Luke 16
BolesLuke 16:1-13
- THE STEWARD
1 And he said also unto the disciples,—This parable has been called the “Parable of the Unjust Steward”; it is here called the “Parable of the Unrighteous Steward.” This parable is peculiar to Luke. Jesus had put to silence the murmuring Pharisees by the three foregoing parables; he now continues his discourse to his disciples, in the presence of the publicans and sinners, Pharisees and scribes. He introduces the parable with “a certain rich man” who had an unfaithful steward. “Steward,” in the original, means one who distributes or dispenses affairs of a house; he is one who is a house manager or overseer of an estate (Luke 12:42); the steward kept the household stores under lock and seal, giving out what was required; he was usually given a signet ring from his master to show his authority; he could execute bonds and notes in the name of his master by using the signet ring.
and the same was accused unto him—This servant was “accused,” which, in the original, meant “to throw across,” or “to carry across”; hence to carry reports from one to another; to carry false reports, and to culminate or slander. The word implies “malice,” but not necessarily falsehood. The accusation against him was that he “was wasting his goods.” He was wasting that which belonged to his master. “Wasting” is from the same root word as “wasted” in Luke 15:13, as used of the prodigal son, in wasting his substance in riotous living. The accusation against him may have come from jealous tenants and other servants in the house. The steward is not represented as denying the accusation or attempting to prove it to be false.
2 And he called him, and said unto him,—The day of reckoning had come; the steward was to be discharged. He was asked: “What is this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship.” These words in the original imply anger. “Render the account of thy stewardship” literally means “give back” that which you have fraudulently taken; there is also implied “and now give back my signet; for thou shalt no longer be my steward.” The proprietor must dismiss him from his service because he has proved himself to be unfaithful. Some think that there is implied that if the steward should successfully prove his innocence he might be retained in his position.
3, 4 And the steward said within himself,—It seems that the steward was conscious of his guilt and began to reflect as to “what” he should do; as a shrewd and prudent man he will strive either to hold his place or he will seek to provide for himself a comfortable living. It seems that he chose the latter alternative. He began to make preparation for a comfortable living. He was not yet dismissed and he had opportunity to further his unrighteous practices. In reasoning with himself he said: “I have not strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed.” He either had to go to work or beg; he felt that he did not have strength to work; that is, he was not able to engage in manual labor which in agricultural pursuits consisted largely in upturning the earth by digging. He may have been strong enough to do that kind of work, but he was not inclined to do so, and thus persuaded himself that he was not able “to dig.” The other alternative was that of begging, but he was “ashamed” or had a sense of pride, and did not wish to put himself in the class of mendicants.
It was better to beg than to practice dishonesty, but he had nursed his pride and did not wish to beg. He was not “ashamed” to cheat or lie, but he was “ashamed” to beg.
I am resolved what to do,—He had fully made up his mind, and continues to soliloquize and expresses himself in a positive way as to what he will do, he had just thought of a plan that he could execute, and he is determined to do it. His plan was that when he was dismissed from his stewardship he would be received into the houses of those whom he had befriended. He planned to make friends so that they would receive him into their hospitality, out of gratitude for what he had done for them; he still hoped to enjoy life in the homes of those whom he had laid under obligation to him by an unrighteous use of his master’s affairs. His plans as they are now revealed confirm the report that he was dealing falsely with his master’s goods.
5-7 And calling to him each one of his lord’s debtors,—He began speedily to execute his plan; he did not know just when he would be dismissed, so he must act in haste while he had the authority as a steward. He called each one of his “lord’s debtors”; that is, he called them one by one. It is not known whether one debtor knew what he had done for the other debtor; his plans are to deal with each one separately. The first debtor was asked how much he owed his lord. He answered: “A hundred measures of oil.” Literally, a “measure” means a “bath.” The “bath” was a Hebrew measure, but the amount is uncertain, as there were three kinds of measurements in use in Palestine. The original Mosaic measure corresponded with the Roman; that of Jerusalem was a fifth larger, and the common Galilean measurement was about a fifth larger than the Jerusalem.
