Luke 16

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 16 THE STEWARD Luke 16:1-13 Luke 16:1 —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 para¬ble is peculiar to Luke. Jesus had put to silence the murmur¬ing Pharisees by the three foregoing parables; he now contin¬ues his discourse to his disciples, in the presence of the publi¬cans and sinners, Pharisees and scribes. He introduces the parable with “ a certain rich man” who had an unfaithful stew¬ard. “ 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 re¬quired ; 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. Luke 16:2 —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. Luke 16:3-4 —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 unrigh¬teous 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. Luke 16:5-7 —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.) Luke 16:8 —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 in¬justice 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.) Luke 16:9 —And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends—Jesus makes his own application of the parable. We should be sat-isfied 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 pos-session, 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 de-struction 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. Luke 16:10 —He that is faithful in a very little—Jesus further in¬structs 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. Luke 16:11 —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 mate¬rial things before one can be trusted with spiritual things. Anyone who will not handle material things honestly will not handle the truth honestly. Luke 16:12-13 —And if ye have not been faithful in that which is an-other’ s,—This argument is further expanded and enforced by Jesus. Here reference is again had to the mammon of unrigh-teousness ; 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. ; RICH MAN AND LAZARUSLuk_16:14-31 Luk 16:14 —And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money,—Jesus had dined with a Pharisee (Luke 14 Luke 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 Timothy 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. Luke 16:15 —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. Luke 16:16 —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. Luke 16:17 —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. Luke 16:18 —Every one that putteth away his wife,—For other state-ments 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. Luke 16:19 —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 charac-ters 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 de-scribed 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.”Luke 16:20-21 —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 mo¬mentary relief by it. His very existence was a scramble with the dogs. Luke 16:22 —And it came to pass, that the beggar died,—Death was the first and the last relief that came to such a sufferer as Laz¬arus; 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.”Luke 16:23 —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 represent¬ing 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 im-pressive. “ 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. Luke 16:24 —And he cried and said, Father Abraham,—Jesus repre-sents 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. Luke 16:25 —But Abraham said, Son, remember—Abraham is repre-sented 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 re¬minded 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 ne¬cessities 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."Luke 16:26 —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 medi¬cal 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. Luke 16:27 —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 des¬tiny 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. Luke 16:28 —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. Luke 16:29 —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 testi¬monies of Jesus, including that of Abraham from the heavenly world, that the Old Testament scriptures are the word of God. Luke 16:30 —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. Luke 16:31 —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.

Verse 1 This chapter relates Jesus’ continued discourses to the disciples in the presence of the public and the Pharisees particularly. The great parables of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13) and the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) are both related to the conflict with the Pharisees; but the connective teaching between them was abbreviated by the sacred author. However, the positive connection is still clearly discernible (Luke 16:14-18). And he said also unto the disciples, There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. (Luke 16:1) THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARDHe said also unto his disciples … These words do not remove the obvious fact that the unjust steward in view here represents the religious leaders of Israel. True, the parable was spoken “to” the disciples, but “about” the Pharisees, etc. “The rich man represents God”;Luke 2 p. 247.">[1] and among all classes of people in that ancient world, only the hierarchy of Israel would qualify as stewards of God’s house. To them were committed the oracles of God (Romans 3:2); they alone sat “in Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:2); and they only were custodial heirs of the religious economy of Israel. A certain rich man … stands for God, as the vast majority of commentators agree; and despite the objection of Barclay that “The rich man himself was something of a rascal,"[2] and Plummer’s opinion that “The rich man has no special significance,"[3] it is nevertheless the standing interpretation of the Coccian school,[4] stated by Vitringa, that “The rich man is God, and the steward the ecclesiatical leaders of Israel."[5] Albert Barnes stated that “By the rich man here is doubtless represented God."[6] Objections to this view derive from a failure to understand WHY the rich man commended the unjust steward. Only God has the power over men to dismiss them from life and custodianship of heavenly gifts, the very things clearly typified by the prerogatives enjoyed by this unjust steward. Furthermore, the allegation against the rich man, to the effect that he was a rascal, or that he endorsed the steward’s dishonesty, is not logically taken. “The Emperor Julian (the bitter apostate) said this parable proves Jesus a mere man, and hardly a worthy man”;[7] but apostates are blind, by definition, and without any spiritual perception whatever. When it is clearly understood why the steward was commended, all difficulties disappear. In another parable, an unjust judge bore an analogy to the heavenly Father (Luke 18:1-6); and Christ himself likened his second coming to “the thief” (Matthew 24:43). This comparison did not embarrass the holy apostles; for Paul used it (1 Thessalonians 5:2); Peter used it (2 Peter 3:10); and Christ himself repeated it from glory (Revelation 16:15). In the light of this, the tender consciences of modern commentators who find something “amoral” in this parable’s representation of God under the figure of this rich man are not at all convincing! That he was wasting his goods … As Trench said, “All attempts to explain away the dishonesty (of this steward) are hopeless."[8] His own behavior in context was a positive admission of guilt on his part. Luke 2 p. 247.">[1] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press,), Vol. II, Luke 2 p. 247. [2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 216. [3] Quoted by Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 418. [4] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 431. [5] Ibid. [6] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), Luke, p. 109. [7] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 280. [8] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 435.

Verse 2 And he called him, and said unto him, What is this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward.This that I hear … The accusers of the religious hierarchy were the prophets of God such as Ezekiel (Ezekiel 23:2) and Malachi (Malachi 2:8), and finally, Christ himself (Matthew 23:1-5). Render the account … Here is the positive indication that the rich man is a figure of Almighty God. He is the one who summons men to render the account of their earthly lives and possessions.

