully aware of their plight. The rich man could be any rich individual."³⁷⁸

Lazarus was a common name, the equivalent of the Hebrew Eleazar, meaning "whom God has helped." Abraham, also mentioned in this parable, had a servant named Eleazar who was evidently a Gentile (Gen. 15:1). This fact has led some students of this passage to seek an interpretation that comes from Abraham's experience.³⁷⁹ One such writer concluded that Jesus was teaching that severe judgment would come on the Jews if they failed to repent.³⁸⁰ However the connections with Abraham's history seem so obscure that Jesus' hearers would have missed them. Tradition has given the name Dives, meaning "rich," to the rich man, but there is no basis for this in the text.³⁸¹

"Giving Lazarus a name helps to personalize him, and the description of his piteous condition encourages readers to sympathize with him and to condemn the rich man's callousness. It is not simply being wealthy but this callousness toward the suffering poor which is condemned in the parable."³⁸²

16:22-24 These verses describe the two destinies of the men, which were as different as their lives on earth had been. The angels assist God in caring for humans (Heb. 1:14). They escorted Lazarus' spirit to Abraham's bosom whereas the rich man simply experienced burial without heavenly honors. The point is the care that God lavished on Lazarus. Jesus pictured Lazarus in Abraham's bosom enjoying the future messianic banquet in the millennial kingdom (cf. 13:28-29). Formerly the rich man had enjoyed banquets and Lazarus had begged for scraps from his table (v. 21), but now the tables had turned.

The figure of Abraham's bosom connotes a place of security, godly fellowship with other Old Testament believers, and honor. Hades is the general name for the place of departed spirits (cf. 10:15), and it is the equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. However in the New Testament, Hades always refers to the abode of the unsaved dead before their resurrection and condemnation at the great white throne judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). Gehenna is a different place, the lake of fire, the final destiny of all unbelievers following the great white throne judgment (12:5). At the beginning of the messianic kingdom only unbelievers will be in Hades since God will have resurrected all Old Testament saints including Lazarus (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2).³⁸³

For the rich man Hades was a place of torment. He could see the righteous far away but could not leave Hades to join them. He appealed to Abraham to send Lazarus to extend him some mercy. His address, "Father Abraham," was typically respectful for a Jew (cf. 3:8; John 8:39). However the rich man's appeal to his racial connection with the father of the Jews was ineffective. This fact should have told the listening Pharisees not to count on their Jewish heritage to admit them into the kingdom. The rich man still viewed Lazarus as a servant who could help him rather than as an equal. His judgment had not led him to repent of his selfishness even in death. Obviously many modern ideas about hell are traceable to this parable.

16:25-26 The title "child" or "son" (Gr. teknon) is a tender one that expressed compassion for the rich man in his misery (cf. 15:31). Abraham's reminder of the rich man's previous comfort was not an attempt to justify his present agony. God had not sentenced him to torment because he had previously been comfortable just to balance things out. It reminded the rich man of the reason he was now in torment. He had chosen a life of personal comfort rather than a life of allegiance to God's Word (cf. 12:21). Furthermore it was too late for repentance. Notice that there is no suggestion of a middle ground between Hades and Abraham's bosom, no purgatory. Lazarus had been one of those poor and crippled that had responded to Jesus' invitation and had become a believer (cf. 4:18; 14:13, 21).

16:27-31 Clearly the testimony of the Old Testament (v. 16) was more convincing than any testimony from a person who might return to the living with a message from Hades. This statement condemned the Pharisees who were listening to Jesus but had explained away the Old Testament revelation about Messiah and had asked Jesus for more signs (11:16). It also implied that they would not believe on Jesus even though Jesus would rise from the dead (cf. 9:22; 11:29-30; 13:32). The testimony of the Scriptures is powerful because that is what God has chosen to use to bring conviction of spiritual need (cf. Heb. 4:12). Angels had appeared to people in Old Testament times, but hardhearted people did not believe them either (Gen. 19).

Not long after this teaching Jesus did raise someone from the dead who bore witness to Jesus' identity, another Lazarus. What was the reaction of the Pharisees? They tried to kill both Jesus and Lazarus (John 11:45-53; 12:10-11). Perhaps this is the key to why Jesus gave the poor man in this parable the name Lazarus. Perhaps he wanted the Pharisees to remember the lesson of the Lazarus in this parable when He raised the other Lazarus from the dead.

These verses should warn us against putting too much hope in signs and wonders as what will persuade people to believe in Jesus. The Word of God is a more convincing witness to Him than any miracle. This does not mean that miracles are valueless. God used them to corroborate the testimony of Scripture in the past, and He may do so occasionally today, but Scripture is the Holy Spirit's primary tool in bringing people to repentance (cf. John 16:7-15).

This teaching concerning greed warned the disciples and the Pharisees. They should serve God as faithful servants rather than serving mammon. We should also beware of the possibility of disbelieving Scripture and explaining it away if we make mammon our god, as the Pharisees did.

"Two themes dominate: the idea of divine evaluation in the afterlife and the hardness of heart that cannot be overcome even by resurrection."³⁸⁴

College: Luk 16:1-31

LUKE 16

9. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (16:1-15)

¹ Jesus told his disciples: " There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. ² So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.'

³" The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg - ⁴ I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.'

⁵" So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'

⁶" 'Eight hundred gallons ^a of olive oil,' he replied.

" The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'

⁷" Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?'

" 'A thousand bushels ^b of wheat,' he replied.

" He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'

⁸" The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. ⁹ I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

¹⁰" Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. ¹¹ So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? ¹² And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?

¹³" No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

¹⁴ The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. ¹⁵ He said to them, " You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

^a 6 Greek one hundred batous (probably about 3 kiloliters) ^b 7 Greek one hundred korous (probably about 35 kiloliters)

Chapter 16 relates two parables about the proper use of wealth. It is a fairly difficult chapter to interpret because of the unusual nature of the first parable and the two seemingly disconnected sayings which follow it. (The second parable is all too clear for most readers.) Luke may have chosen this material to follow chapter 15 in order to include a section of longer, story parables.

The first parable is an embarrassment to some interpreters, because Jesus commends a man who must be considered dishonest. It also seems to have more than one ending, making it difficult to be sure of the intended lesson. I will argue that the interpretive key comes in verse 4 and especially verse 9: " Use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings."

1-4. It was not uncommon for a rich man to have a manager or steward (sometimes a slave) to take care of his financial matters. The rich man in the story believes that his manager is wasting his possessions (an act of incompetence, not immorality), and so he fires him. The manager is given time to give an account of his management , meaning that he is to provide all the financial figures, such as how much the rich man owes his creditors and how much debtors owe the rich man. Since he is too weak to dig (manual labor) and too proud to beg , he does not know how he will provide food and housing for himself in the future. Then he has a brilliant idea. His plan is to do such a favor for his master's debtors that they will repay the favor by giving him room and board in their own houses.

5-7. The plan is a smart one even if it is immoral. The manager is unconcerned for his master's rights and property, but he does have the " legal" right to carry out his plan. Eight hundred gallons of oil , the amount owed by the first client, is an enormous amount. Allowing the debtor to pay only four hundred would save him a large amount of money. The second debtor is also given a huge discount, when he is required to pay only eight hundred instead of a thousand bushels of wheat . Both men are " given" an amount which would leave them " indebted" to this manager for several years to come.

8a. When the master discovers what has transpired, he is surely very unhappy. However, being a clever businessman himself, he understands that the dishonest manager has acted shrewdly . He even commends the manager for acting to secure his future (not for being dishonest).

8b. Jesus then comments that the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light . This has often been taken to mean that Jesus is here praising shrewd or clever action generally. However, this understanding ignores the whole context of chapter 16, verse 4, and verse 9, where he clarifies what sort of cleverness he is praising. He simply means that people such as this manager understand how to use possessions to secure their futures better than Christians (" children of light" ) understand how to use their possessions to ensure a place in the kingdom.

9. Jesus' (and Luke's) final word on the parable encourages disciples of Jesus to use worldly wealth to gain friends . The " friends" they should gain are those who can welcome them into eternal dwellings . Luke offers several examples of those who do precisely this. John the Baptist encourages those with extra clothes and food to give to those who had none (3:11). Zacchaeus will give half of his wealth to the poor (19:8). The rich man will be told to sell everything and give to the poor (18:22). The very next parable will tell of a man who does not use wealth to make friends for eternity, so that he spends eternity in torment (16:23). The reader must remember, however, that no amount of good works, including giving to the poor, can place a claim upon God. Salvation is a gift of grace based upon repentance and faith. Good works are simply the fruits of repentance and the acts of faith.

10-12. Jesus contends that a person's use of wealth is a good indicator of that person's heart. Those who are faithful with possessions will be faithful in all things. Jesus reminds his hearers that what they consider their own property is actually someone else's , that is, God's. Therefore those who do not use his property for his purposes will not be given property of their own . " Property of their own" refers to the permanent dwelling in heaven, over against the temporal use of God's property in this life.

13. Jesus implies that every person serves some master. However, no servant can serve two masters . Both God and wealth make high demands on a person's time, energy, and resources. Any person who attempts to serve both will hate the one and love the other . Love for God is fundamentally incompatible with love for money. Love for money will cause a person to hoard it, which is the opposite of what God wants.

14. All the talk about giving up one's wealth led the Pharisees to sneer at Jesus . Their thinking probably reflected that of many first-century Jews (and modern Christians), who believed that wealth was a reward from God for righteousness. Jesus' teaching called into question their whole way of thinking about possessions. More importantly, it called into question their personal values and priorities. They had to either sneer at Jesus or repent.

15. Jesus knew all the attempts of the Pharisees to justify themselves to those who might be watching. Although they would appear to be faithful regarding financial matters, Jesus warns them that God knows their hearts . God knows that they place a high value on wealth, an attitude which is detestable in God's sight .

10. Teachings on the Law and Divorce (16:16-18)

¹⁶" The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. ¹⁷ It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

¹⁸" Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

These three verses are very difficult, because they appear to interrupt the flow of Jesus' teaching on wealth. Not only are they apparently out of place, they are very difficult in and of themselves. The first two seem to teach that the Law of Moses is still in force, and the third would appear to take a more conservative view of divorce and remarriage than the Law of Moses.

16. Jesus has already said that John was associated with the period before the arrival of the kingdom (the " least in the kingdom is greater than John," according to 7:28). Therefore there is a sense in which the " proclamation of the Law and the prophets" ended with John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom is being preached . The fact that everyone is forcing his way into it probably means that being a disciple is difficult, because there is resistance from Satan, from family, and from various other opponents of the kingdom. The door is narrow, and " many . . . will try to enter and will not be able to" (13:24).

17. However, the fact that the kingdom has arrived and is being preached does not mean that the Law has been abolished. In fact it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law . Given Luke's later examples and discussion concerning the Law of Moses, it appears that the Law continues to be a guide for Christians, both Jewish and Gentile. Jewish Christians continue to keep even the ceremonial aspects of the Law (see Acts 21:21-25; see also supplemental study on the " Law" ). Gentile Christians are still subject to the will of God for Gentiles as outlined in the Law. All are subject to the will of God, and it is most clearly found in the Law as interpreted by Jesus.

In the present context it is especially important to recognize that Jesus believes that his teaching relative to the use of possessions is that which is found in the Law. At the end of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has Abraham tell the rich man that his brothers " have Moses and the Prophets" to teach them about the need to care for people such as Lazarus. The brothers should " listen to them" (16:29). This may best explain the discussion of the Law (and divorce) in this context. The Pharisees do not value what God values (caring for the poor and faithfulness to spouses). God has shown what he values in the Law and the prophets. The kingdom does not do away with these concerns. If anything, the kingdom intensifies these values.

18. The divorce saying is more difficult because it appears to contradict Deuteronomy 24:1-4. However, Jesus would without any doubt argue that this is another Pharisaic misunderstanding of the Law. Its position in this passage immediately after the saying about the Law is good evidence that he is correctly interpreting the Law over against the more lenient interpretations of the Pharisees. Moses never commands divorce and remarriage. The " Prophets" also concur, as seen in Malachi 2:14-16. Whatever the reader's view of the relationship of this verse to its context, Jesus is calling for another radical commitment from the disciple. He says here that to remarry after a divorce or to marry a divorced person is to commit adultery.

11. The Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31)

¹⁹" There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. ²⁰ At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores ²¹ and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

²²" The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ In hell, ^a where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. ²⁴ So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

²⁵" But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. ²⁶ And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

²⁷" He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, ²⁸ for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

²⁹" Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

³⁰" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

³¹" He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

^a 23 Greek Hades

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus functions to inform Jesus' hearers and Luke's readers about what happens to those who do not keep the commitments (such as marriage and duty to the poor) which are taught in the Law. It also provides a marvelous counter-example concerning using possessions in order to make friends who will welcome a person into heaven (16:9). It is surely one of the most difficult passages in the Gospel for modern Americans to accept. It is, however, easy to understand.

19a. The fact that Lazarus has a name is unusual in a parable. It may be this fact and the reality of Abraham that have led many to misconstrue this parable as an historical account. However, the fact that it begins, " There was a certain rich man . . ." and the fact that one can talk across a gulf between heaven and hell indicate that it should be seen as a parable. The reader should therefore look for the major point(s) and not press the details. This is not a picture of what the afterlife will be like. It is a warning for those who do not share their possessions with the poor.

19b-20. Purple and fine linen are the clothes of the powerful and rich. The statement that he lived in luxury every day refers to his eating habits (NRSV: he " feasted sumptuously every day" ). His house was also quite luxurious, having a gate where there was laid a beggar named Lazarus . There was little else for people with disabilities but to be taken where they could beg from those with money. Jesus highlights the miserable plight of Lazarus, by noting that he was covered with sores , hungry, and licked by dogs.

22-23. The idea that the angels carried him to Abraham's side reflects the belief that angels would gather up the elect at the time of the resurrection and final judgment (Matt 13:39, 49, 16:27, 24:31, 25:31). The phrase " Abraham's side" is nowhere else used, but it is a beautiful way of saying that God's people will be in the presence of Abraham, the father of the faithful. The rich man also died and was in hell . The term translated " hell" is hades , a term which can mean either the place of all the dead (equivalent to the Hebrew sheol ) or, as in this case, the place of the unrighteous dead. The fact that he looked up and saw Abraham does not mean that heaven and hell will be within seeing distance of each other. This is a parable, not an historical account of an actual event. Jesus is not describing the topography of heaven and hell.

24-26. The rich man's desire for pity cannot be fulfilled, because he had not pitied Lazarus when he had the opportunity. His request that Abraham send Lazarus would seem to suggest that he still sees himself as the superior of Lazarus, who should come serve him. The traditional picture of hell as a place of never-ending flames is affirmed, as the rich man wants water to cool his tongue because of his agony in the fire . Abraham's response recalls the beatitudes and woes: " You received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony." Jesus' hearers get a glimpse of the final reversal, in which " the hungry now . . . will be filled," and those " who are full now . . . will be hungry" (6:21, 25).

27-28. The parable could end with verse 26, having made a powerful impression on Jesus' listeners. However, as in the parable of the lost son, Jesus has another point to make in part two. Even though the rich man was formerly unconcerned about Lazarus, he is now concerned about those at his father's house . Again he wants Lazarus to be sent, this time to his five brothers , who are apparently also unconcerned about the poor. He does not want them to come to this place of torment . At least this former rich man cares about someone, but, of course, " even sinners love those who love them," (6:32) such as family members.

29-30. The rich man's request for Lazarus to be sent to his five brothers is clearly a request that the brothers be given a sign so that they would change their ways. Abraham's response (the words put in Abraham's mouth by Jesus) is that they do not need a sign, because they have Moses and the prophets . The implication is that there is sufficient teaching about how to treat the poor in the Law and prophets. A person does not need a miracle to know that it is right to take care of those who are without life's necessities. The rich man's response to Abraham says a great deal about him: " No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." The rich man contends that simply knowing what is right is not enough to motivate people. They need a sign from heaven, and then they will change their ways.

31. Abraham's final words are Jesus' clearest explanation about sign seekers. " If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Jesus has performed miracles, only to have some question the source of his power. Many have heard his words, which are self-evidently true to anyone with an open mind and heart. Those who are not convinced do not want to be convinced, and even one rising from the dead will not change their minds. The irony, of course, is that Jesus will rise from the dead, and most still will not believe.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Luk 16:1-18

XCII.
SECOND GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.
(Probably in Peræa.)
Subdivision E.
PARABLE OF THE UNRIGHTEOUS STEWARD.
^cLUKE XVI. 1-18.

   ^c1 And he said also unto the disciples [If we remember that many publicans were now taking their stand among Jesus' disciples, we will more readily understand why Jesus addressed to them a parable about an unjust man. They would be more readily affected by such a story], There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. ["Wasting" of this verse and "wasted" of Luk 15:13 are parts of the same verb. The attitude of the two brethren to their father's estate, as set forth in the previous parable, introduced thoughts as to the proper relation which a man bears to his possessions, and these relations Jesus discusses in this parable. While no parable has been so diversely explained, yet the trend of interpretation has been in the main satisfactory. In Luk 16:8 the Lord himself gives the key to the parable, which is that the children of light, in the conduct of their affairs, should emulate the wisdom and prudence of the children of the world in the conduct of their affairs. The difficulty of the parable is more apparent than real. The whole parabolic machinery is borrowed from worldly and irreligious life, where dishonest cunning and rascality are freely tolerated. The child of light is equally shrewd and wise in the management of his affairs; using, however, only those means and methods which are permissible in his sphere of action. God's word, of course, nowhere teaches the absurdity [506] that sinful methods are permitted to him whom it calls to lead a sinless life. While the steward's conduct teaches valuable lessons, the steward himself is condemned as an "unrighteous" man in Luk 16:8.]  2 And he called him, and said unto him, What is this that I hear of thee? [an indignant expression of surprise arising from abused confidence] render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward. [Ordinarily the stewards were slaves; but this was evidently a free man, for he was neither punished nor sold, but discharged.]  3 And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord taketh away the stewardship from me? I have not strength to dig [Being too weak in body because of my luxurious living. Digging refers generally to agricultural labor]; to beg I am ashamed. [Being too strong in pride because of my exalted manner of life.]  4 I am resolved what to do [a way of escape comes to him in a sudden flash of discovery], that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they [my lord's debtors] may receive me into their houses.  5 And calling to him each of his lord's debtors, he said to the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?  6 And he said, A hundred measures of oil. [The measure mentioned here is the Hebrew bath, which corresponded roughly to a firkin, or nine gallons.] And he said unto him, Take thy bond [literally, writings], and sit down quickly and write fifty. [The amount remitted here -- 450 gallons of olive oil -- represented a large sum of money. Such a reduction would put the debtor under great obligation to the steward.]  7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. [The measure here is the Hebrew cor, which contains ten baths, or ephahs, or, more exactly, eighty-six and seven-tenths gallons.] He saith unto him, Take thy bond, and write fourscore. [The amount remitted was about 267 bushels, and the debtor himself altered the writing, that he might be in no uncertainty about it. Scholars disagree as to whether these debtors were tenants or traders; i.e., [507] purchasers of produce who had given their bonds or notes for the same. Meyer, Trench, Godet, and others favor this latter view, but the language used and the customs of the land rather indicate that the former is correct. In the East rents are in proportion to the crop, and hence they vary as it varies. It was natural, therefore, that the steward should ask the amount of the rent; and also natural, since rents were thus payable in kind, that the tenant should answer as to the very thing owed. A trader would have been held, not for the purchase, but for the price, and would rather have specified the money due than the quantity or thing bought. Since the price of produce varies, it has been the immemorial custom everywhere to fix the amount to be paid for it at the very time it is purchased, and this amount becomes the debt.]  8 And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely [shrewdly]: for the sons of this world are for their own generation [their own clan or class] wiser than the sons of light. [That is to say, the steward, a worldly-minded rascal, knew better how to deal with a worldly-minded master above him and dishonest tenants beneath him, than a son of light knows how to deal with the God over him and his needy brethren about him. The verse contrasts the sons of two households: the children of the worldly household exercise more forethought and prudence in gaining among their brethren friends for the day of need, and in expending money to that end, than do the children of the light. The "devil's martyrs," in their skillful prudence, often shame the saints. If the latter showed a wisdom in their affairs analogous to that which the unjust steward employed in his affairs, God would commend them as the lord commended the steward.]  9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness [see Mat 25:35-40, where our Lord altogether identifies himself with his poor and unfortunate disciples, and returns on their behalf a heavenly recompense for any kindness which has been shown them on the earth. Only in this secondary and subordinate sense can those whom the Christian has benefited receive him into heaven. Nor does the passage teach that their is any merit in almsgiving, since the thing given is already the property of another (Luk 16:12). Almsgiving is only a phase of the fidelity required of a steward, and the reward of a steward is not of merit but of grace -- Luk 17:7-10, Mat 25:21.]  10 He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. [God does not judge by the magnitude of an act, but by the spiritual principles and motives which lie back of the act. A small action may discover and lay bare these principles quite as well as a large one. In the administration of small properties entrusted to us on the earth we reveal our disposition and temper as stewards quite as well as if we owned half the universe.]  11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? [The word "unrighteous" is here used to mean deceitful, as opposed to true. Worldly riches deceive us by being temporal and transitory, while the true riches are eternal -- 2Co 4:18.]  12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? [We are all God's stewards, and the perishing possessions of earth are not our own (1Ch 29:14), but that which is given us forever is our own -- 1Co 3:22.]  13 No servant can serve two masters [Gal 1:10, Jam 4:4]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and [509] mammon. [See Luk 23:35). This was a new phase of their opposition, and showed that they no longer feared Jesus as formerly, being assured that he aimed at no earthly dominion. Because of his poverty they may have regarded him as prejudiced against wealth. At any rate, they regarded themselves as living contradictions of this to them ridiculous statement that a man could not be rich and yet religious.]  15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: dor that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. [The Pharisees lived in such outward contrast to the publicans and made such pretensions and claims that men esteemed them righteous, but they were none the less abominable in God's sight. God approves righteousness when inward, but despises the mere outward show of it.]  16 The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it. [See p. 283.]  17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than one tittle of the law to fall. [See page 236. The law and the prophets had been used of God to set up the old dispensation, and it had been so perverted and abused that in it the Pharisees could pass for righteous men, though abominable according to its true standard. Since the days of John the old dispensation has been merging into the new, and this also has been subjected to violence. But despite all the changes made, approved, and justified by men, the God-given law had never changed. Its smallest letter could no more be eliminated than the universe could be obliterated. But of course the Lawgiver could with notice modify his law.]  18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery. [See p. 242. This precept is inserted here as [510] an illustration of a flagrant violation of the law of God both countenanced and practiced by these Pharisees.]

[FFG 506-511]

McGarvey: Luk 16:19-31

XCII.
SECOND GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.
(Probably in Peræa.)
Subdivision F.
PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.
^cLUKE XVI. 19-31.