The first standard made the bath consist of about fifty-six pints, or about seven gallons. Some make the bath to contain between eight and nine gallons. This is supposed to be olive oil, as it was used for various purposes—food, cosmetics, embalming, light, surgery, etc. It was a great article of trade. (Revelation 18:13.) The steward said to the debtor to sit down and write quickly “fifty.” He reduced the debt one-half. He called another and asked the same question. This one said that his debt was “a hundred measures of wheat.” He was told to “write fourscore” instead of the one hundred.
The original for “measure” here is different from that in verse 6; a measure here means a “cor” or “homer,” and was the largest Hebrew dry measure, equal to ten “baths” or about eleven bushels. (Ezekiel 45:14.)
8 And his lord commended the unrighteous steward—The lord admired the shrewdness of his steward, though he himself was defrauded; he commended, or praised, not the injustice or dishonesty of the steward, but his prudence and practical shrewdness. (Psalms 49:18.) He had shown worldly foresight and had acted upon it. The unrighteous steward had been cunning in dishonesty; he had been prudent, though selfishly, and wrongly so. It should be kept clear that Jesus does not commend the dishonesty and trickery of this unrighteous steward; he does not commend the steward for his injustice or wrongdoing. “For the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.” The lord of the steward does not excuse him from guilt, and he was apparently dismissed from his service; his shrewdness consisted in finding a place to go after he was dismissed; he was still an unrighteous steward even though his shrewdness was commended. “The sons of this world” are those who are studious and plan for the greatest possessions and pleasures of this world; they are opposed to “the sons of the light,” who are those who are walking in the light. Men of the world act with better judgment oftentimes with respect to worldly affairs than do the disciples of Jesus with respect to spiritual affairs. This parable is spoken “unto the disciples.” (Verse 1.)
9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends—Jesus makes his own application of the parable. We should be satisfied with his explanation sometimes the thought is lost amidst the drapery of the parable. The master of the unrighteous steward commended him for his prudent foresight, and Jesus, speaking to his disciples, said to them that they should use a like forethought in regard to their spiritual and eternal interests. Surely Christians should show better judgment in their relations with one another than “crooks” do in their dealings with one another; the devotees of material goods often use more sense in handling them than do Christians as custodians of eternal things.
by means of the mammon of unrighteousness;—“Mammon” is a word applied to wealth or riches; its probable derivation means trust; so the description of wealth, not merely as a possession, but also as something which is so generally made a ground of confidence. “Riches” is here personified as the “mammon of unrighteousness,” which is about equivalent to unrighteous mammon. There is a contrast between the “mammon of unrighteousness” and “true riches.” “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10) because it leads into every form of sin. Achan was tempted to his destruction by the “wedge of gold” and the goodly Babylonish garment. (Joshua 7:21.) Judas betrayed the Savior for thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:15.) Ananias and Sapphira “lied to the Holy Spirit” and perished for the love of money. (Acts 5:3.) Demas, the companion of apostles, forsook them, “having loved this present world.” (2 Timothy 4:10.) There is a right use of money and a wrong use; Jesus teaches the right use of money. He here teaches that his disciples should make such a use of their possessions as to secure heavenly treasures and gain friends, who, having gone before, would welcome them in the world to come to everlasting habitations.
10 He that is faithful in a very little—Jesus further instructs his disciples in lessons of faithfulness as stewards. The right use of money, which is seeking the welfare of others with it, applies not only to the rich, but also to the poor; the one who is faithful in a very little may be faithful in much; but if one is not faithful with little things, one will not be with larger things. The one who is unfaithful in the use of money here will not be faithful in dealing with spiritual and eternal things. One’s conduct in little things is a sure test of what he is likely to do with greater things; we do not expect one to be faithful in important things, if he has not been faithful in little things.
11 If therefore ye have not been faithful—If the disciples of Jesus have not been faithful “in the unrighteous mammon” then who will want to trust them with “true riches”? Here “unrighteous mammon” is put in contrast with “true riches.” Riches are deceitful, fleeting, and uncertain; while “true riches” are real, substantial, spiritual, and eternal. If the disciples of Jesus are not faithful in a righteous use of money, the Lord could not trust them with the eternal verities of his gospel. The one who is dishonest and unfaithful in the discharge of duties with respect to earthly possessions must not expect to have heavenly treasures entrusted to him. One must prove oneself to be faithful with the proper use of material things before one can be trusted with spiritual things. Anyone who will not handle material things honestly will not handle the truth honestly.