Verse 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; to beg I am ashamed.Said within himself … This was the first commendable thing the steward did. Like the prodigal who also said “to himself” that he would arise and go to the Father, this man also faced bitter, unwelcome truth about HIMSELF. He lied to the Lord and to the debtors, but he told himself the truth. Many a hapless soul today simply does not have the courage to face unwelcome truth.

The lost soul will hardly admit it; the man on his deathbed speaks of what he will do when he gets well; and countless sinners tell themselves the falsehood that they are really all right, in no danger at all, or that they will turn and serve God at some future time. This steward was no such character. He laid it on the line with himself. “I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg!” Nor did he question the fact that he faced eviction from office. The day of reckoning in view here, according to Tinsley, is an analogy of “God’s summons to Israel through Jesus Christ."[9]Regarding the alternatives open to the steward, “J. B. Chapman once wrote an article on it, entitled, Dig, Beg, or Steal'."[10] Wesley noted that the steward had what men would call a "sense of honor! by men called honor’ but by angels, `pride’,"[11] as evidenced by his being ashamed to beg. Ashamed to beg, sure! Ashamed to steal? No! [9] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 159. [10] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 562. [11] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 264.

Verse 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.Hobbs said that this place might be rendered, “I’ve got it; I know what I will do!"[12] His dishonest purpose was soon revealed. He would involve all the debtors in defrauding the lord, and then presume upon their charity when he needed it. Human gratitude for past favors is a broken reed indeed; and that is possibly the reason why the parable allows the presumption that he received it to stand, without regard to what might really have happened afterward. ENDNOTE: [12] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 239.

Verse 5 And calling to him each one of his lord’ s debtors, he said to the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bond, and sit down quickly and write fifty. Then he said to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. He saith unto him, Take thy bond, and write fourscore.The size of this operation is evident in the large amounts owed.

The measures used here for oil and wheat were “the bath, which was about 9 gallons, and the cor, which was about 11 bushels."[13] Thus, the transactions mentioned involved some 900 gallons of olive oil and about 1,100 bushels of wheat. Summers is doubtless correct in the view that “This was a business venture in which the steward helped several retailers cheat a wholesaler with whom they traded."[14] Certainly, these amounts are much greater than would have been expected of mere tenants on the lord’s estate. This lowering of the bills is the perfect analogy of the manner in which the scribes and Pharisees lowered the standards of righteousness as a device for keeping their hold upon the people: allowing divorce on any pretext (Luke 16:18), and by countless devices making void the law of God (Matthew 23:16). And, although the scribes and Pharisees were the deceitful stewards in view here the analogy may be extended throughout Christian history to include countless others who have marked down the gospel and perverted God’s law. This crooked device of the unjust steward was known to Pharaoh who proposed to Moses that God’s command to go three days’ journey into the wilderness might be honored by going “not very far away” (Exodus 8:28). It is, of course, a device of Satan; and it is still being employed against the truth. Jesus Christ commanded faith, repentance, confession, and baptism into Christ as preconditions of salvation; but the unjust steward still offers salvation to men for “faith only” or “confession only.” The moral requirements of Christianity are still being marked down in the matter of easy divorce for any cause, or none at all, just as the Pharisees were doing. The worship of Jesus Christ is demanded of all who would be saved, in terms of a full hundred measures of oil, or of wheat. That worship requires that men sing, pray, study God’s word, give their means to support the truth, and faithfully observe the Lord’s supper. And, despite this, there are great systems of “Christian” religions that reduced the requirements in various particulars. It should be noted that the unjust steward moved with all possible dispatch and diligence to put his evil plan in operation. That same line that records his resolution defines also his summary action to fulfill it. He acted then and there, not putting it off a single day. Furthermore, he exhibited the most efficient thoroughness in the implementation of his scheme. “He called EVERY ONE of his lord’s debtors.” None was skipped, or overlooked. Sit down quickly … emphasizes the urgency of the steward’s plans and the speed with which they were prosecuted. Thus it is clear enough that in quite a number of the most important qualities, that unjust steward was fully entitled to commendation, not for his dishonesty, BUT FOR THOSE . And what were they?

1. He told himself the truth.
2. He took account of his own need which would not diminish merely because he had lost his job.
3. He accurately appraised the necessity to make some provision against that future need, even as Christ himself commanded (Revelation 3:18).
4. He used those things which he yet controlled in order to meet that inevitable future need.
5. He acted at once with all possible speed.
6. He acted with brilliant efficiency and thoroughness. It is in these qualities that the steward provides an example of what all men should do with reference to the eternal needs of the soul; and, sadly enough, these are exactly the things that countless millions of men will not do with reference to those very needs. [13] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 759. [14] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1973), p. 190.

Verse 8 And his lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely: for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.Childer’s comment that “Christians often use less prudence in handling money than do men of the world,"[15] while true enough, is not the point here. It is the Christian’s imprudence in handling spiritual things which Jesus condemned. The teaching is not that owls can see better than eagles, but that “Owls see better than eagles, IN THE DARK”![16]The Lord commended the unjust steward … All of the tedious explanations insisting that it was not Jesus, but the lord in the parable, who commended the unjust steward, are completely frustrated by the fact of the lord in the parable being a representation of God. Certainly Jesus, who was one with the Father in all things, commended this rogue, not for his dishonesty, but for his prudent handling of his worldly interests; and if Jesus had not intended this to be understood, there is no way to believe he would have spoken the parable in the first place. As Matthew Henry noted, “This unjust steward is to us an example, not in cheating his master, … but as an example for our attention in spiritual things."[17] Jesus incurred no risk whatever in using such an example. Throughout the parable, and as always, Jesus unconditionally condemned in every action and every word, every suggestion of fraud and dishonesty, categorically calling the steward “unjust.” As Geldenhuys said, “There was no danger that Jesus’ hearers would interpret his words as a recommendation of dishonest methods."[18][15] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 563. [16] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 439. [17] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), Matthew-Acts p. 284. [18] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 416.

