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).
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.374Jesus 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
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.376Jesus 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.377Everything 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.379One such writer concluded that Jesus was teaching that severe judgment would come on the Jews if they failed to repent.380However 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