   [The parable we are about to study is a direct advance upon the thoughts in the previous section. We may say generally that if the parable of the unjust steward teaches how riches are to be used, this parable sets forth the terrible consequences of a failure to so use them. Each point of the previous discourse is covered in detail, as will be shown by the references in the discussion of the parable.]  ^c19 Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day [For convenience' sake, this rich man has been commonly called Dives, which is simply Latin for rich man, and is therefore not truly a name, for it is not fitting to name him whom the Lord left nameless. Along the coast of Tyre there was found a rare shell-fish (Murex purpurarius) from which a costly purple dye was obtained, each little animal yielding about one drop of it. Woolen garments dyed with it were worn by kings and nobles, and idol images were sometimes arrayed in them. This purple robe formed the outer, and the linen the inner garment. The byssus, or fine linen of Egypt, was produced from flax, which grew on the banks of the Nile. It was dazzlingly white, and worth twice its weight in gold (Gen 41:42, Exo 26:31-33, Exo 28:5, 1Ch 15:27, Eze 27:7). The mention of these garments and a continual banqueting indicates a life of extreme luxury.]  20 and a certain beggar [literally, one who crouches. It is used thirty-four times in the New Testament, and is everywhere translated "poor" save here and at Gal 4:9. In the last stages of life Lazarus had become an object of charity, but there is nothing to indicate that he had been an habitual beggar] named Lazarus [This is the only [511] name which occurs in our Lord's parables. It is derived from Eleazar, which means, God a help. The name is symbolic of destitution, and many words indicative of beggary are derived from it] was laid at his gate [in the East the gates of the rich are still the resorts of the poor.] full of sores,  21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; yea, even the dogs come and licked his sores. [The contrast here is sharp. Lazarus is naked and clothed with sores instead of rich apparel, and desires crumbs instead of a banquet. That he limited his desire to crumbs suggests a freedom from both worldly lust and envy. Whether he got the crumbs is not stated. His sufferings may have been as unmitigated on earth as those of the rich man were in Hades (Luk 16:24), and it is certain that even if he received the crumbs they did not count as a gift, being mere refuse, utterly worthless in the sight of the rich man. The very point of the parable is that the rich man gave him nothing. The dogs also suggest a contrast. The rich man is surrounded by loyal brethren and attentive servants, while Lazarus is the companion of dogs, the scavengers of the streets, who treat him with rude compassion as one of their number, soothing his sores with their saliva.]  22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom [it is the office of angels to minister to the heirs of salvation -- Mat 24:31, Mar 13:27, Heb 1:14]: and the rich man also died, and was buried. [In death as well as in life the two men stand in contrast. The rich man passes from view with the pomp and pagentry of a burial (2Ch 16:13, 2Ch 16:14), an earthly honor suited to a worldly life. But Lazarus passes hence with the angels, a spiritual triumph suited to one accepted of God.]  23 And in Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth [Rev 14:10] Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. [Hades (Greek), or Sheol (Hebrew), was the name given to the abode of the dead between death and the resurrection. In it the souls of the wicked are in torment, and those of the righteous [512] enjoy a paradise (Luk 23:43). The joys of Paradise were conceived of as those of a feast, and the expression "Abraham's bosom" is taken from the custom of reclining on couches at feasts. As a guest leaned upon his left arm, his neighbor on his left might easily lean upon his bosom. Such a position of respect to the master of the house was one of special honor, and indicated great intimacy (Joh 1:18, Joh 13:23). What higher honor or joy could the Jew conceive of than such a condition of intimacy and fellowship with Abraham, the great founder of their race? -- Mat 8:11.]  24 And he cried [in earnest entreaty] and said, Father Abraham [the claim of kindred is not denied, but it is unavailing -- Luk 3:8], 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 in anguish in this flame. [The smallness of the favor asked indicates the greatness of the distress, as it does in Luk 16:21, where crumbs are desired. There is a reciprocity also between the desired crumbs and the prayed-for drop, which contains a covert reference to Luk 16:4, Luk 16:5. Had the rich man given more he might now have asked for more. The friendship of Lazarus might have been easily won, and now the rich man needed that friendship, but he had neglected the principle set forth in Luk 16:9, and had abused his stewardship by wasting his substance upon himself. Again, the former condition of each party is sharply reversed. Lazarus feasts at a better banquet, and the rich man begs because of a more dire and insatiable craving. Thus the life despised of men was honored by God, and (Luk 16:15) the man who was exalted among men is found to have been abominable unto God.]  25 But Abraham said, Son [a tender word -- Jos 7:19], remember [Pro 5:11-14] that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things: but now here [where a different order pertains from that of the earth] he is comforted and thou art in anguish. [The woes received by Lazarus are not spoken of as his. He neither earned nor deserved them (Rev 7:13-17). His was the stewardship of suffering [513] (1Co 4:9, 2Co 4:7), and in its small details he had shown great faithfulness. The rich man had the stewardship of wealth, with its accompanying obligation of generosity. This obligation he had esteemed as too contemptibly small to deserve his notice; but in neglecting it, he had inadvertently been unfaithful in much. See Luk 16:10. This has been the sin of omission on the part of the rich man, and his sin of commission answered as a complement to it, for he had been guilty of that money-loving self-indulgence which was condemned by Jesus and justified by the Pharisees (Luk 16:14, Luk 16:15). No other crime is charged against the rich man, yet he is found in torment. But the rich man during his lifetime had been so deceived by his wealth that he had failed to detect his sin. Moreover, as he indicates in Luk 16:28, a like deception was now being practiced upon his brethren. Thus the parable justifies the term "unrighteous" which Jesus had given to mammon at Luk 16:9, Luk 16:11.]  26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that they that would pass from hence to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us. [We have here a clear statement of the separation which parts the good from the evil in the future state. But it has been urged that the coloring and phraseology of this parable is derived from rabbinical teaching, that our Lord made use of a current but erroneous Jewish notion to teach a valuable lesson, and that therefore it is not safe to draw any inferences from the narrative relative to the future state. But it should be observed that the parables of Jesus never introduce fictitious conditions, nor do they anywhere violate the order and course of nature. It is hardly possible that he could have made this an exception to his rule, especially since it is in a field where all the wisdom of the world is insufficient to make the slightest correction. Moreover, it is certainly impossible that he could exaggerate the differences between the states of the lost and saved in the hereafter. Nor can the teaching of the parable be set aside on the ground that it represents merely the intermediate and not the final condition of things. If the [514] intermediate condition of things is fixed and established, the final condition must, a fortiori, be more so. Moreover, the teaching here differs from that of the old rabbis, for, according to Lightfoot, a wall and not a gulf separated between the just and the unjust, and they were not "afar off" from each other, the distance being but a handbreadth. The passage therefore confirms the doctrine that the righteous are neither homeless nor unconscious during the period between death and the resurrection (Phi 1:23), and refutes the doctrine of Universalism, for the gulf is, 1, fixed, and, 2, can not be passed or bridged. The gulf of pride and caste between the rich man and Lazarus while on earth was easy to cross.]  27 And he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house [The double attempt of the rich man to use Lazarus as his servant shows how hard it was for him to adjust himself to his new condition];  28 for I have five brethren [there is no typical significance in the number]; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. [Deceived by his wealth, the rich man looked upon his earthly possessions as real and substantial, and, like rich sinners of to-day, had simply disregarded the affairs of the future life. Aroused by the sudden experience of the awful realities of the future state, he desires to make it as real to his brethren as it had now become to him. In endeavoring to carry out his desire he proceeds on the theory that the testimony of the dead in reference to the realities of the future state are more trustworthy and influential than the revelations of God himself, given through his inspired spokesmen. This dishonoring of God and his law was to be expected from one who had made mammon his real master, even though professing (as the context suggests) to serve God. The singleness of his service is shown in that he, though practically discharged by one master -- mammon, can not even now speak respectfully of God. Some commentators make much of the so-called repentance of the rich man, manifested in this concern for his brethren; but the Lord did not count kindness shown to kindred as evidence of goodness, [515] much less of repentance (Luke vi. 32-35, Joh 1:45, Joh 5:39-46, Luk 24:27. The Scriptures are a sufficient guide to godliness -- 2Ti 3:16, 2Ti 3:17, and a failure to live rightly when possession them is due to lack of will, and not to lack of knowledge.]  30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent. [With the spirit of a true Pharisee, he sought a sign for his brothers. See Joh 12:10). This is also a reference to Jesus' own resurrection. It is true that he did not appear in person to those who disbelieved in him, but they had clear knowledge of his resurrection (Mat 28:11-15), and it was considered as proved to all men -- Act 17:31.] [516]

[FFG 511-516]

Lapide: Luk 16:1-31

CHAPTER 16

Ver. 1.— And He said also unto His disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. Having rebuked in three parables those who murmured because He received penitents, Christ now adds a fourth and fifth on almsgiving and frugality, for the proud and avaricious Pharisees refused both pardon to the penitent, and relief to those who were in want. Gloss.

Unto His disciples, i.e. His hearers, those who were His followers, although they had not given up all, as the Apostles.

A steward, οι̉κονόμος, one who had the management of his master's property, and was answerable for the letting of his land.

Hence we learn "that we are not masters of what we possess, but rather stewards of that which is another's." S. Ambrose and Theophylact.

For although as regards men we are the absolute masters of our own possessions, yet with respect to God, who is Lord over all, we are but stewards. Because, whatever we possess was given us for our own moderate use and for the relief of our poorer brethren, and in the day of judgment we shall have to render a strict account of our stewardship.

So S. Paul says, "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." 1Co 4:2. For all our gifts and endowments are not our own, but belong to God who gave them. Hence we are bound to use them not for our own pleasure, but according to His will. Thou hast genius, a keen judgment, a retentive memory, wisdom, eloquence, or the like! Forget not that thou art a steward of these gifts, not a master. Remember that thou hast to give an account of their use, and take heed to use them to the honour and glory of God. Hear S. Chrysostom, "There is an erroneous opinion that all the good things of this life which we possess are our own, and that we are lords over them. But we are as it were guests and strangers, whose departure draweth nigh, and dispensers of another's bounty. We ought therefore to assume the humility and modesty of a steward, for nothing is our own, but all things are the gift of God."

Was accused, διεβλήθθ, denounced, Arabic. Hence the devil διάβολος, is called the "accuser" (Rev 12:10), because he accuses us before God. "We are accused," says the Interlinear, "not only when we do evil, but when we omit to do good." For a steward ought to omit nothing which concerns his own duty or his master's good.

Had wasted his goods, i.e. by carelessness and riotous living.

Ver. 2.— And he called him, and said unto him, . . . give an account of thy stewardship, i.e. of how much thou hast received and how thou hast expended it, for thou mayest be no longer steward.

So Christ saith, unto every one in the hour of death, "Give an account of thy stewardship. Give an account of thy life, of thy goods, and of thy talents, whether thou hast used them to promote the glory of God and the salvation of thyself and thy fellow-men."

Climacus relates that a monk, who was afterwards abbot, saw in a dream, the first night he entered the monastery, certain men who demanded of him the payment of one hundred pounds of gold. Whereupon for the space of three years he gave himself up to obedience and mortification, and at the end of that time was told that ten pounds had been subtracted from his debt. For thirteen years longer he continued to practise still greater austerities, and then messengers were sent from God to say that all his debt was forgiven. The same writer has also something terrible to say about the abbot Stephen, who had for forty years lived a holy life of fasting and prayer. This man, the day before he died, fell into a trance, and was heard as if in colloquy with an unseen judge, denying at one time the accusations against him, at another time pleading guilty to the charges, and praying for mercy. Terrible indeed was the spectacle of this invisible and stern judgment.

Ver. 3.— Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? The steward acknowledges the justice of the accusation. He had wasted his master's goods, henceforward he must labour or beg for his living. The one thing he was unable, and the other he was ashamed to do. In his distress, he knows not which way to turn. Truly, St. Chrysostom says, "A slothful life is powerless in action." Symbolically, when life is past, no compunction can, as it were by digging, prepare the soul for fruit; whilst to beg, after the manner of the foolish virgins, is not only disturbing, but vain and useless. Gloss.

Ver. 4.— I am resolved what to do, &c. 1 will give each one of my lord's debtors a bond to show that they owe less than they are actually indebted, so that in return for my kindness and dishonesty, they may entertain me when I am deprived of my stewardship.

Vers. 5 and 6.— How much owest thou unto my Lord? And he said, an hundred measures of oil. Greek βάτος, in the Vulgate cadus, the tenth part of an homer. Lev 27:16, and Eze 45:2.

And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fourscore. Greek γζάμμα, i.e. "cautio" or bond, or as the Vulgate renders it "obligatio." The meaning is, "Take back thy bond, wherein thou didst acknowledge that thou owest one hundred measures of oil. Tear it up and write another, confessing to a debt of fifty only, and divide the other fifty between me and thee."

Ver. 7.— Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. The κόζος which was the same size as the homer, contained ten ephahs. See.

"To me," says S. Augustine ( Quæst. Evang. Lib. ii 34), "the meaning of the passage seems this; that whatever the Jews do for the priests and Levites, should be more liberally provided for in the Church; that whereas they give a tenth, Christians should give a half, as Zaccheus gave, not of his crops, but of his goods; or at least that they should give two tenths, and thus exceed the payments of the Jews."

Ver. 8.— And the lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely. The landlord, not the Lord Jesus, as Erasmus holds. The lord praised not the action, for it was dishonest, but the prudence, the cunning craft of the steward, just as we often admire, not indeed a crime, but the cleverness shown in contriving it.

The children of this world are in their generation, i.e. after their kind, in worldly matters, or as Himmel understands it, amongst their fellow-men, wiser than the children of light, i.e. than those who are followers of Christ. Very wisely has some one said, "In worldly matters we are philosophers, as to our spiritual affairs, fools; in earthly things we are lynx-eyed, but in heavenly we are moles."

The children of this world, says S. Augustine ( Lib. ii . de Genesi ) are wiser in providing for their future; and very naturally so, because the desire of earthly pleasure and enjoyment is strong in man, but the aspirations of his soul are blunted and weakened, partly because of the body, partly from love of earthly things. Hence those that are led by the flesh are more active and energetic than those who are led by the spirit, inasmuch as spiritual things, being invisible, produce but little effect on the minds of men.

The parable was directed against the avarice of the Pharisees. We are taught by it to use our riches not for our own selfish ends, but for the relief of our poorer brethren. For Christ bids us all remember that we are but stewards of God's good gifts, and therefore bound to use them so that we may give a good account of our stewardship, and obtain our due reward. In this sense the unjust steward is held up as an example, and not because of his injustice and fraud.

Hence S. Augustine, as already referred to, considers that Christ reasons thus, "If this steward could so wisely provide for this life, much more ought we to be solicitous for the life to come." And again, "If this steward, unjust as he proved himself to be, was praised for his wisdom, much more shall we receive praise of God, if by our almsgiving we injure none, but benefit many." And he goes on to say, "If a wrongdoer received praise from his lord, how much more pleasing are they to the Lord God, who do all in accordance with His will. So from the parable of the unjust judge Christ took occasion to speak of God as judge, although between the two no comparison was possible."

We learn then from this parable (1.) That those who are possessed of riches, or any other gift of God, such as health, intellect, and the like, are but stewards of His bounty. (2.) That every one is bound to use his possessions to the honour and glory of God. (3.) And that every one at the day of judgment will have to give account, not only for the sins which he has committed, but also for duties which he has neglected to perform. Such is the general meaning of the parable. Its particular application I will proceed to explain.

Ver. 9.— And (in like manner) I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness. Ye have heard how the unjust steward made his lord's debtors so kindly disposed towards him, that when he was deprived of his stewardship, they were willing to receive him into their houses. In like manner take heed that ye, who have wasted your lord's goods through your misuse of them, by the mammon or the riches of unrighteousness—not by robbery and fraud, but in another sense which I will soon explain—give to the poor, so that after this life is over, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

Here note that the word unrighteousness has a double signification. In the case of the steward it meant dishonesty and deceit: in our case it has a different meaning, us I shall proceed, to show.

Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, i.e. of riches, which are "unrighteous" in a fourfold sense and from a fourfold cause.

1. Because riches are often amassed through unrighteousness, i.e. through fraud, usury, and the like of oneself or one's ancestors. Hence S. Jerome (Ep. 150) says every rich man is either himself unrighteous or else the heir of an unrighteous man, and although he may not be ignorant of the evil-doings of his ancestors, yet he can scarcely be expected to know to whom restitution should be made. Therefore he is bound to make such restitution as lies in his power, by giving to the poor. And commenting on S. Matt. vi. the same Father goes on to say, Riches are called Mammon because they are acquired through unrighteousness, taking mammon to be derived from מן, min, and מנה, mona, i.e. violence, from the root ינה, iana, the meaning being "to exercise force." But the real derivation seems to be from טמן taman, to hide or conceal; for riches and money are wont to be hidden.

2. They are unrighteous in the sense of faithless and deceptive, for they are not to be depended upon, but often desert one man and pass on to another.

3. They are called the mammon of unrighteousness, because in their endeavour to become rich men are guilty of fraud, dishonesty, unrighteous dealing, and every kind of sin.

4. And again, they are unrighteous, because wicked and ungodly men esteem them of more value than the heavenly treasures.  S. Augustine ( serm. 35 De Verbis Domini ). Hence we may understand Christ as saying, "Ye rich and avaricious men have made money your god, but be ye well assured that it is unrighteous, i.e. vain and deceptive. Break up your idol, therefore, and give to the poor, and God will recompense you with eternal riches." See S. Mat 6:24.

That when ye fail, when life is over and your riches are no longer at your disposal, or according to the Syriac version, when it, i.e. mammon, fails you.

They may receive you. The poor, i.e. those whom you have made your friends by the right use of your riches. For they, if they are worthy of heaven, will by their prayers and by a communication of their merits make a way for you to enter therein: but if, on the contrary, they are unworthy of so great a blessing, you will be received into heaven because of your almsgiving, for what is given to the poor is accepted of Christ.

Christ seems, here to be speaking of the poor who lead godly lives, who are poor as far as earthly possessions are concerned, but rich in understanding and in spiritual grace. Let not the rich then think that they are conferring, but rather that they are receiving benefits from such as these, for they give gold, to receive in return heaven. Hence S. Gregory (Moral. xxii. 14) says, "Almsgiving is not so much the relieving the necessities of the poor as the offering of gifts to those who hereafter will receive us into everlasting habitations."

Learn therefore, that heaven is the inheritance of the poor, not for their own possession, but rather that they may introduce therein those who have been their benefactors. They are therefore the door-keepers of heaven, for "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (see S. Mat 5:3), and this their blessedness is not of their own deserving, but the special gift of God. So S. Augustine ( lib. ii . q. 38 Quæst. Evang.) says, "They receive them not as of right but by the permission of Him who counselled them to make themselves friends, and who deigns to look upon Himself as being fed, clothed, entertained and visited in the person of the least of His followers."

"Everlasting habitations," says Theophylact, "are in Christ ordained for the poor, wherein they may receive those who have given them liberal alms out of that which God has committed to their trust." Happy indeed is the exchange, for earthly things become heavenly. Hence almsgiving is the most skilful of arts, for it does not build us an earthly tabernacle, but provides us with eternal life." S. Chrysostom.

Ver. 10 . — He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. By "that which is least" we must understand earthly possessions as distinguished from the "much" of spiritual gifts. That ye may not be deprived of your heavenly stewardship, or rather that ye may be entrusted therewith, take heed rightly to administer your temporal affairs, and especially to give alms to the poor, according to the purpose of God. For so Christ explains His words in the next verse. In a similar sense S. Paul writes, "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1Ti 3:5.) Christ seems here to be reproaching the Pharisees with unfaithfulness in the disposal of their riches, and in the interpretation of the law, and also with being little worthy of the position they held (see S. Matt. v. and xxiii.), for from ver. 14 it is clear that these things were spoken against them.

Ver. 11 . — If, therefore, ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? If ye have made a wrong use of this world's fleeting possessions (1Ti 6:7), who will entrust to your care the things which are lasting, and which pertain unto the kingdom of God? Theophylact and many others.

Ver. 12 . — And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? The wording of this verse is different, but the sense is the same as that of the preceding. The mammon which in the verse above Christ called unrighteous, he here calls "another man's." For temporal possessions are another's:

1. Because they are in their nature totally different from the nature of man. They are of the earth, given to man for his use in this life, to revert again to the earth after death.

2. They are another's as regards God, for we are not absolute masters of what we possess but administrators only, bound to dispose of our goods according to His will. So Titus says, "He describes much riches as that which is another man's, because to abound in riches is, considering human nature, foreign to men. For if any man possesses them, they are external to him, and as it were, an accident." "They are," says S. Ambrose, "foreign to the nature of man, for they have no continuance, they were neither born with us, nor can they follow us when we die."  S. Augustine also ( Quæst. Evang. ii. 35) "He calls earthly endowments another's, for no man can carry them away with him at his death." "We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out" (1Ti 6:7); and Euthymius: "Earthly riches are called another's for they do not remain long with their possessor."

Christ reproves avarice, and shows that he who loves money cannot love God: therefore the Apostles, if they would love Him, must despise riches.  S. Jerome. But the better interpretation is one which I am about to give.

That which is your own. "Christ calls heavenly riches ours says Euthymius, "because, as Theophylact explains, 'our citizenship is in heaven.' For man was created in the image of God, but wealth and earthly possessions are not ours, for there is nothing divine therein. But to enjoy divine blessings, and to partake in the nature of God, is ours."

But you will say, Men are wont to value that which is their own, more than that which is the property of another. Why then does Christ here imply the contrary?

I answer that the force of our Lord's argument is seen: 1. If we look to the meaning of the parable, If ye have not been faithful in earthly things, how will ye be so in heavenly, and who will dare to commit such things to your trust? and 2. From the parable itself. Men are as a rule more careful in their management of the affairs of others than of their own, for many reasons, but chiefly because they are bound in justice to make good any losses which may have been incurred by their carelessness, and if careless may even be suspected of dishonesty or theft; whereas for their own losses, or for the mismanagement of their own concerns, they are responsible to no one.

True, therefore, is the argument of Christ, If ye have not been faithful in earthly things, which are another's, God will not give you those heavenly treasures which are rightly your own. For he who makes a wrong use of that which belongs to another deserves to lose that which is his own. For, as Dionysius (Denis) the Carthusian astutely remarks, "In the former verse, Christ spoke of the good things of this life, 'who will trust, or commit,' because an account will have to be rendered of their use. But of the good things of the heavenly country, he says, 'who will give,' for we shall not be called upon to account for these, because once given they are everlastingly our own."

For the following verse, see S. Mat 6:24.

Ver. 14.— And the Pharisees also derided Him, εμυκτήζιζον, "turned up their noses," sneered at Him.

Ver. 15. — And He said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men, i.e. make outwardly a show of justice, whereas God knoweth your hearts to be full of all uncleanness. For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Your pretended zeal for the service of God, which is held in admiration of the common people, is hateful to Him who seeth the foulness and corruption of your hearts. For my explanation of verses 16 to 19, see S. Mat 11:12;  Mat 5:18; and Mat 19:9.

Ver. 19.— There was a certain rich man. You ask, Is this a parable or a true history? I answer, A history!

1. Because Christ does not call it a parable.

2. Because the poor man is named Lazarus, and the rich man, according to a Hebrew tradition quoted by Euthymius, is called a native of Nice.

3. Because the torments of the rich man are related as an actual reality.

4. Because in memory of Lazarus many hospitals for those suffering from leprosy and such like diseases are called by his name.

5. Because with the exception of Justin, Theophylact, and Eucherius, all the Fathers are of my opinion.

Euthymius infers from the mention made of Abraham and Moses in verses 24 and 31, that this rich man was a Jew, and mentions a Hebrew tradition to the effect that he was living in the time of Christ, who gave his history as that of a well-known man, in order the more to impress his hearers, and to teach them to despise the good things of this present life.

Was clothed in purple and in fine linen. The one denoting luxury and pride, and other softness and effeminacy. There are some, says S. Gregory, who do not think that extravagance in apparel is a sin. But if it were not so, the Word of God would not have so directly stated that Dives, who was tormented in hell, had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one seeks fine clothing but out of vainglory, in order to appear better than his fellow-men.

And fared sumptuously every day. The Greek ευ̉φζαινόμενος signifies both gladness and feasting. So Dives, not content with the richness of his banquet, sought to add to the pleasures of the feast the delights of music, dancing, and whatever else could add to his enjoyment. Forgetful of the future, perhaps not believing that there was any future at all, he lived without God, a follower of him who bids men "eat, drink, and enjoy themselves, for death makes an end of all delights." He lived as they live who "take the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the organ. They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave" (Job 21:12-13).

Hence S. Gregory teaches that we cannot indulge in revelling without sin. For when the body is given up to the enjoyment of the feast, the heart is led away to empty rejoicing. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play" (Exo 32:6).

Conversation generally follows after a feast, for when the appetite is satisfied, the tongue is let loose. Hence Dives is fitly described as desiring water to cool his tongue, for feasting ministers to gluttony, wantonness, pride, evil speaking, envy, and many other vices.

Ver. 20.— And there was a certain beggar, a poor man, according to the Arabic. A beggar, poor in earthly possessions, but rich in virtues and in patience; named Lazarus.

"The mention of the name," says S. Ambrose, "shows this to be a narrative, not a parable;" and S. Cyril tells us, "that according to the tradition of the Jews, there was at that time a certain poor man at Jerusalem, by name Lazarus, apparently so called because he was laid at the rich man's gate to pray for the help which he needed so much."

For Lazarus is in Hebrew לצזר, laazar, "ad adjuvandum." Hence S. Chrysostom and Augustine explain the name as meaning helped, or rather one that ought to be helped, for Lazarus, by drawing attention to his sores, as good as exclaimed, ye see my misery, help me in my wretchedness.

Was laid. ε̉βέβλητο, was placed by bearers at the gates of the rich or the entrances of the temples as a breathing corpse, bereft of the power of motion. "He lay," says Titus, "each day and every day in abject misery, neglected, counted as nothing, uncared for, and unprotected." "So that," says S. Chrysostom, "the rich man, as he went out and as he came in, could look upon him, and see his miserable state." "By which things," as S. Gregory teaches ( Hom. 40), "our Lord has explained His two judgments, the greater condemnation of the unpitying Dives, and the greater acceptance and reward of the suffering Lazarus. For how great," he asks, "do ye suppose were the temptations which the poor and suffering beggar had to resist, when hungry and diseased he saw the rich man enjoying health and the delights of life? When overcome by pain and cold, he beheld him clothed in purple and fine linen and rejoicing in the good things of this life. When brought low by the nature of his ailment, and in need, he saw him in full prosperity, yet regardless of another's wants. What a storm of temptation, may we, my brethren, think there must have been in the heart of the beggar, to whom either ill—poverty or sickness, alone would have been a sufficient punishment! But that he might be the more tried, he was subjected to both evils, and saw, moreover, that whilst the rich man was surrounded by flattering friends and supporters, he had no one to visit him in his misery and want."