Verse 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.Mammon of unrighteousness … This refers to wealth and all earthly treasures; but why is it called unrighteous? It would appear that they are in error who suppose that the implication requires us to believe that wealth may not be accumulated except through dishonesty, fraud, etc.; for, while it is true that much wealth is thus acquired, there are countless instances of persons acquiring wealth innocently. But all wealth of this world is unrighteous, however acquired; and by this the wealth itself, not the possessor, is meant.

1. Wealth deceives the owner into believing that it is his.
2. It strongly tempts him to trust in riches.
3. “In making a man depend on them for happiness, riches rob him of salvation and the glory of God."[19]4. It estranges him from earthly friends.
4. It surrounds him with false friends.
5. Wealth promises much and delivers nothing.
6. It is a constant hazard to his spirituality. The clear meaning here is that “mammon of unrighteousness does not mean wealth unrighteously acquired, but deceitful wealth."[20]When it shall fail … is a reference to the ultimate failure of all worldly assets, which under no circumstances can ever continue any longer than the lifetime of the holder; and it is the end of life in view here, because of the Savior’s reference to being received into eternal tabernacles. They may receive you … Some have viewed these “friends” as poor people helped during the life of the one received; but this is a forced view, derived from the error of making this parable primarily a teaching on the Christian’s responsibility for the proper use of his wealth; but, despite the fact of such teaching being included, the parable lays special stress on making the proper spiritual preparations prerequisite to being received into heaven. IN THE PARABLEThe rich man in absentia = the heavenly Father. The unrighteous steward = the scribes and Pharisees. The accusations = the protestations of the prophets and last of all, of Christ. The day of accounting = the first advent of Christ. The lowering of the bills = the corruption of God’s law by the religious leaders. The impending eviction of the steward = the impending removal of Israel as a chosen nation. The corruption of the debtors = the ruin of the vast majority of Israel by their leaders. The lord’s commendation = a tribute to the persistence and ability of the evil leaders. On the last of these analogies, a further word is appropriate. The mystery of iniquity has always been an awesome wonder. When the apostle John saw the vision of the apostate church, he “wondered with a great wonder” (Revelation 17:6), the true meaning being “wondered with a great admiration."[21] It is the same wondering admiration which surfaces here. The steward’s evil genius was so original, daring, and thoroughly crooked, yet serving his personal ends, that the lord in the parable, ignoring all loss to himself, commended the scoundrel. If there was ever a class of religious leaders entitled to the same kind of praise, the Pharisees and their crowd were that class. The satanic achievement of that class in engineering the rejection of the Messiah sent from God was truly a marvel of adroit cunning, deceit, and persistent energy. Our Lord at once extended the analogies in the parable to encourage the same quality of skillful and persistent efforts on the part of all men who would attain spiritual values (though, of course, without the dishonesty and deceit). In the comparisons pointed out by Jesus, the great lord in absentia is still the only God; every man, like the unjust steward, controls certain assets such as life, talents, and property; and like the case with the unjust steward, all must give an accounting of their use. Jesus admonished that all men, as the steward did, should use whatever is in their control now, and, unlike him, use it to receive approval from God, that is, make to themselves friends, by the wise and faithful administration of God’s gifts. Friends … It was noted above that some have supposed these to be the recipients of the Christian’s charity; but the fact of their preceding him to glory and being on hand to welcome the Christian’s arrival compromises that view. As reasonable a view as any makes the friends envisaged here to be the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the angels of God. [19] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 462. [20] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 760. [21] Nestle Greek Text, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959).

Verse 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.Geldenhuys supposed that Christ included this verse in the parable in order “to prevent a possible misunderstanding owing to the commendation of the unjust steward. Here Christ insists upon the necessity of fidelity in dealing with earthly possessions."[22] A man’s faithfulness is measured by what he does with whatever amount of it there may be. People who suppose that if they were rich they would give large sums to charity, and who yet give nothing from their meager possessions, are deceiving themselves. What a man does with a little is a fair measure of what he will do with much. ENDNOTE: [22] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 419.

Verse 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches.Every man is but a steward of God’s gifts, even including life; and if he should misuse these which, in a sense, are only loaned to him, how would God give to him, as his very own possession, such a thing as eternal life? On the “unrighteous mammon,” see under Luke 16:9, above.

Verse 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?See under preceding verse, where the same thought is given a little differently. This verse lays down, unqualifiedly, a law which makes the right use of one’s possession a condition of eternal life, for giving unto a man of that “which is your own” can mean nothing if not eternal life. Concepts like “accepting Christ,” “surrendering to Christ,” and “taking up the cross,” etc., are meaningless unless related to the use of one’s material possessions.

Verse 13 No servant can serve two masters: 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.This contrasts God and Mammon (personified) as deities between whom every soul must choose. Any attempt to serve both is actually the service of Mammon. Summers pointed out that Luke here used a word for “servant” which actually means “house servant”; [23] and this gives an equivalent meaning that “nobody can be a house boy in two different mansions at once!” For the attention of some who always insist that a parable has only one point, it should be observed that Jesus made no less than four, basing them all upon this parable. Barclay summarized these thus: (1) children of this world are wiser than children of light (Luke 16:8); (2) material possessions should be used to cement … eternal friendships (Luke 16:9); (3) a man’s way of fulfilling a small task is proof of his fitness for a larger one (Luke 16:10-11); and (4) no slave can serve two masters.[24][23] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 191. [24] William Barclay, op. cit., pp. 216-217.

