Chapter 16

1 The parable of the unjust steward. 14 Christ reproveth the hypocrisy of the covetous Pharisees. 19 The rich glutton, and Lazarus the beggar.

1. He said also. [The Dishonest Steward, Luke 16:1–18 On parables see pp. 203-207.] No specific information is given concerning the time, place, or circumstances under which the parables and instruction of ch. 16 were given. The opening words of the chapter, however, strongly imply that it was soon after the events of ch. 15, possibly upon the same occasion. It was but a few months before the close of Christ’s ministry, probably about January or February, a.d. 31, and the place, Peraea, the region beyond Jordan (see on ch. 15:1).

Unto his disciples. As was so often the case (see on Matt. 5:1, 2, Jesus first addressed His teaching to the disciples even though others might be present. As in Luke 15 (see v. 2) there were Pharisees present upon this occasion ch. 16:14), and eventually Jesus spoke directly to them (v. 15; see on v. 9). Publicans were also in the circle of listeners, and the parable had special meaning for them. Many of them were no doubt “rich.”

A certain rich man. Only Luke records this parable, as is true of much of the record of the Peraean ministry (see on Matt. 19:1, 2; Luke 9:51). This parable and the one that follows, the Rich Man and Lazarus, are both concerned with the use of present opportunities with a view to the future life (Luke 16:25–31), particularly with the use of the material things of this life. The first parable of this chapter was specifically addressed to the disciples, whereas the second one was spoken chiefly for the benefit of the Pharisees. The first illustrates a principle vital to wise stewardship—the discreet and diligent use of present opportunities. The second approaches the problem of stewardship from the negative point of view, as do the parables of the Friend Calling at Midnight (ch. 11:5–10) and the Unjust Judge (ch. 18:1–8).

In the first parable Jesus calls upon men to turn their thoughts from the things of time to those of eternity (COL 366). Among the publicans there had been a case similar to this not long before (COL 368), and the publicans in the audience would likely be particularly impressed as they listened to Jesus’ narration of the story.

Commentators generally find this parable difficult to explain, especially because of the seeming commendation accorded the dishonest steward of the story (see v. 8). These difficulties are due to the attempt to assign a meaning to every detail of the parable, such as the suggestion that the “rich man” represents God. But this parable is not to be interpreted allegorically. It is a fundamental principle in the interpretation of parables that no attempt should be made to read some special meaning into every detail. For principles of interpretation see pp. 203, 204. Jesus designed this parable to illustrate one specific truth, the one He points out in vs. 8–14.

A steward. A manager of the affairs of a household or of an estate. As the context makes plain, this “steward” was a freeman rather than an overslave, such as some “stewards” were. Had he been a slave his prospect would have been slavery under some other owner, and thus he would have had no concern about earning a living after being relieved of his stewardship; furthermore, if a slave, he would not have been free to carry out the plan he proposed to himself (v. 4).

Had wasted. According to the Greek, the steward was still wasting his master’s goods. In fact, he was accused of systematically robbing his master (see COL 366, 367), and the charges seemed sufficiently well substantiated to lead to his dismissal even before he had opportunity to give an account of his stewardship (v. 2). The “waste” may have been due in part to incompetence or to neglect, though the steward’s shrewdness (vs. 4–8) implies that he was clever enough when it came to looking after his own interests.

2. How is it? This clause may also be translated, “What is this that I hear of thee?” or “Why is this that I hear of thee?”

Give an account. He was to balance his accounts and hand the records over to his master, who would examine them to determine whether the charges against his steward were justified.

3. Said within himself. As the steward balanced his accounts preparatory to giving them to his master, he thought matters over.

I cannot. Or, “I am not able,” or “I am not strong enough.”

I am resolved. Apparently the steward was guilty and knew that he could not clear himself. Had his stewardship been characterized by integrity it is not likely that he would at this time have resorted to the very type of shrewd dealing of which he had been accused. He had, apparently, been living by his wits and now proposed an even more clever scheme that would still make possible an easy living for himself. While the steward was yet in a position to do so, he would use his present position of authority as a means of providing for the uncertain future.

When I am put out. Rather, “whenever I may be put out.”

They. The steward has in mind his “lord’s debtors” (v. 5). He would place them under personal obligation to him.

5. Called every one. Or, “summoning his master’s debtors one by one” (RSV). The steward carried out his scheme systematically and diligently. Had he used the same diligence and skill in furthering his master’s interests that he used in furthering his own he would have been a success rather than a failure. As a servant in the house of Potiphar, Joseph exhibited those traits of character that endeared him to his master (see Gen. 39:1–6). By promoting his master’s interests as if they were his own, Joseph found himself promoted to be steward over Potiphar’s household.

How much owest thou? It would almost seem that because of incompetence or neglect the steward had either incomplete records or no records at all of previous transactions. If so, he could connive easily with those who purchased his master’s goods to defraud the master and to benefit both himself and the purchasers at the master’s expense.

6. Measures. Gr. batoi, from the Heb. bath, but of different capacity equal to about 10.4 gal., or 39.4 l. (see p. 50). One hundred “measures” would thus be about 1,040 gal. (39.4 hl.), a rather large debt.