Full of sores. Not only poor but diseased είλκωμένος, covered with ulcers. Hence many think that Lazarus was a leper, and therefore look upon him as the patron saint of those afflicted with leprosy, who are called Lazars, and their hospitals Lazarettos, after his name.

Ver. 21.— And dogs came and licked his sores. Francis Lucas thinks that they did this as if feeding on a dead body, and that they thus caused the poor sufferer much pain, for, S. Chrysostom adds, "he had not the strength to drive them away."

But in another sense the dogs may be considered as cleansing and healing the poor man's sores. Hence S. Chrysostom says, "The wild animals in compassion lick the sores which no one, much less the rich glutton, cared to cleanse. For the rich, unmindful of the condition of their fellowmen, laugh at misery, and turn away from those whom they ought to pity." S. Ambrose.

S. Chrysostom ( hom. De Lazaro ), enumerates nine grievous ills to which the poor man was subjected:

1. A poverty so extreme, that he could not even obtain the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table.

2. A disease so grievous and so weakening, that he was unable to drive away the dogs which gathered round him.

3. Desertion by all, even those who ought to have aided him.

4 The constant sight of the rich man's happiness, for his bodily pains and his grief of mind were increased by the knowledge, that they who were possessed of every enjoyment had no thought or consideration for him.

5. The hard heartedness of the rich man, who passed him by, without a kind word or look.

6. His loneliness, for "it is pleasant to have a companion in misfortunes."

7. Uncertainty as to the future, for since the coming of Christ, faith in the resurrection of the dead is a wonderful support in affliction.

8. The long continuance and constancy of his sufferings.

9. The loss of reputation, for many thought that his sufferings were a direct punishment for some great crime. But, like another Job, he bore all his trials with fortitude and an undaunted mind. Hence God has set forth Lazarus, Job, Tobias and S. Lydwina, whose sufferings are recorded by Sirius, to be as long as the world last examples of patience to all who are sick and afflicted

Ver. 22 . — And it came to pass that the beggar died, of disease, misery, and want.

And was carried, i.e. his soul was conducted with honour for the soul after death needs no actual carrying. Observe here the office of the angels; for S. Chrysostom says, if we need guides then we are changing from one country to another, how much shall we need some to lead the way when the disembodied soul is on its passage to futurity. He further adds, "Ye saw the poor man at the rich, man's gate: ye see him now in Abraham's bosom; ye saw him surrounded by dogs: ye see him in company of the angels; ye saw him poor, famished, struggling: ye see him happy, filled with good things, and possessed of the prize. Ye saw his labours: ye see his reward."

Into Abraham's bosom. In order that, beholding Lazarus entertained as a guest by Abraham, the rich man might be confounded at his own want of hospitality. Euthymius. Abraham was hospitable: that the sight of Lazarus might rebuke the rich man's want of hospitality. Abraham was wont to watch for wayfarers, to bring them to his house; but the rich man despised him who lay within his gate, and though the poor man was daily ready to his hand, he used him not as a treasure by means of which he might obtain salvation. S. Chrysostom ( hom. De Lazaro.)

You ask, What is Abraham's bosom, and where situated?  S. Augustine ( lib. iv . De Anima ) replies, "It is the place of rest in which are received after death the souls of all who are imitators of the faith and piety of Abraham. The place which before Christ was the 'limbus patrum,' but now is heaven, the paradise of the blessed. Hence the Church sings, "Martin rejoices in Abraham's bosom—Martin, here poor and mean, enters heaven abounding in wealth."

And S. Augustine, treating of the death of Nebridius ( Confess. lib. ix.) says, "He lives in Abraham's bosom, wherever that may be, there my Nebridius lives." And the Church prays that God will receive the souls of the departed in Abraham's bosom, and give them eternal rest, "as thou hast promised to Abraham and his seed for ever."

It is called Abraham's bosom. 1. Because children rest quiet in the bosom of their parents, and all the faithful are called children of Abraham, who excelled all in faith and holiness. Hence "in the limbus of the fathers" he was chief

Abraham's bosom, therefore, says Ambrose, is a certain haven of rest, and a sacred retreat.

In the Greek κολπος, in the Latin "sinus," because retired or secret.  S. Augustine.

Because this blessedness was promised to Abraham and in him to all the faithful Gen 22:18.

3. Because Abraham was remarkable for his hospitality. Hence it was fitting that the poor and friendless Lazarus, whom the inhospitable rich man had rejected, should be received into his bosom. For, says Chrysologus, the kindness which he showed to God made him chief of the heavenly banquet, and because he received two men with God at an earthly feast (Gen 18:8), he will receive the people of the East and West at a heavenly.

Hence the soul of the poor man was carried, not into Abraham's presence only, but into Abraham's bosom, in order that it might receive comfort and refreshment.  S. Chrysostom. And again, Because Lazarus when on earth, was poor and despised, in heaven he became honoured and rich. Thus, solely on account of the ills which he suffered, Lazarus obtained a reward like to that of the Patriarch, and this, not because he had pity on the poor, or had relieved the oppressed, or had done some good thing, but because he bore patiently all the ills he had to endure.

The rich man also died, and was buried. "The man who had so buried his soul in drunkenness and self-indulgence that it was useless and dead within him," says S. Chrysostom; who goes on to give a touching description of the change which had now come over Dives. "Consider," he says, "the pomp in which he had lived, the flatterers and friends which were wont to seek his company, and the luxury which had surrounded him: and now all had departed. Everywhere nothing but dust and ashes, lamentation and weeping; no one to help him, no one to call back his soul. Of what avail were his riches, now that he was taken away from all his dependents and left deserted, defenceless, and neglected, left alone to bear in his own person an intolerable punishment?"

In hell, i.e. "in purgatory," says James Faber, who thinks that the rich man, after suffering the purgatorial fires, was saved. But others understand here the place of the damned, and hold that the rich man had received his condemnation, an interpretation which is supported by the after narrative, particularly by the 26th verse; and indeed, this is the proper signification of the word "hell," which—in the Greek, άδης, from the primative particle α, and ίδειν, to see—means a place of darkness, where there is neither seeing nor light.

But you will say, We do not read that the rich man sinned, save inasmuch as he fared sumptuously every day, which as a venial sin was deserving of purgatory, but not of hell.

I answer, that although to fare sumptuously is a venial sin, yet if it leads to evil and to excess, especially if it is productive of selfishness and a disregard of the poor, it becomes mortal, and this must happen to him who is a slave to his appetite, for as I have said (ver. 19), a man cannot at the same time serve his belly and his God. The rich man therefore was damned on account of these sins, and chiefly because of his neglect of Lazarus. For he was bound, under peril of committing mortal sin, to minister to the need of the poor man, and since he did not do so, he became liable to the punishment of hell.

"For it is robbery," says S. Chrysostom "to keep what we have received, and to refuse to others a share in our abundance." Again he adds, "the rich man was tormented, not because he was rich, but because he had no compassion." So also S. Gregory of Nyssa.

Hear also S. Hieronymus ( Epist. 34, ad Julianum ): "The flames of hell received the purple-clad Dives. But the poor and suffering beggar, whose sores the dogs licked, who scarcely could maintain himself on the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, is carried into Abraham's bosom, and comforted by the Patriarch with a parent's care. For it is difficult, nay impossible, to enjoy both present and future possessions; to fill here the belly, there the soul; to pass from delights to delights; to be first in both worlds, and to appear glorious both in heaven and on earth."

Hence S. Basil ( serm. 1, De Jejunio ) says, "Beware of luxury, for the rich man is tormented, not because of his evil deeds, but because of his self-indulgent life." For they who are indulgent to themselves are harsh and unmerciful to others. They take away what the poor man needs to minister to their own unnecessary enjoyments, as this glutton did, not only from Lazarus, but also from the other poor. For, adds S. Chrysostom, "If he had no pity on him whom time after time, as he went out of his house and returned to it again, he was compelled to see lying at his gate, on whom has he ever had compassion? He therefore was content that they should die of hunger, cold, and disease. So to this very day there are some rich men who are liberal in their banquetings, illiberal to the poor—who spend pounds on one feast alone, but grudge a penny for the relief of those in want. Thus they who always study themselves, neglect others, and consume everything on their own pleasures. For gluttony is a master passion and says, "All is for me, nothing for thee."

He lift up his eyes. The eyes not of his body, but of his mind. God showed the rich man Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, that, says S. Chrysostom, "he might be the more tormented, not only from the nature of his punishment, but also from seeing the estimation in which Lazarus was held. For as the sufferings of Lazarus, when a prey to so many evils, were increased by the sight of the rich man abounding in good things, so now the sight of Lazarus, in his turn comforted, was to Dives an increase of misery." Hence S. Gregory ( hom. 40) and after him the Gloss says: "We must believe that before the judgment the wicked see the just at rest, and are tormented by their happiness, and also that the just behold the wicked in torment, that their joy may be increased as they look upon the evils from which they have been mercifully preserved."

Ver. 24.— And he cried— "cried" because his great punishment evoked a great cry. S. Chrysostom.

And said, Father Abraham. He calls Abraham father, because he was a Jew, and therefore a descendant of Abraham. He did not address Lazarus, says Theophylact, because he was ashamed, and moreover thought that Lazarus was still mindful of the evils he had suffered at his hands.

Send Lazarus. "0 miserable man," says S. Chrysostom, "thou art mistaken. Abraham can receive him, he cannot send him! Behold the rich man has now need of the poor man. So when death draws nigh, and the spectacle of life is over, when the marks of riches and of poverty are laid aside, all are judged according to their works, according as they are possessed of true riches, or are poor in the sight of God."

And again, by a sudden change—a change which is graphically described by the prophet (see Isa 65:13)—the rich man becomes the suppliant of the poor man, and he who was wont to pass by Lazarus as he lay nigh at hand, invokes his aid now that he is afar off.

That he may dip the tip of his finger in water, &c. His tongue, which was inflamed with the desires of gluttony and of boasting, says S. Chrysostom (and of gossiping, adds the Interlinear), now burns with the fires of hell, for wherein that a man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punished. Wisdom 11:16.

For I am tormented, &c, by unspeakable torments, both by the flaming fire and a raging thirst.

Hear S. Chrysostom ( serm. 124): "If thou art surrounded on all sides by the fires of hell, why dost thou desire only the cooling of thy tongue? Because, he answers, the tongue which insulted the poor man, and refused him relief, suffers the more in the fiery torment:" and Salvian adds ( Lib. iii ad. Eccles. ), "How willingly would the rich man have sacrificed all his possessions to obtain release from his endless misery?" Nay more, he would have given up everything for one hour's respite from the flames. Because, can we imagine that he who prayed that Lazarus might be sent so great a journey to bear but one drop of water, would have begrudged any price to purchase rest?

"Fitly," says S. Augustine ( serm. 110 De tempore ) "did he ask a drop of the man who asked of him a crumb, and inasmuch as he loved riches, he met with no compassion. Ever foolish, too late compassionate, he wished his brethren to be warned—but obtained nothing by his request." And again ( Serm.227), "Be warned by the example of the luxurious rich man, whose dogs Lazarus fed by his sores, though he was denied the crumbs which fell from that rich man's table. But after a short time their lots were changed. The poor man, because of his poverty, obtained happiness; the rich man, on account of his riches, punishment. The one is carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom, the other consigned to the depths of hell. The whole body of the rich man is consumed by the fire, yet his tongue suffers still greater torment. Doubtlessly because by its proud speaking he had despised the poor man. For the tongue which is unwilling to order the relief of the poor, is subjected to greater suffering hereafter. 0 rich man, how canst thou ask for a drop of water, when thou wouldest not give a crumb from thy table? Hadst thou been willing to give, thou mightest now with justice make thy request." And again, "By a just judgment in thy turn thou sufferest, for judgment without mercy is the reward of the unmerciful."

And S. Gregory ( hom. 40): He who was unwilling to give the suffering beggar the least crumb that fell from his table, in hell was feign to seek, if it were but the least drop of water." And S. Basil says, "The rich man is worthily recompensed: for the tuneful lyre, wailing; for drink, the intense longing for a drop."

You ask, How can the soul of the rich man be said to have a tongue, or the soul of Lazarus a finger; or how can the one feel thirst, and be tormented in the flames, or seek to be relieved by the finger of the other?

1. Tertullian erroneously thinks that the human soul is corporeal, and that it therefore has its tongue, finger, and other members.

2. Hugo Œtherianus supposes that the disembodied soul has the semblance of a body, like the reflection of any object in a mirror; and John Huartus, a physician, is of the same opinion.

3, But I hold that Christ was here speaking after the manner of a parable, and wished to place before the eyes of his hearers the punishments and rewards which men will receive at the day of judgment, because we only can form an opinion of the punishments of the soul through the punishments of the body; and further, he wished to show that the rich man was punished suitably to his sin.

Some add that the fires of hell produce in the souls of the damned torments, similar to those which they would suffer if they were still in the body. For why should it be thought impossible for God to cause the soul to suffer without the body what it would have suffered if it had continued to be united with the body? Especially as every feeling which affects the soul whilst it is in the body, is of the soul, and not of the body: for it is the soul and not the body which feels, and sees and hears. See 2Co 4:16. Hence Francis Lucas says, that we are to understand that the soul of the rich man suffered just as if his body had been actually given up to be tormented by the flames, for the soul is afflicted by imaginations derived from the body.

In short, all these things set forth, after the manner of a parable, the extreme misery and torment of the rich man; and also that the blessed are not able to render any aid to the damned, nor indeed have they the wish to do so, inasmuch as they are persuaded that this would be contrary to the fixed purpose of God. Furthermore, the damned do not dare to ask this aid, for they on their part know that they are separated by a great and impassable gulf from those who have entered into rest.

Hence Abraham feels no compassion for the misery of the rich man, because he recognises in his punishment the justice of God. For the sight of the punishment of the wicked does not lessen the happiness of the just, because since they can feel no compassion for the sufferings which they see, their joy will not on this account be diminished. Gloss. And S. Gregory ( hom. 40) says, The souls of the just, although in the goodness of their nature they feel compassion, yet after they have been united to the righteousness of their Author, are constrained by such great uprightness as not to be moved with compassion towards the reprobate.

Ver. 25. — But Abraham said, Son, remember, &c. "See," says S. Chrysostom, "the kindness of the Patriarch. He calls him son, yet he gives no aid to him, who had deprived himself of cure." "For," adds S. Gregory of Nyssa, "because he had no pity, he is not heard. Neither Abraham nor God has compassion on his prayer."

Remember that thou . . . receivedst thy good things. Thou, when thou wast faring sumptuously, wast unwilling to bestow a thought on Lazarus, or on God, or on heaven or hell; but now call to mind thy feastings, which have led to thy condemnation.

"For," says S. Gregory ( hom. 40), "to increase his punishment, his knowledge and memory are preserved. He knows Lazarus, whom he had despised, and remembers his brethren whom he had left, that by the sight of the glory of one, whom he had despised, and by anxiety about the punishment of those whom he had loved to no purpose, he would be the more tormented."

Thy good things. Thine, i.e. earthly things, which thou didst consider true riches, things for which alone thou didst live in utter neglect of higher concerns. "Evil men," says S. Gregory, "receive in this life good things, for they consider transitory happiness to be their sole joy."

2. Thine, i.e. the reward due to thy scanty deserts. "For we are taught," says S. Chrysostom, "that the rich man was rewarded in this world for any good which he had done, and Lazarus punished for any evil which he might have committed. It follows therefore that Lazarus was comforted, because of his patience and goodness, which had not been regarded in this life, and the rich man tormented because of his sin and neglect of God, which had not been punished in this life." "So," S. Gregory says, "the fire of poverty purged the poor man's sins, and this world's fleeting happiness rewarded the rich man for any good which he had done."

3. Thine. Thou in this life didst receive thy portion of good, therefore there was nothing in store for thee in the future; but Lazarus received evil things, therefore happiness in the next world was his due. For thus God in his justice apportions heavenly blessings to the elect, but earthly benefits to the wicked and those who know Him not. Wherefore, let him who abounds in earthly riches and earthly honour, fear lest he may be deprived of them in the life to come: and let him who has none of these enjoyments in this world, look for them in heaven.

This truth Christ revealed to S. Catherine of Sienna, in a vision of which mention has been already made. (See chap. vi. 24).

Behold an image of eternity, the cross leading to the crown, but pleasure to destruction.

On these words of Abraham, S. Bernard exclaims, "Awake, ye drunken, and weep, for God is fearful in His judgments on the sons of men. Can it be that the rich man was in torment, solely because he received good things in his lifetime? Clearly on this account alone!

"For we may not think that we were cast out of paradise because of God's punishment of sin, in order that the wit of men might prepare for themselves another paradise here upon earth.

"Man was born to labour; if he refuses labour, he frustrates the purpose for which he was brought into the world, and how will he answer him who has ordained labour as the lot of man?"

He presses his argument yet further, and adds, "What shall we say to this? If in the final judgment misery takes the place of rejoicing, are not ills to be preferred to the good things of this life? For it is clear that the one are not really good nor the other actually evil The truer then is the opinion of Solomon, 'It is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting.'" Ecc 7:2.

And likewise Lazarus evil things. Sickness, poverty, and its attendant ills, which the worldly-minded consider evils, but which the followers of God account good, inasmuch as they conduce to holiness here, and happiness hereafter.  S. Thomas, Chrysostom, and others.

But now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. By many a misery, which in thy lifetime thou didst little regard.

Ver. 26.— And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. (Chaos, in the Vulgate). Perhaps the rich man, as an increase to his torment was shown as in a vision the heavenly abode of the blessed, whither Abraham and Lazarus were to ascend a little after the death of Christ.

Hear S. Cyprian ( De Ascens. Dom.): "The wicked will for ever dwell amidst devouring fire. There the rich man will burn without any one to cool his tongue with even one drop of water. Every evil lust and passion will have its appropriate punishment, and despair will add to the miseries of the lost. God will then have no pity on the penitent. Too late will be their confession, for when the door is shut, in vain will those who are without oil seek to enter. From thence there is no release. Christ once descended into hell; He will not go thither again. The condemned will not again see God in their dark dwelling. The sentence passed will be irrevocable, the judgment of condemnation stands changeless and fixed for all eternity."

Hence S. Bernard says, "Thou in the midst of hell must be expecting that salvation, which is to be won in the midst of our earthly existence. But how canst thou imagine that thou wilt have in the midst of eternal burnings the power of obtaining pardon, when the time of pardon has passed away? There is no offering for sin for thee, who art dead in sins. The Son of God will not be crucified again. He died, He does not die again. His blood, which was poured out on the earth, does not flow down to hell. All sinners have drunk thereof on earth. There is none which the devils and the wicked who are their companions can claim for the extinguishing of the flames which torment them."

Mystically :  S. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Theophylact understand the gulf to mean the fixed and final separation of the just and unjust. See Rev 21:5-8, S. Mat 5:25.

Hence S. Gregory, and after him the Interlinear, says, "Between Dives and Lazarus there is a gulf, because after death no man can change his reward, the damned cannot exchange lots with the blessed, nor the blessed with those who are lost."

"The gulf," says Titus, "indicates the difference between the just and unjust for as their desires and wishes were opposed, so now their condition is immutable." "It also," adds S. Augustine ( lib. ii . Quæst. Evang.), "shows to those who are in prison, that by the unchangeableness of the divine sentence, no merciful aid can be rendered to them by the righteous, however much they may wish to give it."

Allegorically. Lazarus lying at the rich man's gate represents Christ, who by the lowliness of His Incarnation condescended to the case of the proud Jews, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, i.e., seeking from them the least works of righteousness, which at their own table, that is, when they had it in their power, they were too proud to perform, which works, although very slight, they would do, not out of the set purpose of a good life, but occasionally and by chance, like as crumbs are wont to fall from the table.

The sores are the sufferings of our Lord, which from weakness of the flesh, He deigned to undergo for us. The dogs are the Gentiles, accounted by the Jews sinners and unclean, who throughout the world softly and devoutly lick the wounds of Christ in the sacrament of His body and blood. Abraham's bosom, the hidden presence of God the Father, into which our Lord was received after His passion. Augustine ( lib. ii . Quæst. Evang.) And again, symbolically, he goes on to say: "By the rich man we may understand the proud Jews; the purple and fine linen are the grandeur of the kingdom; the sumptuous feasting is the boasting of the Law; Lazarus, i.e. 'assisted,' some Gentile or publican, who is all the more relieved, as he presumes less on the abundance of his resources; the dogs are those most wicked men, who praise the evil works which another groans over and detests in himself; the five brethren are the Jews, bound by the five books of the Law."

In like manner S. Gregory ( Hom. 40) says, "Lazarus represents the Gentile people. The bursting forth of his sores is the confession of sin. The crumbs were denied him, for the proud Jews disdained to admit the Gentiles to the knowledge of the Law. The dogs are the preachers, who by their teaching, as it were, touch with their tongue the wounds of the soul. Abraham's bosom, the secret rest, where the rich man sees Lazarus. For the unbelievers see the faithful abiding in rest above them but afar off, because they cannot attain thither by their merits, and they burn in their tongues because they held in their mouth the words of the Law, but kept them not."

And again, "Lazarus represents an apostolic man, poor in speech but rich in faith. The crumbs are the doctrines of the faith. The rich man, some heretic who abounds in eloquent discourses—for all such have a talkative tongue, but a foolish and profitless soul."

Ver. 27.— Then he said, I pray thee, therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him, &c. Probably these words are spoken as the former ones, after the manner of a parable (see verse 24). For it is a very common occurrence in everyday life that those who have met with misfortunes wish to warn their brethren against incurring a similar fate. But of one thing worldly-minded men, who ridicule or else think lightly of the pains of hell, may be assured, no one has ever returned from thence to tell us what their sufferings are.

That thou wouldest send him. Lazarus again in the body, that he, being known to the brethren, and a witness to be seen of all, might move them to faith and penitence. We are taught therefore that the rich man after his death had need of the aid of him whom in his lifetime he had despised.

Touching the appearances of the spirits of the departed, see S. Augustine ( De cura pro mortuis ); Debrius ( in Magicis ); and Peter Thyræus ( De apparitionibus spirituum ).

Ver. 28.— That he may testify unto them how grievously I am tormented for my sinful indulgence, and exhort them to repentance and amendment, lest they also come into this place of torment.

You will say that the damned are in utter despair, hating both God and man, cursing everything and every creature, and bearing good will to none—how then could Dives have wished that his brethren might escape the torments of hell? I answer—

1. The damned do not wish to cause anything good, i.e. any act of natural or supernatural virtue, nor have they the power to do so on account of their despair, and intense hatred of God and all good, but they are able to desire some natural good, for example, that it may be well with their parents or brethren. For this reason S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Theophylact, think that the rich man, influenced by the ties of kindred and by family affection, really was anxious for the welfare of his brethren, for nature remains the same even in the damned. The action of Dives therefore was one of nature and not of virtue, and had regard, not to actual good, but to natural good only, as the action of animals in nourishing their young.

2. The rich man was anxious for himself more than for his brethren, for he considered their evil his own, inasmuch as their condemnation would increase his torments, because he was the occasion and the cause of their evil lives.

Thus S. Gregory, Lyranus, and others, Cajetan adds, "Dives asked this out of the pride which fills the hearts of the damned, that if not in his own person, at least in the person of his brethren he might be blessed and exalted."

Hence S. Ambrose says, "This rich man too late begins to be a master, for he had neither time for learning nor teaching."

Ver. 29.— Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the Prophets, i.e. the writings of Moses and the Prophets, which the Scribes and Pharisees read and expound in their synagogues.

Ver. 30.— And he said, Nay, Father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. He is speaking of his own experience. For as he had been affected, so does he think it will be with his brethren.  S. Chrysostom. Titus more clearly writes, "Why does the rich man say this but because he himself had heard the prophets to little purpose, and had looked upon their teaching as untrue? Therefore he conjectures that his brethren similarly regarded them. He as much as says, 'They argue as I once argued. Who has ever given any description of hell—who has ever returned thence? But if any one were sent to them from the dead, they would believe him, and give diligent heed to what he had to say.'"

Ver. 31.— And he said unto him, &c. They will say that Lazarus is a phantom, sent by the spirits of evil to deceive; whereas the writings of Moses and the prophets are inspired, are accepted by the Jews at the rule of faith, according to that which is written, "We have now a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." 2Peter 1:19.

The truth of the Patriarch's answer is proved by the conduct of the Jews, who spoke against the raising of the other Lazarus, and the resurrection of Christ Himself, and refused to believe in Him.

So also Peter, who three years after death was recalled to life by S. Stanislaus, Bishop of Cracow, to testify concerning some land which had been sold by the king, replied to those who asked him concerning the other world, no more than this, "Ye have Moses and the prophets. I have been sent to bear witness, not to preach."

Dives therefore obtained none of his requests, because it is written, "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard." Pro 21:13.