Verse 14 And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him. Lovers of money … One finds it simply impossible to understand why some commentators strive to question a statement of this kind. Ray Summers, for example, implied that the other synoptics do not fully support Luke’s charge here that the Pharisees were lovers of money; but he neglected to explain why the sacred historian needed any such support. If there had not been another word in the whole New Testament regarding this, Luke’s statement here is more than enough to guarantee the unqualified truth of it. Summers went on to remark concerning the passage in Matthew 23:14 (KJV), in which the Pharisees were charged with devouring “widow’s houses,” that “It is not in the best manuscripts, so it can be used only in a qualified support of Luke’s statement."[25] He evidently overlooked the fact that in that same chapter (Matthew 23:26), Matthew quoted Jesus Christ as saying that the cup and platter of the Pharisees were “full of extortion,” the same being a total endorsement of what Luke said about the Pharisees here.

His error, however, is not in overlooking such a confirmation of Luke’s words, but in supposing that the record of two or more Gospels is more authentic than the statement of only one of them. The thesis maintained in this commentary is that each of the Gospels is totally reliable in all that they contain. Over and beyond Luke’s statement here, however, is the total picture of the Pharisees that emerges from the New Testament record. Their devious handling of money by application of the device of “Corban,” which Jesus so emphatically condemned, their making the temple itself a “den of thieves and robbers,” and their merciless exploitation of the poor, and their having more regard for an animal than for a human being - all of these things demonstrate the indisputable fact that Luke’s simple declaration here, to the effect that this class were “lovers of money,” is in perfect harmony with all the word of God. As Frank L. Cox said, “No one scoffs at a scriptural lesson on giving but the lover of money."[26]Scoffed at him … “The term scoffed indicates to turn up the nose at a thing."[27][25] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 192. [26] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 50. [27] Anthony Lee Ash, Living Word Commentary (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), Vol. 4, p. 73.

Verse 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.The men Jesus addressed here “tended to connect earthly prosperity and goodness. Wealth was a sign that a man was a good man."[28] However, mere material prosperity, unsanctified by spiritual motivation and consciousness of stewardship under God, is here called an abomination in the sight of God. ENDNOTE: [28] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 218.

Verse 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.It is a mistake to view Matthew 11:12-13 as a parallel with this. Why could not Jesus on two occasions or still more have made statements about John as a transitional person and about the violent pressing into the kingdom?[29]Whatever is meant by “violently,” this must be viewed as improper and reprehensible on the part of those thus seeking to enter the kingdom. Some of the Ante-Nicene writers viewed the “violence” here in a favorable fashion as indicating the zeal with which men should seek to enter the kingdom; but the scholarly J. W. McGarvey, it appears, has a far better understanding of this admittedly difficult passage. He said: The gates of Christ’s kingdom were not opened until Pentecost (Acts 2); but men, hearing it was about to be opened, sought to enter it prematurely, not by the gates which God would open, but by such breaches as they themselves sought to make in its walls.[30]The type of violence with which men sought to force the kingdom is illustrated by the multitude’s action in trying to make him king by force; and the Pharisees, particularly, thought the kingdom would be a secular restoration of the old Solomonic throne; and they were at that very moment trying to force Jesus to conform to their secular and materialistic views of the kingdom, all of which is indicated by their scoffing at him. (See more elaborate discussion of this in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 11:12) Geldenhuys also concurred in the view of McGarvey that the kingdom was not established. He said: Although the kingdom has not yet come in final completeness, it nevertheless came into the world as a mighty actuality, already in and with Jesus’ public appearances on earth.[31][29] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 422. [30] J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 283. [31] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 422.

Verse 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail.This statement of Jesus has in view the changing and perversion of God’s law by the Pharisees, who had perverted the moral requirements of it (as in the case of easy divorce, mentioned a moment later) in many ways, even seeking to change the nature of the kingdom God had promised to set up. They wanted an earthly kingdom, a Messiah on a white horse who would throw out the Romans! Jesus here reminded them that not one of the tiniest provisions of God’s law would be waived in favor of their materialistic views. Tittle … “The tittle, `little horn,’ was a small projection, or hook, that distinguished one Hebrew letter from another similar letter."[32] Jesus was saying that even down to the smallest point, the law of God would be totally maintained. The very close and logical connection of this whole paragraph between the two great parables of this chapter is quite obvious and enlightening; and it is safe to reject such a view as that of Gilmour who said “(These are) three scattered sayings that have little or no connection with one another or with the rest of the material in this chapter."[33][32] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 246. [33] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 287.

Verse 18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.Jesus’ purpose in the introduction of this saying was clearly that of condemning the Pharisaical perversion of God’s law; and, in context, there was no necessity for Jesus to note the exception, as in Matthew 19:9. This verse affords the most positive proof that one cannot ever know what Jesus taught unless he shall take into account ALL THAT JESUS SAID, whether reported by one evangelist or another. Geldenhuys spoke of the “absolute impossibility of basing detailed rules … upon isolated sayings of Christ."[34] There can be no excuse for scholars and theologians premising whole systems of thought on portions of the Gospels, or upon one Gospel, as distinguished from other Gospels. One hardly enters the New Testament until the words of Jesus thunder from the sacred page: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). That principle, laid down by Jesus, is alone sufficient grounds for rejecting the basic assumption underlying a great deal of modern critical exegesis. God gave his people four Gospels; and in that gift is the certainty that one cannot understand the whole corpus of truth unless he shall take all of them into consideration. Ryle caught the implication of Jesus’ words in this verse, thus: “With all your boasted reverence for the law, you are yourselves breakers of it in the law of marriage. You have lowered the standard of the law of divorce.“Luke 2 p. 211.">[35] Barclay also discerned the connection between this and the preceding verse, saying that “As an illustration of the law that would never pass away, Jesus took the law of chastity."[36]For further discussion of Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:1-10. [34] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 423. Luke 2 p. 211.">[35] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), Vol. Luke 2 p. 211. [36] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 219.