Oil. Doubtless olive oil, the common oil of Palestine and the surrounding lands.

Bill. Literally, “writings,” or “documents,” here meaning the “contracts,” or “notes,” of the original transaction.

Quickly. There were apparently many who had done business with the steward, and if his scheme was to succeed, he must carry it through without delay.

7. Measures. Gr. koroi, from Heb. kor, but of different volume equivalent to about 14.92 bu., or 525 l. (see p. 50). One hundred “measures” would thus be about 1,492 bu., or 525 hl., another large debt.

8. The lord commended. These words are not the editorial comment of Luke, as some have thought, but were part of Jesus’ parable. The speaker of these words of commendation is thus the “rich man” of v. 1. It is utterly inconceivable that Jesus would have given an unqualified commendation to the dishonest steward’s scheme to defraud his master (see COL 367). Jesus’ evaluation of this steward is revealed in the words, “the unjust steward.” However, as this commendation constitutes the climax of the parable, it is apparent that Jesus found in the rich man’s commendation of his steward something useful in teaching a lesson to the disciples and to the listening audience. The narrative itself makes plain what this was. The rich man did not condone his steward’s dishonesty; it was for dishonesty that he was being relieved of his duties. But the cleverness with which this scheming rascal brought his career of misconduct to a climax was so amazing, and the thoroughness with which he carried out his plan so worthy of more noble objectives, that the rich man could not help admiring his steward’s sharpness and diligence.

Done wisely. That is, from the viewpoint of self-interst, by making for himself a host of friends who would be obligated to him in days to come. The word “wisely” is from the Gr. phronimoµs, which, like its adjectival form phronimos (see Matt. 7:24; 10:16), is from phreµn, “mind.” As we would say, the steward had “used his head.” He had exercised foresight by planning cleverly and shrewdly for his own future. His “wisdom,” or “sharpness,” consisted essentially in the assiduous use he made of present opportunities while they lasted. Had the steward been as dilatory in making a final settlement with his master’s debtors as he had been in conducting business previously, he would not have succeeded with his nefarious scheme.

Children of this world. Literally, “children of this age,” considering the world from the viewpoint of time and events. Those who live for this world are referred to here in contrast with those who live for the next world, “the children of light.”

Their generation. That is, in the present age, the only “age” in which they are interested and for which they live (see on Matt. 23:36).

Wiser than. Men who live exclusively for this life often show more earnestness in their pursuit of what it has to offer than Christians do in their preparation for what God offers those who choose His service. It is a human weakness to give more thought to how we may serve ourselves than we do to how we can serve God and one another (see COL 370). The Christian does well to be characterized by “zeal,” but his zeal should be “according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). He must have a true sense of values in order to be so distinguished (see on Matt. 6:24–34).

Children of light. Compare John 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:5. Jesus also used such expressions as “children of God” (Matt. 5:9; Luke 20:36; John 11:52), “children of the kingdom” (Matt. 8:12; 13:38), “children of your Father” (Matt. 5:45), to refer to those who accepted His teachings and made the kingdom of heaven first in their lives (see on Matt. 6:33).

9. Make to yourselves friends. Here Jesus turns to the Pharisees (see COL 369), who were present (see v. 14) and who, as leaders of the Jewish nation, were in a special sense stewards of the truth and blessings God had bestowed upon His chosen people (see Vol. IV, pp. 26-28). As stewards of Heaven, the leaders of Israel had been wasting the “goods” Heaven had entrusted to them, and it would not be long before they would be called upon to “give an account” of their stewardship.

Jesus does not imply that heaven is to be purchased. The truth to which He does direct attention is that we should make use of present opportunities with a view to our eternal welfare. We are but stewards of the material possessions that come to our hands in this life, and God has entrusted them to us that we may learn the principles of faithful stewardship. All that we have in this present life is actually “another man’s,” that is, God’s; it is not our “own” (Luke 16:12; see 1 Cor. 6:19). We are to use the material things entrusted to us to advance the interests of our Father in heaven, by applying them to the needs of our fellow men (see Prov. 19:17; Matt. 19:21; 25:31–46; Luke 12:33) and to the advancement of the gospel (see 1 Cor. 9:13; 2 Cor. 9:6, 7).

Mammon of unrighteousness. See on Matt. 6:24. This expression indicates a degree of contempt for “riches,” much as we speak of “money” as “filthy lucre.” To make friends “of” mammon means to make friends “by means of” it.

When ye fail. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the reading “when it fails.” The rendering “when ye fail” would mean “when ye die.” But the Scriptures do not teach that men are received “into everlasting habitations” at death, as this rendering would require, but at our Lord’s return (see John 14:3). “When it fails” means “when riches [the mammon of unrighteousness] fail.” When the steward’s source of income failed (Luke 16:3), then it was that he gave thought to the future (v. 4). The point of the parable is not the steward’s failure in his stewardship, or his death, but his method of solving the problem of loss of personal income. Thus the context, as well as the general tenor of Scripture, requires the reading “when it fails.” The antecedent of “it” is “mammon,” and the antecedent of “they” is “friends.”