Morally, we learn from this parable or rather from this history,

1. That God has appointed to each his lot, and has made some rich, some poor. Let each one therefore be content with that station which God has allotted him. Let the poor, by patient endurance of want, and the rich, by the liberal relief of the poor, seek for life and happiness in the world to come. For Christ seems to have spoken this parable to enforce His teaching, "Make to yourselves fiends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations." The rich man was not compassionate, and therefore he was rejected by Abraham and Lazarus.

2. That we must not despise the poor and afflicted, but on the contrary render all the assistance which lies in our power. For S. Gregory ( Hom. 40) says, "The medicine of poverty heals those whom moral infirmity wounds, and often a pearl lies hidden in a dunghill, i.e. holiness and virtue often lie hid in an unclean body, and in abject poverty. And so S. Romula, dying of poverty and paralysis, was carried to heaven by a chorus of angels. He adds, "We find a Lazarus every day if we seek him, and even if we seek him not, we see him. Behold how importunately the poor present themselves, and make demands on us, in their turn to intercede on our behalf. We ought certainly to ask of them, yet they ask of us. Consider, whether we ought to refuse what is demanded of us when those who ask are our patrons."

3. That the rich ought not to boast themselves in their riches, for riches endure but for a time, and death deprives men of their all. Wherefore let them not set their hearts upon their riches, but on God; and let them for the love of God use that wherewith He has prospered them for the benefit of the needy and poor.

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Luk 16:10

If I am not a straight-shooter with a pistol, He won’t let me near the cannon.

Evidence: Luk 16:13

If you were given $1,000 every time you witnessed to someone, would you be more zealous in your evangelism? If so, you are serving money rather than God.

Evidence: Luk 16:15

A little girl was once looking at a sheep as it ate green grass. She thought to herself how nice and white the sheep looked against the green grass. Then it began to snow. The little girl then thought how dirty the sheep looked against the white snow. It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to the background of man’s standards, we come up reasonably clean. However, when we compare ourselves to the snow-white righteousness of the Law of God, we see that we are all as an unclean thing, and our righteous deeds are as filthy rags ( Isa 64:6 ).

Evidence: Luk 16:17

SPRINGBOARDS FOR PREACHING AND WITNESSING

The Rush

You’ve always wanted to skydive, but the thought scared you too much to try it. That is, until you met someone who had made over 100 jumps. He talked you into it by explaining how safe it was. His enthusiasm was contagious. He spoke of the freedom of falling through the air . . . the adrenaline rush...the unspeakable exhilaration. Now you are standing on the edge of a plane, looking down on the earth far, far below. Everything has been checked. Doublechecked. This is safer than driving on the freeway— a thought that helps you deal with the fear. Modern parachutes are state-of-the-art. Besides, there is a backup chute. Still, your heart is beating with apprehension.

Suddenly, you jump! You have trained so much for this moment, you instinctively spread your hands and legs. The speed is unbelievable. The power of the air forcing itself against your body is incredible. It’s like a dream. You are defying the law of gravity, racing through the air at more than 120 mph!

The earth is coming closer. All normal sense of time lost. Speed, thrust of air, unspeakable joy. You glance at the altimeter on your wrist. Only another ten seconds and you will pull the rip cord and feel the jolt of the parachute opening. All that you had been told was true. The adrenaline rush is like nothing you have experienced. If only it could last a little longer. Reluctantly, you pull the cord. It opens, but there is no jolt!

You tilt your head back to see a horrifying sight: the parachute has twisted and is trailing like a flapping streamer. Your heart races with fear, pounding in your chest. Your eyes bulge in terror. Your chest heaves as you gasp for air. You try to keep a clear mind and remember your training...pull the second cord. Nothing happens! You pull again. Again! Harder. Harder! Nothing. Your throat lets out a scream, a groan of panic. Your heart is pounding so hard you think your chest will burst. Sweat breaks through your skin. A thousand thoughts speed through your mind. Your family! Your fate! . . . Safer than driving on the freeway! You whisper, " What a fool I was . . . to think that I could defy the law of gravity." Now a merciless law waits for the moment of impact. The ground accelerates toward you. No words can describe the terror gripping your mind. A voice is speaking to you. It is the voice of good sense. It is the voice you ignored so often: " You have played the fool. You have given up your life, your most precious possession, for a cheap thrill. You have exchanged your loved ones for a rush of adrenaline. What a fool . . . what a fool!"

One word stands alone to describe how you feel about what you’ve done. One word screams within the corridors of your terrified mind as the earth races toward you, as death readies to embrace you. One word, a word that you have never understood fully until this moment. That terrible word is remorse!

The world, the flesh, and the devil whisper to you about how pleasurable sin is. That God isn’t angry at sin. God is love. It is safe to jump into the arms of iniquity and abandon yourself to a free fall through its vast domain. You go where angels fear to tread. But it is worth it. The rush is everything sin promised.

You drink in iniquity like water. You love the darkness. Conscience speaks again and again, but you ignore its warning. You are defying the Moral Law and loving every minute.

Now you stand before the Judge on Judgment Day. You pull your first line by telling God what a good person you are. Nothing happens. The Moral Law rushes at you. In panic, you pull the second line and tell God that you believed in Him. Again, nothing happens. It is no use. Your mouth is stopped. The Moral Law accelerates toward you even faster, promising to so impact you that it will " grind you to powder" ( Luk 20:18 ). Death and hell wait to embrace you. Unspeakable terror fills your heart. Conscience speaks so clearly now: " What a fool you have been. You rejected the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. You have given up your loved ones in exchange for the joys of a sinful lifestyle. You relinquished your most precious possession, your very life, for the cheap thrill of sin. What a fool! What a fool!"

One word will stay with you for eternity. One word alone will echo forever within your tormented mind. Remorse! You whisper the word, " Remorse...remorse."

Suddenly you are staring at the ceiling of your bedroom, still mouthing the word through dry lips. Remorse! The sheets are soaked with sweat. It was just a dream. You look out the window and see the sun breaking through the green trees. It was just a dream! It’s morning now. A peaceful new day. Today’s the day you go skydiving. It will be your first time.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

By Way of Introduction

There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the International and Critical Commentary , in the Introduction to Ragg’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the Westminster Commentaries , in the Introduction to Easton’s Gospel According to St. Luke , Hayes’ Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , Ramsay’s Luke the Physician , Harnack’s Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake’s Beginnings of Christianity , Carpenter’s Christianity According to St. Luke , Cadbury’s The Making of Luke-Acts , McLachlan’s St. Luke: The Man and His Work , Robertson’s Luke the Historian in the Light of Research , to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

The Same Author for Gospel and Acts

The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as " the first treatise," ton prōton logon , (Act_1:1) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luk_1:3; Act_1:1). He speaks of himself in both books as " me" ( kamoi , Luk_1:3) and I made ( epoiēsamēn , Act_1:1). He refers to himself with others as " we" and " us" as in Act_16:10, the " we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author’s statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luk_1:1-4) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: " In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: " They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author’s original plan and purpose."

The Author of Acts a Companion of Paul

The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of " we" and " us" in Act_16:10 and from Act_20:6 to the end of chapter Acts 28 shows it beyond controversy if the same man wrote the " we" sections and the rest of the Acts. This proof Harnack has produced with painstaking detail in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels and in his volume The Acts of the Apostles and in his Luke the Physician .

This Companion of Paul A Physician

The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his Style and Literary Method of Luke denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke " the beloved physician" ( ho iatros ho agapētos , Col_4:14), " my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Act_28:8-10) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who " came and were healed ( etherapeuonto ) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing ( iasato ), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician’s interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark’s apparent discredit of physicians (Mar_5:26) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luk_8:43).

This Companion and Author Luke

All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: " There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

A Sketch of Luke

His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of Lukios and Lukanos . Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title Kata Lukanon . Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. So this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a " we" passage after Act_11:27 which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul’s converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

The Date of the Gospel

There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in Act_1:1. Unfortunately the precise date of both termini is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the Antiquities of Josephus and so is after a.d. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luk_21:20.), which is interpreted as a prophecy post eventum instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul’s later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about a.d. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in Luk_1:1-4. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between a.d. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark’s Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark’s Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by a.d. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before a.d. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as a.d. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae , by Sanday and others in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem , by Streeter in his The Four Gospels , by Hayes in his The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , by Harnack in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , by Stanton in his The Gospels as Historical Documents , and by many others. My own views are given at length in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel and in Luke the Historian in the Light of Research .

The Sources of the Gospel

In his Preface or Prologue (Luk_1:1-4) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark’s Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke’s Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of " many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from " eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? shows the likelihood of Luke’s contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

The Character of the Book

Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian’s method of research, with a physician’s care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John’s Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke’s Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark’s is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew’s for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul’s Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows ( Intr. to Lit. of the N.T. , p. 281). The Prologue is in literary Koiné and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite Luk_2:1-7 as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament . The main feature of this proof appears also in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research . So many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

JFB: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE writer of this Gospel is universally allowed to have been Lucas (an abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Silas of Silvanus), though he is not expressly named either in the Gospel or in the Acts. From Col 4:14 we learn that he was a "physician"; and by comparing that verse with Col 4:10-11 --in which the apostle enumerates all those of the circumcision who were then with him, but does not mention Luke, though he immediately afterwards sends a salutation from him--we gather that Luke was not a born Jew. Some have thought he was a freed-man (libertinus), as the Romans devolved the healing art on persons of this class and on their slaves, as an occupation beneath themselves. His intimate acquaintance with Jewish customs, and his facility in Hebraic Greek, seem to show that he was an early convert to the Jewish faith; and this is curiously confirmed by Act 21:27-29, where we find the Jews enraged at Paul's supposed introduction of Greeks into the temple, because they had seen "Trophimus the Ephesian" with him; and as we know that Luke was with Paul on that occasion, it would seem that they had taken him for a Jew, as they made no mention of him. On the other hand, his fluency in classical Greek confirms his Gentile origin. The time when he joined Paul's company is clearly indicated in the Acts by his changing (at Act 16:10) from the third person singular ("he") to the first person plural ("we"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom (2Ti 4:11). EUSEBIUS makes him a native of Antioch. If so, he would have every advantage for cultivating the literature of Greece and such medical knowledge as was then possessed. That he died a natural death is generally agreed among the ancients; GREGORY NAZIANZEN alone affirming that he died a martyr.

The time and place of the publication of his Gospel are alike uncertain. But we can approximate to it. It must at any rate have been issued before the Acts, for there the 'Gospel' is expressly referred to as the same author's "former treatise" (Act 1:1). Now the Book of the Acts was not published for two whole years after Paul's arrival as a prisoner at Rome, for it concludes with a reference to this period; but probably it was published soon after that, which would appear to have been early in the year 63. Before that time, then, we have reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke was in circulation, though the majority of critics make it later. If we date it somewhere between A.D. 50 and 60, we shall probably be near the truth; but nearer it we cannot with any certainty come. Conjectures as to the place of publication are too uncertain to be mentioned here.

That it was addressed, in the first instance, to Gentile readers, is beyond doubt. This is no more, as DAVIDSON remarks [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 186], than was to have been expected from the companion of an "apostle of the Gentiles," who had witnessed marvellous changes in the condition of many heathens by the reception of the Gospel. But the explanations in his Gospel of things known to every Jew, and which could only be intended for Gentile readers, make this quite plain--see Luk 1:26; Luk 4:31; Luk 8:26; Luk 21:37; Luk 22:1; Luk 24:13. A number of other minute particulars, both of things inserted and of things omitted, confirm the conclusion that it was Gentiles whom this Evangelist had in the first instance in view.

We have already adverted to the classical style of Greek which this Evangelist writes--just what might have been expected from an educated Greek and travelled physician. But we have also observed that along with this he shows a wonderful flexibility of style, so much so, that when he comes to relate transactions wholly Jewish, where the speakers and actors and incidents are all Jewish, he writes in such Jewish Greek as one would do who had never been out of Palestine or mixed with any but Jews. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses will be found some traces of "the beloved physician" in this Gospel. But far more striking and important are the traces in it of his intimate connection with the apostle of the Gentiles. That one who was so long and so constantly in the society of that master mind has in such a work as this shown no traces of that connection, no stamp of that mind, is hardly to be believed. Writers of Introductions seem not to see it, and take no notice of it. But those who look into the interior of it will soon discover evidences enough in it of a Pauline cast of mind. Referring for a number of details to DA COSTA, we notice here only two examples: In 1Co 11:23, Paul ascribes to an express revelation from Christ Himself the account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper which he there gives. Now, if we find this account differing in small yet striking particulars from the accounts given by Matthew and Mark, but agreeing to the letter with Luke's account, it can hardly admit of a doubt that the one had it from the other; and in that case, of course, it was Luke that had it from Paul. Now Matthew and Mark both say of the Cup, "This is my blood of the New Testament"; while Paul and Luke say, in identical terms, "This cup is the New Testament in My blood" (1Co 11:25; Luk 22:20). Further, Luke says, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying," &c.; while Paul says, "After the same manner He took the cup when He had supped, saying," &c.; whereas neither Matthew nor Mark mention that this was after supper. But still more striking is another point of coincidence in this case. Matthew and Mark both say of the Bread merely this: "Take, eat; this is My body" (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22); whereas Paul says, "Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you" (1Co 11:24), and Luke, "This is My body, which is given for you" (Luk 22:19). And while Paul adds the precious clause, "This do in remembrance of Me," Luke does the same, in identical terms. How can one who reflects on this resist the conviction of a Pauline stamp in this Gospel? The other proof of this to which we ask the reader's attention is in the fact that Paul, in enumerating the parties by whom Christ was seen after His resurrection, begins, singularly enough, with Peter--"And that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve" (1Co 15:4-5) --coupled with the remarkable fact, that Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who mentions that Christ appeared to Peter at all. When the disciples had returned from Emmaus to tell their brethren how the Lord had appeared to them in the way, and how He had made Himself known to them in the breaking of bread, they were met, as Luke relates, ere they had time to utter a word, with this wonderful piece of news, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Luk 24:34).

Other points connected with this Gospel will be adverted to in the Commentary.

JFB: Luke (Outline)

• ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FORERUNNER. (Luke 1:5-25)
• ANNUNCIATION OF CHRIST. (Luk 1:26-38)
• VISIT OF MARY TO ELISABETH. (Luke 1:39-56)
• BIRTH AND CIRCUMCISION OF JOHN--SONG OF ZACHARIAS AND PROGRESS OF THE CHILD. (Luke 1:57-80)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Luk 2:1-7)
• ANGELIC ANNUNCIATION TO THE SHEPHERDS--THEIR VISIT TO THE NEWBORN BABE. (Luk 2:8-20)
• PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN--PRESENTATION OF THE BABE IN THE TEMPLE-SCENE THERE WITH SIMEON AND ANNA. (Luke 2:22-40)
• FIRST CONSCIOUS VISIT TO JERUSALEM. (Luk 2:41-52)
• PREACHING, BAPTISM, AND IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. (Luke 3:1-20) Here the curtain of the New Testament is, as it were, drawn up, and the greatest of all epochs of the Church commences. Even our Lord's own age (Luk 3:23) is determined by it [BENGEL]. No such elaborate chronological precision is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and it comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that he had "accurately traced down all things from the first" (Luk 1:3). Here, evidently, commences his proper narrative. Also see on Mat 3:1.
• BAPTISM OF AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON JESUS. (Luk 3:21-22)
• GENEALOGY OF JESUS. (Luke 3:23-38)
• JESUS ENTERING ON HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY, MAKES A CIRCUIT OF GALILEE--REJECTION AT NAZARETH. (Luke 4:14-32)
• DEMONIAC HEALED. (Luk 4:33-37)
• PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS, HEALED. (Luk 4:38-41)
• JESUS SOUGHT OUT AT MORNING PRAYER, AND ENTREATED TO STAY, DECLINES FROM THE URGENCY OF HIS WORK. (Luk 4:42-44)
• MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES--CALL OF PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN. (Luk 5:1-11)
• LEPER HEALED. (Luk 5:12-16)
• PARALYTIC HEALED. (Luk 5:17-26)
• LEVI'S CALL AND FEAST. (Luk 5:27-32)
• PLUCKING CORN-EARS ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 6:1-5)
• WITHERED HAND HEALED. (Luk 6:6-11)
• THE TWELVE APOSTLES CHOSEN--GATHERING MULTITUDES--GLORIOUS HEALING. (Luke 6:12-49)
• CENTURION'S SERVANT HEALED. (Luk 7:1-10)
• WIDOW OF NAIN'S SON RAISED TO LIFE. (In Luke only). (Luk 7:11-17)
• THE BAPTIST'S MESSAGE THE REPLY, AND CONSEQUENT DISCOURSE. (Luke 7:18-35)
• CHRIST'S FEET WASHED WITH TEARS. (Luk 7:36-50)
• A GALILEAN CIRCUIT, WITH THE TWELVE AND CERTAIN MINISTERING WOMEN. (In Luke only). (Luk 8:1-3)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER. (Luk 8:4-18)
• JESUS CROSSING THE LAKE, STILLS THE STORM. (Luk 8:22-25)
• JAIRUS' DAUGHTER RAISED AND ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. (Luke 8:40-56)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Luk 9:1-6)
• HEROD TROUBLED AT WHAT HE HEARS OF CHRIST DESIRES TO SEE HIM. (Luk 9:7-9)
• PETER'S CONFESSION OF CHRIST--OUR LORD'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH, AND WARNINGS ARISING OUT OF IT. (Luk 9:18-27)
• JESUS TRANSFIGURED. (Luk 9:28-36)
• DEMONIAC AND LUNATIC BOY HEALED--CHRIST'S SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 9:37-45)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST--JOHN REBUKED FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. (Luk 9:46-48) (See on Mat 18:1-5).
• THE PERIOD OF HIS ASSUMPTION APPROACHING CHRIST TAKES HIS LAST LEAVE OF GALILEE--THE SAMARITANS REFUSE TO RECEIVE HIM. (Luk 9:51-56)
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. (Luk 9:57-62)
• MISSION OF THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES, AND THEIR RETURN. (Luke 10:1-24)
• QUESTION OF A LAWYER AND PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. (Luk 10:25-37)
• MARTHA AND MARY. (Luk 10:38-42)
• THE DISCIPLES TAUGHT TO PRAY. (Luk 11:1-13)
• BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED--CHARGE OF BEING IN LEAGUE WITH HELL, AND REPLY--DEMAND OF A SIGN, AND REPLY. (Luke 11:14-36)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE PHARISEES. (Luke 11:37-54)
• WARNING AGAINST HYPOCRISY. (Luk 12:1-12)
• COVETOUSNESS--WATCHFULNESS--SUPERIORITY TO EARTHLY TIES. (Luke 12:13-53)
• NOT DISCERNING THE SIGNS OF THE TIME. (Luk 12:54-59)
• THE LESSON, "REPENT OR PERISH," SUGGESTED BY TWO RECENT INCIDENTS, AND ILLUSTRATED BY THE PARABLE OF THE BARREN FIG TREE. (Luk 13:1-9)
• WOMAN OF EIGHTEEN YEAR'S INFIRMITY HEALED ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 13:10-17)
• MISCELLANEOUS TEACHINGS. (Luk 13:18-30)
• MESSAGE TO HEROD. (Luk 13:31-35)
• HEALING OF A DROPSICAL MAN, AND MANIFOLD TEACHINGS AT A SABBATH FEAST. (Luke 14:1-24)
• ADDRESS TO GREAT MULTITUDES TRAVELLING WITH HIM. (Luk 14:25-35)
• PUBLICANS AND SINNERS WELCOMED BY CHRIST--THREE PARABLES TO EXPLAIN THIS. (Luke 15:1-32)
• I. THE LOST SHEEP. (Luk 15:3-7) Occurring again (Mat 18:12-14); but there to show how precious one of His sheep is to the Good Shepherd; here, to show that the shepherd, though the sheep stray never so widely, will seek it out, and when he hath found, will rejoice over it.
• II. THE LOST COIN. (Luk 15:8-10)
• III. THE PRODIGAL SON. (Luke 15:11-32)
• PARABLES OF THE UNJUST STEWARD AND OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, OR, THE RIGHT USE OF MONEY. (Luke 16:1-31)
• OFFENSES--FAITH--HUMILITY. (Luk 17:1-10) (See Mat 18:6-7).
• TEN LEPERS CLEANSED. (Luk 17:11-19)
• COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND OF THE SON OF MAN. (Luke 17:20-37)
• PARABLE OF THE IMPORTUNATE WIDOW. (Luk 18:1-8)
• PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 18:9-14)
• LITTLE CHILDREN BROUGHT TO CHRIST. (Luk 18:15-17)
• THE RICH YOUNG RULER AND DISCOURSE THEREON. (Luk 18:18-30)
• FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 18:31-34)
• BLIND MAN HEALED. (Luk 18:35-43)
• ZACCHEUS THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 19:1-10)
• PARABLE OF THE POUNDS. (Luke 19:11-27)
• SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AND SUBSEQUENT TEACHING. (Luk 19:45-48) As the first cleansing was on His first visit to Jerusalem (Joh 2:13-22), so this second cleansing was on His last.
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED, AND HIS REPLY--PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN. (Luke 20:1-19)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE AND THE RESURRECTION--THE REPLIES. (Luke 20:20-40)
• CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID AND MESSIAH, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. (Luk 20:41-47)
• THE WIDOW'S TWO MITES. (Luk 21:1-4)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND WARNINGS TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING, SUGGESTED BY IT--HIS DAYS AND NIGHTS DURING HIS LAST WEEK. (Luke 21:5-38) (See on Mat 24:1-3.)
• CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--COMPACT WITH JUDAS. (Luk 22:1-6) (See on Mat 26:1-5.)
• LAST PASSOVER--INSTITUTION OF THE SUPPER--DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE. (Luke 22:7-38)
• AGONY IN THE GARDEN. (Luk 22:39-46)
• JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Luk 22:55-62)
• JESUS BEFORE HEROD. (Luk 23:6-12)
• JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE--DELIVERED UP--LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (Luke 23:13-38)
• THE TWO THIEVES. (Luk 23:39-43)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--PETER'S VISIT TO THE EMPTY SEPULCHRE. (Luk 24:1-12)
• CHRIST APPEARS TO THE TWO GOING TO EMMAUS. (Luke 24:13-35)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES--HIS ASCENSION. (Luke 24:36-53)

TSK: Luke (Book Introduction)

Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been " the beloved physician" mentioned by Paul (Col 4:14); and as he was the companion of that apostle, in all his labours and sufferings, for many years (Act 16:12; Act 20:1-6; Act 27:1, Act 27:2; Act 28:13-16. 2Ti 4:11. Phm 1:24), and wrote " the Acts of the Apostles," which conclude with a brief account of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle’s sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about ad 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Col 4:10, Col 4:11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name Λουκας [Strong’s 3065], to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. But, from the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and custom, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity. Though he may not have been, as some have affirmed, one of the seventy disciples, and an eye-witness of our Saviour’s miracles, yet his intercourse with the apostles, and those who were eye-witnesses of the works and ear witnesses of the words of Christ, renders him an unexceptional witness, if considered merely as an historian; and the early and unanimous reception of his Gospel as divinely inspired is sufficient to satisfy every reasonable person.

TSK: Luke 16 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Luk 16:1, The parable of the unjust steward; Luk 16:14, Christ reproves the hypocrisy of the covetous Pharisees; Luk 16:19, The parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

Poole: Luke 16 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 15

MHCC: Luke (Book Introduction)

This evangelist is generally supposed to have been a physician, and a companion of the apostle Paul. The style of his writings, and his acquaintance with the Jewish rites and usages, sufficiently show that he was a Jew, while his knowledge of the Greek language and his name, speak his Gentile origin. He is first mentioned Act 16:10, Act 16:11, as with Paul at Troas, whence he attended him to Jerusalem, and was with him in his voyage, and in his imprisonment at Rome. This Gospel appears to be designed to supersede many defective and unauthentic narratives in circulation, and to give a genuine and inspired account of the life, miracles, and doctrines of our Lord, learned from those who heard and witnessed his discourses and miracles.

MHCC: Luke 16 (Chapter Introduction)

(Luk 16:1-12) The parable of the unjust steward.

(Luk 16:13-18) Christ reproves the hypocrisy of the covetous Pharisees.

(Luk 16:19-31) The rich man and Lazarus.