Verse 19 Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day.THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUSThe Latin word for “rich man” is dives, and this is sometimes used as a proper name; but Jesus left him nameless. Clothed in purple … Ancient craftsmen of Tyre discovered a process of making a very expensive and durable purple dye from the murex shell;[37] and, due to its cost, it could be afforded only by royalty and the very rich. From this, “royal purple” has entered into the vocabulary of all nations. Fine linens … faring sumptuously … These are additional touches to show the extravagant luxury in which the rich man lived. It should be noted that there is no hint of any unrighteous acquisition of wealth, nor of any overt, sinful action against Lazarus, nor even any hint that he denied the crumbs desired by the beggar. It is his total indifference to human suffering at his very gate which looms so ominously in the parable. And is this a parable? It would appear to be certain that it is; the placement of it alone is sufficient grounds for understanding it as a parable. Besides that, the element of Abraham presiding over Paradise forces one to seek an analogy. It is God, not Abraham, who has custody and control of the departed dead. ENDNOTE: [37] Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, 1961), Vol. 22, p. 653.

Verse 20 And a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores.Lazarus … This is the only example of Jesus using a proper name to identify a character in one of his parables, and there must have been a good reason for this. It cannot be made the basis for advocating the parable as an historical event, as noted above; but there is quite possibly, in this, a prophecy of the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11). True, the Lazarus raised from the dead was presumably rich; this Lazarus was a beggar; but the use of a proper name for one who the rich man pleaded would be sent back from the dead to warn his brothers cannot fail of suggesting the fact that a Lazarus did rise from the dead, and true to the Lord’s prophecy here, the Pharisees did not believe, but instead plotted to kill him! The conviction expressed here is that by the use of this proper name, Jesus clearly hinted at what John recorded in that famed eleventh chapter. Nor is this the only hint of that “seventh sign” recorded by John. In his first open break with the Pharisees, after healing the man at Bethesda, Jesus promised the Pharisees “that greater works than these” the Father would show, that the Pharisees “may marvel” (John 5:20). By such a promise, Jesus meant that he would raise the dead; for he immediately foretold a time when all the dead on earth would “hear the voice of the Son of God, and COME FORTH” (John 5:29), those last two words being exactly the ones he cried in a loud voice over the grave of Lazarus (John 11:43); from this, it is mandatory to believe that Jesus had in mind to raise Lazarus at least three years before the event took place; and, knowing what he would do, and as the time for Lazarus’ resurrection was then approaching, it was most significant that Jesus, contrary to all other usages in his parables, would throw in this word “Lazarus.” “That there is indeed here a suggestion of the great seventh miracle in John is implicit in the fact of the critical scholars’ allegation that John’s great miracle was only a drama invented to illustrate the point Jesus made here, a conceit that may be rejected out of hand (see comment on this in my Commentary on John, en loco). The exegesis here points out the true connection between this parable and the wonder of Lazarus’ resurrection.

Verse 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table; yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores.There is no word here that the rich man denied the small favor of the crumbs, there being, in fact, no hint that he even knew Lazarus was there. That he did know, however, appears later in the story.

Verse 22 And it came to pass that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried.The two deaths here are distinguished by the fact that the rich man had a funeral, whereas none was mentioned in the case of Lazarus. The universality and impartiality of death are shocking in a context like this. All of the rich man’s wealth earned him no exemption from the final accounting which comes to all men. True, his friends might provide the pomp and circumstance by which the wealthy are usually accompanied to their tombs; but how vain and empty are such honors. The angels … This ministry of angels for them that shall be heirs of eternal life is a big subject in the New Testament; and for an essay on this the reader is referred to my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:14. One of the seven services provided by angels to mortals is in view here, that of bearing their souls, after death, to the abode of the blessed. Abraham’s bosom … The Hadean world, as understood by the Jews, had two distinct places, one for the righteous and another for the wicked. Jesus’ use of those ideas here endows them with utmost significance; for there can be no doubt that this parable was intended to shed light upon the intermediate state between death and the eternal judgment. As Morgan declared, “This sheds clear light on the life beyond."[38]ENDNOTE: [38] G. Campbell Morgan, Exposition of the Whole Bible (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1949), p. 438.

Verse 23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.Here Jesus departed from the Jewish views which reckoned the diverse places of the just and the wicked as separated by only a handbreadth. “Afar off,” as here, and “a great gulf fixed” (Luke 16:26) show that the separation is extensive. Being in torments … Basic teachings from this parable include the state of felicity for the righteous and the state of torment for the wicked, with no time-lapse whatever between death and the entering of the soul into one or the other of the Hadean compartments. The wicked life will not wait one second after death to begin reaping the rewards of unrighteousness; and yet, the eternal reward for both classes will not actually begin until the judgment.

Verse 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 in anguish in this flame.Father Abraham … Here is found the absolute necessity for seeing this as a parable; for Abraham himself, like all the saints in death, is in the place here called “Abraham’s bosom.” Abraham is therefore a type of God who presides over both Paradise and the place of the wicked in Hades. This, of course, negates any support that might be supposed in this connection for praying to departed saints. Besides that, as Wesley said: It cannot be denied but here in Scripture is the precedent of praying to departed saints. But who is it that prays, and with what success? Will anyone who considers this be found copying after him?[39]Send Lazarus … Ah, so the rich man did know Lazarus, after all, apparently even fancying that Lazarus was under some obligation to him, perhaps for the crumbs! This flame … Jesus invariably used fire in his reference to eternal punishment, and he did not depart from the pattern here. It is no comfort to view this as merely a symbol of the real punishment; because what kind of punishment is that which would require so dreadful a symbol of it? The logic that suggests that this is symbolical language was thus stated by Dummelow: “The rich man was not in hell ([Greek: Gehenna]), for no one is sent there till after the last judgment."[40] In addition to this, Dives was at the time indicated here a disembodied spirit upon which actual flame would have no effect. [39] John Wesley, op. cit., p. 267. [40] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 761.