10. That which is least. Here it is implied that mammon (or, riches) is “least,” or “little.” Again it should be pointed out that Jesus did not commend the dishonesty of the steward (see on v. 8). Lest the disciples, or others in the audience, should seize upon this parable as providing, in any measure, an excuse for dishonesty, Jesus here clearly states the profound truth that all who would be His disciples must be characterized by scrupulous integrity and diligence. According to the Midrash (Rabbah, on Ex. 3:1, Soncino ed., p. 49), God does not give a big thing to a man until He has tested him in a small matter; afterward He promotes him to a great thing. The Midrash then gives as an example the supposed words of God to David: “Thou hast been found trustworthy with thy sheep; come, therefore, and tend my sheep.”

Faithful also in much. He will be promoted (see on Matt. 25:21).

11. The true riches. That is, spiritual “riches” (see James 2:5). Compare Christ’s admonition not to work for “the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (John 6:27). A little earlier in His Peraean ministry Jesus warned men against laying up treasure for themselves instead of being “rich toward God” (Luke 12:21).

12. Another man’s. One of the most important things for a man to learn in this life is that all the money and material things that come into his possession are not his by virtue of his own wisdom and skill, but are on loan from God. The Lord solemnly warned Israel against this fatal deception and reminded them that it is God who gives men “power to get wealth” (see on Deut. 8:18).

Failure to profit by the instruction given them on this principle was, in large measure, responsible for Israel’s failure as a nation (see Vol. IV, pp. 32, 33). It is ever true that when men do not honor God and appreciate the good things of life as coming from His beneficent hand, they become “vain in their imaginations” and “their foolish heart” is “darkened” (Rom. 1:21). We are simply stewards of God.

That which is your own. Here Jesus refers to eternal life and the blessings and joys that accompany it, as our own. We are “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). When Christ is enthroned in glory He will extend to all the faithful the gracious invitation to come and “inherit the kingdom prepared for” them “from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34).

13. No servant. See on Matt. 6:24. Except for the word “servant”—a word suitable to this context, which deals with the “servant” of the parable, the steward—Jesus’ statement as here given is identical with that of Matt. 6:24. It should be remembered that much of Jesus’ former teaching was repeated during the Peraean phase of His ministry (DA 488). There is no valid reason for supposing, as many critics do, that either Luke or Matthew must have inserted this saying at the wrong place in his gospel narrative.

14. The Pharisees. See pp. 51, 52.

Covetous. Gr. philarguroi, literally, “money lovers.” The word occurs in the NT only here and in 2 Tim. 3:2. Some critical commentators have suggested that it was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, as Luke has it, that are here described, on the basis that the former constituted the wealthiest class of Jewish society. But Jesus is not discussing the possession of riches in and of themselves. It is not the possession of wealth that bars a man from heaven, but rather his inordinate love and misuse of wealth. There is nothing to prevent a relatively “poor” man from being covetous. Elsewhere Jesus plainly charges the Pharisees with being covetous (see on Matt. 23:14). According to the philosophy of life of the Pharisees, wealth constituted an evidence of divine blessing. In comparison, Jesus not only had no possessions (see on Matt. 8:20), but did not even desire any (see on Matt. 6:24–34). In this as in other respects His principles and those of the Pharisees were utterly irreconcilable.

Heard all these things. What follows (vs. 14–31) is quite evidently a continuation of a report of the same occasion as that represented by vs. 1–13.

Derided him. Or, “sneered at Him.” No doubt the Pharisees realized that Jesus had been directing His remarks at them (see vs. 9–13; see on v. 9). It seems that the present narrative sequence, beginning with ch. 15:1, is the record of Jesus’ teachings upon a single occasion (see on chs. 15:1; 16:1, 14). If so, the Pharisees had been present from the beginning (see ch. 15:2), and the parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son had all been addressed to them by Jesus to justify His interest in “publicans and sinners” (see ch. 15:1–3).

15. Justify yourselves. Compare “a certain lawyer” who sought “to justify himself” with the question, “Who is my neighbour?” (ch. 10:25–29). The Pharisees had met with success in persuading men of the validity of their theory that wealth is a reward for righteousness. They had ably defended their case, and at least those who had a measure of this world’s goods found satisfaction in such a theory.

God knoweth your hearts. See 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9. The trouble with the Pharisees was that they were hypocrites (see on Matt. 6:2; 7:5); their “righteousness” were nothing more than whitewash (see Isa. 64:6; Matt. 23:13–33).

Abomination. Gr. bdelugma, “a putrid thing,” “a detestable thing.” Compare the use of bdelugma in Rev. 17:4, 5; 21:27.

16. The law and the prophets. That is, the canonical writings of the OT (see Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 24:27, 44; Acts 13:15; 28:23; see on Luke 24:44).

Until John. That is, John the Baptist. “Until” the preaching of the “kingdom of God” by John, the sacred writings of the OT constituted man’s primary guide to salvation (see Rom. 3:1, 2). The word “until” (Gr. mechri) in no way implies—as some superficial exponents of Scripture would have us believe—that “the law and the prophets,” the OT Scriptures, in any way lost their value or force when John began to preach. What Jesus here means is that until the ministry of John “the law and the prophets” were all that men had. The gospel came, not to replace or annul what Moses and the prophets had written, but rather to supplement, to reinforce, to confirm those writings (see on Matt. 5:17–19). The gospel does not stand in place of the OT, but in addition to it. This is clearly the sense in which mechri (also translated “to”) is used in such passages of Scripture as Matt. 28:15 and Rom. 5:14.