12, 13 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s,—This argument is further expanded and enforced by Jesus. Here reference is again had to the mammon of unrighteousness; our faithfulness in that which God will make our own may be judged by our care of the things of others. Jesus repeats a self-evident truth when he says, “No servant can serve two masters.” These masters have different wills and purposes; they contradict each other in their demands; hence, it is impossible for one servant to serve two such masters. It is like attempting to travel in two directions at the same time, or attempting to love two entirely contradictory characters. A servant is supposed to obey his master; this obedience is called love. If one attempts to serve two masters, he will hate one and love the other; or he will honor one and dishonor the other.
Luke 16:14-31
- ;
RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
14 And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money,—Jesus had dined with a Pharisee (Luke 14:1), and had received publicans and sinners. He had been criticized by the Pharisees (Luke 15:2) and had answered them with three parables, and had instructed his disciples on the righteous use of money. The Pharisees had heard what he had taught his disciples. They “were lovers of money.” “Lovers of money” is from the Greek word which is used only twice in the New Testament —here and 2 Timothy 3:2—it is closly connected in meaning with “covetousness.” (1 Corinthians 5:10-11; 1 Corinthians 6:10.) When the Pharisees heard what Jesus had said about the use of money “they scoffed at him.” “Scoffed,” in the original, is used only here and in Luke 23:35. Literally it means “to turn up the nose at one”; the Romans had a similar phrase, “to hang on the hooked nose,” that is, to turn up the nose and make a hook of it on which (figuratively) to hang the subject of ridicule. These Pharisees mocked him and ridiculed his teaching with respect to the use of money.
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they—The Pharisees made great professions of righteousness and holiness before men, while their hearts were full of wickedness and covetousness. Jesus knew their hearts; he exposed the hypocrisy and covetousness of the Pharisees. He reminded them that “God knoweth your hearts.” They might deceive men, but they could not deceive God; Jesus let them know that he knew what was in their heart; they were an abomination in the sight of God. These Pharisees were past masters at justifying themselves; Jesus rebuked their scoffing hearts with a withering scorn. They could deride his teaching and mock him personally, but he could show what the end would be with them. Luke has introduced some other matters before Jesus spoke his parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
16 The law and the prophets were until John:—Jesus here introduces the idea of a new dispensation which was drawing nigh. “The law and the prophets” belonged to the old dispensation. The entire testimony under the old dispensation is sometimes expressed more fully by “the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms.” (Luke 24:44.) The law and the prophets were the sole fountains of religious truth down to John the Baptist; then the kingdom of God began to be preached, first by John, next by Jesus, and then by his disciples. The Pharisees boasted of being righteous according to the law and the prophets; they were in reality not so faithful to the law as they were faithful to their traditions of the law Jesus did not set aside the law, but fulfilled it. “Every man entereth violently into it.” This is similar to Matthew 11:12. This seems to mean that everyone was striving to enter the preparatory state of the kingdom; people were attempting to force their way into the kingdom of God; they did not understand its nature, and were doing violence to the kingdom that Jesus preached by perverting and misapplying his teachings with respect to it.
17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away,—Jesus did not destroy the law; he did not set the law aside; he came to fulfill the law, and to take it away by fulfilling it or “nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:14.) The Pharisees had implied that he was destroying the law, but in reality he was establishing the law and giving the principles of righteousness by which all should be judged. Heaven and earth will pass away sooner than the law should fail; not the least part of the law, not “one tittle of the law” should fail. Matthew uses “one jot or one tittle” (Matthew 5:18), while Luke uses only “one tittle.” “Tittle” is from the Latin “titulus,” and means a term signified by a small point or line of the Hebrew letter. I indicates that the smallest requirements of the law must be fulfilled before it is taken out of the way.