Verse 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now here he is comforted, and thou art in anguish.Son … A moment earlier, the rich man had addressed Abraham as “Father,” and here Abraham did not deny the fact of the rich man’s being one of the patriarch’s fleshly descendants. This circumstance makes it easy to identify the class of men represented by the rich man. Who but the Pharisees were always proclaiming their rights as children of Abraham (see Matthew 3:8; John 8:37-44, etc.)? Mere fleshly descent was exposed in this parable as having no value in the sight of God. Good things … evil things … They are wrong who try to make this parable teach that mere wealth is sinful and mere poverty righteous. As Trench noted: The rebuke of unbelief is the main intention of this parable; for if we conceive its primary purpose to warn against the abuse of riches, it will neither satisfactorily cohere with the discourse in which it is found, nor will it possess the unity of purpose, which so remarkably distinguished the parables of our Lord.[41]It is most deplorable that some commentators have fitted this parable into their notions of some new social order, in which wealth is evil in itself, and poverty good. The rich man was not punished for being wealthy, but for being devoid of all sense of humanity; nor was Lazarus rewarded for being poor. Although not elaborated, the true character of the beggar is implicit in the name Jesus gave him, which means “God help, an abbreviated form of Eleazar."[42][41] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 451. [42] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1972), p. 319.

Verse 26 And besides all this, there is between us and you a great gulf fixed, that they who would pass from hence to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us.The great teaching in view here is that death seals the soul’s destiny. There will be no crossing from one side to another after death has closed life’s day of opportunity. Such theologies as those related to the doctrine of purgatory are destroyed by the Saviour’s words in this verse.

Verse 27 And he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house; for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.The ingrained selfishness of the rich man first appeared in the request that Lazarus be sent to himself, a selfishness that might be overlooked in view of his misery; but, when all thought of his own improvement was denied, his selfishness was continued in this request that was concerned with nobody except his own kin. Furthermore, there was an implied argument in this request, which was a way of asserting that he would never have come to such a place of torment, provided only that God had made proper provision to establish his faith, such as sending someone back from the dead! Are not the Pharisees continually in view here? Were they not the ones always clamoring for a sign? This rich man was one of their very own.

Verse 29 But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.As Boles said, “We have here one of many testimonies of Jesus, including that of Abraham from the heavenly world, that the Old Testament scriptures are the word of God."[43]This ties this whole parable and its teachings into Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees, due to their unwillingness to hear, believe, and obey the law of Moses. This shows that the opportunities of the rich man to know God’s will were more than ample, there being no reason whatever why some special sign should have been provided for him. The same is true of every man. ENDNOTE: [43] Ibid., p. 324.

Verse 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent.So here it comes out. The rich man thoroughly understood why he was in torments, even if the commentators cannot seem to get it straight. It was because he would not repent. As Miller put it: The rich man’s desire that his brothers repent indicates that he had discovered that he was not in hell because he was rich, but because he had failed to repent of self-lordship and place himself under the Lordship of God.[44]It was not what the rich man did that landed him in the jail, but what he did not that landed him in hell. ENDNOTE: [44] Donald G. Miller, The Layman’s Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1971), p. 124.

Verse 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.If one rise from the dead … A striking example of the truth of what Jesus proclaimed here occurred not many days later in the resurrection of Lazarus; and there is no way to avoid the perception that Jesus actually had that miracle in mind here. Lazarus (another one) did indeed come back from the grave in the very presence of the Pharisees; but did they repent? No! They set about to kill Lazarus. In a sense, Lazarus came to the Pharisees who were present when he rose from the dead.