Throughout the NT there is no instance in which the OT is in any way belittled. On the contrary, it was in the OT Scriptures that NT believers found the strongest confirmation of their faith; in fact, the OT was the only Bible that the first-generation NT church possessed (see on John 5:39). They did not despise it, as do some today who call themselves Christians, but honored and cherished it. In fact, upon this very occasion Jesus set forth the writings of the OT as sufficient to guide men to heaven (see Luke 16:29–31). Those who teach that the OT Scriptures are without value or authority for the Christian, teach contrary to what Christ taught. Paul affirmed that his teachings included “none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts 26:22). In his teaching Paul referred constantly to “the law of Moses” and to “the prophets” (see Acts 28:23).

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus made it clear that His teachings in no way set aside those of the OT. He emphatically declared that He did not come to take from the OT Scriptures the least “jot” or “title” (see on Matt. 5:18). When He declared, “but I say unto you” (see on v. 22), the contrast He drew between the teachings of the OT and His teachings was not intended to diminish the value or importance of the former, but rather to free them from the narrow concepts of the Jews of His day and to amplify and strengthen them.

Since that time. Since the proclamation of the kingdom of God by John the Baptist, additional light had been shining upon the pathway of salvation, and the Pharisees had no excuse whatever for being “covetous” (see v. 14). There had been sufficient light for them in the OT (see vs. 29–31), but they had rejected that light (see John 5:45–47); now they took the same attitude toward the increased light shining forth through the life and teachings of Jesus (see John 1:4; 14:6).

Every man. Probably Jesus is here referring to the vast throngs that followed Him wherever He went in Peraea (see on chs. 12:1; 14:25; 15:1). There was tremendous, though sometimes misguided, interest in Him personally and in His miracles and teachings.

Presseth. Gr. biazoµ, “to use force,” or “to apply force.” See on Matt. 11:12, 13 for a discussion of the meaning of Luke 16:16.

17. It is easier. For comment on v. 17 see on Matt. 5:18.

Tittle. Gr. keraia, “a little horn,” “an apex,” or “a point,” from keras, “a horn.” See on Matt. 5:18. As an illustration of the meaning of keraia, the part of the English letter “G” that distinguishes it from the letter “C” might be referred to as a “tittle.”

The law. By “the law” Jewish usage meant all the revealed will of God, particularly the writings of Moses (see on Deut. 31:9; Prov. 3:1). When used alone in the NT, as here, it may be considered as a general term for the entire OT. In his version Marcion, a schismatic Christian teacher of about a.d. 150, changed the wording from “the law” to “my word” in order to evade the obvious reference to the OT Scriptures and Jesus’ approval of them. Marcion thought himself an ardent follower of Paul, but had no use whatever for anything Jewish, such as the OT. He was one of the first Christians to take the position that the OT was without value or meaning to the Christian believer.

Fail. Gr. piptoµ, “to fall.”

18. Putteth away his wife. See on Matt. 5:27–32; cf. Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11. Adultery is still adultery even when men legalize it. Modern critics of the gospel record claim that in Luke 16:14–18 Luke has brought together a group unrelated sayings spoken by Jesus upon various occasions. But they fail to see the underlying thread of thought that makes of the entire chapter, in fact, a systematic and unified discourse. According to v. 15, the Pharisees and their teachings were held in abomination before God. This situation was not, however, because they had not had sufficient light; they had had “the law and the prophets” all the time (v. 16), and, more recently, the gospel. In v. 17 Jesus affirms the fundamental unity of His teachings with those of the OT, and in v. 18 He gives an illustration of the fact. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had already used these same examples as evidence that His teachings did not cancel out those of the OT (see on Matt. 5:17–19, 27–32).

19. A certain rich man. [The Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19–31. On parables see pp. 203-207.] For what little is known concerning the circumstances under which this parable was spoken see on vs. 1, 14. The parable was evidently addressed to the Pharisees in particular (see chs. 15:2; 16:14), though the disciples (ch. 16:1), the “publicans and sinners” (ch. 15:1), and without doubt a large audience also (see on chs. 12:1; 14:25; 15:1), were present.

