You are on page 1of 121

The Outcome of Life for the Rich Man and Lazarus

(16:1931)
Bibliography
Alexandre, M. LInterprtation de Luc 16,1931 chez Grgoire de Nysse. In Epektasis:
Mlanges patristiques. FS J. Daniliou, ed. J. Fontaine and C. Kannengiesser. Paris: Beauchesne,
1972. 42541. Barth, K. Miserable Lazarus (Text: Luke 16:1931). USR 46 (193435) 25968.
Batiffol, P. Trois Notes exgetiques: Sur Luc 16, 19. RB 9 (1912) 541. Bauckham, R. The Rich
Man and Lazarus: the Parable and the Parallels. NTS 37 (1991) 22546. Bishop, E. F. A
Yawning Chasm. EvQ 45 (1973) 35. Bornhuser, K. Zum Verstndnis der Geschichte vom
reichen Mann und armen Lazarus: Luke 16, 1931. NKZ 39 (1928) 83343. . Studien zum
Sondergut des Lukas. Gtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1934. 13860. Boyd, W. P. Apocalyptic and Life
after Death. SE 5 [= TU 103] (1968) 3956, esp. 5051. Bruyne, D. de. Chasma, Lc. 16, 26. RB
30 (1921) 400405. Cadbury, H. J. A Proper Name for Dives: Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts VI.
JBL 81 (1962) 399402. . The Name of Dives. JBL 84 (1965) 73. Cadron, F. H. Son in
the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. ExpTim 13 (190102) 523. Cantinat, J. Le mauvais
riche et Lazare. BVC 48 (1962) 1926. Cave, C. H. Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy. NTS
15 (196869) 31925. Clle, R. Zur Exegese und zur homiletischen Verwertung des Gleichnisses
vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus: Luk. 16, 1931. TSK 75 (1902) 65265. Degenhardt, H.-
J. Lukas, Evangelist der Armen. 13335. Derrett, J. D. M. Fresh Light on St Luke xvi: II. Dives
and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings. NTS 7 (196061) 36480; reprinted in Law. 7899.
Dunkerley, R. Lazarus. NTS 5 (195859) 32127. Dupont, J. Batitudes. 3:6064, 11112, 162

FS Festschrift, volume written in honor of

ed. edited, edition(s), editor

USR Union Seminary Review(Richmond, VA)

RB Revue biblique

NTS New Testament Studies

EvQ The Evangelical Quarterly

NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift

SE Studia Evangelica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ( = TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], 102 [1968], 103 [1968],


112 [1973]

TU TU Texte und Untersuchungen

esp. especially

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

ExpTim The Expository Times

BVC Bible et vie chrtienne

TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken


82. . LAprs-mort dans loeuvre de Luc. RTL 3 (1972) 321. Eichholz, G. Gleichnisse
der Evangelien. 22128. Eliade, M. Locum refrigerii. Zalmoxis 1 (1938) 2038. Evans, C. F.
Uncomfortable WordsV. Neither Will They Be Convinced. ExpTim 81 (196970) 228
31. Feuillet, A. La parabole du mauvais riche et du pauvre Lazare (Lc 16, 1931) antithse de la
parabole de lintendant astucieux (Lc 16, 19). NRT 101 (1979) 21223. George, A. La parabole
du riche et de Lazare: Lc 16,1931. AsSeign ns 57 (1971) 8093. Glombitza, O. Der reiche
Mann und der arme Lazarus: Luk. xvi 1931, Zur Frage nach der Botschaft des Textes. NovT 12
(1970) 16680. Grensted, L. W. The Use of Enoch in St. Luke XVI, 1931. ExpTim 26 (1914
15) 33334. Gressmann, H. Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus: Eine literargeschichtliche
Studie. Abhandlungen der kniglichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-
historische Klasse 7. Berlin: Knliglische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1918. Grobel, K.
Whose Name Was Neves. NTS 10 (196364) 37382. Hafer, R. A. Dives and Poor Lazarus in
the Light of Today. LQ 53 (1923) 47681. Hanson, R. P. C. A Note on Luke XVI, 1431.
ExpTim 55 (194344) 22122. Haupt, P. Abrahams Bosom. AJP 42 (1921) 16267. Heininger,
B. Sondergutgleichnisse. 17791. Hintzen, J. Verkndigung und Wahrnehmung: ber das
Verhltnis von Evangelium und der Leser am Beispiel Lk 16, 1931 im Rahmen des lukanischen
Doppelwerkes. Athenums Monografien, Theologie: BBB 81. Frankfurt: Hain, 1991. Hock, R. F.
Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:1931. JBL 106 (1987) 44763.
Horn, F. W. Glaube und Handeln. 8185, 14449, 181. Huie, W. P. The Poverty of Abundance:
From Text to Sermon on Luke 16:1931. Int 22 (1968) 40320. Jensen, H. J. L. Diesseits und
Jenseits des Raumes eines Textes: Textsemiotische Bemerkungen zur Erzhlung Vom reichen
Mann und armen Lazarus (Lk 16,1931). LingBib (1980) 3960. Joon, P. Notes philologiques
sur les Evangiles: Luc 16, 30. RSR 18 (1928) 354. Jlicher, A. Gleichnisreden. 2:61741. Khler,
K. Zu Luk. 16, 1012. TSK 94 (1922) 17378. Kreitzer, L. Luke 16:1931 and 1 Enoch 22.
ExpTim 103 (1992) 13942. Kremer, J. Der arme Lazarus. Lazarus, der Freund Jesu:
Beobachtung zur Beziehung zwischen Lk 16,1931 und Joh 11,146. In cause de lvangile. FS
J. Dupont, ed. F. Refoul. 57184. Knstlinger, D. Im Schosse Abrahams. OLZ 36 (1933) 408.
Kvalbein, H. Jesus and the Poor: Two Texts and a Tentative Conclusion (16,1931). Themelios
12 (198687) 8087. Lefort, L. T. Le nom du mauvais riche (Luc 16. 19) et la tradition copte.

RTL Revue thologique de Louvain

NRT La nouvelle revue thologique

AsSeign Assembles du Seigneur

ns new series

NovT Novum Testamentum

LQ Lutheran Quarterly

AJP American Journal of Philology

BBB Bonner biblische Beitrge

Int Interpretation

LingBib Linguistica Biblica

RSR Recherches de science religieuse

OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung


ZNW 37 (1938) 6572. Lorenzen, T. A Biblical Meditation on Luke 16:1931: From the Text
toward a Sermon. ExpTim 87 (197475) 3943. Marchadour, A. Lazar: Histoire dun rcit.
Rcits dune histoire. Lectio Divina 132. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Mieses, M. Im Schosse Abrahams.
OLZ 34 (1931) 101821. North, B. The Rich Man and Lazarus: A Practical Exposition of Luke xvi,
1931. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960. Omanson, R. Lazarus and Simon. BT 40 (1989)
41619. Osei-Bonsu, J. The Intermediate State in Luke-Acts. IBS 9 (1987) 11530. Pax, E. Der
reiche und der arme Lazarus: Eine Milieustudie. SBFLA 25 (1975) 25468. Pearce, K. The
Lucan Origins of the Raising of Lazarus. ExpTim 96 (198485) 35961. Powell, W. The Parable
of Dives and Lazarus (Luke XVI, 1931). ExpTim 66 (195455) 35051. Reni, J. Le mauvais
riche (Lc., xvi, 1931). AnnThol 6 (1945) 26875. Rimmer, N. Parable of Dives and Lazarus
(Luke xvi. 1931). ExpTim 66 (195455) 21516. Schnider, F., and Stenger, W. Die offene Tr
und die unberschreitbare Kluft: Strukturanalytische berlegungen zum Gleichnis vom reichen
Mann und armen Lazarus (Lk 16, 1931). NTS 25 (197879) 27383. Scholz, G. Aesthetische
Beobachtungen am Gleichnis vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus und von drei anderen
Gleichnissen (Lk 16,1925[2631]; 10,34; 13,9; 15,1132). LingBib 43 (1978) 6774.
Schurhammer, G. Eine Parabel Christi in Gtzentempel. KM 49 (192021) 13438. Seccombe,
D. P. Possessions. 17381. Standen, A. O. The Parable of Dives and Lazarus and Enoch 22.
ExpTim 33 (192122) 523. Tanghe, V. Abraham, son fils et son envoy (Luc 16,1931). RB 91
(1984) 55777. Trudinger, P. A Lazarus Motif in Primitive Christian Preaching. ANQ 7 (1966)
2932. Vogels, W. Having or Longing: A Semiotic Analysis of Luke 16:1931. EglT 20 (1989)
2746. Wehrli, E. S. Luke 16:1931. Int 31 (1977) 27680.
Translation
19
A certain man was rich,a and he was dressed in purple and fine linen and he made
merry every day in a splendid manner. 20A certain poor man, whose name was Lazarus,
was positioned at his gate, in an ulcerated condition, 21longing to have his fill from [the

ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

BT The Bible Translator

IBS Irish Biblical Studies

SBFLA Studii biblici franciscani liber annuus

AnnThol LAnne thologique

KM Katholischen Missionen

ANQ Andover Newton Quarterly

EglT glise et thologie


a
a. Dives comes from treating the Latin adjective dives, rich, as a name. P75 adds
, by name, Neues, which is partly supported by the Sahidic, which gives the name
Ninevah. Yet other names emerge later in the tradition, undoubtedly under the pressure of the
missing parallel to v 20. See Fitzmyer (1130) for a detailed summary.
things]b which fell from the table of the rich man.c But instead, the dogs used to come and
lickd his ulcers. 22It happened that the poor man died and was carried away by the angels
to the bosom of Abraham; the rich man also died and he was buried. 23Being in torment in
Hades,e he raised his eyes and sawf from afar Abraham and Lazarus in his bosom. 24He
called out, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his
finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in pain in this flame. 25Abraham said, Child,
remember that you received your good things in your life, and Lazarus correspondingly
[received] the bad; now he is consoled here, and you are in pain. 26Besides all this,
between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those wishing to go across from
here to you are not able [to do so], and people may not cross from thereg to us. 27He said,
I ask you then, father, to send him to my fathers house, 28for I have five brothers, that he
might warn them, so that they might not come, as well, to this place of torment. 29Abraham
said,h They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. 30He said, No, father
Abraham, but if someone goesi to them from the dead they will repent. 31He said to him, If
they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone
risesj from the dead.
Notes
a. Dives comes from treating the Latin adjective dives, rich, as a name. P75 adds
, by name, Neues, which is partly supported by the Sahidic, which gives
the name Ninevah. Yet other names emerge later in the tradition, undoubtedly under the
pressure of the missing parallel to v 20. See Fitzmyer (1130) for a detailed summary.

b
b. As in Matt 15:27, is added by A (D) W etc.

c
c. The failure of the mans wishes is made explicit in f 13 and a few other texts, with language
borrowed from 15:16: , and no one gave him [anything].
d
d. The verb here, , with its - prefix is quite rare and has been corrected to more
common cognate forms with the prefix - (W f13 etc.), - (157 etc.), or without prefix (D f1
205 etc.).

e
e. In Hades is absent from lat Marcion.

f
f. Present tense in Gr. (historic present).

g
g. The addition of here in 2 A L W f1,13 etc. produces the sense those who are there.

h
h. Present tense in Gr. (historic present).

i
i. P75 has , is raised; and some other texts have , is raised/rises.

j
j. P75 has , is raised, here as well.
b. As in Matt 15:27, is added by A (D) W etc.
c. The failure of the mans wishes is made explicit in f 13 and a few other texts, with
language borrowed from 15:16: , and no one gave him [anything].
d. The verb here, , with its - prefix is quite rare and has been corrected to
more common cognate forms with the prefix - (W f13 etc.), - (157 etc.), or without
prefix (D f1 205 etc.).
e. In Hades is absent from lat Marcion.
f. Present tense in Gr. (historic present).
g. The addition of here in 2 A L W f1,13 etc. produces the sense those who are
there.
h. Present tense in Gr. (historic present).
i. P75 has , is raised; and some other texts have , is raised/rises.
j. P75 has , is raised, here as well.
Form/Structure/Setting
Luke concludes his section 16:131 (The Use and Abuse of Riches) with the present
parable, which has linguistic and/or thematic links to each of the earlier units of the section.
There are also links with 15:1132, with which it has a certain parallelism in the larger
Lukan structuring. This provides for a reading of the adjacent sections 15:132 and 16:131
in close relationship to one another (see further at 16:18).
The parable here is likely to be from Lukes parables source, in which it stood in
parallel with 12:13[16]21 (see discussion in excursus: Journey to Jerusalem). There is
quite a bit of Lukan language in the present form of the parable (see Comment below).
More fundamentally there has been a considerable questioning of the ultimate unity of the
parable. Those who dispute the unity see in vv 1925(26) a focus on the reversal of
fortunes after death of the poor and the rich, and tend to see this as a simple reversal. Then
in vv (26)2731 they see a focus on the pessimistic judgment that even a messenger from
the dead will not produce repentance among the rich, and suggest that instead of simple
reversal we now have a guilty pattern of life requiring repentance. We will see, however, in

Codex Sinaiticus
A Codex Alexandrinus

D Codex Bezae or Deuteronom(ist)ic

Theodotion

f feminine

lat Latin

Gr. Greek

L Leningrad Codes of MT (as published in BHS) or Codex Leningradensis, B19a


Comment below that already in vv 1926 the rich mans social responsibility toward
Lazarus is implied by the juxtaposition of the two chief characters and details of the telling:
even here the problem is not wealth alone. We will also see below that v 31 is the difficult
verse to make sense of in a narrative set in the pre-resurrection period, and within the
horizons of the narrative world (in a different way and with different results Horn [Glaube
und Handeln, 84] has also recognized that vv 3031 create the difficulties of the narrative).
It is likely that the difficulties of the parable are best accounted for by treating that verse
(and v 30 which prepares for it) as a post-resurrection, and perhaps even Lukan,
development. The remaining narrative makes a perfectly coherent unity, which from the
experience of the rich man develops a challenge for those who yet live: the rich man of the
parable finds out his folly only after death; those who are yet living should not expect a
personal messenger from the world of the dead to warn them; what is needed is already
clearly set out for them in the law and the prophets, let them listen to them. In a post-
resurrection situation the request of v 27 lent itself to comparison with the resurrection of
Jesus, and the failure of this resurrection to compel Jewish repentance and acceptance of
their messiah finds its echo and explanation in the development in vv 3031.
There is also the question of the relationship of this parable to an Egyptian folktale
preserved on the reverse side of a document dated to A.D. 47. For a translation of the tale,
see F. L. Griffith, Stories of the High Priests of Memphis (Oxford: Clarendon, 1900) 4243.
Gressmann (Vom reichen Mann) argued that the Gospel parable had a relationship to this
tale and to a series of rabbinic texts that seem in turn to have some relationship of their own
to this Egyptian tale (see also the Jewish tale appealed to by Bultmann, History, 197, which
has a message from the afterworld for a rich and godless man; and, further, the only
partially successful comparison made by Hock [JBL 106 (1987) 45563] between Lazarus
and the poor shoemaker Micyllus, who is introduced by the Cynic Sophist Lucian of
Samosata in both Gallus and Cataplus, and for whom in relation to immoral rich men there
is a reversal of fates after death). The view that the parable reflects the Egyptian tale has
been widely adopted, and subsequently adapted and developed in various ways. There is
indeed some commonality (the suffering of a rich man and the blessing of a poor man in the
world after death [inability to get to the water of a stream plays a role in the Jewish form]),
but the tours of (or dream visions of) the world of the dead and/or messages from the dead
that provide the central dynamic for these tales become a rejected possibility in the Gospel
parable, and none of the versions of the tale has any interest in the rich mans attitude to or
use of his wealth. (What I find most curious in the appeal to these traditions is the tendency
to assume that it supports an original short version of the parable [vv 1925(26)], even
though only the second half of the parable introduces even the possibility of somebody still
alive coming to know of the reversal in the afterworld, which is precisely the motif of most
importance for the dramatic movement of these tales.) These traditions may provide a
certain background for the Gospel parable, but Jeremias (Parables, 183) is quite wrong to
make the listeners prior knowledge of such a tale into a hermeneutical key to the
understanding of the Gospel parable. Apart from the final two verses that have been added,
the parable is best taken as an independent creation by the historical Jesus, which is suitably
set against the background of the cultural and religious awareness of his hearers.
A quite different tradition-history question is posed by the link with John 11 created by
the shared name and the motif of resurrection. The second of these links is made yet more
precise by the considerations adduced at the discussion of v 31 below, where a Johannine
note is identified. Since, apart from the shared name, the links belong to what we have seen
to be a secondary development of the parable, and since, further, the name can hardly be a
later insertion into the narrative (the name is needed at least in v 24), it seems best to
conclude that the shared name is quite fortuitous. But if Luke, or this element of his
tradition, already knew something of the John 11 tradition, then we can add an extra note to
the description above of the development of vv 3031, namely the awareness that another
Lazarus had come back from the dead, and that the kind of people the editor of this parable
had in mind had not been brought to repentance.
Of the traditional categories, this present parable comes closest to fitting into that of
example story. However, it is really a cautionary tale in which we are invited to learn from
the disaster experienced by the central character of the tale. Despite the frequent mentions
made of him, Lazarus is a quite secondary figure in the parable.
Comment
The rich man enjoys the social status quo, which has been most kind to him, and is
oblivious to the claim upon him of the needs of his beggar neighbor, Lazarus. Those who
live so will discover in Hades the bitter truth of the implications of their disregard for the
basic demands of the law and the prophets. And those who live so, despite all pretense of
piety, will not mend their ways even if one should be raised from the dead to bring them
warning.
19 ti", a certain man, is likely to be traditional here (see at 10:30; but
contrast 16:1, where a certain man was rich has been introduced to create a closer formal
parallelism with the present verse), but the phrase ,
make merry every day in a splendid manner, is solidly Lukan (cf. Dupont, Batitudes
3:174). It is just possible that for , dressed in purple, Luke has
been influenced by the language of Mark 15:17 (which he does not use in his own trial
narrative; purple and fine linen [] occur together in Prov 31:22 and in 1QapGen
20:31, in both cases referring to female garb).
Segments of the upper classes in Palestine had developed a lifestyle involving the
ostentatious display of wealth, which was modeled ultimately upon upper-class practice in
Rome. Quite apart from the Lukan context, the sense of extravagance is likely to prepare
the reader already for a negative outcome for the rich man (Tanghe, RB 91 [1984] 563,
speaks of the evocation, by its contrary, of the ideal of the rich benefactor). In connection
with the links that bind together chaps. 15 and 16, possibly the use of , make
merry, establishes a contrast between fitting and blasphemous merrymaking (cf. 15:23, 24,
29, 32).
20 Luke is likely to be responsible for (lit. a certain poor
man by name ). is literally was thrown. The term is used of people who are
confined to bed through illness (cf. Matt 8:6, 14; 9:2; Rev 2:2) and is likely to suggest here
Lazarus inability to choose freely where he will be. We are probably to understand that
Lazarus is positioned at the gate to beg, and that he is to all intents and purposes stuck
there, living rough in the open, more or less where he begs. The gate that the man is near