In the case of Jesus’ resurrection, there was no appearance to the Pharisees; and this leads us to reject the comment of Geldenhuys that “the last words of this parable were uttered by Jesus with a view to his own resurrection."[45] No. Lazarus was the one Jesus had in mind here. Regarding his own resurrection, Jesus did not appear “to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before God,” even to the apostles, “who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10:41). It would have done no good at all for the Lord to have appeared to the Pharisees. This great parable teaches many things. Barnes listed these: (1) the souls of men do not die with their bodies; (2) the soul is conscious after death; (3) the righteous go to a place of happiness, the wicked to a place of misery; (4) we should not envy the rich.[46]Cox listed these: (1) we should not live in luxury while Lazarus begs at our gate; (2) the selfish use of wealth will bring torment beyond the grave; (3) memory will not be obliterated by death; (4) to prevent a great gulf from separating us from Lazarus in the hereafter, we should take care to see that the gulf is not there now; (5) if the ordinary means of grace cannot reach us, we need not expect the extraordinary; (6) he who is lost in death is lost eternally; (7) God’s word is sufficient to save men.[47] IN THE PARABLEGoing back to Augustine and Gregory the Great, many brilliant students of the word of God have found analogies in this parable with a scope of application broad as mankind itself. Abraham is God, who alone presides over the destinies of men. The rich man is primarily the ecclesiastical establishment of Israel. They wore the purple of God’s royal favor, and the white linen of the sacred priesthood, and fared sumptuously in the bountiful knowledge that God delivered unto them in the Holy Scriptures. Lazarus begging at the gate is the whole Gentile world lying in wretchedness, sin, and misery, which awful state Israel made no move whatever to alleviate. The reversed status of Dives and Lazarus foretold the reversal of the status of the Jews and Gentiles in God’s favor, as related so copiously by Paul in Romans. The dogs that licked Lazarus’ sores correspond to the ineffectual treatment of the Gentiles’ wretched and sinful miseries by their philosophers, poets, and legislators.[48]The desire of the beggar to be fed suggests the longing of men’s souls for a truth which they have not; but a truth which the Jew had, and had richly; and which, if he had been faithful to his trust, he would have imparted to the benighted nations of the Gentiles. It is in the primary application to the Pharisees and others like them in the leadership of Israel that the full impact of this remarkable parable appears. The Pharisees were not merely rich materially, but they were the custodians of the whole treasure of God’s revelation to mankind; and it was their unfaithfulness to THAT TRUST, more than their mere misuse of money, that earned them the denunciation apparent in this parable. [45] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 427. [46] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 118. [47] Frank L. Cox, op. cit., p. 51. [48] For an extensive development of these and other analogies, see Richard C. Trench, op. cit., pp. 470-475.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 161. What servant did the rich man have? 2. Tell the report that came to him. 3. State the accusation he then made to his steward. 4. What was he ordered to prepare to give ? 5. Of what change was he notified ? 6. What was the steward’ s state of mind now ? 7. What two difficulties confronted him now? 8. Did he reach a resolution? 9. How many debtors were consulted? 10. What was their debt? 11. Tell what reductions were made. 12. For what was the steward commended? 13. Compare wisdom of two classes mentioned. 14. What are we advised to make for ourselves ? 15. By what means are we to do this? 16. What will these friends do for us? 17. When will they do this? 18. How is faithfulness affected by little or much ? 19. Unfaithfulness in one trust will deprive us of what? 20. How many masters can one serve? 21. What will interfere ? 22. Who is against God? 23. What is said of the Pharisees ? 24. Tell what they did to Jesus. 25. Of what did Jesus accuse them? 26. With whom were they not justified? 27. Why was that? 28. State difference between estimation of God and man. 29. What reached till time of John ? 30. What was preached after that? 31. In what way was the preaching received? 32. What is not to prove a failure? 33. Tell what would be easier than this. 34. When does separation become adultery? 35. What two men may become guilty? 36. Describe the clothing and fare of the rich man. 37. Who was contrasted with him? 38. State his condition. 39. With what was he fed? 40. What treatment did he have for his affliction? 41. Tell what happened to both men. 42. What did the angels do? 43. Tell what was done for the rich man. 44. Where did his spirit go? 45. State his condition. 46. Whom did he see? 47. What is said about the distance? 48. State the request he first made? 49. On what basis was it first denied ? 50. What was the next reason ? 51. State the next request the rich man made. 52. What did he wish to prevent? 53. Why did they not deserve this consideration? 54. State the argument of the rich man. 55. In going, what would Lazarus have needed to do ?

Luke 16:1

1 The first seven verses of this chapter constitute another parable. Like others, it has a specific point in view, which is to show the importance of using present opportunities to prepare for the future. Keeping this in mind, let us consider the details of the story. The rich man in the parable represents God, and the steward means human beings to whom God has entrusted the use of talents and good things of life.

Luke 16:2

2 Give an account stands for the warning that all mankind will have to give an account of personal conduct to God (Romans 14:12).

Luke 16:3

3 The anxiety of the steward about how he could meet the accounting, represents the concern that men should feel over the coming judgment before God and Christ.

Luke 16:4

4 The pronoun they in the application of the parable, refers to God and Christ as we shall see farther down in the chapter.

Luke 16:5

5 The steward still had charge of his lord’s goods and the accounting of them, and he decided to manage the bookkeeping in a way to be an advantage to himself.

Luke 16:6

6 Upon payment of half the debt, this man was given full credit as if he had paid off his entire indebtedness.

Luke 16:7

7 This man’s bill was marked “paid in full” upon his producing 80 per cent of the real account. The way the steward handled these accounts was wrong, but that was not the subject that Jesus had in mind when he spoke this parable as we shall see at the next verse.

Luke 16:8

8 The Lord (Jesus) did not commend the steward for his unjustness, but because he had done wisely. And that wisdom was shown by using his present opportunities to prepare against future needs. By favoring these debtors in this way, the steward won their good will; and when he was finally thrown out of a job and home, they would gratefully give him a place in their houses. Children of this world are wiser means the people of the world generally manifest more good judgment than professed Christians in many cases.

Luke 16:9

9 In this verse Jesus makes his application of the parable. The friends are God and Christ, and mammon of unrighteousness means the talents and opportunities bestowed upon men in this life. The exhortation is for us to make such use of these things that we will gain the favor of these friends by being friends to them ourselves. (See John 15:14.) Then when we fail, which will be when the earth and all things therein pass away, we will be invited to enter into the mansions that are in the Father’s house (John 14:1-3).

Luke 16:10

0 We will not be judged by the amount of good we can do, but by whether we are faithful in doing what is within our power and opportunity.

Luke 16:11

1 Unrighteous mammon means the temporal things of this life. If we have misused these things, we will not be regarded as worthy of those in the next life.

Luke 16:12

2 If a man is careless in handling the goods of another, he would be still more unappreciative of his own, and would feel free to do as he pleased with them.

Luke 16:13

3 See the comments on Matthew 6:24.

Luke 16:14

4 The Pharisees had not been named in the preceding parable, yet they applied it to themselves and hence they derided (sneered) him. They could not make any just reply to the teaching of Christ without exposing their own covetous heart, therefore they only made fun of him.