In this parable Jesus continues the lesson set forth in the parable of the Dishonest Steward (ch. 16:1–12), that the use made of the opportunities of the present life determines future destiny (see on vs. 1, 4, 9, 11, 12). That parable had been addressed particularly to the disciples (see on v. 1), but in v. 9 Jesus had turned from the disciples to the Pharisees present (see on v. 9). The Pharisees refused to accept Jesus’ teachings on stewardship and sneered at Him (see v. 14). Jesus then pointed out that they might be honored by men, but that God read their hearts like an open book (see on v. 15). They had had sufficient light; they had long enjoyed the instruction of “the law and the prophets,” and since the ministry of John the added light of the gospel had been theirs (see on v. 16). In vs. 17, 18 Jesus affirms that the principles set forth in “the law” are immutable—God has not changed—and gives an example of this sublime truth. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is then given to show that destiny is decided in this present life by the use made of its privileges and opportunities (see COL 260). In the first place, the “certain rich man” represents all men who make a wrong use of life’s opportunities, and, in a collective sense, it represents also the Jewish nation, which, like the rich man, was making a fatal mistake (see COL 267). The parable consists of two scenes, one representing this life (vs. 19–22), and another the next (vs. 23–31). The parable of the Dishonest Steward approached the problem from the positive point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who did make preparations for the future. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus approaches the same problem from the negative point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who failed to make such preparation. The rich man erred in thinking that salvation is based on Abrahamic descent rather than upon character (cf. Eze. 18).

Like all other parables, that of the Rich Man and Lazarus must be interpreted in harmony with its context and with the general tenor of Scripture. One of the most important principles of interpretation is that each parable was designed to teach one fundamental truth, and that the details of the parable need not necessarily have significance in themselves, except as “props” for the story. In other words, the details of a parable must not be pressed as having a literal meaning in terms of spiritual truth unless the context makes clear that such a meaning is intended. Out of this principle grows another—that it is not wise to use the details of a parable to teach doctrine. Only the fundamental teaching of a parable as clearly set forth in its context and confirmed by the general tenor of Scripture, together with details explained in the context itself, may legitimately be considered a basis for doctrine. See pp. 203, 204. The contention that Jesus intended this parable to teach that men, whether good or bad, receive their rewards at death violates both of these principles.

As clearly set forth in the context (see above), this parable was designed to teach that future destiny is determined by the use men make of the opportunities of this present life. Jesus was not discussing either the state of man in death or the time when rewards will be passed out; He was simply drawing a clear distinction between this life and the next and showing the relationship of each to the other. Furthermore, to interpret this parable as teaching that men receive their rewards immediately at death clearly contradicts Jesus’ own declaration that “the Son of man shall … reward every man according to his works” when He “shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels” (see on Matt. 16:27; 25:31–41; cf. 1 Cor. 15:51–55; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Rev. 22:12; etc.). It is one of the most important rules of interpretation that figurative expressions and narratives are to be understood in terms of the literal statements of Scripture concerning the truths referred to. Even those who attempt to force this parable into a pattern of interpretation that teaches contrary to the immediate context and to the general tenor of Christ’s teachings concede that many of the details of the parable are figurative (see on vs. 22–26).

It may then properly be asked, “Why would Jesus introduce into a parable figurative illustrations that do not accurately represent truth as clearly set forth elsewhere in the Scriptures, and particularly in His own literal statements?” The answer is that He was meeting people on their own ground. Many in the audience—without the least OT Scriptural reason for doing so—had come to believe in the doctrine of a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection (see COL 263). This erroneous belief, which does not appear in the OT, pervades post-exilic Jewish literature in general (see pp. 83-102), and like many other traditional beliefs, had become a part of Judaism by the time of Jesus (see on Mark 7:7–13). In this parable Jesus simply made use of a popular belief in order thereby to make forcibly clear an important lesson He sought to plant in the minds of His hearers. It may also be noted that in the preceding parable, that of the Dishonest Steward (Luke 16:1–12), Jesus neither commended nor approved of the dishonest steward’s course of action, although that action constitutes the main part of the story (see on v. 8).

Even the modernist International Critical Commentary comments as follows on v. 22: “The general principle is maintained that bliss and misery after death are determined by conduct previous to death; but the details of the picture are taken from Jewish beliefs as to the condition of souls in Sheol [see on Prov. 15:11], and must not be understood as confirming those beliefs.”

Sometimes attention is called to the fact that Jesus does not state that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, at least apparently in so far as Luke’s account goes (although one ancient manuscript [D] does call it a parable), whereas, elsewhere parables are usually so labeled (Matt. 13:3, 24, 33, 44, 45, 47). But it should be pointed out that although Jesus usually introduced a parable either by stating that it was a parable or by saying that the kingdom of heaven was like a person or a thing in the specific circumstances He then proceeded to relate, He did not always do so (see Luke 15:8, 11; 16:1 for examples). The same is true of various OT parables such as those of Judges 9:8–15 and 2 Kings 14:9, yet no one professes to believe that because these parables are not clearly labeled as such they are to be taken literally. The fallacy of such an argument is rendered obvious by a mere reading of the few references cited.

In this “rich man” Jesus undoubtedly intended the Pharisees to see themselves, and in the unhappy experience of the “rich man” to picture their own hapless fate (see on v. 14). Compare this “rich man” with the one of the preceding parable (v. 1). The translation of the Gr. plousios, “rich,” by the Latin dives in the Vulgate, has given rise to the popular tradition that the man’s name was Dives. A variety of names appear in various other versions, probably as a result of the feeling that if the poor man of the parable was named, the rich man should be also.