cf. confer, compare

1QapGen Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1

lit. literally
will be an outer vestibule or portal (cf. Acts 10:17; 12:13). He would not be tolerated near
the actual entry door, but his location would enable him to be noticed by all who came and
went from the rich mans house. The juxtaposition of Lazarus and the rich man is not quite
so pointed, but may be compared with that of the travelers and the man who had fallen
among thieves in 10:2937. The perspective on this mans poverty that emerges embraces
his stricken state, his isolation, and his inability to provide for himself. The naming of
Lazarus in this parable is the only use of a personal name in a Gospel parable. The name is
a shortened form of the Hebrew or Aramaic Eleazar (, Elzr; the equivalence of
the short and longer forms may be seen from the bilingual inscription CII 2.1337, in which
the Greek longer form stands in parallel with the short Hebrew form). The name means
God helps/has helped, and is likely to be symbolic of the divinely orchestrated ultimate
outcome of the mans desperate state. Additional suggestions about the fact of a name
include (i) noting that this specification prevents the reversal pattern of the parable from
being automatically applicable to every poor person; and (ii) pointing out that the naming
of the poor man while the rich man remains anonymous already anticipates the coming
reversal by reversing the normal anonymity of poverty and the individuating significance of
wealth. Further suggestions about the particular name include (i) finding a link between
Lazarus here and Abrahams servant Eleazar in Gen 15:2 (Tanghes elaboration of this in
terms of seeing Lazarus role in the parable as that of the envoy of Abraham [as Gen 24]
does not persuade [RB 91 (1984) 55777]); (ii) taking the etymology to indicate that
Lazarus is the one in whom Gods help appears (Lazarus is then ultimately a figure for
Jesus himself; see Glombitza [NovT 12 (1970) 16680]; this approach is overly subtle); and
(iii) claiming a link between this Lazarus and that of John 11 on the basis of the link in both
cases to resurrection (see further in Form/Structure/Setting above). The medical cause of
the mans weeping ulcers is uncertain, but they constitute the health problem that keeps him
from gainful employment.
21 , longing to eat his fill, may be a link to 15:16 (in the
discussion there I have not accepted as the original reading, but there is a
substantial link even without that reading). Food also falls from the table (using the same
words) in Matt 15:27. There it is an image of modest excess (crumbs), here something
rather more extravagant. The rich man could easily have sent a servant out with some of the
scraps, but we are to understand that this did not happen: the mans longing continued
unfulfilled. Though the common view is that the dogs here are wild street dogs, the linkage
with the meal scene is best satisfied by these being the dogs of the rich mans house (dogs
were used as watch dogs and hunting dogs, and were even at times kept as domestic pets).
Instead of a servant coming with the fallen scraps, the dogs come from having consumed
the scraps and continue their meal with the juices that ooze from the afflicted mans sores.
(It would be possible to take the dogs action as an expression of the compassion that
Lazarus fellow human beings have failed to provide, but this fits the syntax and flow less
well.)

CII Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum


22 , it happened, + inf is Lukan, as is probably the link with (lit.
and/but also). In a chiastic pattern, the story deals with the deaths of the two figures in
the reverse order to their introduction into the story. The difference between the
posthumous fates of Lazarus and the rich man is expressed in the contrasting verbs carried
off and buried. Fitzmyer (1132) is probably right that we are to understand that Lazarus
was given no burial by fellow human beings, but perhaps there is more involved here. Since
there is no close parallel in connection with views of the afterlife to the role of the angels
here (Hermas, Vis. 2.2.7 is likely to reflect the present text; there is a more remote and
rather later partial parallel in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.31), it may be that we should think
in terms not of the normal fate of the righteous, but of a special translation to heaven,
somewhat in the tradition of that of Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11). There was
clearly a Jewish tradition that Moses also was translated to heaven, which may, in light of
Deut 34:5, have involved in some forms (as here) a translation after death (cf. J. Jeremias,
TDNT 4:85455). We should note also the availability for a future role of Jeremiah and
Isaiah, along with Elijah in 4 Ezra 2:18. If we are proceeding along the right lines here,
then we would probably need to assume the same translation for Abraham as well. Totally
obscure, Lazarus is placed on a level with the supremely privileged of the OT saints.
(Because Lazarus is ultimately a secondary character in the story, there is no narrative need
to account for this extraordinary good fortune: we should not understand that it is the
automatic outcome of his poverty and suffering upon earth.) The location at the bosom of
Abraham is likely to express close intimacy (cf. John 1:18; and see Hock, JBL 106 [1987]
456, for the use of bosom in sepulchral epigrams and epitaphs), though it is just possible
that a meal setting is also evoked (cf. John 13:23 and note the fitting contrast this would
make with v 21). In the later rabbinic text b. Qidd. 72ab to be in Abrahams bosom,
, biyqw l brhm, is probably a euphemism for being dead, at least in
the case of a great rabbi, and may represent a broadening yet further of the exclusive
category of those who are singled out for translation to heaven (cf. Derrett, Law, 87).
23 , raised his eyes, and , being, could be Lukan
(more likely the latter). On Hades, see at 10:15. Though representing the place of the dead
quite generally, it comes increasingly to include the idea of a preliminary experience of
what is to be the individuals ultimate fate at the final judgment (see 2 Esd 7:80; 1 Enoch;
22:11; cf. Jude 67; 1 Pet 3:1920). It thus embraces two of the three horizons of judgment
that are to be found in Lukes thought (see at 12:5). Though this has been disputed, we

inf infinitive

Vis. Visions

TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., tr. G. W. Bromiley Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, 10 vols., ET (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 196476)

OT Old Testament

b. breve (metrically short poetic line), or before a tractate indicates Babylonian Talmud.