Matthew Henry: Luke (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Luke

We are now entering into the labours of another evangelist; his name Luke, which some take to be a contraction of Lucilius; born at Antioch, so St. Jerome. Some think that he was the only one of all the penmen of the scripture that was not of the seed of Israel. He was a Jewish proselyte, and, as some conjecture, converted to Christianity by the ministry of St. Paul at Antioch; and after his coming into Macedonia (Act 16:10) he was his constant companion. He had employed himself in the study and practice of physic; hence, Paul calls him Luke the beloved Physician, Col 4:14. Some of the pretended ancients tell you that he was a painter, and drew a picture of the virgin Mary. But Dr. Whitby thinks that there is nothing certain to the contrary, and that therefore it is probable that he was one of the seventy disciples, and a follower of Christ when he was here upon earth; and, if so, he was a native Israelite. I see not what can be objected against this, except some uncertain traditions of the ancients, which we can build nothing upon, and against which may be opposed the testimonies of Origen and Epiphanius, who both say that he was one of the seventy disciples. He is supposed to have written this gospel when he was associated with St. Paul in his travels, and by direction from him: and some think that this is the brother whom Paul speaks of (2Co 8:18), whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches of Christ; as if the meaning of it were, that he was celebrated in all the churches for writing this gospel; and that St. Paul means this when he speaks sometimes of his gospel, as Rom 2:16. But there is no ground at all for this. Dr. Cave observes that his way and manner of writing are accurate and exact, his style polite and elegant, sublime and lofty, yet perspicuous; and that he expresses himself in a vein of purer Greek than is to be found in the other writers of the holy story. Thus he relates divers things more copiously than the other evangelists; and thus he especially treats of those things which relate to the priestly office of Christ. It is uncertain when, or about what time, this gospel was written. Some think that it was written in Achaia, during his travels with Paul, seventeen years (twenty-two years, say others) after Christ's ascension; others, that it was written at Rome, a little before he wrote his history of the Acts of the Apostles (which is a continuation of this), when he was there with Paul, while he was a prisoner, and preaching in his own hired house, with which the history of the Acts concludes; and then Paul saith that only Luke was with him, 2Ti 4:11. When he was under that voluntary confinement with Paul, he had leisure to compile these two histories (and many excellent writings the church has been indebted to a prison for): if so, it was written about twenty-seven years after Christ's ascension, and about the fourth year of Nero. Jerome says, He died when he was eighty-four years of age, and was never married. Some write that he suffered martyrdom; but, if he did, where and when is uncertain. Nor indeed is there much more credit to be given to the Christian traditions concerning the writers of the New Testament than to the Jewish traditions concerning those of the Old Testament.

Matthew Henry: Luke 16 (Chapter Introduction)

The scope of Christ's discourse in this chapter is to awaken and quicken us all so to use this world as not to abuse it, so to manage all our possessions and enjoyments here as that they may make for us, and may not make against us in the other world; for they will do either the one or the other, according as we use them now. I. If we do good with them, and lay out what we have in works of piety and charity, we shall reap the benefit of it in the world to come; and this he shows in the parable of the unjust steward, who made so good a hand of his lord's goods that, when he was turned out of his stewardship, he had a comfortable subsistence to betake himself to. The parable itself we have (Luk 16:1-8); the explanation and application of it (Luk 16:9-13); and the contempt which the Pharisees put upon the doctrine Christ preached to them, for which he sharply reproved them, adding some other weighty sayings (Luk 16:14-18). II. It, instead of doing good with our worldly enjoyments, we make them the food and fuel of our lusts, of our luxury and sensuality, and deny relief to the poor, we shall certainly perish eternally, and the things of this world, which were thus abused, will but add to our misery and torment. This he shows in the other parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which has likewise a further intention, and that is, to awaken us all to take the warning given us by the written word, and not to expect immediate messages from the other world (Luk 16:19-31).

Barclay: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT LUKE

A Lovely Book And Its Author

The gospel according to St. Luke has been called the loveliest book in the world. When once an American asked him if he could recommend a good life of Christ, Denney answered, "Have you tried the one that Luke wrote?" There is a legend that Luke was a skilled painter; there is even a painting of Mary in a Spanish cathedral to this day which purports to be by him. Certainly he had an eye for vivid things. It would not be far wrong to say that the third gospel is the best life of Christ ever written. Tradition has always believed that Luke was the author and we need have no qualms in accepting that tradition. In the ancient world it was the regular thing to attach books to famous names; no one thought it wrong. But Luke was never one of the famous figures of the early Church. If he had not written the gospel no one would have attached it to his name.

Luke was a gentile; and he has the unique distinction of being the only New Testament writer who was not a Jew. He was a doctor by profession (Col_4:14 ) and maybe that very fact gave him the wide sympathy he possessed. It has been said that a minister sees men at their best; a lawyer sees men at their worst; and a doctor sees men as they are. Luke saw men and loved them all.

The book was written to a man called Theophilus. He is called most excellent Theophilus and the title given him is the normal title for a high official in the Roman government. No doubt Luke wrote it to tell an earnest inquirer more about Jesus; and he succeeded in giving Theophilus a picture which must have thrilled his heart closer to the Jesus of whom he had heard.

The Symbols Of The Gospels

Every one of the four gospels was written from a certain point of view. Very often on stained glass windows the writers of the gospels are pictured; and usually to each there is attached a symbol. The symbols vary but one of the commonest allocations is this.

The emblem of Mark is a man. Mark is the simplest and most straightforward of the gospels. It has been well said that its characteristic is realism. It is the nearest to being a report of Jesusife.

The emblem of Matthew is a lion. Matthew was a Jew writing for Jews and he saw in Jesus the Messiah, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the one whom all the prophets had predicted.

The emblem of John is the eagle. The eagle can fly higher than any other bird. It is said that of all creatures only the eagle can look straight into the sun. John is the theological gospel; its flights of thought are higher than those of any of the others. It is the gospel where the philosopher can find themes to think about for a lifetime and to solve only in eternity.

The symbol of Luke is the calf The calf is the animal for sacrifice; and Luke saw in Jesus the sacrifice for all the world. In Luke above all, the barriers are broken down and Jesus is for Jew and gentile, saint and sinner alike. He is the saviour of the world. Keeping that in mind, let us now set down the characteristics of this gospel.

An HistorianCare

First and foremost, Lukegospel is an exceedingly careful bit of work. His Greek is notably good. The first four verses are well-nigh the best Greek in the New Testament. In them he claims that his work is the product of the most careful research. His opportunities were ample and his sources must have been good. As the trusted companion of Paul he must have known all the great figures of the church, and we may be sure that he had them tell their stories to him. For two years he was Paulcompanion in imprisonment in Caesarea. In those long days he had every opportunity for study and research and he must have used them well.

An example of Lukecare is the way in which he dates the emergence of John the Baptist. He does so by no fewer than six contemporary datings. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (1), Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea (2), Herod being tetrarch of Galilee (3), and his brother Philip being tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis (4), and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (5) in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (6), the word of God came to John" (Luk_3:1-2 ). Here is a man who is writing with care and who will be as accurate as it is possible for him to be.

The Gospel For The Gentiles

It is clear that Luke wrote mainly for gentiles. Theophilus was a gentile, as was Luke himself, and there is nothing in the gospel that a gentile could not grasp and understand. (a) As we have seen, Luke begins his dating from the reigning Roman emperor and the current Roman governor. The Roman date comes first. (b) Unlike Matthew, he is not greatly interested in the life of Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. (c) He very seldom quotes the Old Testament at all. (d) He has a habit of giving Hebrew words in their Greek equivalent so that a Greek would understand. Simon the Cananaean becomes Simon the Zealot. (compare Luk_6:15 and Mat_10:4 ). Calvary is called not by its Hebrew name, Golgotha (compare H1538 and H1556), but by its Greek name, Kranion (G2898). Both mean the place of a skull. He never uses the Jewish term Rabbi (H7227) of Jesus but always a Greek word meaning Master. When he is tracing the descent of Jesus, he traces it not to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish race, as Matthew does, but to Adam, the founder of the human race. (compare Mat_1:2 and Luk_3:38 ).

Because of this Luke is the easiest of all the gospels to read. He was writing, not for Jews, but for people very like ourselves.

The Gospel Of Prayer

Lukegospel is specially the gospel of prayer. At all the great moments of his life, Luke shows us Jesus at prayer. He prayed at his baptism (Luk_3:21 ); before his first collision with the Pharisees (Luk_5:16 ); before he chose the Twelve (Luk_6:12 ); before he questioned his disciples as to who they thought he was; before his first prediction of his own death (Luk_9:18 ); at the Transfiguration (Luk_9:29 ); and upon the Cross (Luk_23:46 ). Only Luke tells us that Jesus prayed for Peter in his hour of testing (Luk_22:32 ). Only he tells us the prayer parables of the Friend at Midnight (Luk_11:5-13 ) and the Unjust Judge (Luk_18:1-8 ). To Luke the unclosed door of prayer was one of the most precious in all the world.

The Gospel Of Women

In Palestine the place of women was low. In the Jewish morning prayer a man thanks God that he has not made him "a gentile, a slave or a woman." But Luke gives a very special place to women. The birth narrative is told from Marypoint of view. It is in Luke that we read of Elizabeth, of Anna, of the widow at Nain, of the woman who anointed Jesuseet in the house of Simon the Pharisee. It is Luke who makes vivid the pictures of Martha and Mary and of Mary Magdalene. It is very likely that Luke was a native of Macedonia where women held a more emancipated position than anywhere else; and that may have something to do with it.

The Gospel Of Praise

In Luke the phrase "praising God" occurs oftener than in all the rest of the New Testament put together. This praise reaches its peak in the three great hymns that the church has sung throughout all her generations--the Magnificat (Luk_1:46-55 ); the Benediclus (Luk_1:68-79 ); and the Nunc Dimittis (Luk_2:29-32 ). There is a radiance in Lukegospel which is a lovely thing, as if the sheen of heaven had touched the things of earth.

The Universal Gospel

But the outstanding characteristic of Luke is that it is the universal gospel. All the barriers are down; Jesus Christ is for all men without distinction.

(a) The kingdom of heaven is not shut to the Samaritans (Luk_9:51-56 ). Luke alone tells the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luk_10:30-37 ). The one grateful leper is a Samaritan (Luk_17:11-19 ). John can record a saying that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans (Joh_4:9 ). But Luke refuses to shut the door on any man.

(b) Luke shows Jesus speaking with approval of gentiles whom the orthodox Jew would have considered unclean. He shows us Jesus citing the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian as shining examples (Luk_4:25-27 ). The Roman centurion is praised for the greatness of his faith (Luk_7:9 ). Luke tells us of that great word of Jesus, "Men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at the table in the kingdom of God" (Luk_13:29 ).

(c) Luke is supremely interested in the poor. When Mary brings the offering for her purification it is the offering of the poor (Luk_2:24 ). When Jesus is, as it were, setting out his credentials to the emissaries of John, the climax is, "The poor have good news preached to them" (Luk_7:22 ). He alone tells the parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man (Luk_16:19-31 ). In Lukeaccount of the Beatitudes the saying of Jesus runs, not, as in Matthew (Mat_5:3 ), "Blessed are the poor in spirit," but simply, "Blessed are you poor" (Luk_6:20 ). Lukegospel has been called "the gospel of the underdog." His heart runs out to everyone for whom life is an unequal struggle.

(d) Above all Luke shows Jesus as the friend of outcasts and sinners. He alone tells of the woman who anointed Jesuseet and bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luk_7:36-50 ); of Zacchaeus, the quisling tax-gatherer (Luk_19:1-10 ); of the Penitent Thief (Luk_23:43 ); and he alone has the immortal story of the prodigal son and the loving father (Luk_15:11-32 ). When Matthew tells how Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, he says that Jesus told them not to go to the Samaritans or the gentiles (Mat_10:5 ); but Luke omits that altogether. All four gospel writers quote from Isa 40 when they give the message of John the Baptist, "Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God"; but only Luke continues the quotation to its triumphant conclusion, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isa_40:3-5 ; Mat_3:3 ; Mar_1:3 ; Joh_1:23 ; Luk_3:4 , Luk_3:6 ). Luke of all the gospel writers sees no limits to the love of God.

The Book Beautiful

As we study this book we must look for these characteristics. Somehow of all the gospel writers one would have liked to meet Luke best of all, for this gentile doctor with the tremendous vision of the infinite sweep of the love of God must have been a lovely soul. Faber wrote the lines,

Therea wideness in Godmercy,

Like the wideness of the sea;

Therea kindness in his justice,

Which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader

Than the measures of manmind;

And the heart of the Eternal

Is most wonderfully kind.

Lukegospel is the demonstration that this is true.

Barclay: Luke 16 (Chapter Introduction)

A Bad Man's Good Example (Luk_16:1-13)

The Law Which Does Not Change (Luk_16:14-18)

The Punishment Of The Man Who Never Noticed (Luk_16:19-31)

Constable: Luke (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

Several factors indicate that the writer of this Gospel was the same person who wrote the Book of Acts. First, a man named Theophilus was the recipient of both books (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Second, Acts refers to a previous work by the same writer. Third, both books have several common themes some of which do not receive the same emphasis elsewhere in the New Testament. Fourth, there are general structural and stylistic similarities including the use of chiasms and the tendency to focus on specific individuals.

The writer also acquired his knowledge of Jesus' life and ministry from research rather than from eyewitness observations (Luke 1:1-4). Therefore he was not one of the disciples who travelled with Jesus.

The early church identified the writer as Luke. The heretic Marcion is the earliest witness we have to Luke's authorship (c. 135 A.D.). The Muratorian Canon (c. 180 A.D.) mentioned Luke as the writer too. It described him as the physician who accompanied Paul on his journey (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; Col. 4:14; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.) also believed Luke wrote this Gospel and called him the "inseparable" companion of Paul.¹ Later church fathers referred to Luke as the writer of this Gospel. Luke was evidently a Gentile (cf. Col. 4:10-14).² Church tradition identified Antioch of Syria as Luke's hometown, but this is impossible to validate.

Distinctive Features

The main doctrines of systematic theology that Luke stressed were Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, and eschatology. There is much emphasis on the glory of God, prayer, miracles, the divine plan that Jesus fulfilled, Israel, believing, discipleship, forgiveness, and God's Word.³

Luke stressed Jesus' concern for all people, especially for individuals that society of His day despised such as the poor, women, children, and "sinners." He used the Greek term nomikos, which means "lawyer," rather than the Hebrew term grammateus, meaning "scribe." He emphasized Jesus' practical teachings, such as what He taught about money (cf. chs. 12 and 16).

"In terms of its worldview, its theology, and its practical presentation of principles, this Gospel explains how we can serve God better."⁴

Luke showed interest in purpose, fulfillment, and accomplishment. He documented the joy that resulted from Jesus' saving and healing works. He stressed Jesus' call for people to become His disciples. He portrayed Jesus as dependent on the Holy Spirit and on the Father through prayer. Finally, Luke recorded many examples of Jesus' power.

"Luke's Gospel gives a reader a more comprehensive grasp of the history of the period than the other Gospels. He presented more facts about the earthly life of Jesus than did Matthew, Mark, or John."⁵

This is the longest book in the New Testament. Together with Acts it comprises about 27% of the Greek New Testament.⁶ Luke is the longest book in the New Testament, Matthew is second, and Acts is third, but only slightly shorter than Matthew.

Purposes

The Gospel of Luke is one of the books of the Bible that states the purpose of the writer. Luke said that he wrote to inform Theophilus about the truthfulness of the gospel that he had heard (1:4). In Acts, Luke said he had written previously about the things that Jesus began to do and teach before His ascension (Acts 1:1-2). He then proceeded to record the things Jesus continued to do and teach after His ascension through His apostles in Acts. Presumably Luke wrote both his Gospel and Acts with a larger audience than just Theophilus in view.

The distinctive emphases of the Gospel help us to identify secondary purposes. Luke demonstrated a zeal to convince his readers of the reliability of the facts that he recorded so they would believe in Jesus and become Christians. This concern is also clear in Acts.⁷ Obviously he wrote to preserve the record of events that happened during Jesus' earthly ministry, but few ancient writers wrote simply to narrate a chronicle of events.⁸ They wrote to convince their readers of something, and they used history to do that. Notwithstanding historical accuracy was important to them.⁹ We believe that Luke's Gospel is an accurate continuation of biblical history that God preserved in Scripture. This Gospel constitutes an apologetic for Christianity that would have been of special interest to Greeks because of Luke's selection of material, vocabulary, and style.¹⁰

Original Audience

Evidently Theophilus was a real person.¹¹ His name is Greek and means "friend of God." He appears to have been a fairly recent convert to Christianity from Greek paganism. Consequently it appears that Luke wrote for people such as Theophilus originally. Before his conversion, Theophilus may have been one of the Gentile God-fearers to which Luke referred several times in Acts. The God-fearers were Gentiles who had a certain respect for and who wanted to learn more about the God of the Jews. They came to the Jewish synagogues and listened to the Jewish Scriptures read there. Luke's orientation of his Gospel to the secular world and his references to Judaism also suggest that he wrote his Gospel with these people in mind. His use of the Septuagint version and his interest in the God-fearers suggest this too. The God-fearers had turned from Greek polytheism to Jewish monotheism, but many of them were not familiar with Palestinian geography and culture. Luke clarified these matters for his readers when necessary. The God-fearers were the Gentiles whom Paul found to be the most receptive soil for the gospel seed. Luke himself may have been one of this group, though there is no way to prove or to disprove that possibility.

"[Luke] writes to reassure the Christians of his day that their faith in Jesus is no aberration, but the authentic goal towards which God's ancient dealings with Israel were driving."¹²

By the first century most of the pagan Greeks had stopped believing in the gods and goddesses of their mythology and had abandoned fatalism. Many of them were following Eastern "mystery" religions that competed with Christianity for their allegiance. Both beliefs offered saviors, but the Savior of Christianity was a personal resurrected Lord whereas the savior of the mystery religions was impersonal and ideal. Luke evidently wrote to persuade these people to believe in Jesus and to give them a solid factual basis for their faith.

"That he wrote for an urban church community in the Hellenistic world is fairly certain."¹³

Literary Characteristics

Experts in Greek literary styles acknowledge Luke's style and structure as superb.¹⁴ No one knows Luke's educational background, but clearly he had training in Greek composition as well as medicine and a talent for writing. Luke used many words that the other Gospel writers did not, and many of them show a wide literary background. He also used several medical and theological terms that are unique. Luke's use of Semiticisms shows that he knew the Hebrew Old Testament well. However, his preference for the Septuagint suggests that it was the version his readers used most. Probably Luke was a Gentile who had much exposure to Semitic idioms from Paul and other Jews. He was a skillful enough writer to use chiasms as a major structural device.¹⁵ Chiasms were both Jewish and Greek literary devices that gave unity to a composition or section of text. Acts also contains them. Luke also repeated similar stories with variations (cf. 1:80; 2:40; 2:52). This literary device aids learning while giving additional new insights. He also tended to use a particular term frequently in one or more passages and then rarely or never after that. This makes the term stand out and calls attention to it where it occurs.¹⁶

Date

Practically all scholars believe that Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts. Many conservative scholars hold that he wrote Acts during Paul's first Roman imprisonment during which the book ends (60-62 A.D.). Luke accompanied Paul during much of that apostle's missionary ministry. At times Luke was not with Paul, but he was ministering as Paul's representative in one or another of the churches that Paul had founded. Evidently Paul was Luke's primary source of information for his Gospel and Acts as Peter was Mark's primary source for the second Gospel. Luke may have written his Gospel during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome along with Acts. However, it seems more likely in view of how Luke introduced these two books that he wrote the Gospel sometime earlier than Acts. Luke had the most time to write this Gospel during Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (57-59 A.D., cf. Acts 24:1-26:32). This seems to me to be the most probable date of writing.¹⁷

Message¹⁸

The first Gospel presented Jesus as the King. The second Gospel presented Him as the Servant. The third Gospel presents Him as the perfect Man. Matthew wrote to Jews about their King. Mark wrote to Romans about a Servant. Luke wrote to Greeks about the ideal Man. The title "Messiah" is most fitting for Jesus in Matthew. The title "Suffering Servant" is most appropriate in Mark. "Son of Man" is the title most characteristic of Luke's presentation of Jesus.

Luke stressed the saving work of Jesus in His Gospel. He presented Jesus as the Savior of mankind. He also proclaimed Jesus' work of providing salvation for mankind. Let us consider first the Savior that Luke presents and then the salvation that the Savior came to provide.

Luke presented Jesus as the Savior in three different relationships. He presented Him as the first-born of a new race. Second, He presented Him as the older brother in a new family. Third, He presented Him as the redeemer of a lost humanity.

Let us consider first Luke's concept of Jesus as the first-born of a new race. Luke's genealogy reveals how the writer wanted the reader to regard Jesus. Matthew traced Jesus' lineage back to David and Abraham in his genealogy to show His right to rule as Israel's Messiah. Luke traced Jesus' ancestry back to Adam. He did this to show Jesus' humanity.

However, Luke went back even farther than that to God. This indicates that Jesus was not just like other humans who descended from Adam. He was, as the Apostle Paul called Him, the "Last Adam." The first Adam that God placed on this earth failed and plunged his race into sin and death. The last Adam that God placed on the earth did not fail but saved His race from sin and brought it new life. The first man begins the Old Testament, but the "Second Man," to use another Pauline title, begins the New Testament. As Adam headed one race, so Jesus heads a new race. Both Adams were real men. Thus both men head real races of mankind. Luke viewed Jesus as succeeding where Adam failed, as atoning for Adam's transgression.

For Jesus to undue the consequences of Adam's fall, He had to be more than just a good man. He had to be a perfect man, a sinless man. Therefore Luke stressed Jesus' sinlessness. He did this primarily in his account of Jesus' birth. Luke stressed the virgin conception of Jesus. The Holy Spirit, not a sinful human, fathered Jesus. God regards the male as responsible in the human family. Husbands are responsible for their wives. Fathers are responsible for their children. God held Adam, not Eve, responsible for his descendants.

Human beings are sinners for three separate reasons. First, we are sinners because we commit acts of sin. However even if we never committed one act of sin we would still be sinners because we, second, inherited a sinful human nature. This nature apparently comes through our fathers (cf. Heb. 7:9-10).¹⁹ Third, we are sinners because God has imputed the guilt of Adam's sin to us because he is the head of the race to which we belong.

Jesus was not a sinner. He did not commit any acts of sin. Second, He did not inherit a sinful nature from His human father because God was His real Father. Third, God did not impute Adam's sin to Jesus because Jesus was the direct descendant of God and therefore the head of a new race. God gave the first Adam life by breathing the breath of life into the body that He had created. Likewise God gave the second Adam life by implanting His divine life into a body that He had created, namely Mary's body.

The doctrine of the virgin birth is extremely important because it establishes the sinlessness of Jesus in two of the three ways whereby people become sinners. If a virgin did not conceive Jesus, then He was a sinner. If Jesus was a sinner, then He cannot be the Savior.

The third way a person becomes a sinner is by committing acts of sin. Luke showed that Jesus did not do this in his account of Jesus' temptations.

In the wilderness Satan subjected Jesus to the strongest temptations that humans face. Satan directed Jesus' three tests at the three areas of human personality that constitute the totality of human existence. These areas are doing (the lust of the flesh), having (the lust of the eyes), and being (the pride of life). These are the same three areas in which Satan attacked Eve.

The first man fell in a garden, an environment conducive to withstanding temptation. The Second Man overcame temptation in a wilderness, an environment conducive to yielding to temptation. Rather than showing at every turn in Jesus' life that He did not sin, Luke showed that in the supreme test of His life Jesus did not sin. However, he continued to note Jesus' conflict with Satan, demons, and sin throughout His life. Luke's record of these encounters also demonstrates Jesus' sinlessness.

At the Transfiguration, God declared His Son acceptable to Him. This meant that He was sinless.

Second, Luke presented Jesus as the older brother in a new family. Since Jesus was the head of a new race we might think that Luke would have presented Jesus as a father. Jesus was the first and therefore the source of all that follow in the race that He established. Nevertheless Luke stressed Jesus' likeness with those in the new race. He is as an elder brother to us who have new life through Him. This is not to deny His deity. In one sense Jesus is completely different from us since He is God. However, Luke stressed the sense in which He is like us, namely in His humanity. He is one of us, fully human.

Luke presented Jesus as a man among men. He of all the Gospel writers wanted his readers to appreciate the fact that Jesus was a real person. There are many small indications of this throughout this Gospel that I have tried to identify in the notes. Luke did this because he was evidently writing to Greeks. Greeks had a background in polytheism and mythology. Because of their cultural background they tended to think of gods as superhumans. They were not real people, but they had the characteristics of people expanded into superhuman proportions. Luke wanted his readers to realize that Jesus was not that type of god. He was fully human, but He was also sinless. He had superhuman powers, but He was not the type of superman that the Greeks imagined.

Jesus was a fellow human being albeit sinless. This is very hard for us to imagine. Therefore Luke put much in his Gospel that helps us understand Jesus, from His birth announcements to His ascension into heaven.

Third, Luke presented Jesus as the redeemer of a lost humanity. Since he was writing to Greeks, Luke did not identify many allusions to the Old Testament or to Jewish life and history. These allusions are in the text, but Luke did not draw attention to them. One of the outstanding concepts in Israelite life that Luke did not identify as such, but which overshadows his portrait of Jesus, is the kinsman redeemer. His presentation of Jesus fits the image of the Jewish kinsman redeemer remarkably.

The kinsman redeemer had to be the next of kin to the person he redeemed. Luke presented Jesus as qualifying as our redeemer in this respect. He was a man as we are. Therefore He could provide redemption for His needy brothers.