Purple. Gr. porphura, “a purple fabric,” or “a garment made from purple cloth”; here it probably refers to the costly outer garment, the “cloak,” or “mantle” (Gr. himation; see on Matt. 5:40), dyed a royal purple color. Purple was the color of royal dignity. Originally, porphura referred to a species of shellfish common in the Mediterranean, the murex, from which a purple dye was extracted. Then the term, or its equivalent, came to be applied to cloth so dyed or a garment made from that cloth (see Mark 15:17, 20; Acts 16:14; Rev. 17:4; etc.). This dye came in three shades, which might be described as purple, crimson, and blue.

Fine linen. Gr. bussos, “flax,” or “linen,” the cloth made from it; here it probably refers to the under garment, the “coat,” or “tunic” (Gr. chitoµn; see on Matt. 5:40), made of Egyptian flax. At first bussos referred to the flax itself, and then came to be applied to linen cloth made from the flax. As “purple” was the color of royal dignity, so “fine linen” was the fabric of luxury (see Rev. 18:12; 19:8, 14).

20. Beggar. Gr. ptoµchos, from the word ptassoµ, “to crouch,” “to cower,” “to go cowering or stooping like a beggar.” Sometimes ptoµchos means simply “poor,” or used as a noun, “poor man” (see on Matt. 5:3).

Lazarus. Gr. Lazaros, a name derived from the common Hebrew name ХElФazar (see on Ex. 6:23), which means “God has helped.” It is to be observed that the name is most appropriate to the spiritual condition of the man in the parable who bears it. This is the only recorded instance where Jesus gave one of the characters in a parable a name, a procedure made necessary in this case because of the dialogue of the parable (see Luke 16:23–31). Although but a few weeks later Jesus actually did raise Lazarus of Bethany from the dead (see John 11:1–46), there is no connection between the man of the parable and the one who became the object of Jesus’ greatest miracle.

Laid at his gate. The rich man had a continuing opportunity to relieve the needs of Lazarus, but did not do so. To be sure, he did not mistreat the sufferer, who, he no doubt concluded, must be suffering under the judgment of God. His attitude was similar to that expressed by Cain when he said, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9). His relations with Lazarus did not involve the commission of wrong deeds, but rather the omission of deeds of mercy. He took a negative attitude toward his responsibilities in life, rather than a positive one. He knew nothing of the true meaning of the “second” great commandment of the law, which requires love toward one’s fellow men (see on Matt. 5:43; 22:39; 25:35–44). Like the Jewish nation, this rich man was doing no positive good, and was for that reason guilty of doing positive harm. All the advantages Heaven had accorded him were being appropriated to his own pleasure and gratification (see COL 291).

Full of sores. Or, “ulcerated.” The fact that Lazarus was “laid” at the gate indicates that he was an invalid, unable to move about by himself.

21. Desiring to be fed. This was the reason for his being at the gate. He was in dire need, and the rich man was able to supply that need. There is nothing in the story to suggest that Lazarus murmured or complained against God because of his poverty and suffering. Apparently, like Job, he bore it all with patience and fortitude.

Crumbs which fell. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the reading “the falling [things]”; that is, the table scraps (see on Mark 7:28). Apparently the rich man never turned a hand to provide Lazarus with food.

Licked his sores. It is not entirely clear whether this alleviated his misery or added to it, though the latter seems the more probable. If so, this was the climax of misery for the poor sufferer. Apparently he was unable to prevent these half-wild scavengers (see on Matt. 7:6; 15:26) from licking his ulcers.

22. Carried by the angels. Compare Matt. 24:31. For principles to guide in the interpretation of Luke 16:25–31, see on v. 19. It should be remembered that the purpose of the parable is to compare the opportunities of this life, and the use made of them, with the rewards of the life to come. Destiny is fixed at death, and men must use well this present life if they would enjoy the privileges of the next.

Abraham’s bosom. A typically Jewish idiom, meaning “paradise.” The Talmud (Kiddushim 72a; in Soncino ed., p. 369) mentions “Abraham’s lap” as a place of the blessed dead. On another occasion Jesus spoke of paradise as a place where “many” would “come from the east and west” and “sit down with Abraham” at the feast of “the kingdom of heaven” (see on Matt. 8:11; Luke 14:15).

On Jesus being “in the bosom of the Father” see on John 1:18. On “leaning on the bosom” of someone while reclining at a feast see on John 13:23. Abraham was the father of the Jews (see John 8:39, 56), and they had practically come to look to him for salvation in place of God (see on Luke 16:24). They conceived of Abraham as welcoming his children to paradise, as, in much the same way, Peter is sometimes now represented as greeting Christians at the gate of heaven.

Was buried. Those who hold that this narrative is literal, and not a parable, should note that if the rich man is literally and bodily in torment, then Lazarus was borne to heaven literally and bodily. However, the bodies of both Lazarus and the rich man returned to the dust, whence they had come (see Gen. 2:7; 3:19; Eccl. 12:7).

23. Hell. Gr. hadeµs. “grave,” or “death” (see on Matt. 11:23). Hadeµs is the abode of all men, good and bad, until the resurrection. Literally, Lazarus would be there also.

His eyes. The body of the rich man, now in hades, is lifeless. He cannot see (see on v. 24).