18 Every one that putteth away his wife,—For other statements of Christ on this subject see Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12. The connection of this verse with what precedes or what follows is obscure. Jesus simply teaches the sanctity and binding force of the marriage bond; marriage with either of the separated parties involves the crime of adultery. It is adultery to marry the wife who is put away by her husband or to marry the husband who is put away by the wife. It seems that there is one exception to the rule here laid down, given by Jesus in Matthew 5:32 and perhaps another by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:15. Here Paul says that there may be grounds for separation other than that of fornication, but this does not grant the party the privilege to marry another. Many hold that, even when the one cause for separation exists, the innocent party may marry another.
19 Now there was a certain rich man,—Some have thought that this is not a parable, but a record from real life; they say that the name of one of the principal characters is given, which is not done in any of the parables of Jesus. Others claim that it is a parable; commentators generally have treated it as a parable. It does not matter whether it is regarded as a parable or not; the lesson taught by Jesus remains the same. There is no change in the points or in the lesson taught by regarding it as a parable or regarding it as a simple narration in real life. It is treated here as a parable. Luke records this, and he is the only one who does; he places it in his record in close connection with what Christ had taught with respect to the proper use of riches and the ridicule and scoffing of the covetous Pharisees against his teaching; it may be regarded as a further reply to the scoffing of the Pharisees. At least, it exposes their sin and folly and points out to them their future and appalling doom.
A “certain rich man” is given as one of the principal characters of the parable; he is mentioned first. Some have thought that “Dives” is the name of this character in the parable; however, “Dives” is the Latin word for “rich man.” He is described as being “clothed in purple”; this is one of the marks of wealth. “Purple” is a term used by the ancients to include three distinct colors—namely, a deep violet, with a black or dusky tinge; a deep scarlet or crimson, the Tyrian purple; and the deep blue of the Mediterranean. The dye of the purple was fadeless and retained its freshness of color. Purple is also an emblem of royalty. “Fine linen” was a yellowish flax and the linen made from it was considered to be of the finest quality. It was used in making the tabernacle. (Exodus 25:4; Exodus 28:5; Exodus 35:6.) Some of the Egyptian linen was so fine that it was called “woven air.” Later this term was applied to cotton and silken goods. He fared “sumptuously every day.” Literally he made “merry in splendor each day”; some have translated it “he ate each day shiningly.” He was a Jew, a descendant of Abraham whom he addressed as “Father Abraham” (verses 24, 30) and to whom Abraham responded, “Son” (verse 25). He is described, as many Pharisees lived and thought, as thinking he was entitled to every blessing because of his “father Abraham.”
20, 21 and a certain beggar named Lazarus—This is the only parable of our Lord where a character has received a proper name. “A certain beggar” sets him apart from many beggars of that day. The term “beggar” designates his destitution of the necessary things of life; he was dependent upon charity for food. The original indicates deep poverty. “Lazarus” is an abbreviated form of “Eleazar” and means “God a help.” This was a common name among the Jews. He “was laid” at the rich man’s gate; literally, “was thrown,” or cast carelessly down by his bearers and left there; he did not place himself there; he was unable to handle himself. He was placed at the rich man’s “gate,” or “gateway”; sometimes it is rendered “porch.” To make the description more vivid and pathetic, Lazarus is described as being “full of sores.”
and desiring to be fed with the crumbs—He was not fed from the crumbs, but “desired” to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. He was humble and was asking only for the bare necessities of life. He asked only for the crumbs from so much abundance of the rich man. Eagerly he desired the things that fell from the table, but he did not receive what he desired. The same thing is implied in the record of the prodigal son, where the same word is used, “he would fain” have been filled (Luke 15:16), but the pods did not satisfy his hunger. Moreover, “even the dogs came and licked his sores.” This description reaches the climax in the dogs licking his sores.
The only medical attention that this poor, helpless, hopeless man had was that from the dogs which came and licked his sores. It is not clear whether the licking of the dogs increased his misery or whether he received momentary relief by it. His very existence was a scramble with the dogs.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died,—Death was the first and the last relief that came to such a sufferer as Lazarus; the grace receives all alike. We do not know how long the suffering had continued; nothing is said of his burial, for that was of no moment in comparison to what immediately occurred to his soul at death. If he had a burial, it was so brief, obscure that no one knew of it. However, “he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.” The angels took him in charge and bore his soul away. “Abraham’s bosom” is equivalent to being with Abraham in paradise. Abraham, to the Jew, seems to be the personal center and meeting point of paradise. Some think that “Abraham’s bosom” was a name given to that part of the unseen world, or place of departed spirits, where the patriarchs and the righteous were in happiness.