The kinsman redeemer also had to accept personal responsibility for those he purposed to save from their miserable estate. Luke presented Jesus as taking personal responsibility for lost sinners. He recorded Jesus saying that He had to go to the Cross. He viewed the salvation of mankind as something that He needed to accomplish because He had made a personal commitment to do so. That commitment began in heaven but continued on earth throughout Jesus' life.

The kinsman redeemer had to overcome those who opposed his brethren. Luke presented Jesus as conflicting with Satan and his hosts. He showed Him interceding for the Father's help for His tempted brethren, Peter in particular. Jesus won the victory over mankind's great enemy for His brethren.

The kinsman redeemer had to create an opportunity for his brother's redemption. Luke presented Jesus as doing this. Luke's distinctive presentation of Jerusalem as Jesus' city of destiny contributes to this theme. Jesus deliberately advanced toward Jerusalem and the Cross because He was creating an opportunity for mankind's redemption.

The kinsman redeemer turned his back on his personal rights and privileges to provide redemption for his brother. Luke presented Jesus doing this as well. Jesus modeled this strongly for His disciples in this Gospel. He also taught the importance of disciples doing this so we can bring salvation to our brothers.

These themes are very strong in Luke. Jesus is the head of an entirely new race of people, the redeemed. He is the elder brother who provides an example for His brethren to follow. He is the Savior who has come "to seek and to save the lost."

We have considered how Luke presents Jesus as the Savior. Now let us turn to what he revealed about salvation. The key verse in the Gospel is 19:10: "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save the lost." We have been looking at the Son of Man. Now let us look as seeking and saving the lost.

Luke reveals that the Son of Man has redeemed mankind. This Gospel is a record of God's redeeming work in Jesus Christ. Jesus' work on the Cross is the climax of this Gospel as it is the climax of all the Gospels and history itself. Jesus was born to die. By His death Jesus purchased mankind's freedom at the cost of His own life. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper so His disciples would always keep the memory of the significance of His death freshly before them. The Christian mission is to tell the world about this redemption.

Through redemption God regenerates those who are dead in sin. This is the second step in God's plan of seeking and saving the lost. Believers receive new life when they believe on Jesus. Comprehending what this new life involves, learning how to live in view of its reality, and appreciating its great potential are all things that Luke stressed in this Gospel. Jesus' disciples struggled with learning this as we do. Luke recorded many of Jesus' teachings that are helpful in understanding and appreciating regeneration.

Through regeneration God brings believers into relationship with Himself. This is the third step in this great salvation process. Luke helps the reader understand the difference between trusting for salvation and working for rewards. What is our relationship to Jesus as His followers? What are our privileges and our responsibilities? How does prayer enter into our relationship? Luke has more to say to disciples about our relationship to the Father and the Son than any other Gospel evangelist.

Then through relationship with Himself, God prepares believers for life after death as members of a new race. Luke recorded much that is of great help for us as readers here too. What is the next phase of our life with God going to be like? How should we prepare for it? What is ahead in the future? Luke teaches us what it means to be a member of the new redeemed race of humanity.

In addition to the central teaching of this Gospel let me also point out what I believe are the reasons for its abiding appeal. These are two: the personality of Jesus and the presentation of discipleship.

The personality of Jesus as Luke presents Him in this Gospel is very appealing. Possibly three things make Him so.

First, we feel that we can identify with the Jesus of Luke's Gospel. This is probably because Luke presented Him as a real man. It may be harder to identify with a King or with a Suffering Servant to say nothing about God, John's emphasis. Even though He is perfect He is someone with whom we feel a natural kinship because we share humanity together. Jesus faced what we do yet He was pleasing to God. This is very encouraging.

Second, the Jesus of Luke's Gospel is attractive because He is different from us. Even though we are of the same kind, He holds a fascination for us because He was the personification of ideal humanity. He was everything that God intended man to be. It is thrilling to view someone like that since we all fall so far short of what we should be.

Third, this Jesus is attractive because He was so sympathetic. One of the characteristic features of Luke's Gospel is the many references it contains to Jesus' concern for the needy including women, the poor, the sick, and outcasts of society. We read of the social outcasts of Jesus' day flocking to Him and feeling at home in His presence. We see Him welcoming children, and we feel ourselves drawn to Him.

Another reason for the appeal of this book is its presentation of discipleship. It contains some of the most straight talk and challenging demands for followers of Jesus that the New Testament holds. We read Jesus telling us that unless we hate our family members we cannot be His disciples, (14:26). He taught that we have to deny ourselves (14:27). We have to renounce all that we have (14:33). Interestingly these three conditions correspond to the three things that we mentioned earlier that Luke pointed out about Jesus.

Jesus calls us to sever our connections with our old race because we have become members of a new race. Jesus taught that our spiritual relations are really closer than our physical relations. Therefore we should let these old relations go if they interfere with our participation in the affairs of our new race.

Jesus calls us to accept the same responsibility that He accepted since we are now brothers. He denied Himself and took up His cross for us. Now we are brothers so we need to do the same for Him. Brothers sacrifice for each other.

Jesus also calls us to give up everything for Him. Having received the benefits of redemption because of the work of our Kinsman Redeemer who paid a great price for us, we need to pay a great price too. The price He calls us to pay is not to earn redemption. He has given that to us as a gift. It is to express our gratitude to Him for His grace and to advance the mission that He has given us to fulfill. He had a mission from God, and He gave up everything to fulfill it. We, too, have a mission from God, and we need to give up everything to fulfill it.

Finally this Gospel has a two-fold application, to the church and to the world.

To the church Luke says, "Be witnesses" (24:48).

We are to be such in view of the relationship that we now enjoy with the Son of Man. We should be such for three reasons. We have experienced redemption. We enjoy His fellowship. We have a future as members of a new race.

We are to be His witnesses also in view of the lost condition of mankind. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Our fellowship with Jesus requires participation in His mission to seek and to save the lost. We can do this for three reasons. He has transformed our lives. He will open people's eyes with His Word. He has empowered us with His Spirit (cf. ch. 24).

To the world Luke says, "You are lost, but the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost." A Redeemer has come. A brother is available. A new life is possible. Behold the Man! He understands you. Yet He is different from you. But He will receive you.

Constable: Luke (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-4

II. The birth and childhood of Jesus 1:5-2:52

A. The announcement of John the Baptist's birth 1:5-25

1. The introduction of John's parents 1:5-7

2. The angel's announcement to Zechariah 1:8-23

3. The pregnancy of Elizabeth 1:24-25

B. The announcement of Jesus' birth 1:26-56

1. The introduction of Mary and Joseph 1:26-27

2. The angel's announcement to Mary 1:28-38

3. Mary's visit to Elizabeth 1:39-56

C. The birth and early life of John the Baptist 1:57-80

1. The naming of John 1:57-66

2. Zechariah's song of praise 1:67-79

3. The preparation of John 1:80

D. The birth and early life of Jesus ch. 2

1. The setting of Jesus' birth 2:1-7

2. The announcement to the shepherds 2:8-20

3. Jesus' circumcision 2:21

4. Jesus' presentation in the temple 2:22-38

5. Jesus' development in Nazareth 2:39-40

6. Jesus' visit to the temple as a boy 2:41-50

7. Jesus' continuing growth 2:51-52

III. The preparation for Jesus' ministry 3:1-4:13

A. The ministry of John the Baptist 3:1-20

1. The beginning of John's ministry 3:1-6

2. John's preaching 3:7-18

3. The end of John's ministry 3:19-20

B. The baptism of Jesus 3:21-22

C. The genealogy of Jesus 3:23-38

D. The temptation of Jesus 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' ministry in and around Galilee 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus' teaching ministry and the response to it 4:14-5:11

1. An introduction to Jesus' Galilean ministry 4:14-15

2. Jesus' teaching in Nazareth 4:16-30

3. Jesus' ministry in and around Capernaum 4:31-44

4. The call of Peter, James, and John 5:1-11

B. The beginning of controversy with the Pharisees 5:12-6:11

1. Jesus' cleansing of a leprous Jew 5:12-16

2. Jesus' authority to forgive sins 5:17-26

3. Jesus' attitude toward sinners 5:27-32

4. Jesus' attitude toward fasting 5:33-39

5. Jesus' authority over the Sabbath 6:1-5

6. Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath 6:6-11

C. Jesus' teaching of His disciples 6:12-49

1. The selection of 12 disciples 6:12-16

2. The assembling of the people 6:17-19

3. The Sermon on the Mount 6:20-49

D. Jesus' compassion for people ch. 7

1. The healing of a centurion's servant 7:1-10

2. The raising of a widow's son 7:11-17

3. The confusion about Jesus' identity 7:18-35

4. The anointing by a sinful woman 7:36-50

E. Jesus' teaching in parables 8:1-21

1. The companions and supporters of Jesus 8:1-3

2. The parable of the soils 8:4-15

3. The parable of the lamp 8:16-18

4. The true family of Jesus 8:19-21

F. Jesus' mighty works 8:22-56

1. The stilling of the storm 8:22-25

2. The deliverance of a demoniac in Gadara 8:26-39

3. The healing of a woman with a hemorrhage and the raising of Jairus' daughter 8:40-56

G. Jesus' preparation of the Twelve 9:1-50

1. The mission of the Twelve to Israel 9:1-6

2. Herod's question about Jesus' identity 9:7-9

3. The feeding of the 5000 9:10-17

4. Peter's confession of faith 9:18-27

5. The Transfiguration 9:28-36

6. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:37-43a

7. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 9:43b-45

8. The pride of the disciples 9:46-50

V. Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

A. The responsibilities and rewards of discipleship 9:51-10:24

1. The importance of toleration 9:51-56

2. The importance of self-denial 9:57-62

3. The importance of participation 10:1-16

4. The joy of participation 10:17-20

5. The joy of comprehension 10:21-24

B. The relationships of disciples 10:25-11:13

1. The relation of disciples to their neighbors 10:25-37

2. The relation of disciples to Jesus 10:38-42

3. The relation of disciples to God the Father 11:1-13

C. The results of popular opposition 11:14-54

1. The Beelzebul controversy 11:14-26

2. The importance of observing God's Word 11:27-28

3. The sign of Jonah 11:29-32

4. The importance of responding to the light 11:33-36

5. The climax of Pharisaic opposition 11:37-54

D. The instruction of the disciples in view of Jesus' rejection 12:1-13:17

1. The importance of fearless confession 12:1-12

2. The importance of the eternal perspective 12:13-21

3. God's provisions for disciples 12:22-34

4. The coming of the Son of 12:35-48

5. The coming crisis 12:49-59

6. A call to repentance 13:1-9

7. A sign of Jesus' ability to affect change 13:10-17

E. Instruction about the kingdom 13:18-14:35

1. Parables of the kingdom 13:18-21

2. Entrance into the kingdom 13:22-30

3. Jesus' postponement of the kingdom 13:31-35

4. Participants in the kingdom 14:1-24

5. The cost of discipleship 14:25-35

F. God's attitude toward sinners ch. 15

1. The setting for Jesus' teaching 15:1-2

2. The parable of the lost sheep 15:3-7

3. The parable of the lost coin 15:8-10

4. The parable of the lost son 15:11-32

G. Jesus' warnings about riches ch. 16

1. Discipleship as stewardship 16:1-13

2. Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for their greed 16:14-31

H. Jesus' warning about disciples' actions and attitudes 17:1-19

1. The prevention of sin and the restoration of sinners 17:1-4

2. The disciples' attitude toward their duty 17:5-10

3. The importance of gratitude 17:11-19

I. Jesus' teaching about His return 17:20-18:8

1. A short lesson for the Pharisees 17:20-21

2. A longer explanation for the disciples 17:22-37

3. The parable of the persistent widow 18:1-8

J. The recipients of salvation 18:9-19:27

1. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector 18:9-14

2. An illustration of humility 18:15-17

3. The handicap of wealth 18:18-30

4. Jesus' passion announcement and the disciples' lack of perception 18:31-34

5. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 18:35-43

6. Zaccheus' ideal response to Jesus 19:1-10

7. The parable of the minas 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry 19:28-40

B. The beginning of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:41-48

1. Jesus' sorrow over Jerusalem 19:42-44

2. Jesus' cleansing of the temple 19:45-46

3. A synopsis of Jesus' teaching in the temple 19:47-48

C. Jesus' teachings in the temple 20:1-21:4

1. The controversy over authority 20:1-8

2. The parable of the wicked tenant farmers 20:9-19

3. The question of tribute to Caesar 20:20-26

4. The problem of the resurrection 20:27-40

5. Jesus' question about David's son 20:41-44

6. Jesus' condemnation of the scribes 20:45-47

7. Jesus' commendation of a widow 21:1-4

D. Jesus' teaching about the destruction of the temple 21:5-36

1. The setting and the warning about being misled 21:5-9

2. The need for faithful perseverance 21:10-19

3. The judgment coming on Jerusalem 21:20-24

4. The second coming of the Son of 21:25-28

5. The certainty of these events 21:29-33

6. The concluding exhortation to watchfulness 21:34-36

E. A summary of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 21:37-38

VII. Jesus' passion, resurrection, and ascension 22:1-24:53

A. The plot to arrest Jesus 22:1-6

1. The leaders' desire 22:1-2

2. Judas' offer 22:3-6

B. The preparations for the Passover 22:7-13

C. Events in the upper room 22:14-38

1. The Passover meal 22:14-18

2. The institution of the Lord's Supper 22:19-20

3. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 22:21-23

4. Teaching about the disciples' service 22:24-30

5. Jesus' announcement of Peter's denial 22:31-34

6. The opposition to come 22:35-38

D. The arrest of Jesus 22:39-53

1. Jesus' preparation in Gethsemane 22:39-46

2. Judas' betrayal 22:47-53

E. The trials of Jesus 22:54-23:25

1. Peter's denial of Jesus 22:54-62

2. The mockery of the soldiers 22:63-65

3. Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin 22:66-71

4. Jesus' first appearance before Pilate 23:1-7

5. Jesus' appearance before Herod 23:8-12

6. Jesus' second appearance before Pilate 23:13-25

F. The crucifixion of Jesus 23:26-49

1. Events on the way to Golgotha 23:26-32

2. Jesus' death 23:33-49

G. The burial of Jesus 23:50-56

H. The resurrection of Jesus 24:1-12

I. The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus 24:13-49

1. The appearance to the disciples walking to Emmaus 24:13-35

2. The appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem 24:36-49

J. The ascension of Jesus 24:50-53

Constable: Luke

Luke

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. New ed. 4 vols. London: Rivingtons, 1880.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke. The NIV Application Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

_____. "A Theology of Luke-Acts." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 87-166. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Boslooper, Thomas. The Virgin Birth. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.

Bowman, John. "The Parable of the Good Samaritan." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):151-53, 248-49.

Brown, R. E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

_____. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurection of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 1973.

Brown, Schuyler. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

_____. "Justification by Faith in the non-Pauline Writings of the New Testament." Evangelical Quarterly 24 (1952):66-77.

Burrows, Millar. "Levirate Marriage in Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):23-33.

_____. "The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):445-54.

Cadbury, Henry J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Cairns, Earle E. "Luke As a Historian." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):220-26.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In Matthew--Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Cave, C. H. "Lazarus and the Lucan Deuteronomy." New Testament Studies 15 (1968-67):319-25.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Creed, J. M. The Gospel According to St. Luke. A Commentary on the Third Gospel. London: Macmillan and Co., 1930.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956.

Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age. Proclamation Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Davis, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. "Eating up the Houses of Widows': Jesus's Comment on Lawyers?" Novum Testamentum 14 (1972):1-9.

_____. "Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. II. Dives and Lazarus and the preceding Sayings." New Testament Studies, 7 (1960-61):364-80.

_____. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt." Novum Testamentum 13 (1971):241-58.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Unjust Judge." New Testament Studies 18 (1071-72):178-91.

_____. "Take thy Bond . . . and Write Fifty' (Luke xvi. 6) The nature of the Bond." Journal of New Testament Studies NS23 (1972):438-40.

_____. "You Build the Tombs of the Prophets' [Luke 11:47-51; Matt. 23:29-31]." Studia Evangelica 4 (1968):187-93.

Dillon, Richard J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. Analecta Biblica 82. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

_____. "Previewing Luke's Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1-4)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981):205-27.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Doeve, J. W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Easton, Burton Scott. The Gospel according to St. Luke. International Critical Commentaries series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Erickson, Richard J. "The Jailing of John and the Baptism of Jesus: Luke 3:19-21." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):455-66.

Findlay, J. A. "Luke." In Abingdon Bible Commentary, pp. 1022-59. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1929.

Finegan, Jack. The Archaeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

_____. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971.

_____. The Gospel according to Luke I--IX. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1981.

_____. "The Story of the Dishonest Manager." Theological Studies 25 (1964):23-42.

Flender, Helmut. St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History. London: SPCK, 1967.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J., and Lake, Kirsopp, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity. 5 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1920-33.

Forbes, Greg. "Repentance and Conflict in the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):211-229.

Ford, J. Massingbyrde. "The Meaning of Virgin.'" New Testament Studies 12:3 (1966):293-99.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, Inc. and Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaston, Lloyd. Horae Synopticae Electonicae; Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973.

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1950.

Gerhardsson, Birger.The Testing of God's Son. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament series 2:1. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1966.

Geyser, A. S. "The Youth of John the Baptist." Novum Testamentum 1 (1956):70-75.

Goodspeed, E. J. "Some Greek Notes: I. Was Theophilus Luke's Publisher?" Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954):84.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1974.

Han, Kyu Sam. "Theology of Prayer in the Gospel of Luke." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:4 (December 2000):675-93.

Harvey, A. E. The New English Bible: Companion to the New Testament. Cambridge: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Hawkins, John Caesas. Horae Synopticae; Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 1909. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

Helyer, Larry R. "Luke and the Restoration of Israel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):317-29.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Centurion's Faith in Matthew and Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):321-32.

_____. "Stop and Think! (Luke 14:13-14), Rewardable Hospitality." The KERUGMA Message 3:1 (Spring 1993):1, 3.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Inrig, Gary. The Parables: Understanding What Jesus Meant. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1991.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1986 ed. Edited by Geoffrey E. Bromiley. S.v. "money," by H. W. Perkin.

Jellicoe, S. "St Luke and the Seventy-two." New Testament Studies 6 (1960):319-21.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. New Testament Library series. 3rd ed. Revised. London: SCM Press, 1966.

_____. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Rev. ed. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Scribner, 1963.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keck, Leander E. "The Spirit and the Dove." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):41-67.

Keck, Leander, and Martyn, J. Louis, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Larkin, William J., Jr. "The Recovery of Luke-Acts as Grand Narrative' for the Church's Evangelistic and Edification Tasks in a Postmodern Age." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):405-15.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel. 1946. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, Clive Staples. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan Co., 1959.

Liefeld, Walter L. "Luke." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Lucan Theology in Contemporary Perspective." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):346-51.

Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second series 17. London: SCM, 1970.

Lövestam, E. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1963.

Luce, H. K. The Gospel according to S. Luke. Cambridge Greek Testament series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Greshem. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982.

Malick, David E. "A Literary Approach to the Birth Narratives in Luke 1-2." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 93-107. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Manek, J. "The New Exodus in the Books of Luke." Novum Testamentum 2 (1955):8-23.

_____. "On the Mount - on the Plain (Mt. V. 1 - Lk. VI. 17)." Novum Testamentum 9 (1967):124-31.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. "The Divine Sonship of Jesus." Interpretation 21 (1967):87-103.

_____. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.

Martin, John A. "Luke." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 199-265. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Martin, R. P. Colossians: The Church's Lord and the Christian's Liberty. Exeter, Eng.: Paternoster Press, 1972.

Mason, Steve. "Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 115-77. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Mathewson, Dave L. "The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13): A Reexamination of the Traditional View in Light of Recent Challenges." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):29-39.

Mattill, A. J., Jr. "Representative Universalism and the Conquest of Canaan." Concordia Theological Monthly 35:1 (1967):8-17.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Cal.: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Remembering: A Central Theme in Biblical Worship." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):27-36.

Mills, Montague Stephen. "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978.

Minear, P. S. "A Note on Luke xxii. 36." Novum Testamentum 7 (1964):128-34.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moore, Thomas S. "The Lucan Great Commission and the Isaianic Servant." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):47-60.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Mosley, A. W. "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66):10-26.

Neil, William, The Acts of the Apostles. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1973; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1981.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," by F. F. Bruce.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by F. F. Bruce.

Oliver, H. H. "The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts." New Testaments Studies 10 (1963-64):215-26.

O'Neill, J. C. "The Six Amen Sayings in Luke." Journal of Theological Studies NS10 (1959):1-9.

Orr, James. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Scribner's, 1907.

Overstreet, R. Larry "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Packer, J. I. "The Comfort of Conservatism." In Power Religion, pp. 283-99. Edited by Michael Scott Horton. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Reicke, Bo. "Jesus in Nazareth -- Lk 4, 14-30." In Das Wort und die Wörter, pp. 47-55. Edited by H. Balz and S. Schulz. Stuttgart: n. p., 1973.

Roberts, C. H. "The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. xvii. 21)." Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948):1-8.

Robinson, J. A. T. Twelve New Testament Studies. Studies in Biblical Theology No. 14. London: SCM Press, 1962.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Schurer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Clark's Foreign Theological Library series. 6 vols. Translated by John Macpherson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895-1905.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sneed, R. J. "The Kingdom of God is within you' (Lk. 17, 21)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962):363-82.

Stanton, G. N. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton, Il.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Strugnell, J. "Amen I say unto you' in the Sayings of Jesus and in Early Christian Literature." Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):177-90.

Summers, Ray. Commentary on Luke. Waco: Word Books, 1972.

Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974.

_____. "The Lukan Presentation of Jesus' Ministry in Galilee." Review and Expositor 64 (1967):485-97.

_____. "Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15." In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God's Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, pp. 129-41. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1980.

_____. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1982.

Tannehill, Robert C. "Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story." Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985):69-85.

_____. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Tenney, Merrill C. "Historical Verities in the Gospel of Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):126-38.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. "daimon," by W. Foerster.

_____. S.v. "hepta," by K. H. Rengstorf.

_____. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck and G. Bertram.

_____. S.v. "nestis," by J. Behm.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

_____. S.v. "paristemi, paristano," by Bo Reicke.

_____. S.v. "pascha," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "stole," by Ulrich Wilckens.

Thompson, G. H. P. "Called -- Proved -- Obedient." Journal of Theological Studies NS11 (1960):1-12.

_____. St. Luke. New Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966.

van Ommeren, Nicholas M. "Was Luke an Accurate Historian?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:589 (January-March 1991):57-71.

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew. London: Collins, 1973.

Walls, A. F. "In the Presence of the Angels' (Luke xv. 10)." Novum Testamentum 3 (1959):314-16.

Walvoord, John F. "The Times of the Gentiles." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):3-9.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wilkinson, J. "The Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13:10-17." Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977):195-205.

Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Winter, P. "Nazareth' and Jerusalem' in Luke chs. 1 and 2." New Testament Studies 3 (1956-57):136-42.

Witherington, Ben III. Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "The Daily Bread Motif in Antiquity." Westminster Theological Journal 28 (1965-66):147-56.

Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Yates, Gary. "The Use of Isaiah 61:1 (and 58:6) in Luke 4:18-19." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):13-27.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Coins," by Gleason L. Archer.

_____. S.v. "Demon, Demoniac, Demonology," by R. K. Harrison.

_____. S.v. "Diseases of the Bible," by R. H. Pousma.

_____. S.v. "Samaritans," by J. L. Kelso.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by E. M. Blaiklock.

Zuck, Roy B. "How Jesus Responded to Questions." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 108-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-1@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-2@

Haydock: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.