Torments. Gr. basanoi, related to the verb basanizoµ, which is used of persons suffering intensely from disease (Matt. 8:6), of the tossing of the waves of the sea (Matt. 14:24), and of the disciples “toiling” at the oars (Mark 6:48). It is also used of emotional stress (2 Peter 2:8), and of the “torment” evil spirits feared when brought face to face with Jesus (Matt 8:29; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28). Basanos (singular of basanoi) thus seems to indicate acute distress or agitation.

The idea that at death men go to a place where they suffer “torments” is utterly foreign to the Scriptures, which teach plainly that “the dead know not any thing” (Eccl. 9:5; see on Ps. 146:4). Jesus Himself compared death to a sleep (see John 11:11, 14). To conclude from this parable that Jesus was teaching that at death the wicked are taken to a place where they undergo “torments” is to make Him here contradict His plain teachings on that subject upon other occasions, as well as the teachings of the Bible as a whole. It is in the “hell” of geenna that sinners are to experience fiery torments (see on Matt. 5:22), not in hadeµs. When Jesus therefore presented the rich man as a “tormented in this flame” (Luke 16:24), in hadeµs, He is clearly speaking figuratively, and it is unwarranted to interpret His words literally. See on v. 19 for principles of interpretation involved in the explanation of parables.

Seeth Abraham. Can it be that heaven and hell are within speaking distance, and that those in heaven witness the suffering of friends and loved ones in hell without being able to alleviate their torment, while those in hell can observe the bliss of the righteous in heaven? Yet this is precisely what this parable teaches if it is to be taken literally (see on v. 19). But those who believe it is literal will hasten to add that “Abraham’s bosom” is only a figure of speech, that the saints are not literally all resting in his “bosom.” And they will also declare that the proximity of heaven and hell, here pictured, is also purely figurative. But the moment they admit that these and other obviously figurative portions of the parable are not to be taken literally, they concede the figurative character of the entire parable. If they are unwilling to admit that the entire parable is figurative, they are forced to concede that their decision as to whether one part is or is not to be taken figuratively is simply a matter of their own arbitrary choice, and not based on any clearly defined and consistent principle of interpretation.

Lazarus in his bosom. See on v. 22. Textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the reading “Lazarus resting in his bosom.”

24. Father Abraham. Apparently, according to the parable, Abraham is presented as presiding over hadeµs (see on v. 23). The rich man addresses Abraham as if he were God. The sufferer is a descendant of the patriarch, and appeals to him as a son to a father.

Send Lazarus. The rich man evidently assumes that Lazarus should be placed at his beck and call in hadeµs, which, in a sense, would be a continuation of their relative positions on earth.

Dip. Gr. baptoµ (see on Matt. 3:6).

Tip of his finger. Those who seek to find in this parable a support for the false doctrine of immortal, disembodied souls, find here embarrassment instead. As if disembodied spirits have “fingers”! Lazarus’ body was in the grave, and therefore his fingers were also in the grave. It is incredible that one disembodied spirit should take a finger, which it is not supposed to have, dip it in water, and then touch the nonexistent tongue of another disembodied spirit. Obviously, Jesus is relating an imaginative story designed to make clear a certain particular truth concerning the relationship between this life and the next (see on v. 19), and does not intend His words to be taken literally. To the rich man, now figuratively suffering in hades, the least alleviation of his “torments” would be graciously accepted. The rich man now longs for a drop of clear, cool water as Lazarus formerly desired the scraps from his table (see on v. 21). If the rich man had “eyes” (v. 23) and a “tongue” (v. 24), and Lazarus had a “finger” (v. 24), it would necessitate the teaching that immediately at death good and bad men go to their rewards as real beings with bodily parts! However, that they do not immediately go to their rewards at death is obvious from the parable itself—their bodies were in the grave, where there is no such thing as fire (see on v. 22).

Tormented in this flame. For evidence that it is not at death, but rather when Jesus returns visibly to this earth (after the millennium) that the wicked suffer the fires of hell, see on v. 19. Concerning “everlasting fire” see on Matt. 5:22.

25. Son. Gr. teknon (see on ch. 15:31).

Receivedst. He had received all the good things that anyone could wish in his lifetime, and had made no preparations for the future life. He had applied the principle of Matt. 6:33 in reverse—he had sought “all these things” first and hoped that God would find some way of adding heaven later on. Compare the experience of the Rich Fool (see on Luke 12:16–21) and Jesus’ instruction about laying up riches in heaven (see on Matt. 6:19–21). The rich man had all the reward he was going to get (see on Matt. 6:2). His account in heaven showed him to be a moral bankrupt. It should be pointed out that he was not punished for possessing wealth (see on v. 19), but for misusing it. He squandered it on himself rather than putting it to use in the service of God and his fellow man (cf. Matt. 19:21, 22; 25:25–30). It is no sin to be rich, for Abraham was very rich (see Gen. 13:2). The rich man of the parable simply chose to forget that he was accountable for the way in which he used his riches.

Lazarus evil things. In the same way that the rich man was not punished because he was rich, Lazarus was not rewarded in heaven simply because he had been poor while on earth. It is moral character, not material possessions, that determines destiny.

26. Besides all this. Abraham’s answer to the rich man’s plea consists of two parts. In the first (v. 25) Abraham virtually declares that it would not be right to grant the request, and in the second (v. 26) he points out that the arrangements of the future life make it impossible to do so.