Qidd. Qidduin
should probably visualize Lazarus location as above and the rich mans as below. But
more important than this is the stress on the distance involved. The presence of Abraham
certifies the upper location as a place of blessedness. With no evident change of meaning,
the Greek term for bosom occurs this time in the plural. The contrast is between torment
and tranquil intimacy with great father Abraham.
24 The unstressed , and he, will be Lukan, and , send, ,
cool, and , I am in great pain, all suit Lukes diction. For Abraham as father,
see at 1:73; 3:8. Such an address makes it certain that the rich man is meant to be seen as
Jewish, and probably subtly insinuates the basis upon which the rich man makes his
request. The call for mercy is entirely appropriate (cf. 17:13; 18:38, 39), but, as will
become clear, is voiced too late. Does the rich mans knowledge of Lazarus name inject a
note of deliberateness into his earlier neglect of the poor mans needs? Does his suggestion
for Lazarus reflect his conviction that the lower classes exist to see to the needs of the
upper classes; or is it based on an awareness that, while he is in a place of bondage, Lazarus
is in a place of freedom? Notably, the rich man asks only for an amelioration of his
suffering, not for release from them: does he recognize that his sufferings are deserved, or
is his modest request an understated bid for release from his miserable situation? It is
natural to think of thirst in this context (cf. the juxtaposition of thirst and torment in 2 Esd
8:59), but the request, if taken literally, is for only a tiny amount of water (is this a
deliberate understatement?), and the water is to be used for the cooling of the overheated
tongue, not the slaking of thirst (but is the one an image for the other?). For the flame here,
cf. Isa 66:24; Sir 21:910; 1 Enoch 10:13; 63:10; 1QH 17:13.
25 Much of the language here is probably Lukan (see Dupont, Batitudes, 3:6061).
The return address child shows an acknowledgement of the link claimed by the rich man.
The reversal that the future has brought recalls the reversals of 1:5253 and 6:2026 (see
esp. at 1:53; 6:24). While Abraham is certainly pointing out the equity achieved by the
reversal, we should not take this, either in the Lukan framework or in the original parable,
as expressing the view that there will be some kind of automatic eschatological reversal of
present fortunes. The fairly subtle, but nonetheless significant, delineation of aspects of the
rich mans attitude to, and use of, his riches and status show already (without vv 2731 to
come) that more is involved than an evening up of the balance of good and ill. Moreover,
agony in the flame in v 24 is a punitive image, more than merely a redressing of the
balance. The now of v 25 is the opposite of the now of 6:2026 as consolation switches
from the present possession of the rich to the present possession of poor Lazarus. As with
the chiasm in vv 1922, the rich man is again introduced before Lazarus, but Lazarus fate
is addressed before that of the rich man.
26 Only , besides all this, in this verse looks Lukan (cf. 24:21).
Surpassing any considerations of equity is the fixed determination of the will of God: the
topology of Hades objectifies the will and purpose of God, which no momentary surge of
human sympathy can be allowed to dislocate.
2728 , I ask that (used in a petition) is the most Lukan diction in
these verses. Even if his own case is hopeless, something may yet be done for those to
whom the rich man is bound by the ties of family affection. The details of the family

1QH Hdyt (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave 1


arrangements remain unclear. It seems unlikely that the rich mans home is the shared
paternal home. If the five brothers are still in the paternal home, why is the father not
included in the request? It is perhaps best to understand that the father is dead, but that the
five brothers have decided not to divide their share of the inheritance. The rich man
continues (as in v 24) to see Lazarus as the one through whom Abraham should act.
Messengers from the dead have a place in Greek literature (Plato, Resp. 10.614D;
Lucian, Demonax 43), but perhaps more pertinent is the Jewish tradition of a future role for
those who have at death been translated to heaven (see at v 22; cf. further the calling up of
Samuel in 1 Sam 28:720). The plea for a personal warning (this is better than testimony to
the reality of the afterlife, which is also linguistically possible), even before the talk of
repentance in v 30, implies that the rich man is aware of a moral responsibility for his own
fate: he could and should have acted differently.
29 The law and the prophets is an attested Jewish idiom (see at 16:16), but Moses
and the prophets is likely to be a Lukan variant on this (see 24:27, 44; Acts 28:23; cf. John
1:45). The rich man asks for special treatment for his brothers. Abraham replies that they
have in the law and the prophets all that they should need: these are the appointed means by
which God makes his will plain to those concerned to know it. The parable suggests that
there is a profound challenge to the social status quo to be found in the law and the
prophets, and that there is a desperate need for the privileged to search out their stipulations
and to act upon them.
30 , no but, and possibly the use of , to go, and
, to repent, betray the Lukan hand. The rich man is confident that such a
dramatic visitation would cause the brothers to change their ways. Abraham will be much
more pessimistic.
31 (lit. a certain one from), , will be persuaded, and Moses
and the prophets are the most obvious Lukan features here. Taken as a universal principle,
this final statement by Abraham raises considerable difficulties, since it would seem to
presuppose that the law and the prophets constitute the decisive revelation of God: nobody
can get any further than they get with the law and the prophets. But Jesus ministry itself
certainly reached people who were left outside by the law and the prophets, and the post-
resurrection early church saw the repentance of both Jews and Luntiles under the impact of
the message of the resurrection of Jesus. If, however, we turn the direction of perception
around and look here for an explanation of how certain segments of the Jewish population
could have failed to repent when they heard the message of Jesus and of his followers, even
in the light of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the sentiment expressed becomes
unproblematic: the resurrection of Jesus (as indeed the earlier ministry of Jesus himself)
makes no impact upon them because, despite whatever they may seem to be on the surface,
they have, in their failure to attend to Gods call upon them in the law, already hardened
their hearts to the voice of God (cf. Acts 7:5153; cf. further the way that Luke in the
Infancy Gospel locates perceptiveness to the new thing that God is doing in the hearts of
those who are righteous according to the law [e.g., 1:6; 2:25, 39], and then later in the
hearts of those who have responded to the ministry of John the Baptist [7:2939]). Here
there is yet another Johannine note in the Lukan tradition. These unpersuadable people will
be identified by Luke with the Pharisaic adversaries of vv 1415, with their love of money.

e.g. exempli gratia, for example


Explanation
Lukes section on the use and abuse of riches (16:131) comes to its climax with the
present parable and its judgment emphasis. Its tale of failure is to balanced by the tale of the
joyous restoration of the prodigal (15:1132), which climaxed the previous section. For
those economically benefited by the status quo, here is a salutary warning against the self-
serving and self-satisfied life that so easily results from such privilege.
The rich man was doing no more than living out the life of his class, influenced as it
was by the patterns of conspicuous consumption developed in Imperial Rome. He could
have been a rich benefactor, but instead his extravagance was focused on his own
enjoyment of the good things of life. But no man is an island, and not far away was a
neighbor whose experience of life was quite different. Lazarus was stuck near the outer
vestibule of the entry way into the rich mans fine house. No doubt he was there to beg, but
he was too weak and ill to try for a better begging perch once he had discovered how lean
the pickings were here. He lived rough, went hungry, and suffered with his ulcerated body.
At this point, the only sign of hope is his name, which means God helps and is probably
intended to point to the divinely orchestrated final outcome for Lazarus.
Lazarus would have been thrilled with scraps from the rich mans table, which the rich
man could have so easily arranged to have sent out to him. But the dogs got these, and then
they (and not, say, a servant laden with bread) approached poor Lazarus and finished off
their meal by licking his oozing wounds.
In due course, both men died. In keeping with the indignities of his life, Lazarus had no
one to bury him. But once both men are firmly across the portals of death, there is a radical
reversal. Lazarus body is not left to rot. Instead, he is translated to heaven, to that place of
intimacy and consolation on the bosom of no one less than Abraham himself, the father of
all Israel. In Jewish tradition, a few distinguished people, beyond Enoch (Gen 5:24) and
Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11), had been translated to heaven either alive, or immediately after death.
Now Lazarus had joined their privileged ranks. (The story does not tell us exactly why
Lazarus is so privileged since the rich man is the protagonist of the tale: not every poor
person is so privileged.) By contrast, the rich man was placed in the earth with all dignity,
but he found himself in torment in Hades, the place of the departed dead. In some strands of
Jewish tradition, one expected to experience in Hades in a preliminary way what would be
ones fate at the last judgment. The rich man was experiencing his fate! Now Lazarus
enjoys freedom and peace, and the rich man is constrained and tormented.
We should probably understand the request in terms of ancient Semitic understatement:
not just the cooling of his tongue with a drop of water, but enough water to slake his raging
thirst; not just a momentary relief of his torment, but release from this place of suffering.
The rich man quite properly sues for mercy, but he is too late. The irrevocability of the
decision of God about his fate is symbolized in the great chasm that separates the two
realms of the afterlife.
Entrusted with the riches of this world, the rich man had generously rewarded himself
during his lifetime. He has in fact been paid in full (see 6:24) and can expect no more.
Lazarus has been dreadfully short-changed in his lifetime, but now there is a redressing of
the balance. Though we ought not in the parable think in terms of a simple balancing of
accounts, it is nonetheless true that God is no persons debtor.
The rich man cannot but see the justice of the situation: he could and should have acted
differently; but even if his own case is hopeless, something may yet be done for those to
whom he is bound by the ties of family affection. Lazarus could reappear on the earth, just
as it was anticipated that Elijah and Enoch and others would appear some day. Such a
personal warning would save the rich mans brothers from the fate that had befallen him.
The rich man asks for special treatment for his brothers. The reply is that they have in
the law and the prophets all that they should need: these are the appointed means by which
God makes his will plain to those concerned to know it. The parable suggests that there is a
profound challenge to the social status quo to be found in the law and the prophets, and that
there is a desperate need for the privileged to search out their stipulations and to act upon
them. The gospel of the kingdom of God affirms and makes yet more radical the demands
of the law and the prophets.
The rich man reiterates his request, confident that such a visitor from the realm of the
dead would produce the necessary repentance. But his confidence is misplaced. Just such a
visitation does take place with the resurrection of Jesus. However, the kind of people the
Lukan parable addresses (see vv 1415) do not repent and embrace the one proclaimed as
messiah (of course for some Jewish folk the resurrection of Jesus does produce just such a
repentance [see Acts 2], but for others, and especially among the leaders, there is
continuing hardness). In the unfolding of the generations, the fact of the resurrection of
Jesus has met the same fate: those who, enmeshed in their riches, have closed their ears to
God hear no better because this dead man came back to warn us all.
1