INTRODUCTION

St. Luke was a physician, a native of Antioch, the metropolis of Syria, and well skilled in the Greek language, as his writings sufficiently evince. In some ancient manuscripts, he is called Lucius, and Lucanus. Some conjecture that he was at first a Gentile and a pagan, and was converted by the preaching of St. Paul, at Antioch; others, that he was originally a Jew, and one of the seventy-two disciples. Sts. Hippolitus and Epiphanius say, that hearing from our Lord these words, he that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me, he withdrew, and quitted our Saviour, but returned to the faith at the preaching of St. Paul. But to leave what is uncertain, St. Luke was the disciple, travelling companion, and fellow-labourer of St. Paul. Of him St. Paul is supposed to speak: (2 Corinthians viii. 18.) We have sent also with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, through all churches: and again, Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you: (Colossians iv.) and, only Luke is with me. (2 Timothy iv.) Some are of opinion that as often as St. Paul, in his Epistles, says according to my gospel, he speaks of the Gospel of St. Luke. This evangelist did not learn his gospel from St. Paul only, (who had never been with our Lord in the flesh) but from the other apostles also, as himself informs us in the beginning of his gospel, when he says, according as they have delivered them unto us; who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses, ( Greek: autoptai ) and ministers of the word. His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that St. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world. It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that he had ever read the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. ... He chiefly insists in his gospel, upon what relates to Christ's priestly office; hence the ancients gave, of the four symbolical representations, mentioned in Ezechiel, that of the ox, or calf, to St. Luke, as an emblem of sacrifices. He lived 84 years in the state of celibacy, was crucified at Elœa, in Peloponnesus, near Achaia, and was buried in the church of the apostles, at Constantinople, to which city his remains were translated, together with those of St. Andrew and St. Timothy, in the year 357, by order of the emperor Constantius. When this church was repaired, by an order of Justinian, the masons found three wooden chests, in which the bodies of these saints were interred. Baronius mentions, that the head of St. Luke was brought by St. Gregory from Constantinople to Rome, in the year of Christ 586. St. Luke writes purer Greek than any of the other hagiographers; yet many Syriac words, and turns of expressions, occur in both his gospel and Acts of the Apostles; some also that imitate the genius of the Latin tongue. He cites Scripture according to the Septuagint, and not after the Hebrew text. St. Paul, in his Epistles, generally quotes the gospel in a manner the most conformable to St. Luke, as may be seen in the following instances; 1 Corinthians xi. 23. and 24. chap. xv. 5. The Marcionites would only receive the gospel of St. Luke, and from this they retrenched the first two chapters, with regard the birth of Jesus Christ, and only admitted ten of St. Paul's Epistles, as Tertullian and St. Epiphanius have remarked. Marcion embraced the errors of Cerdon: to these he added others, the offspring of his own brain. He began to disseminate his novel opinions at Rome, about the year of Christ 144. He could not bring himself to believe how a spirit, such as the human soul, could be shut up in a body, be subject to ignorance, to weakness, to pain; nor in what manner, or for what end, the great and good Lord, the Creator of spirits, could have thus degraded them. Revelation, which teaches us the fall of the first man, did not appear to the Marcionites, to solve the difficulty, since the first man was composed of a spiritual soul and a terrestrial body; they, moreover, imagined that an all-good, an all-powerful God, ought to have prevented the fall of man. No wonder then, that they refused to adopt the first two chapters of St. Luke, which contain the miraculous births of Jesus and his precursor [John the Baptist]; as also sundry texts of the very scanty portions of holy Scriptures which their party chose to retain. But what does this shew? that tradition, in the first instance, must be admitted, to inform us what is authentic scripture; and, secondly, an infallible Church-authority, to inform us what is the genuine interpretation of the genuine text. Without the assistance of apostolical tradition and Church-authority, could any Seeker (even with the assistance of Brown's Self-interpreting Bible, in 2 vols. 4to.) rest secure, that he properly understood the disputed points of holy writ; that his, and no other interpretation, was the genuine sense of these mysterious words, when he was informed that by far the greater part of learned societies, and learned individuals, gave a widely different interpretation to the same texts. This freedom of expounding Scripture, by unassisted reason and private spirit, was the first germ of the daily increasing spread of sects and heresies; this is the nucleus, which, after enveloping itself like the comet, in much nebulous obscurity, terminates in a fiery tail, of portentous magnitude, the ruinous effects of which can only be prevented by a speedy return to first principles, apostolical tradition, and Church-authority.

====================

Gill: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LUKE

The writer of this Gospel, Luke, has been, by some, thought, as Origen ^a relates, to be the same with Lucius, mentioned in Rom 16:21, but he seems rather to be, and without doubt is, Luke the beloved physician, who was a companion of the Apostle Paul in great part of his travels in the Gentile world: he came with him to Jerusalem, and from thence accompanied him to Rome, and continued with him when in prison, and was with him to the last; see Act 16:10, &c. Col 4:14. Jerom ^b, and others, say, he was a physician of Antioch in Syria; where it may be the Apostle Paul met with him, and might be the happy instrument of his conversion; so that he seems to be, by nation, a Syrian, as Jerom ^c calls him. Grotius thinks his name is Roman, and that it is the contraction of Lucilius. It is not an Hebrew name, but might be in common use in Syria; for though the Jews reckon owqwl, "Lukus", among foreign names, yet say ^d a it was a very illustrious one, and well known to them, as it may well be thought to be if Syriac, the language being spoke by them: and many Jews lived in Syria, and particularly in Antioch. Some say that this Gospel was written by the advice, and assistance, and under the direction of the Apostle Paul, as the Gospel according to Mark was by that of Peter; though the following preface does not seem so well to accord with this. Eusebius says ^e that it was the sense of the ancients, that whenever the Apostle Paul makes mention of his Gospel, he intends this according to Luke. The time of the writing of it is not certain; some say it was written in the fifteenth year after the ascension of our Lord; others in the twenty second; and others in the twenty seventh. It is commonly thought to have been written after the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, according to the order in which it stands; but this is rejected by some learned men, who rather think that Luke wrote first of all: and indeed, there are some things in his preface which look as if there had not, as yet, been any authentic account published, at least which was come to the knowledge of this evangelist. The place where he wrote it is also uncertain. Jerom says ^f, he wrote it in the parts of Achaia, perhaps at Corinth: according to the titles prefixed to the Syriac and Persic versions, he wrote it in Alexandria: the former of these runs thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, the Evangelist, which he spake and published in Greek in Alexandria the great.''

And the latter thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Greek tongue in Alexandria of Egypt.''

However, it is agreed on all hands, that it is genuine, and of divine inspiration. Eusebius ^g relates, that it was affirmed by some, that this Gospel, together with those of Matthew and Mark, were brought to the Apostle John, who approved of them, and bore witness to the truth in them.

College: Luke (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

"Many have undertaken" to write commentaries on the Gospel of Luke, and a large number of these are very good. "It seemed good also to me" to attempt to place in the hands of a popular audience the best of recent scholarship in an easily readable form. My prayer will have been answered if those without specialized training are able to come to a deeper understanding of Luke's message as a result of these efforts.

My debt to those who have written before me will be demonstrated throughout the commentary. I am equally indebted to many who have spent hours reading and making suggestions which have vastly improved my work. To my student assistant, Meg Grandstaff; to my mother, Peggy Black; and to my colleagues, Terry Briley, Brandon Fredenburg, and Gary Holloway, I can only say, "Thank you" and "I owe you one." I must also thank Lipscomb University for the Faculty Summer Grant which gave me the summer of 1996 to work on the book.

My greatest gratitude goes to Margo, Sara, Jessica, and Allison, who have tolerated too many hours taken away from them. They fill all my days with joy, and I must ask with Elizabeth (Luke 1:43), "Why am I so favored" to be their husband and father?

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

TABLE OF

SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES

Anti-Semitism 371

Baptism 84

Destruction of Jerusalem and End of Time 336

Forgiveness and Grace 163

Fulfillment of Scripture 42

Holy Spirit 93

Kingdom of God 112

Law 69

Messiah 88

Miracles and Sign-Seeking 107

Outcasts and Untouchables 127

Parables 167

Pharisees 120

Poor and Rich 142

Prayer 92

Prophet Theme 60

Repentance 83

Sadducees 327

Samaritans 200

Son of Man 124

Table Fellowship 126

Tax Collectors 87

Women 50

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

This commentary is written for serious students of the New Testament, including Bible class teachers, preachers, college students, and other motivated readers. The reader need not be acquainted with the Greek language or scholarly tools and methodology. The single goal of the present commentary is to place modern readers into the shoes of the first readers of Luke's Gospel. Two questions have been constantly asked: What did Luke want his readers to grasp as he penned each section? And what did he want them to believe and to do after they had read the whole? My assumption is that the Gospel of Luke was written for us but not directly to us. Since it was originally written for a people of a different culture almost two thousand years ago, we must attempt to understand it as they understood it in order to be faithful to Luke's intent.

Luke wrote in order to encourage active faith in Jesus, and he did so through the use of narrative literature. To put it differently, Luke has written to tell his readers what to believe, what reasons there are for believing, and what it means to live as a believer. To make his case he has chosen to tell a story, a literary form with few imperatives and exhortations directly to the reader. Since narratives teach indirectly, the reader must learn to "read between the lines" in order to grasp the message.

I have therefore taken a literary and theological approach in this commentary. I believe that Luke has given many clues regarding his intent and that a proper reading will discover that intent. Put simply, his method is to tell the story of Jesus, highlighting those aspects of the story which his readers need most to hear. He has woven many themes into the plot which begins with the birth and ends with the death and resurrection of Jesus. To understand his message, then, the reader must read the whole, paying close attention to the plot and the characters and to the many repeated themes. Therefore I am more concerned with Luke's message in any given story than I am with the attempt to discover how his source(s) told the story. Similarly, I am more concerned with the reasons for Luke's references to various events than I am with our ability to confirm the historicity of those events.

For each episode or section in Luke's Gospel, we will be concerned first with any terms, customs, institutions, places, and beliefs which might be unfamiliar to the modern reader. We will therefore offer brief introductions to Herod Antipas, first-century eating customs, messianic beliefs, and dozens of other matters with which Luke's readers would already be familiar. Our second and most important concern will be to discover the function of each section in the larger story. Does it further the plot, teach a lesson on what it means to be a disciple, encourage deeper faith, or function in some other way?

A third feature of the present commentary is the attempt to summarize Luke's teaching on a variety of topics. Luke had several areas of special concern, evidenced by his dealing with them again and again. The reader will find in the table of contents a list of one- or two-page treatments of special topics such as women, the poor, the Law, the Holy Spirit, prayer, the kingdom of God, and many others.

A final special interest (to be explained further in the introduction below) is the effort to relate the Gospel of Luke to its companion volume, the book of Acts. The reader gains inspired insight into what Luke thinks about the teachings of Jesus when he or she sees Jesus' disciples in Acts carrying out those teachings. We will regularly look ahead to Acts to understand what Jesus means in the Gospel of Luke.

I am greatly indebted to the fine commentaries on Luke's Gospel by Johnson, Nolland, Stein, and Tiede. These works, which have different purposes and perspectives, have been tremendously helpful in my writing. I have tried to footnote them when appropriate. However, having used them for several years, I am no longer sure whether many ideas are my own or borrowed from them. I recommend these four commentaries to the reader who wants more than I have provided herein. I have directed the reader to Stein's work more than the others, because his will prove easiest to understand for the nonspecialist.

AUTHORSHIP

The Gospel of Luke is anonymous. Like the other three Gospels, it makes no claim regarding authorship. However, from the late second century until the 19th, no one seems to have questioned that Luke the physician wrote Luke and Acts.

The Third Gospel was known as "The Gospel of Luke" by at least the late second century in order to distinguish it from the other three. It is impossible to know just why the early church attributed the book to Luke. Some would argue that he indeed wrote the book, and that his name was therefore associated with it from the beginning. Others argue that early Christians derived its authorship from evidence within the book of Acts (to be discussed below).

Supporting this early tradition are the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170-180), Irenaeus (late 2nd century), the earliest actual copy of the Gospel (Bodmer Papyrus XIV, 175-225), an ancient Prologue to the Gospel written against the heretic Marcion (late 2nd), Tertullian (207-208), and later Origen (254), Eusebius (303), and Jerome (398). Such is the external evidence for Lukan authorship, and it is quite strong.

The internal evidence is also strong, and it comes from volume two, the book of Acts. There the author uses the first person plural pronoun ("we") in narrating the events in the life of Paul on three occasions (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; often called the "we-passages" of Acts). These sections imply that the author was with Paul in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Judea, on the Mediterranean, and in Rome.

This of course does not point directly to Luke, but it does encourage some detective work on the part of the reader. Who was with Paul during these times? Paul's letters and Acts suggest a number of traveling companions (see the relevant portions of Acts and especially Col 4, Phlm, and 2 Tim 4). When one eliminates those whom the author mentions by name in Acts, and if one assumes that the author of Luke-Acts was a Gentile (see below), Luke emerges as the most likely author, given the strong weight of tradition.

Given strong external and internal evidence for Lukan authorship, one may wonder why much of contemporary scholarship rejects the notion entirely. The answer is based on internal evidence which is said to disallow Lukan authorship. Quite simply, the book of Acts presents a view of Paul the Christian who appears to be quite different from the Paul who wrote the letters, especially Galatians. The book of Acts does not cite or even mention Paul's letters. More significantly, it is argued that the theological portrait of Paul in Acts could not have been painted by a companion of Paul. Luke's portrait is especially problematic with regard to Paul's stance on keeping the Law. We must admit that it is somewhat surprising when Paul, who wrote that, "All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse," (Gal 3:10), consistently upholds the Law in Acts. Most notably, James in Acts 21:24 encourages Paul to help the four men under a vow in order to show that "you yourself are living in obedience to the Law."

At the risk of oversimplifying a very complex discussion, several points should be noted. First, we should admit and not apologize for the fact that Luke and Paul have very different agendas in writing their works. This has necessarily influenced which events they narrate and what they emphasize theologically. Paul is writing for churches in crises and tends to address only those areas where the church in question needs instruction. Luke on the other hand writes in order to show the unity within the early church and therefore stresses that which all churches shared. So Paul in Galatians writes against Judaizers (those who want Gentiles to keep the Law), whereas Luke writes to Gentiles who may not have enough understanding or appreciation of the Jewish heritage of Christianity. The difference may well be one of audience and perspective rather than theological position. One should remember that Paul in his letters does write that his policy is, "To the Jews I became like a Jew," and, "To those under the Law I became like one under the Law" (1 Cor 9). In other words, Luke in Acts may be showing a side of Paul that the letters largely do not show: Paul customarily lived as a Jew, especially around Jews.

Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician. However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving that Luke showed no more "medical" language than other educated writers of his day. Of course, the healing stories and "medical" vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.

While it can never be proven absolutely, I have taken the view that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote Luke and Acts. This is largely because I accept the "we-sections" at face value. The author intended to represent himself as a companion of Paul, and the best candidate is Luke. However, we still know very little about our author, because the New Testament says little about Luke. What can be known about this author other than that he was a companion of Paul (Acts 16-28), a physician (Col 4:14), and a Gentile (Col 4:11)?

We actually learn more about Luke from his writing than from other sources. First, he was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus (1:1-4). He got his information from "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Second, he was a man of some education, as is clearly evidenced by his learned Greek (see esp. 1:1-4) and his ability to imitate the style of the Greek Old Testament. Third, he does appear to have been a Gentile. While this cannot be proven with certainty, his references to "the Jews" probably imply that he was not one of them, especially the reference to "their language" in Acts 1:19. This is, of course, consistent with the statement of Colossians 4:14 (which implies that Luke was a Gentile). Fourth, he was thoroughly conversant with the Scriptures. Although he has been called a Gentile writing to Gentiles, we must not overlook his constant references to every section of the Old Testament (esp. Psalms), his overriding fulfillment theme, and his great concern to show that all of his Jewish characters continue to observe the Law of Moses (even those who become Christians). This Gentile, for example, is the only Gospel writer who tells us of Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day, of Mary's purification on the fortieth day, of the disciples' observance of the Sabbath "according to the commandment" after the death of Jesus (24:1), and of Paul's taking vows (18:18) and participating in the sacrificial system long after becoming a Christian (Acts 21). Perhaps Luke had for some time been a "God-fearer," a Gentile who worshiped God, appreciated Judaism, and attended the synagogue. God-fearers are an important group in Acts who very often become Christians (see 13:16; 16:14; 18:7).

Fortunately, we need not know the author's name to interpret his narrative. In fact, the narrative tells us much more about the author than any theory about the author tells us about the narrative.

DATE

It is fortunate also that the interpreter need not know the date of Luke's writing, because no one knows exactly when it was written. Though some argue that Luke wrote his Gospel long before he wrote Acts, there are many reasons to think the two volumes were written at the same time. If so, the Gospel was written after A.D. 60-62, the date of Paul's imprisonment in Acts 28. Thus the earliest possible date for Luke's Gospel is 62. A few scholars argue that Luke must have written at that time, and that this accounts for the abrupt and frustrating (did Paul live or die?) ending of Acts. Most, however, believe that Luke had other reasons than lack of information for ending Acts as he did. I concur with those who think Luke had simply accomplished his purpose in Acts 28. He wrote to give an account of the spread of the gospel from Jews (only) in Jerusalem to Gentiles (predominantly) in Rome. He did not intend to give a biography of Paul.

Most argue that Luke had to have been written after Mark, because, in their opinions, Luke used Mark's Gospel in writing his own. However, this opinion is not universally accepted; and even if it were, one then has to answer the equally difficult question, When was Mark written? On the other hand, Luke 1:1 does suggest that Luke was probably written relatively late among early Gospels.

Many would argue that the earliest date of writing must be at least A.D. 70 on the basis of likely allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, Jesus alludes to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in the first two Gospels as well as in Luke. However, in Luke Jesus says, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies," (21:20) instead of, "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong," (Mark 13:14). Many believe that this more specific language suggests that Luke was looking back at the destruction and interpreting for his audience the meaning of Jesus' statement. This is likely, but it is far from certain.

The latest possible date for the writing of Luke's Gospel would be the first allusion to it in other literature. But even that is difficult to determine because allusions are notoriously difficult to ascertain. It could be 1 Clement (95-96), Ignatius (110), Polycarp (135), or 2 Clement (clear allusion but uncertain date, anywhere from 120-170).

The evidence tends to point to the period of A.D. 65-85 for the composition of the Gospel of Luke. Some might like to be more exact, but it matters little for the interpretation of Luke's work.

AUDIENCE

As suggested above, the Gospel of Luke appears to be addressed to Gentile Christians. Though Theophilus is the named recipient and was certainly an intended reader, Luke undoubtedly wrote for a much larger audience. Just as modern "letters to the editor" are meant for the larger public, so was Luke's work. Numerous hints within the work point to a larger audience which is predominantly Gentile. The most important are these: (1) He relates his work to a Greco-Roman literary tradition (1:1-4). (2) He dedicates the work to Theophilus, most likely a Gentile. (3) He is profoundly interested in the Gentile mission. (4) He uses Greek and Roman terms when other Gospel writers use Hebrew ("teacher" for "rabbi;" "lawyer" for "scribe;" "Skull" for "Golgotha"). (5) He refers to the Jews in the third person.

Most agree that the original readers were Christian and that Luke-Acts is intended to build up faith rather than help create it. This is perhaps more difficult to prove, but two factors seem to lead in this direction. First, it appears that the named reader, Theophilus, had already heard the story (1:4). Second, there are simply too many matters left unexplained which would have been far too confusing for the non-Christian. Almost every episode assumes that Luke's readers had a basic knowledge about Jesus and that Luke writes to provide certainty and various additional details.

PURPOSE

Luke tells us his purpose in Luke 1:4: he wants Theophilus to have "certainty" regarding the things he has been taught. This statement is at the same time helpful and ambiguous. On the one hand, it suggests that Luke is written with a quasi-apologetic motive. What it does not tell us, on the other hand, is in what area(s) his readers needed certainty. Did they simply need to be assured of the historicity of the events narrated? Or is it possible that they needed certainty regarding their own position before God? Or could it be that they needed certainty that God was behind all of the events they had heard about and witnessed? Might it even mean that they needed certainty about the proper response to the gospel message?

Luke's purpose has been called apologetic (to defend Christianity to Rome, or, in another sense, to defend God's actions), evangelistic (to engender faith among non-Christians), anti-heretical (to combat Gnosticism), and didactic (to teach Christians what to believe and how to act), to name only the most commonly suggested. In light of the many credible suggestions offered by scholars, we should be very careful about settling upon one purpose. The question of Luke's purpose must be answered by looking not only at Luke's Gospel but also at the Acts of the Apostles, and it can only be answered with reference to the themes which keep recurring throughout both volumes.

Perhaps it is best to suggest that Luke-Acts was written primarily for Gentiles who needed "assurance" in a number of areas, both historical and theological. Perhaps they did need the account of a careful and educated historian to give them confidence that events they heard about had actually occurred. There also may have been some among them who had not yet decided to become Christians. Most likely those who were Christians needed Luke to explain how God had kept his promises to the Jews in light of the fact that there seemed to be fewer and fewer Jews among those being converted. Probably these same Gentile Christians simply needed to understand better their own place in God's plan. And surely these readers, whoever they were, needed to be reminded that being Christian meant sharing possessions, undergoing persecution, welcoming the outcast, serving one another, and generally walking as Jesus walked.

LUKE AND ACTS

Eighteen hundred fifty years ago it was apparent that Luke's first volume was very much like the works of Matthew and Mark. At that time the Gospel was placed beside its peers in the New Testament. John, assumed to be the last Gospel written, was placed between Luke and Acts, and the two works by Luke have been separated ever since. While everyone acknowledges that one author wrote both, few have truly noted the import of that fact. Luke wrote not two independent documents, but a two-volume story, as he well explains.

When Luke is read along with Acts, Acts reads quite differently. No longer do we have the self-contained story of the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem Jews to Roman Gentiles. We have nothing less than the story of Jesus, from his ministry in Galilee to his death and resurrection in Jerusalem to his continuing ministry in the Mediterranean world.

In the tradition of the Restoration Movement it has long been argued that the book of Acts provides a pattern for the later church. My thesis is that there is indeed an intended pattern in Acts, but the pattern is not rooted primarily in the practice of the early church. The pattern is that established by Jesus. Quite simply, the early church does what Jesus did and what Jesus commanded it to do. In fact, Luke insists that it is still Jesus who is carrying out his ministry through the church. In Acts 1:1 when Luke writes of the former book in which he "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach," what he implies is that Acts will narrate what Jesus continues to do and to teach.

This is especially clear in certain passages: it is Jesus himself who calls Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Later in that chapter Peter says, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you." In Acts 16:7 Paul and his companions attempt to enter Bithynia, "but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them." And in 18:9 Jesus himself speaks to Paul, encouraging him to have no fear. It should also be noted that Jesus had already said in Luke 21:15, "I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand." It is clear, of course, that in Acts Jesus is at the right hand of God, but he is active and very much in control as he directs the new movement through his Spirit. Jesus is so bound up with his church that he can tell Paul in 9:5, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."

Consider the following parallels or "patterns" in the ministry of Jesus and that of the early church:

(1) Luke shows Jesus praying at nearly every major event (baptism, choosing disciples, confession, transfiguration, Gethsemane, and on the cross). The early church does the same (waiting before Pentecost, choosing Matthias, Peter before going to Cornelius, sending Paul, healing, and many others).

(2) In Luke Jesus is empowered when the Holy Spirit descends upon him at his baptism. Only then does he begin his ministry of preaching and healing (3:22; see 1:35; 4:1). In Acts the apostles are told to wait until they are baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:5, 8). After the Spirit descends upon them (2:4), they also do signs and wonders and preach, just as did Jesus. All the major characters in Acts, like Jesus, are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Peter - 4:8; Stephen - 6:5; Paul - 13:9, and dozens of other references to the guidance of the Spirit).

(3) In Luke Jesus performs various miracles as part of his ministry. The church leaders in Acts not only perform miracles - they perform miracles which are remarkably similar to those of Jesus. For example, just as Jesus heals the mother-in-law of Peter who had a fever (Luke 4:38), Paul heals the father of Publius, who also had a fever (Acts 28:8). Just as Jesus casts out unclean spirits (Luke 4:36; 6:18, etc.), so do Peter (Acts 5:16), Philip (8:7), and Paul (16:18; 19:13). Jesus heals the lame (Luke 7:22), as do Peter and John (Acts 3:2), Philip (8:7), and Paul (14:8-10).

(4) The message of Jesus and that of the leaders in Acts is the same, emphasizing the kingdom of God (30 times in Luke; see Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23), repentance, and forgiveness of sins. Jesus and the apostles on occasion even use the same Old Testament texts, such as Psalm 110 (Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34).

(5) Jesus suffers at the hands of his own people and the Gentiles, and so do the disciples. Of course, Jesus predicted that they would (12:11-12; 21:12-14). Jesus teaches in the synagogue at Nazareth and is rejected and almost killed. The same will happen on numerous occasions in Acts, as Paul enters synagogue after synagogue, only to be eventually rejected. Suffering is especially the lot of Paul, whose story Luke parallels in detail with that of Jesus. The journeys to Jerusalem and treatment there of both Jesus and Paul occupy the large final sections of Luke and Acts. In 18:32 Jesus announces that he "will be delivered to the Gentiles." In Acts 21:11, speaking of Paul the prophet Agabus predicts that the Jews will "deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Of Jesus, Luke later records that the people "all cried out together, 'Away with this man,'" and of Paul Luke writes, "for the mob of the people followed, crying, 'Away with him!'" Both Jesus and Paul face Jewish accusers, including the High Priest; both appear before Herodian princes as well as Roman procurators; and both are said to be innocent by the Roman leaders.

The Jesus/Stephen parallels are even more obvious. Both are full of the Holy Spirit; both are recipients of wisdom, grace and power; both do signs and wonders; both are led to the council, the eyes of whose members are fixed on them; both are cast outside the city; both pray that God will forgive their accusers; both commit their spirits to God; both are killed; and both are buried by devout persons.