Luke 16:15

5 To justify means to declare or make it appear that one is just. The Pharisees did this and deceived the public into thinking they were benevolent men by their apparent deeds of kindness. But these things that men admired (because they did not know the motive back of them), God regarded as abominable, knowing their hearts.

Luke 16:16

6 Law and prophets until John. After the last prophet (Malachi) laid down his pen, the world heard no more revelation from God until John broke the silence by his preaching in the wilderness. Since then the kingdom of heaven was preached, but that does not say it was set up by him. Every man presseth into it. The kingdom of God existed in preparation before it was in existence in fact. (See Matthew 11:12.) Presseth into it means those who accepted the preach. ing of John did so under the pressure of conscience, and in spite of opposition.

Luke 16:17

7 The reference to heaven and earth is for comparison, to indicate the permanence of the law until it had accomplished its purpose under God.

Luke 16:18

8 This is discussed in detail at Matthew 19:9.

Luke 16:19

9 I do not deny this story being a parable on the ground that it says a certain rich man. The word certain is used elsewhere where we know a parable is being spoken (chapter 20:9). A parable requires a comparison while there is none in this case, not even any words that necessarily have to be taken figuratively. Furthermore, there are so many facts of a circumstantial nature that it shows Jesus had some particular case in mind. It was a literal fact that rich men lived in such luxuries as are described of this one.

Luke 16:20

0 Sores is from a Greek word that is defined “ulcers” in the lexicon. Lazarus was afflicted so badly he had to be carried to be laid at the gate of the rich man. He was placed there as an object of charity, even as beggars today seek a prominent place on the streets where they can be seen by the public.

Luke 16:21

1 In addition to what he might receive from the crowds that would be passing in and out of the gate of such an estate, he might be given the crumbs or scraps taken up from the table of this rich man. The dogs licked his sores. That was no discomfort to the afflicted man, but the fact indicates his helpless condition. There was no one to treat and bind up the sores, but they were left to run openly, else the dogs would not have cared for it.

Luke 16:22

2 Abraham’s bosom. In old times people reclined while eating, at tables only a few inches higher than the floor. The diners would lie on their sides and rest the head on one hand while serving themselves with the other. They lay at a 45-degree angle with the table, which placed the head of one person virtually in the bosom of the one behind him, and in very intimate cases the two would be very near each other. (See John 13:23.) Since the situation of Lazarus on earth pertained to food, it was fitting to represent him as lying in the bosom of Abraham, where he could partake with him of the good spiritual things in Paradise. Nothing is said of what disposition was made of the body of Lazarus, but. the rich man was buried, which is to remind us that his body remained on the earth after his spirit was placed in Hades.

Luke 16:23

3 We have just read that the rich man was buried after his death. People are buried in the earth only, hence this man had something in his being besides his body that went elsewhere, and that could feel the sting of torments. For information about hell, see the note at Matthew 5:30. Abraham’s bosom is explained in the preceding verse, and afar off will be considered at verse 26.

Luke 16:24

4 Father Abraham was said because he was a descendant of that patriarch. The rich man’s brothers had Moses and the prophets (verse 29), which were given to the Jews only, hence we know he was of that race. Objectors criticize this verse on the ground that the rich man’s body was buried on the earth, therefore he had no tongue to be tormented. The objection shows the utter lack of considering the subject fairly. The only part of a human being that has any feeling is the inner man. While body and soul are united, the latter exercises itself through the former as a vehicle only, for the body itself has no feeling.

If it did have, a dead man, or one under an anesthetic would flinch from pain caused by contact with any disagreeable object. Therefore, when the inner man is freed from the in-cumbrance of the flesh, it will still maintain its ability to experience feelings.

Luke 16:25

5 Abraham addressed the rich man as son on the same basis as the latter called Abraham his father, as was explained at the preceding verse. Abraham told the rich man to remember some things that he had experienced while living on the earth. This indicates that persons in Hades or the intermediate state, will be able to recall their experiences which they had on the earth. Whether the same will apply when they enter the eternal state after. the judgment, is not revealed in the Scriptures.

Luke 16:26

6 Gulf is from CHASMA, which Thayer defines, “A gaping opening, a chasm, gulf.” He then explains the definition to mean, “Equivalent to a great interval.” Since this gulf is impassable, it separates the objects on each side virtually as much as if they were a great distance apart. This explains the phrase afar off in verse 23. Another truth that is taught here, is that no change can be made in the spiritual classification of human beings after death; this agrees with Revelation 22:11.

Luke 16:27-28

8 There is nothing said about what the five brothers were to do as to their manner of life. Lazarus was to be asked to testify, which means to bear witness as to the kind of place in which their dead brother was being tormented, to the end they might so live that they would avoid it. The rich man took for granted his brothers would know what changes they would have to make in their lives; also, that if they heard from one who had seen the fate of their brother, they would take warning and make the necessary reformation.

Luke 16:29

9 The brothers had the law of Moses which would lead them in the right way of life, if they would hear (heed) its teaching.

Luke 16:30

0 The object the rich man thought of accomplishing was the repentance of his brethren. The evidence shows that here was a family of the prosperous ranks of society, abusing their wealth and being unconcerned about the less fortunate ones.

Luke 16:31

1 Neither will they be persuaded. Again there is nothing said about being convinced of facts already taught in the Scriptures, but that the brothers might be induced to do what they knew was their duty. Rose from the dead. The rich man understood that in going back from Hades to the earth, one would need to be raised from the dead, and Abraham endorsed that idea by repeating it without any correction. This all proves that no communication ever takes place between men on earth and the spirits in the unseen world, hence the theory of spiritualism is a fraud. Even those who have been permitted to rise from the dead never said anything about information gained while dead. God expects men to be convinced by the testimony furnished them by living persons; that was verified by the miracles performed before their eyes.