THE PLACE OF DEATH

THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS


(16:1931)
COMMENT

Parabolas de Jess en Lucas

PARBOLA DEL SEMBRADOR


(MT 13.115, 1823; MC 4.120)
4
Juntndose una gran multitud y los que de cada ciudad venan a l, les dijo por parbola:
5
El sembrador sali a sembrar su semilla; y mientras sembraba, una parte cay junto
al camino, fue pisoteada y las aves del cielo se la comieron. 6 Otra parte cay sobre la
piedra y, despus de nacer, se sec, porque no tena humedad. 7 Otra parte cay entre
espinos, y los espinos que nacieron juntamente con ella la ahogaron. 8 Y otra parte cay en
buena tierra, naci y llev fruto a ciento por uno.
Hablando estas cosas, deca con fuerte voz: El que tiene odos para oir, oiga.
9
Sus discpulos le preguntaron:
Qu significa esta parbola?
1
Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35B: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 9:21-18:34. Word Biblical
Commentary (823). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
10
l dijo:
A vosotros os es dado conocer los misterios del reino de Dios, pero a los otros por
parbolas, para que viendo no vean y oyendo no entiendan.
11
Esta es, pues, la parbola: La semilla es la palabra de Dios. 12 Los de junto al camino
son los que oyen, pero luego viene el diablo y quita de su corazn la palabra para que no
crean y se salven. 13 Los de sobre la piedra son los que, habiendo odo, reciben la palabra
con gozo, pero no tienen races; creen por algn tiempo, pero en el tiempo de la prueba se
apartan. 14 La que cay entre espinos son los que oyen pero luego se van y son ahogados
por las preocupaciones, las riquezas y los placeres de la vida, y no llevan fruto. 15 Pero la
que cay en buena tierra son los que con corazn bueno y recto retienen la palabra oda, y
dan fruto con perseverancia.
LA PARBOLA DE LA LMPARA
(MC 4.2125)
16
Nadie enciende una luz para despus cubrirla con una vasija, ni la pone debajo de la
cama, sino que la pone en un candelero para que los que entren vean la luz. 17 As nada hay
oculto que no haya de ser descubierto, ni escondido que no haya de ser conocido y de salir
a la luz. 18 Mirad, pues, cmo os, porque a todo el que tiene, se le dar, y a todo el que no
tiene, aun lo que piensa tener se le quitar.
2

Lucas 10
EL BUEN SAMARITANO
25
Un intrprete de la Ley se levant y dijo, para probarlo:
Maestro, haciendo qu cosa heredar la vida eterna?
26
l le dijo:
Qu est escrito en la Ley? Cmo lees?
27
Aquel, respondiendo, dijo:
Amars al Seor tu Dios con todo tu corazn, con toda tu alma, con todas tus fuerzas
y con toda tu mente; y a tu prjimo como a ti mismo.
28
Le dijo:
Bien has respondido; haz esto y vivirs.
29
Pero l, queriendo justificarse a s mismo, dijo a Jess:
Y quin es mi prjimo?
30
Respondiendo Jess, dijo:
Un hombre que descenda de Jerusaln a Jeric cay en manos de ladrones, los
cuales lo despojaron, lo hirieron y se fueron dejndolo medio muerto. 31 Aconteci que
descendi un sacerdote por aquel camino, y al verlo pas de largo. 32 Asimismo un levita,
llegando cerca de aquel lugar, al verlo pas de largo. 33 Pero un samaritano que iba de
camino, vino cerca de l y, al verlo, fue movido a misericordia. 34 Acercndose, vend sus
heridas echndoles aceite y vino, lo puso en su cabalgadura, lo llev al mesn y cuid de l.
35
Otro da, al partir, sac dos denarios, los dio al mesonero y le dijo: Cudamelo, y todo lo
que gastes de ms yo te lo pagar cuando regrese. 36 Quin, pues, de estos tres te parece
que fue el prjimo del que cay en manos de los ladrones?
37
l dijo:

2
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 8.18). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
El que us de misericordia con l.
Entonces Jess le dijo:
Ve y haz t lo mismo.
3

L RICO INSENSATO
13
Le dijo uno de la multitud:
Maestro, di a mi hermano que parta conmigo la herencia.
14
Pero l le dijo:
Hombre, quin me ha puesto sobre vosotros como juez o partidor?
15
Y les dijo:
Mirad, guardaos de toda avaricia, porque la vida del hombre no consiste en la
abundancia de los bienes que posee.
16
Tambin les refiri una parbola, diciendo: La heredad de un hombre rico haba
producido mucho. 17 Y l pensaba dentro de s, diciendo: Qu har, porque no tengo
donde guardar mis frutos?. 18 Y dijo: Esto har: derribar mis graneros y los edificar ms
grandes, y all guardar todos mis frutos y mis bienes; 19 y dir a mi alma: Alma, muchos
bienes tienes guardados para muchos aos; descansa, come, bebe y regocjate . 20 Pero
Dios le dijo: Necio, esta noche vienen a pedirte tu alma, y lo que has guardado, de quin
ser?. 21 As es el que hace para s tesoro y no es rico para con Dios.
4

EL SIERVO VIGILANTE
35
Tened vuestra cintura ceida y vuestras lmparas encendidas; 36 sed semejantes a
hombres que aguardan a que su seor regrese de las bodas, para que, cuando llegue y llame,
le abran en seguida. 37 Bienaventurados aquellos siervos a los cuales su seor, cuando
venga, halle velando; de cierto os digo que se ceir y har que se sienten a la mesa y
vendr a servirles. 38 Y aunque venga a la segunda vigilia o a la tercera vigilia, si los halla
velando, bienaventurados son aquellos siervos. 39 Pero sabed esto, que si supiera el padre de
familia a qu hora el ladrn haba de llegar, velara ciertamente y no lo dejara entrar en su
casa. 40 Vosotros, pues, tambin, estad preparados, porque a la hora que no pensis el Hijo
del hombre vendr.
EL SIERVO INFIEL
(MT 24.4551)
41
Entonces Pedro le dijo:
Seor, dices esta parbola a nosotros o tambin a todos?
42
Dijo el Seor:
Quin es el mayordomo fiel y prudente al cual su seor pondr sobre su casa para
que a tiempo les d su racin? 43 Bienaventurado aquel siervo al cual, cuando su seor
venga, lo halle haciendo as. 44 En verdad os digo que lo pondr sobre todos sus bienes.
45
Pero si aquel siervo dice en su corazn: Mi seor tarda en venir, y comienza a golpear a
los criados y a las criadas, y a comer y a beber y a embriagarse, 46 vendr el seor de aquel

3
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 10.37). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
4
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 12.21). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
siervo en da que este no espera y a la hora que no sabe, y lo castigar duramente y lo
pondr con los infieles.
47
Aquel siervo que, conociendo la voluntad de su seor, no se prepar ni hizo
conforme a su voluntad, recibir muchos azotes. 48 Pero el que sin conocerla hizo cosas
dignas de azotes, ser azotado poco, porque a todo aquel a quien se haya dado mucho,
mucho se le demandar, y al que mucho se le haya confiado, ms se le pedir.
5