It is similar to the expression used by Jesus in Matthew 8:11. This description fully met the view of the pharisaic Jew with respect to the future blessedness of the good. Abraham was the father of the faithful and the head of the whole Jewish family, and to be with him after death implied happiness. “And the rich man also died; and was buried.”
23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes,—Finally they both died; the rich and poor meet in death; there is the meeting place for all. Death brings the rich and poor, the high and the low, the good and the bad, the wise and the foolish, all to a common level. They did not both dwell together here, and they are separated in their death. “In Hades” the rich man lifted up his eyes. “Hades,” in the New Testament, is a broad and general conception, with an idea of locality bound up with it. It is the condition following death, which is blessed or the contrary, according to the moral character of the dead, and is divided into different realms, represented by “paradise” or “Abraham’s bosom,” and “Gehenna.” It simply means the unseen world, or the underworld. “Hades” in the Greek has the same meaning as “Sheol” in the Hebrew, both representing the region of the departed. “Hades” occurs ten times in the New Testament. (Matthew 11:23; Matthew 16:18; Luke 10:15; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 6:8; Revelation 20:13-14.) The story here needs no comment, nor rhetoric to make it awfully impressive. “Being in torments” designates the place to which the rich man had gone; “in torments” is put in contrast to “Abraham’s bosom”; Jesus puts this case in such terms as to make the great facts clear and unmistakable; he shows that the rich man is in misery, and that Lazarus is among the blessed and happy. The rich man was buried; it is natural to suppose that he was buried with the usual ceremonies that belong to the rich. “In Hades” he lifted up his eyes and saw “Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” “He lifted up his eyes” shows that the rich man is conceived as being in the abyss, in the lower region of Hades, and looking up toward paradise. “Afar off” represents the distance, or a bridgeless gulf that separated him from Lazarus. He saw Lazarus in Abraham’s “bosom.” Lazarus was reclining in honor at the banquet of bliss, while the rich man was agonizing in the misery of eternal punishment.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham,—Jesus represents the rich man as a Jew, as he addresses Abraham as “Father.” He longs for relief from his sufferings and begs for at least a moment of relief from his anguish. He asks that Lazarus be sent with the smallest means of comfort; he even pleads for Abraham to have mercy on him in giving him a moment’s relief from his anguish. He wishes water to cool his tongue and says that he is “in anguish in this flame.” He is continually and eternally tormented. We have here material and physical imagery of spiritual anguish, soul misery. It matters not what may be our views on the nature of this suffering, we must admit that it is terrible beyond anything we can imagine. The mind shrinks back aghast from the horrible torment which is here described.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember—Abraham is represented as answering the rich man; he addressed him as “Son.” This word literally means “child.” The answer of Abraham is in great kindness, yet it was frank and severe, calm and firm. The rich man had addressed him as “Father Abraham,” and Abraham does not deny the relationship. Joshua spoke to Achan and addressed him as “my son.” (Joshua 7:19.) “Remember” is a fearful word at this time there was nothing that the rich man could remember that would be a satisfaction to him now. Memory keeps alive the unpleasant as well as the pleasant things of life. The rich man had only to be reminded of the past to understand the reason of his present misery. The rich man is told plainly that retribution has come.
He has to remember that in his “lifetime” or earthly life he received his “good things,” and that “Lazarus in like manner evil things.” This is another contrast; he had in life exhausted his store of happiness; he had no more claim on the good things which were for him, and which he made the sole object of life. He had enjoyed to the fullest not only the necessities of life, but the rich abundance of luxuries; Lazarus had not enjoyed the meager necessities of life, and had none of the luxuries; the rich man had reveled in his wealth and Lazarus had suffered in his poverty. In this way Lazarus had received his “evil things.” Abraham did not say “his” evil things, but just “evil things.”