(6) There are also many examples of the apostles obeying the directives of Jesus (Luke 6:22-23: "rejoice [when people persecute you] in that day and leap for joy"- see Acts 5:41; Luke 9:5: "shake the dust off your feet . . . as a testimony against them"- see Acts 13:51; 18:6). In fact, the entire plan of Acts was commanded by the risen Jesus in Acts 1:8, where he says, "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

One of the most important areas in which the church in Acts carries out the teaching of Jesus is that related to wealth and poverty. In Luke as in no other Gospel Jesus encourages the sharing of possessions and condemns the greedy and selfish. Many of these stories and sayings appear only in Luke: Zacchaeus; the rich man and Lazarus; "blessed are you poor;" the parables about inviting the poor, lame, maimed, and blind; the dishonest steward; and the command to all of the disciples, "sell your possessions and give alms." It is not surprising, then, that Acts contains many examples, both positive and negative, of the use of possessions in the early church: the selling of possessions for the needy in chapters 2 and 4; the generosity of Barnabas, Dorcas, Paul, and the Antioch church; and the negative examples of Ananias and Sapphira, Simon the Sorcerer, Felix, and Judas (who bought a field with his money (1:18), over against Barnabas, who sold a field in Acts 4:36).

Having argued this case, it would be a mistake to suggest that Luke had no notion of the church of his day being like the church which he writes about - he surely did. But the goal is not to replicate the church of the earliest decades; it is rather to be like Jesus, and the picture of a church that looked like Jesus could only further that goal. The intent may be very much like that of Paul, who tells the churches, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ." Paul knows the advantage of giving his readers an example which is easily grasped and will lead them toward the goal. Yet he also knows quite well that he has not yet reached the goal (Phil 3:12-13), and he never makes the imitation of himself the primary goal. Luke seems to have the same intent in Acts: the early church is well worthy of imitation, insofar as its members imitate Christ.

This commentary will be written from this perspective. The best commentary on Acts is the Gospel of Luke. And conversely, Luke has made clear what Jesus' statements mean in a later generation. Therefore, to read Acts is to read an inspired commentary on the Gospel of Luke. We will refer to Luke's two-volume work as "Luke-Acts."

HISTORY AND THEOLOGY

Luke has been accused often of being careless as a historian, at least by modern standards. His treatment of the census under Quirinius (Luke 2), the rebellion under Theudas (Acts 5), and several other matters have led many to argue that Luke is a better theologian than historian. While the present commentary cannot look in detail at these matters (there will be brief comments in the appropriate sections), one should keep in mind several things. First, there are many matters about which we will never have enough information to make a final judgment. However, the silence of extrabiblical sources should never be taken as proof that an event never occurred. Secondly, each passage must be evaluated independently. The number of cases in which Luke is clearly out of step with other ancient sources is very small, and those sources always had their own agenda, just as did Luke. Thirdly, most would concede that Luke proves to be accurate when there is sufficient evidence with which to compare his writing. Luke has obviously gone to great lengths in order to have accurate information on John the Baptist and on rulers in Judea and Galilee. Considering the large number of events and people in his narrative, the surprising thing is that there are not more alleged historical inaccuracies. There can be little doubt that Luke went to much trouble to ensure accuracy. Luke is both historian and theologian.

SOURCES

Luke got his information from various sources, as he tells us in 1:1-4. However, we do not know for certain the identity of any of these. Most scholars think that Luke (and Matthew) are somehow dependent on the Gospel of Mark. I have made no such assumption in this commentary. While there is undoubtedly some advantage in knowing any writer's sources, there is no final proof for any theory regarding the relationships between the Gospels. I have, however, made two assumptions about Luke's Gospel. First, I believe it to be inspired and thus completely reliable. Second, I believe that Luke had a great deal of information about Jesus from which to choose and that we gain a great deal by simply comparing what Luke wrote to what other Gospel writers wrote. In other words, Luke has selected and adapted his material, and while we do not have access to all the information he had at his disposal, we will learn a great deal through a comparative reading.

THEMES

There may be no clearer insight into Luke's purpose than that gained by examining those themes which recur with some frequency in Luke-Acts. Narrative writers express what their readers need most by returning to a point again and again. When looked at from this perspective, Luke has many concerns. It is clear that he has much to tell his readers, and there can be no more effective way for them to hear it than from the lips of Jesus. The following list is far from exhaustive, but it at least will steer the reader into some of those areas which apparently were close to Luke's heart. The following topics receive special attention in the commentary at the place where Luke first mentions them (see p. 11 for page numbers). They are listed here in order to give the reader a preview of some of Luke's major themes and in order to show the reader where to look in the commentary for more information.

Anti-Semitism Parables Baptism Pharisees Destruction of Jerusalem Poor and Rich and End of Time Prayer Forgiveness and Grace Prophet Theme Fulfillment of Scripture Repentance Holy Spirit Sadducees Kingdom of God Samaritans Law Son of Man Messiah Table Fellowship Miracles and Sign-Seeking Tax Collectors Outcasts and Untouchables Women

A FINAL WORD ABOUT

INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

Traditional introductory questions are being given less attention today than they were a generation ago. The reason is twofold. First, it is very difficult to give "sure" answers to many questions of introduction. The evidence is often insufficient to offer more than probabilities, and what is "probable" is evaluated differently by every scholar. Second, the interpretation of many New Testament works and especially the Gospels is not significantly aided by having answers to most of these questions. For example, knowing that the author of Luke was the companion of Paul does not change the understanding of any passage in the Gospel. Similarly, knowing the date aids interpretation very little. The following commentary does not assume sure answers to any of these questions for its interpretation.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha , 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1983, 1985.

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah . Trans. from the Hebrew with Introductory and Brief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Epstein, I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud . London: Soncino Press, 1935-48.

Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah . London: Soncino Press, 1939-.

Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann.

Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English . Trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1994.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Bock, Darrell. Luke . Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995-96.

Craddock, Fred B. Luke . Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1990.

Danker, F.W. Luke . Proclamation Commentaries, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Ellis, E.E. The Gospel of Luke . New Century Bible, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Evans, Craig A. Luke . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke . Anchor Bible 28, 28A. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985.

Green, Joel B., and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972.

Johnson, Luke T. The Gospel of Luke . Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text . The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. Luke: Historian and Theologian . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Morris, Leon. Luke . Revised edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Nolland, John. Luke . Word Biblical Commentary, vols. 35A, 35B, 35C. Dallas: Word Books, 1989, 1993.

O'Toole, Robert F. The Unity of Luke's Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts . Good News Studies 9. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984.

Stein, Robert H. Luke . The New American Commentary 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation . Vol. I: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Tiede, David L. Luke . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

Main Biblical Manuscript Texts:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century A.D.)

A Codex Alexandrinus (5th century A.D.)

B Codex Vaticanus (4th century A.D.)

D Codex Bezae (5th-6th century A.D.)

⁶⁹ Papyrus 69 (3rd century A.D.)

⁷⁵ Papyrus 75 (early 3rd century A.D.)

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Luke (Outline)

OUTLINE

There is general agreement among serious students of Luke's Gospel regarding its structure.

I. Prologue Luke 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative 1:5-2:52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry 3:1-4:13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee 4:14-9:50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death 22:1-23:56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension 24:1-53

(The Book of Acts)

IX. From Easter to Pentecost (Acts 1)

X. From Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 2-9)

XI. From Judea to Rome (Acts 10-28)

Those who are familiar with the other Gospels notice immediately several similarities and differences. Like Matthew, Luke begins with birth stories (although Luke's are very different than Matthew's). Like Matthew and Mark, Luke includes Jesus' temptation and baptism and has a large section in which Jesus teaches and heals in Galilee. And like all three other Gospels, Luke has Jesus go to Jerusalem for the final week and ends the Gospel with the trial, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

What is most distinctive about the Gospel of Luke, however, is section V in the above outline, the journey to Jerusalem. It is the largest section in Luke's Gospel and contains a great number of stories found only in Luke. Luke uses this long journey to Jerusalem primarily to teach what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. It means doing what Jesus does: teaching, healing, serving, suffering, and dying to self. In other words, it means following Jesus - all the way to Jerusalem.

Finally, the greatest difference between Luke's writing and that of Matthew, Mark, and John is that Luke continues the story. The book of Acts tells how Jesus continues to teach and heal as he leads the growing kingdom throughout the Mediterranean world.

DETAILED OUTLINE

(Episode Titles Based on NIV Headings)

I. Prologue Luke - 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative - 1:5-2:52

A. The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold - 1:5-25

B. The Birth of Jesus Foretold - 1:26-38

C. Mary Visits Elizabeth - 1:39-45

D. Mary's Song - 1:46-56

E. The Birth of John the Baptist - 1:57-66

F. Zechariah's Song - 1:67-80

G. The Birth of Jesus - 2:1-7

H. The Shepherds and the Angels - 2:8-20

I. Jesus Presented in the Temple - 2:21-40

J. The Boy Jesus at the Temple - 2:41-52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry - 3:1-4:13

A. John the Baptist Prepares the Way - 3:1-20

B. The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus - 3:21-38

C. The Temptation of Jesus - 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee - 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus Rejected at Nazareth - 4:14-30

B. Jesus' Ministry in Capernaum - 4:31-44

1. Jesus Drives Out an Evil Spirit - 4:31-37

2. Jesus Heals Many - 4:38-44

C. The Calling of the First Disciples - 5:1-11

D. The Man with Leprosy - 5:12-16

E. The Beginning of Conflict - 5:17-6:11

1. Jesus Heals a Paralytic - 5:17-26

2. The Calling of Levi - 5:27-32

3. Jesus Questioned About Fasting - 5:33-39

4. Lord of the Sabbath - 6:1-11

F. The Sermon on the Plain - 6:12-49

1. The Twelve Apostles - 6:12-16

2. Blessings and Woes - 6:17-26

3. Love for Enemies - 6:27-36

4. Judging Others - 6:37-42

5. A Tree and Its Fruit - 6:43-45

6. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 6:46-49

G. Jesus the Prophet - 7:1-50

1. The Faith of the Centurion - 7:1-10

2. Jesus Raises a Widow's Son - 7:11-17

3. Jesus and John the Baptist - 7:18-35

4. Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman - 7:36-50

H. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 8:1-21

1. The Parable of the Sower - 8:1-15

2. A Lamp on a Stand - 8:16-18

3. Jesus' Mother and Brothers - 8:19-21

I. Jesus Shows His Divine Power - 8:22-56

1. Jesus Calms a Storm - 8:22-25

2. The Healing of a Demoniac - 8:26-39

3. A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman - 8:40-56

J. Jesus and His Apostles - 9:1-50

1. Jesus Sends Out the Twelve - 9:1-6

2. Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand - 9:7-17

3. Peter's Confession of Christ - 9:18-27

4. The Transfiguration - 9:28-36

5. The Healing of a Boy with a Demon - 9:37-45

6. Who Will Be the Greatest? - 9:46-50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem - 9:51-19:27

A. Jesus Faces Toward Jerusalem - 9:51-13:21

1. Samaritan Opposition - 9:51-56

2. The Cost of Following Jesus - 9:57-62

3. Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two - 10:1-24

4. The Parable of the Good Samaritan - 10:25-37

5. At the Home of Mary and Martha - 10:38-42

6. Jesus' Teaching on Prayer - 11:1-13

7. Jesus and Beelzebub - 11:14-28

8. The Sign of Jonah - 11:29-32

9. The Lamp of the Body - 11:33-36

10. Six Woes - 11:37-54

11. Warnings and Encouragements - 12:1-12

12. The Parable of the Rich Fool - 12:13-21

13. Do Not Worry - 12:22-34

14. Watchfulness - 12:35-48

15. Not Peace but Division - 12:49-53

16. Interpreting the Times - 12:54-59

17. Repent or Perish - 13:1-9

18. A Crippled Woman Healed - 13:10-17

19. Parables of Mustard Seed and Yeast - 13:18-21

B. Jesus Journeys Toward Jerusalem - 13:22-17:10

1. The Narrow Door - 13:22-30

2. Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem - 13:31-35

3. Jesus at a Pharisee's House - 14:1-14

4. The Parable of the Great Banquet - 14:15-24

5. The Cost of Being a Disciple - 14:25-35

6. The Parable of the Lost Sheep - 15:1-7

7. The Parable of the Lost Coin - 15:8-10

8. The Parable of the Lost Son - 15:11-32

9. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager - 16:1-15

10. Teachings on the Law and Divorce - 16:16-18

11. The Rich Man and Lazarus - 16:19-31

12. Sin, Faith, Duty - 17:1-10

C. Jesus Approaches Jerusalem - 17:11-19:27

1. Ten Healed of Leprosy - 17:11-19

2. The Coming of the Kingdom of God - 17:20-37

3. The Parable of the Persistent Widow - 18:1-8

4. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector - 18:9-14

5. The Little Children and Jesus - 18:15-17

6. The Rich Ruler - 18:18-30

7. Jesus Again Predicts His Death - 18:31-34

8. A Blind Beggar Receives His Sight - 18:35-43

9. Zacchaeus the Tax Collector - 19:1-10

10. The Parable of the Ten Minas - 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem - 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry - 19:28-34

B. Jesus at the Temple - 19:45-48

C. The Authority of Jesus Questioned - 20:1-8

D. The Parable of the Tenants - 20:9-19

E. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 20:20-26

F. The Resurrection and Marriage - 20:27-40

G. Whose Son Is the Christ? - 20:41-47

H. The Widow's Offering - 21:1-4

I. Signs of the End of the Age - 21:5-38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death - 22:1-23:56

A. Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus - 22:1-6

B. The Last Supper - 22:7-38

C. Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives - 22:39-46

D. Jesus Arrested - 22:47-53

E. Peter Disowns Jesus - 22:54-62

F. The Guards Mock Jesus - 22:63-65

G. Jesus Before Pilate and Herod - 22:66-23:25

H. The Crucifixion - 23:26-43

I. Jesus' Death - 23:44-49

J. Jesus' Burial - 23:50-56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension - 24:1-53

A. The Resurrection - 24:1-12

B. On the Road to Emmaus - 24:13-35

C. Jesus Appears to the Disciples - 24:36-49

D. The Ascension - 24:50-53

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Luke (Book Introduction)

S. LUKE'S GOSPEL

Third Edition

JOHN HODGES,

AGAR STREET, CHARING CROSS, LONDON.

1892.

INTRODUCTION.

——o——

THE Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to S. Luke , that is, the Holy Evangelical History of the words and acts of Jesus, as described by S. Luke. The Arabic says, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, the Gospel of the Excellent Father, Luke the Evangelist, the laying open of the glorious Gospel." The Syraic, "In the name of the Lord and our God, we Jeschua Mescicho, sign the Gospel, the holy message of Luke the Evangelist, which he spoke and proclaimed in Greek, in Alexandria." From this diversity, it is clear that the above title or inscription was prefixed to the Gospel, not by S. Luke himself, but by the Church which, in like manner, inscribed one Gospel "According to S. Matthew," one "According to S. John," and another "According to S. Mark." Nay, as regards the faith of the future, this title would have been added to no purpose by S. Luke himself, unless the Church had declared his Gospel to be genuine and not supposititious, and had handed it down as such. This speaks for Tradition against the heretics, for why is the Gospel, bearing the name of S. Luke, to be received as truly his, whilst that with the title of "Matthew and Thomas" is not to be considered theirs? Or again, why is the Gospel of S. Luke more canonical than that of Apelles or Basilides? No other reason can be given but the proof, declaration, and tradition of the Church. For we accept it, not because it is written in the sacred books, but because it has been so handed down by the Church. For instance, we believe this to be the Gospel of S. Luke and canonical, not because he wrote it, but because the Church so delivers and teaches. For although its own authority pertains to this Gospel, as to the others, yet this authority would not be plain to us, but for the declaration of the Church. The same is, a pari , to be said of the sense of Scripture. For the true sense of Scripture is not what appears to you or me, for this would be uncertain and doubtful, for Calvin affirms one sense to be the true one, Luther another, and others another, but that which is taught and received by the Church, whose office it is to deliver as well what is the true Scripture as what is its true meaning. For Holy Scripture consists not in the bark (cortice) of letters or words, but in their genuine meaning. So the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and the Fathers everywhere, especially Tertullian (B. iv. cap. 5 against Marcion). See what I have said on S. Matthew i. 1.

Observe: I. S. Matthew was the first in order of the Evangelists. He wrote in Hebrew to the Jews in Judæa. S. Mark was the second. He wrote in Greek and Latin to the Romans in Italy; then S. Luke wrote to the Greeks in Greek; and S. John last of all, also in Greek; but S. Luke wrote the more elegantly, because he was the more perfect master of Greek. Hear S. Jerome (Ep. 84 to Paulinus): "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the quadriga of the Lord, and true Cherubim (which is interpreted, the 'multitude of knowledge'), through their whole body they are 'full of eyes,' sparks shine from them, lightnings flash forth, their feet are 'straight,' and point upwards, their backs are winged, and they fly hither and thither. They hold themselves mutually one with another, and are 'enfolded' with one another, and are rolled together, like a wheel, and they go wherever the influence of the Holy Spirit directs them." See Ezekiel i. 9, x. 12; Revelation iv. 6-8.

Moreover, among the faces or forms of the four Cherubim, the third, that of the ox, is ascribed to S. Luke, as well because he begins from the priesthood of Zachariah, whose chief sacrifice was an ox, as because he underwent the labours of an ox in the Gospel, and bore about continually in his own body the mortification of the Cross for the honour of the name of Christ, as the Church sings of him. See what has been said on Revelation iv. 7, and Ezekiel i. 10.

II. S. Luke wrote his Gospel against certain gaping, ignorant, perhaps even false Evangelists, who had written, in Syria or Greece, an imperfect, it may be a lying Gospel, as S. Luke himself signifies in the beginning of his work. So say Origen, S. Ambrose, Theophylact, and S. Epiphanius ( Her . l. i), who, however, when he adds that S. Luke wrote against Cerinthus and Meritus, does not seem to speak correctly. For these two, and especially Basilides, were later than S. Luke, as is clear from Eusebius (Hist. B. iii. ch. 32). Theophylact and Bede think, with more truth, that S. Luke wrote against the Apocryphal Gospels of others, such as pass under the names of "Thomas, Matthew, and the Twelve Apostles."

III. S. Luke was not one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as Euthymius and S. Gregory in his preface on Job, chap. i. think, on the authority of Origen; for S. Luke never saw Christ in the flesh, but he wrote what he had heard of Him from the Apostles, as he says himself, i. 2. Hence the Fathers call S. Luke "the disciple of the Apostles," and S. Paul mentions him by name, as his "fellow-labourer." So S. Jerome, on the 65th chapter of Isaiah, and preface to S. Matthew; where he says, "The third" (evangelist) is Luke the physician, by nation a Syrian, of Antioch, whose praise is in the Gospel (2 Cor. viii. 18 and 22), who himself was a disciple of S. Paul. He wrote his Gospel in the neighbourhood of Achaia and Bœotia, relating some things from the beginning, as he says himself, and describing rather what he heard than what he saw. St. Irenæus says the same, i. 20; Theodoret, on the Lives of the holy Fathers; Baronius, and others. Tertullian, also (Book iv. against Marcion, chap. 5), thinks this Gospel not so much S. Luke's as S. Paul's, because S. Luke wrote from the dictation of S. Paul, as S. Mark from that of S. Peter. For he says, "what S. Mark wrote may be ascribed to S. Peter, whose interpreter S. Mark was. And so the Gospel of S. Luke is generally given to S. Paul, for the productions of the disciples began to be ascribed to the masters."

S. Jerome also states that "S. Luke, in the Gospel and Acts, performed the duties of a physician of souls, as he had before done of bodies" (Ep. 103 to Paulinus); and again (in that to Philom). "Luke the physician left in his Gospel, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles to the Churches, how the Apostles from fishers of fish became fishers of men, and from the bodies of men became concerned with their souls, whose Gospel, as often as it is read in the churches, fails not of its medicine."

IV. Baronius thinks that S. Luke wrote in the companionship of S. Paul, anno 58, because S. Jerome says that he wrote his Gospel that year in Achaia and Bœotia, where S. Paul was. Others, however, are of opinion that S. Luke wrote earlier, as we must certainly admit, if we agree with S. Jerome ( Lib. de Scrip. Eccl. in Luc. ), Tertullian (Book iv. against Marcion, c. 5), Primasius, Anselm, and others, on 2 Cor. viii 18, that by, "the brother whose praise is in the Gospel" S. Paul meant S. Luke—as S. Ignatius, his fellow-citizen and contemporary, plainly asserts in his letter to the Ephesians: "As Luke bears witness, whose praise is in the Gospel." For the Second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians was written in the year 58, so that if the praise of S. Luke was in the Gospel at that time, we must necessarily say that it (the Gospel) had been published previously. Hence Euthymius, and Theophylact in his Preface to S. Luke, say that he wrote fifteen years after the ascension of Christ, that is, about the year 49. But S. Luke had not then joined S. Paul, for he came to him in the Troad in the year 51, as Baronius rightly concludes from Acts xvi. 10. It appears, therefore, that S. Luke wrote subsequently to the year 51, but some years before 58, for, as S. Paul says, in that year he was well known and celebrated.

V.  S. Luke, after he had joined S. Paul, passed some time away from him, having been sent by him to other places (as I have shown on Acts xvi. 10), until S. Paul, when he had passed through other countries, came to Greece, thence to Syria, and so to Rome. Acts xx. 3, 4. For S. Paul, with other companions of his voyage, who are named in that verse, took S. Luke also, as S Luke himself states, verses 5, 15. From that time S. Luke became the "diligent" companion of S. Paul, even up to the time of S. Paul's first imprisonment, which was in the second year of Nero, when S. Luke finished the Acts of the Apostles, and, especially, those of S. Paul. Then, as S. Epiphanius says, S. Luke left S. Paul in prison, and went into Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, and Macedonia, and preached the gospel everywhere till he came to Patara, a city of Achaia, where, in his eighty-fourth year, he was crowned with a glorious martyrdom in the year of Christ 61, the fifth of Nero, and the seventeenth of the session of S. Peter at Rome. So Baronius says, from S. Gregory Nazianzen, Paulinus, Gaudentius, Glyca, Nicephorus and others.

Lastly, who S. Luke was—of what rank and ability, I have described at length in the Book of Acts, where I have said that he appears to be the same as Lucius, whom S. Paul calls his kinsman, Rom xvi. 21. But he seems different to Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned in Acts xiii. 3. For S. Luke was of Antioch, not Cyrene. Again, the Roman Martyrology, on April 22, says that Lucius was among the first disciples of Christ, which cannot be said of S. Luke.

VI. The reason of S. Luke's having written a Gospel after SS. Matthew and Mark, was twofold. 1. To confute the false gospels that were then being published in Syria and Greece, as I have said before. 2. To write at length those words and acts of Christ which had been passed over by the other Evangelists, and especially His Infancy and Childhood, the Annunciation of His forerunner John the Baptist, His Conception, Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Presence among the Doctors, the Conversion of St. Mary Magdalene, Zacchæus, the thief on the cross, the appearance to the two Disciples at Emmaus, the Parables of the Pharisee and Publican, the Good Samaritan, the Strayed Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, Lazarus and the Rich Glutton, and others; which show the mercy and pity of Christ to sinners and the miserable. See S. Irenæus, iii. 4, who recounts each. S. Luke also relates, more fully than the others, the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension.

Lastly, S. Peter Damianus, in his Sermon on S. Matthew, says, "S. Luke observes the proper method and order when he describes the priestly stock of the Lord and His Person, and, with this object and intent, proceeds to describe at length every part of the Temple and the priests, to the end of the history. For, as the Mediator between God and man in His human nature, He pleased to be King and Priest in one, that through His kingly power He might rule, and, by His office of Priest, atone for us. These two "Personæ" of Christ are especially praised by the Fathers, for to Him principally and by singular prerogative God gave the seat of His Father David, that there might be no end of His Kingdom, and that He might be a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek."

S. Anselm again, on Colos. iv., gives two reasons why S. Luke, more than the others, should speak of the mercy of Christ. 1. S. Luke was a physician of bodies; then, when he turned to Christ, he was made a physician of souls. Hence he speaks, more than the other Evangelists, of the mercies of the Redeemer, by which the weaknesses of sins are driven away. 2. In Christ, he describes the person of a Priest, making intercession for the sins of the whole world

Lastly, our own John de la Haye, in his Oparat. Evangel. chap. 68, recounts the twenty-five privileges granted to S. Luke, where, among other things, from S. Jerome, Bede, and Ado, he says that S. Luke never committed mortal sin, but passed a strict life of continual mortification; that he also preserved his virginity to the end, and was therefore beloved by the Blessed Virgin especially and before all others.

S. Ambrose and Titus of Bostra have commented especially on S. Luke. And Tertullian, in his whole work against Marcion (who had declared the Gospel of S. Luke, though adulterated, to be his own), treats of and explains many passages of this Gospel. Cardinal Toletus, also, wrote at length, and with exactness, on the first twelve chapters.