PARBOLA DE LA HIGUERA ESTRIL


6
Dijo tambin esta parbola: Un hombre tena una higuera plantada en su via, y vino a
buscar fruto en ella y no lo hall. 7 Y dijo al viador: Ya hace tres aos que vengo a buscar
fruto en esta higuera y no lo hallo. Crtala! Para qu inutilizar tambin la tierra?. 8 l
entonces, respondiendo, le dijo: Seor, djala todava este ao, hasta que yo cave
alrededor de ella y la abone. 9 Si da fruto, bien; y si no, la cortars despus.
6

PARBOLA DE LA SEMILLA DE MOSTAZA


(MT 13.3132; MC 4.3032)
18
Dijo:
A qu es semejante el reino de Dios, y con qu lo comparar? 19 Es semejante al
grano de mostaza que un hombre tom y sembr en su huerto; y creci y se hizo rbol
grande, y las aves del cielo anidaron en sus ramas.
PARBOLA DE LA LEVADURA
(MT 13.33)
20
Y volvi a decir:
A qu comparar el reino de Dios? 21 Es semejante a la levadura que una mujer
tom y mezcl con tres medidas de harina, hasta que todo hubo fermentado.
7

PARBOLA DE LA GRAN CENA


15
Oyendo esto uno de los que estaban sentados con l a la mesa, le dijo:
Bienaventurado el que coma pan en el reino de Dios!
16
Entonces Jess le dijo: Un hombre hizo una gran cena y convid a muchos. 17 A la
hora de la cena envi a su siervo a decir a los convidados: Venid, que ya todo est
preparado. 18 Pero todos a una comenzaron a excusarse. El primero dijo: He comprado
una hacienda y necesito ir a verla. Te ruego que me excuses. 19 Otro dijo: He comprado
cinco yuntas de bueyes y voy a probarlos. Te ruego que me excuses. 20 Y otro dijo: Acabo
de casarme y por tanto no puedo ir. 21 El siervo regres e hizo saber estas cosas a su seor.
Entonces, enojado el padre de familia, dijo a su siervo: Ve pronto por las plazas y las
calles de la ciudad, y trae ac a los pobres, a los mancos, a los cojos y a los ciegos. 22 Dijo
el siervo: Seor, se ha hecho como mandaste y an hay lugar. 23 Dijo el seor al siervo:

5
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 12.48). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
6
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 13.9). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
7
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 13.21). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
Ve por los caminos y por los vallados, y furzalos a entrar para que se llene mi casa,
24
pues os digo que ninguno de aquellos hombres que fueron convidados gustar mi cena.
8

CAPTULO 15
LA PARBOLA DE LA OVEJA PERDIDA
(MT 18.1014)
Se acercaban a Jess todos los publicanos y pecadores para orlo, 2
y los fariseos y los
escribas murmuraban, diciendo:
Este recibe a los pecadores y come con ellos.
3
Entonces l les refiri esta parbola, diciendo: 4 Qu hombre de vosotros, si tiene
cien ovejas y se le pierde una de ellas, no deja las noventa y nueve en el desierto y va tras la
que se perdi, hasta encontrarla? 5 Cuando la encuentra, la pone sobre sus hombros gozoso,
6
y al llegar a casa rene a sus amigos y vecinos, y les dice: Gozaos conmigo, porque he
encontrado mi oveja que se haba perdido. 7 Os digo que as habr ms gozo en el cielo por
un pecador que se arrepiente, que por noventa y nueve justos que no necesitan de
arrepentimiento.
PARBOLA DE LA MONEDA PERDIDA
8
O qu mujer que tiene diez dracmas, si pierde una dracma, no enciende la lmpara,
barre la casa y busca con diligencia hasta encontrarla? 9 Y cuando la encuentra, rene a sus
amigas y vecinas, y les dice: Gozaos conmigo, porque he encontrado la dracma que haba
perdido. 10 As os digo que hay gozo delante de los ngeles de Dios por un pecador que se
arrepiente.
PARBOLA DEL HIJO PRDIGO
11
Tambin dijo: Un hombre tena dos hijos, 12 y el menor de ellos dijo a su padre: Padre,
dame la parte de los bienes que me corresponde. Y les reparti los bienes. 13 No muchos
das despus, juntndolo todo, el hijo menor se fue lejos a una provincia apartada, y all
desperdici sus bienes viviendo perdidamente. 14 Cuando todo lo hubo malgastado, vino
una gran hambre en aquella provincia y comenz l a pasar necesidad. 15 Entonces fue y se
arrim a uno de los ciudadanos de aquella tierra, el cual lo envi a su hacienda para que
apacentara cerdos. 16 Deseaba llenar su vientre de las algarrobas que coman los cerdos,
pero nadie le daba. 17 Volviendo en s, dijo: Cuntos jornaleros en casa de mi padre tienen
abundancia de pan, y yo aqu perezco de hambre! 18 Me levantar e ir a mi padre, y le dir:
Padre, he pecado contra el cielo y contra ti. 19 Ya no soy digno de ser llamado tu hijo;
hazme como a uno de tus jornaleros . 20 Entonces se levant y fue a su padre. Cuando an
estaba lejos, lo vio su padre y fue movido a misericordia, y corri y se ech sobre su cuello
y lo bes. 21 El hijo le dijo: Padre, he pecado contra el cielo y contra ti, y ya no soy digno
de ser llamado tu hijo. 22 Pero el padre dijo a sus siervos: Sacad el mejor vestido y
vestidle; y poned un anillo en su dedo y calzado en sus pies. 23 Traed el becerro gordo y
matadlo, y comamos y hagamos fiesta, 24 porque este mi hijo muerto era y ha revivido; se
haba perdido y es hallado. Y comenzaron a regocijarse.
25
El hijo mayor estaba en el campo. Al regresar, cerca ya de la casa, oy la msica y
las danzas; 26 y llamando a uno de los criados le pregunt qu era aquello. 27 El criado le

8
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 14.24). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
dijo: Tu hermano ha regresado y tu padre ha hecho matar el becerro gordo por haberlo
recibido bueno y sano. 28 Entonces se enoj y no quera entrar. Sali por tanto su padre, y
le rogaba que entrara. 29 Pero l, respondiendo, dijo al padre: Tantos aos hace que te
sirvo, no habindote desobedecido jams, y nunca me has dado ni un cabrito para gozarme
con mis amigos. 30 Pero cuando vino este hijo tuyo, que ha consumido tus bienes con
rameras, has hecho matar para l el becerro gordo. 31 l entonces le dijo: Hijo, t siempre
ests conmigo y todas mis cosas son tuyas. 32 Pero era necesario hacer fiesta y regocijarnos,
porque este tu hermano estaba muerto y ha revivido; se haba perdido y ha sido hallado.
CAPTULO 16
PARBOLA DEL MAYORDOMO INFIEL
Dijo tambin a sus discpulos: Haba un hombre rico que tena un mayordomo, y este fue
acusado ante l como derrochador de sus bienes. 2 Entonces lo llam y le dijo: Qu es
esto que oigo acerca de ti? Da cuenta de tu mayordoma, porque ya no podrs ms ser
mayordomo. 3 Entonces el mayordomo dijo para s: Qu har?, porque mi amo me va a
quitar la mayordoma. Cavar, no puedo; mendigar, me da vergenza. 4 Ya s lo que har
para que, cuando se me quite la mayordoma, me reciban en sus casas. 5 Y llamando a cada
uno de los deudores de su amo, dijo al primero: Cunto debes a mi amo?. 6 l dijo:
Cien barriles de aceite. Le dijo: Toma tu cuenta, sintate pronto y escribe cincuenta.
7
Despus dijo a otro: Y t, cunto debes?. Este contest: Cien medidas de trigo. l le
dijo: Toma tu cuenta y escribe ochenta. 8 Y alab el amo al mayordomo malo por haber
actuado sagazmente, porque los hijos de este siglo son ms sagaces en el trato con sus
semejantes que los hijos de luz.
9
Y yo os digo: Ganad amigos por medio de las riquezas injustas, para que cuando
estas falten, os reciban en las moradas eternas.
10
El que es fiel en lo muy poco, tambin en lo ms es fiel; y el que en lo muy poco es
injusto, tambin en lo ms es injusto. 11 Si en las riquezas injustas no fuisteis fieles, quin
os confiar lo verdadero? 12 Y si en lo ajeno no fuisteis fieles, quin os dar lo que es
vuestro?
13
Ningn siervo puede servir a dos seores, porque odiar al uno y amar al otro, o
estimar al uno y menospreciar al otro. No podis servir a Dios y a las riquezas.
14
Oan tambin todas estas cosas los fariseos, que eran avaros, y se burlaban de l.
15
Entonces les dijo: Vosotros sois los que os justificis a vosotros mismos delante de los
hombres, pero Dios conoce vuestros corazones, pues lo que los hombres tienen por
sublime, delante de Dios es abominacin.
9

EL RICO Y LZARO
19
Haba un hombre rico, que se vesta de prpura y de lino fino y haca cada da banquete
con esplendidez. 20 Haba tambin un mendigo llamado Lzaro, que estaba echado a la
puerta de aquel, lleno de llagas, 21 y ansiaba saciarse de las migajas que caan de la mesa del
rico; y aun los perros venan y le laman las llagas. 22 Aconteci que muri el mendigo, y
fue llevado por los ngeles al seno de Abraham; y muri tambin el rico, y fue sepultado.