Gulf. Gr. chasma, “a chasm,” or “a gaping opening,” from chainoµ, “to yawn.” The “gulf” represents the difference in moral character between the rich man and Lazarus (see COL 269). That it is “fixed” emphasizes the fact that after death character cannot be changed. It is too late to change it (see Isa. 26:10). This chasm that barred the rich man from the bliss of “Abraham’s bosom” had been formed in the present life, by his own neglect to make proper use of opportunities then afforded for forming the right kind of character (see COL 271).

27. I pray thee therefore. The rich man here implies that he had not had a fair warning of the fate that awaited him at death.

Send him. He himself is unable to communicate with living relatives, and “Abraham” will not permit Lazarus to do so.

29. Moses and the prophets. That is, the Scriptures of the OT. This was a common designation for the canonical writings of the OT in the days of Jesus (see on v. 16). Again and again Jesus pointed to the OT as being of the highest value in matters of faith and doctrine, and, as here, recommended it to His hearers as a safe and sure guide to salvation (see Matt. 5:17–19; Luke 24:25, 27, 44; John 5:39, 45–47).

Let them hear them. According to Jesus’ admonition here given—though ostensibly it was uttered by Abraham to the rich man—the OT Scriptures constituted for the people of His day a sufficient guide to salvation and an authoritative source of information for people in this life concerning the future life. The rich man had ample warning of the fate that awaited men who chose to live as he had lived. Additional light would have been rejected had it been given (see on v. 31).

30. Nay, father Abraham. The rich man protests against the decision of Abraham, implying that he knows better than Abraham does. Apparently he had not found the OT convincing evidence, and doubts that his five brothers will. Those who today lightly cast aside the solemn messages of the OT would do well to ponder the fate of the rich man of this parable who, though he had access to “Moses and the prophets,” had not been profited thereby.

If one went unto them. That is, if any one would come to them from the dead. As noted under v. 19, the rich man represents not only individuals who fail to take advantage of the opportunities this life provides for the formation of character and for doing good to their fellow men, but also the Jewish nation, which, as a corporate entity, was pursuing the same course (see Vol. IV, pp. 30-33).

In demanding additional evidence the rich man reflects the repeated demands of the scribes and Pharisees for “a sign.” But the life, teachings, and works of Jesus constituted convincing evidence of His divinity for all whose motives were sincere (cf. on Matt. 15:21; 16:1). However, the kind of evidence Jesus offered them was not the kind they wanted.

31. If they hear not. See on v. 30. Those who are not impressed by the plain statement of eternal truth to be found in Scripture would not be more favorably impressed by the greatest of miracles. A few weeks after narrating this parable Jesus raised from the dead a man named Lazarus, as if in response to the challenge of the Jewish leaders for greater evidence than they had heretofore. But that very miracle led the leaders of the nation to intensify their plot against Jesus’ life (see on John 11:47–54). Not only so; they felt it necessary to do away with Lazarus in order to safeguard their own untenable position (see John 12:9, 10; DA 588). The Jews thus gave a literal demonstration of the truth of Jesus’ statement here, that those who reject the OT would reject “greater” light, even the testimony of one who “rose from the dead.”

Persuaded. That is, to repent (see v. 30).

Though one rose. A few weeks after this our Lord raised Lazarus from the dead (see on John 11:1), as if to provide His carping critics with a fulfillment of the request expressed by the rich man of the parable. But, as Jesus has “father Abraham” warn the rich man, most of the Jews still refused to believe. In fact, it was that very miracle that prompted them more definitely than in the past to plot His death (John 11:47–54).

Ellen G. White comments

1 COL 366; 3T 401

1, 2 1T 226

1–9COL 366–375

2 AH 368; COL 374; CS 178; GW 267; Te 48; TM 399; 2T 280, 501, 510, 518, 570, 571, 648, 684, 689; 3T 119, 386, 390, 544; 4T 468, 481, 612, 619; 5T 156, 465; 7T 176, 282, 295; 9T 246

2–9COL 367; CS 100

5 MYP 306; 6T 480; 9T 245

8 COL 370; CS 149; 4T 68, 389

9 COL 373, 375; Ed 145; 1T 539, 542; 2T 664; 3T 117

9–111T 198

9–121T 538

10 AH 297, 387; CG 123, 154; CH 409; COL 266, 356; Ed 58, 59, 61, 114; ML 172; MM 177, 205; MYP 143, 148, 228, 230; PK 218, 222, 228, 487; PP 223, 574; TM 287; 2T 48, 78, 84, 309, 312, 700; 3T 22, 224, 556; 4T 186, 309, 311, 337, 487, 561, 572, 591; 5T 414; 6T 172; WM 153

10, 11 FE 152

11 2T 250; 3T 405; 4T 311; WM 17

11, 12 TM 286

11–13IT 199

14, 15 1T 539

17 DA 308

19–21COL 260

19–31COL 260–271; 1T 539; WM 172

20, 21 2T 197

22–26COL 263

26 Ev 620

27–31COL 264

29, 31 PP 367

31 DA 407, 799