26 And besides all this, between us and you—In addition to all these things Abraham calls attention to a second reason why the request of the rich man could not be granted. It was literally impossible to comply with the request. “Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed.” “Gulf” is the original word for “yawn,” “or chasm,” a “gaping opening.” In medical language, which Luke frequently employed, it meant the cavities in a wound or ulcer. This “great gulf” separated the rich man and Lazarus; the separation was greater in their destinies than it could possibly have been in their lives on earth. It was a “great gulf,” and was too deep to be filled up, too wide to be bridged over, too great for any passage from one side to the other. It was “fixed”; it could not be changed. The word in the original conveys the idea of fixedness. It was unchangeable in nature, unalterable in condition, and eternal in its establishment.
they that would pass from hence to you—It is not meant that any would want to cross from the side where Lazarus and Abraham were to the side where the rich man was if they knew the conditions on that side; it is not implied that they were ignorant of the conditions on the side of the rich man. Abraham simply means that there can be no passing from one side to the other. It might be that all who were on the side of the rich man would like to pass to the side where Lazarus was;but no one can do that. At death the destinies are determined; there can be no further preparation made, as there can be no passage from one side to the other. It simply means that when one goes to hell there is no way to get out.
27 And he said, I pray thee therefore, father,—This is the second request that the rich man makes of Abraham. The rich man now understood that his case was desperate, his destiny and doom sealed. There is no chance for repentance and salvation in the “intermediate state.” In fact, the Bible is not clear as to whether there is an “intermediate state.” The rich man had prayed first for himslf to Abraham, and his second prayer is for others. He remembered his brethren and the example that he had set them; he seems to have thought that they might come to that place of torment through his influence, and this added more to his misery and anguish. Their presence would give them an opportunity to reproach him and thus increase his own torment. Hell will be the more miserable because those who have influenced others to go there will forever be reproaching them and adding to their misery if possible.
This time he asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his father’s house. He had nothing in common with Lazarus while on earth, but now he is pleading for Lazarus to render service to him. He knew that he could not escape from his place to go and warn his brethren, but he relied on the mercy of Abraham to send Lazarus to them.
28 for I have five brethren;—Perhaps these were five Pharisees who were following in the footsteps of the departed brother. Nothing can be inferred further than that they were headed in the direction of the rich man. His five brethren were still living. It has been argued by some that the rich man’s anxiety about his five brethren was a sign of improvement in him, and that his punishment had already purified his heart, and made him love his brethren; hence, the notion of “purgatory” has some endorsement in the Bible. However, such an idea is destitute of any truth. He did not want his five brethren to come to his doom. He thought perhaps they would turn if they were warned.
29 But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; —Abraham’s answer here is also decisive. The law of Moses was still in force. The expression, “Moses and the prophets,” has reference to the Old Testament scriptures, and since they were still under the law, they should hear and do what the law required. “Let them hear them”; the verb “hear” is often used in the sense of “obey.” They should take heed to follow Moses and the prophets. We have here one of the many testimonies of Jesus, including that of Abraham from the heavenly world, that the Old Testament scriptures are the word of God.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham:—The rich man argues the question with Abraham; he pleads for his brethren more than he pleaded for himself. He seemed to think that if one should return from the spirit world his brothers would surely listen to the message. Hence, he said: “If one go to them from the dead, they will repent.” The meaning here seems to be that if one should come “from within,” they would come nearer repenting than if one should go to them “from the outside.” Arising from among the dead was more than a messenger going “from” the dead. The rich man was ignorant of the results from miraculous visions and messages; he had false views of repentance, supposing that something sudden and miraculous would produce it.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,—The answer of Abraham is positive and final; the rich man had affirmed that “they will repent” if one should go to them from among the dead. Abraham tells him that they would not. If they would not hear God at one time, they would not hear him at another time. He had spoken to them through “Moses and the prophets”; if they would not hear them they would not “be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.” As proof of this, Jesus was crucified, buried, and arose from the dead, yet the Jewish leaders still rejected him. The truth of God brought to the heart is necessary to repentance; and if it fails vain will be the efforts of men, living or dead, however miraculous. No stronger inducement now can be presented to men for repentance than that which God has presented.