9
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 16.15). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
23
En el Hades alz sus ojos, estando en tormentos, y vio de lejos a Abraham, y a
Lzaro en su seno. 24 Entonces, gritando, dijo: Padre Abraham, ten misericordia de m y
enva a Lzaro para que moje la punta de su dedo en agua y refresque mi lengua, porque
estoy atormentado en esta llama. 25 Pero Abraham le dijo: Hijo, acurdate que recibiste
tus bienes en tu vida, y Lzaro, males; pero ahora este es consolado aqu, y t atormentado.
26
Adems de todo esto, una gran sima est puesta entre nosotros y vosotros, de manera que
los que quieran pasar de aqu a vosotros no pueden, ni de all pasar ac.
27
Entonces le dijo: Te ruego, pues, padre, que lo enves a la casa de mi padre,
28
porque tengo cinco hermanos, para que les testifique a fin de que no vengan ellos tambin
a este lugar de tormento. 29 Abraham le dijo: A Moiss y a los Profetas tienen; que los
oigan a ellos!. 30 l entonces dijo: No, padre Abraham; pero si alguno de los muertos va a
ellos, se arrepentirn. 31 Pero Abraham le dijo: Si no oyen a Moiss y a los Profetas,
tampoco se persuadirn aunque alguno se levante de los muertos.
10

CAPTULO 18
PARBOLA DE LA VIUDA Y EL JUEZ INJUSTO
Tambin les refiri Jess una parbola sobre la necesidad de orar siempre y no desmayar,
2
diciendo: Haba en una ciudad un juez que ni tema a Dios ni respetaba a hombre. 3 Haba
tambin en aquella ciudad una viuda, la cual vena a l diciendo: Hazme justicia de mi
adversario. 4 l no quiso por algn tiempo; pero despus de esto dijo dentro de s:
Aunque ni temo a Dios ni tengo respeto a hombre, 5 sin embargo, porque esta viuda me es
molesta, le har justicia, no sea que viniendo de continuo me agote la paciencia.
6
Y dijo el Seor: Od lo que dijo el juez injusto. 7 Y acaso Dios no har justicia a sus
escogidos, que claman a l da y noche? Se tardar en responderles? 8 Os digo que pronto
les har justicia. Pero cuando venga el Hijo del hombre, hallar fe en la tierra?.
PARBOLA DEL FARISEO Y EL PUBLICANO
9
A unos que confiaban en s mismos como justos y menospreciaban a los otros, dijo
tambin esta parbola: 10 Dos hombres subieron al Templo a orar: uno era fariseo y el otro
publicano. 11 El fariseo, puesto en pie, oraba consigo mismo de esta manera: Dios, te doy
gracias porque no soy como los otros hombres: ladrones, injustos, adlteros, ni aun como
este publicano; 12 ayuno dos veces a la semana, diezmo de todo lo que gano. 13 Pero el
publicano, estando lejos, no quera ni aun alzar los ojos al cielo, sino que se golpeaba el
pecho, diciendo: Dios, s propicio a m, pecador. 14 Os digo que este descendi a su casa
justificado antes que el otro, porque cualquiera que se enaltece ser humillado y el que se
humilla ser enaltecido.
11

PARBOLA DE LAS DIEZ MINAS


11
Oyendo ellos estas cosas, prosigui Jess y dijo una parbola, por cuanto estaba cerca de
Jerusaln y ellos pensaban que el reino de Dios se manifestara inmediatamente.

10
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 16.31). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
11
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 18.14). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
12
Dijo, pues: Un hombre noble se fue a un pas lejano para recibir un reino y volver.
13
Llam antes a diez siervos suyos, les dio diez minas y les dijo: Negociad entre tanto que
regreso. 14 Pero sus conciudadanos lo odiaban y enviaron tras l una embajada, diciendo:
No queremos que este reine sobre nosotros.
15
Aconteci que, al regresar l despus de recibir el reino, mand llamar ante l a
aquellos siervos a los cuales haba dado el dinero, para saber lo que haba negociado cada
uno. 16 Se present el primero, diciendo: Seor, tu mina ha ganado diez minas. 17 l le
dijo: Est bien, buen siervo; por cuanto en lo poco has sido fiel, tendrs autoridad sobre
diez ciudades. 18 Lleg otro, diciendo: Seor, tu mina ha producido cinco minas.
19
Tambin a este dijo: T tambin s sobre cinco ciudades.
20
Se present otro, diciendo: Seor, aqu est tu mina, la cual he tenido guardada en
un pauelo, 21 porque tuve miedo de ti, por cuanto eres hombre severo que tomas lo que no
pusiste y siegas lo que no sembraste. 22 Entonces l le dijo: Mal siervo, por tu propia boca
te juzgo. Sabas que yo soy hombre severo que tomo lo que no puse y siego lo que no
sembr. 23 Por qu, pues, no pusiste mi dinero en el banco para que, al volver, lo hubiera
recibido con los intereses?. 24 Y dijo a los que estaban presentes: Quitadle la mina y dadla
al que tiene las diez minas. 25 Ellos le dijeron: Seor, tiene diez minas. 26 Pues yo os
digo que a todo el que tiene, se le dar; pero al que no tiene, aun lo que tiene se le quitar.
27
Y tambin a aquellos mis enemigos que no queran que yo reinara sobre ellos, traedlos
ac y decapitadlos delante de m.
12

LOS LABRADORES MALVADOS


(MT 21.3344; MC 12.111)
9
Comenz luego a decir al pueblo esta parbola: Un hombre plant una via, la arrend a
labradores y se ausent por mucho tiempo. 10 A su tiempo envi un siervo a los labradores
para que le dieran del fruto de la via, pero los labradores lo golpearon y lo enviaron con
las manos vacas. 11 Volvi a enviar otro siervo; pero ellos a este tambin golpearon,
insultaron y enviaron con las manos vacas. 12 Volvi a enviar un tercer siervo; pero ellos
tambin a este echaron fuera, herido.
13
Entonces el seor de la via dijo: Qu har? Enviar a mi hijo amado; quizs,
cuando lo vean a l, le tendrn respeto. 14 Pero los labradores, al verlo, discutan entre s,
diciendo: Este es el heredero; venid, matmoslo para que la heredad sea nuestra. 15 Lo
echaron fuera de la via y lo mataron. Qu, pues, les har el seor de la via? 16 Ir,
destruir a estos labradores y dar su via a otros.
Cuando ellos oyeron esto, dijeron:
Dios nos libre!
17
Pero l, mirndolos, dijo:
Qu, pues, es lo que est escrito?:
La piedra que desecharon los edificadores
ha venido a ser cabeza del ngulo.
18
Todo el que caiga sobre aquella piedra, ser quebrantado; pero sobre quien ella
caiga, lo desmenuzar.

12
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 19.27). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.
13

At this point in his travel account, Luke adds the parable of the rich man and Lazarus
(16:1931). It is to be understood as addressed to the Pharisees of v. 14 (at 17:1 Jesus will
turn his attention to his disciples again). The story is a fitting conclusion to the theme of
chap. 16 (see COMMENT on 16:18a), even though it is introduced awkwardly after Jesus
saying on divorce (v. 18).
This story is again exclusive to Luke, being derived by him from his source L (see p.
84). A few traces of Lucan redaction can be detected in it: There was once a rich man
(anthrpos tis n plousios, v. 19; cf. 16:1; see NOTE on 10:30); a beggar named Lazarus
(v. 20; cp. 1:5; 10:38; Acts 8:9; 9:33; 10:1; 16:1); one day the beggar died (v. 22, lit.
happened to die; see NOTE); tormented (v. 23, lit. being [hyparchn] in torments);
unstressed kai autos (v. 24); eipen de (vv. 25, 27, 31); and certain elements in v. 25 (see J.
Dupont, Batitudes, 3. 6062). The amount of non-Lucan formulation in the story is,
however, noteworthy (see J. Jeremias, Die Sprache, 260262), stemming from the pre-
Lucan source. (See further HST 178; G. Schneider, Evangelium nach Lukas, 340.)
Form-critically considered, the story belongs to the parables of Jesus. Indeed, Codex
Bezae explicitly introduces it as such, And he uttered another parable (heteran
paraboln), but this introduction is lacking in the majority of Greek mss. Bultmann (HST
178) says of it, Pure narrative without introduction or application (cf. Ambrose [Expos.
ev. sec. Luc. 8.13 (CSEL 32.397)], narratio magis quam parabola videtur, quando etiam
nomen exprimitur). More specifically, as we already noted apropos of the good Samaritan
(see COMMENT on 10:2937), the story is better understood as an example (in rhetoric,
exemplum). It further shares with the story of the prodigal son a two-peaked character and a
contrast of the two (in this case, main) figures (see COMMENT on 15:1132). M. Dibelius
(FTG 251 n. 2) notes that the parabolic law of antithesis is exemplified in it.
Bultmann (HST 178) has further rightly recognized that the story has two points: (a)
Verses 1926 depict the reversal of fortunes of this life in the hereafter; in the matter of
material possessions there is a counterbalancing of the earthly with the afterlife. (b) Verses
2731 insist that even the return of a messenger from the dead will not bring about reform
among the obdurate rich. In the first part, a comparison is made between the rich man and

13
La Biblia del Siglo de Oro. 2009 (Lc 20.18). Las Rozas, Madrid: Sociedad Bi blica de Espan a y
Sociedades Bi blicas Unidas.

L The Lucan private source

lit. literally

HST R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968)

CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum

FTG M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribners, 1935)


Lazarus; Lazarus does not enter into the discussion, which takes place between the rich
man and Abraham. The dialogue continues in the second part, but Lazarus is less involved,
whereas the five brothers become the focus of attention.
The two parts of the story, however, have raised a number of questions. The first part is
paralleled in other, extrabiblical literature; does it depend on such? What meaning would
the second part have prior to Jesus own death and resurrectionor at least without
reference to them? To what extent does either part of the story go back to Jesus himself?
Years ago H. Gressmann (Vom reichen Mann) drew attention to an Egyptian folktale,
copied in Demotic on the back of a Greek document dated in the seventh year of the
emperor Claudius (A.D. 47), telling about the retribution in the afterlife for conditions in
this: a reincarnated Egyptian Si-Osiris, born miraculously to Satme Khamuas, takes his
father on a tour of Amente, the realm of the dead, to show him what happened to a rich man
who had died, was honorably lamented, shrouded in fine linen, and sumptuously buried,
and to a poor man who had also died, but who was carried out unmourned on a straw mat to
a common necropolis of Memphis. The rich man was seen in torment with the axle of the
hinge of the halls door fixed in his right eye socket; but in another hall Osiris, ruler of
Amente, sat enthroned and near him was the poor man, robed in the rich mans fine linen.
Si-Osiris words to his father: May it be done to you in Am ente as it is done in Amente to
this pauper and not as it is done to this rich man in Am ente. (See further F. L. Griffith,
Stories of the High Priests of Memphis [Oxford: Clarendon, 1900] 4243.)
Gressmann then cited Luke 16:1931 and seven other tales about retribution in the
afterlife from rabbinic sources of later date, the earliest of which is found in two forms in
the Palestinian Talmud (y. Sanh. 6.23c and y. Hag. 2.77dscarcely before A.D. 400).
Gressmann thought that Alexandrian Jews had brought the Egyptian folktale to Palestine,
where it developed as the story of a poor Torah scholar and a rich toll-collector named Bar
Mayan (see NOTE on 14:15). J. Jeremias (Parables, 183) claims that Jesus was familiar
with this Palestinian tale and even alluded to it in the parable of the great dinner (14:15
24). That the story existed in Palestine in the time of Jesus is possible; indeed, K. Grobel
( Whose Name was Neves ) has exploited the Egyptian tale even more than
Gressmann did, pointing out further parallels (not all of which are convincing). But there
are distinctive elements in the first part of the story that are present neither in the Egyptian
folktale nor in the story of Bar Mayan (the dogs, Abrahams bosom, the dialogue between
the rich man and Abraham). If the Lucan parable echoes such folktales, it has refashioned
them, and there is no reason to think that this refashioning was not done by Jesus himself.
R. Bultmann (HST 197) calls attention to still another Jewish legend which tells of a
rich and godless married couple. The woman dies, and a boy journeys to Hades, sees the
woman in fiery torment, and brings back a message for the husband, Tell my husband to
turn over a new leaf, for the power of repentance is great, and the husband repents.
Bultmann comments, In the form in which we find it, this story is relatively old; it is hard
to imagine that it derives from the gospel story (ibid.). It may be relatively old, and it
may be hard to imagine that it derives from the gospel story, but such a comment is
hardly sufficient for Bultmanns alternative suggestion that a Jewish story lies behind
Lk. 16:1931 (ibid.) or his eventual conclusion that a Synoptic similitude such as this has
been taken from the Jewish tradition by the Church and put into Jesus mouth (ibid. 203).
Bultmann ascribes to his conclusion very great probability. The Jewish legend is found
in M. J. Bin Gorion, Der Born Judas: Legenden, Mrchen und Erzhlungen (6 vols.;
Leipzig: Insel-V., 19221924) 6. 75ff. From what period does it date?
That Jesus could have borrowed a motif from such a Jewish tradition is certainly
admissible; he could even have joined it secondarily to the tale about retribution in the
afterlife from the Egyptian tradition. But there is a certain unity to the two parts of the
Lucan parable, which transcends such distinct motifs. As we have already seen, the parable
as a whole is scarcely a product of Lucan composition. In the long run, there is no solid
reason not to ascribe it as a unit to Jesus himself.
In any case, the parable as told by the Lucan Jesus carries its own double message. In
the present context its connection with the parable and sayings of vv. 113 is not hard to
see. It further illustrates the teaching of the Lucan Jesus about the prudent use of material
possessions and gives new meaning to the dwellings that are everlasting (v. 9). It is a
vivid restatement of the beatitude and the woe of 6:20, 24, and illustrates the proverb at the
end of 16:15, What is of highest human value is an abomination in Gods sight. See
further A. Feuillet, La parabole du mauvais riche.
In the first part of the parable (vv. 1926) Jesus clearly asserts the reversal of fortunes
in the afterlife: a person may expect compensation after death for the use of material
possessions at his/her disposal (see 16:12). The luxurious way of life of the rich man and
his (implied) lack of concern for the poor Lazarus at his door stand in obvious contrast with
their destinies after death: Lazarus in bliss in the bosom of Abraham and the rich man in
torment in Hades. The vivid details of the description need little comment. The rich man,
having no need to work, is arrayed in royal purple and fine linen and feasts sumptuously;
the destitute Lazarus is, on the contrary, ulcerous and famished. After death their fortunes
are reversed, and then not even Lazarus can help the tormented rich man. Their fates are
sealed. The story says nothing about judgment, but inculcates only the reversal of fortunes.
In the second part (vv. 2731) Jesus words insist that not even the miraculous return of
someone from the dead will bring about reform among the obdurate rich who heed not
Moses and the prophets. Coming shortly after vv. 1617 on the continuing validity of the
law and the prophets, this part of the parable adds emphasis to that saying of Jesus.
Bultmann (HST 203) has related this part of the parable to Deut 30:1114, where Moses
insists that the observance of the law is not difficult and does not need someone to scale the
heavens to make its requirements obvious or travel beyond the sea to bring them close to
home. He further refers to 1 Enoch 108 (unfortunately not extant among the Enochic
fragments of Qumran, but possibly a genuine part of early Enochic literature; pace J. T.
Milik, The Books of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976] 48, 57, 78, 98, 107, it is not certainly
a Christian Apocalypse of Enoch). That chapter breathes, according to Bultmann, the
rancor of Judaism in its comments on the fate of the rich and sinners and of the pious and
the poor. Such passages in Deuteronomy and in Enochic literature make it possible that the
words of Jesus in the second part had a meaning for Palestinian Jews in Stage I of the
gospel traditioneven without any allusion to Jesus own death and resurrection.
Bultmann misses the point when he thinks that Jesus words say that it is not right to ask
God for a miracle as a confirmation of his will (HST 203). Rather, as J. M. Creed (The
Gospel, 209) has noted, The purpose for which the rich man desires Lazarus to be sent is
not to authenticate Gods word already given, but to move his brethren to repent lest they
come to Hell.
On the lips of the Lucan Jesus, however, the words take on a further nuance (in Stage
III). They are addressed not only to the rich among the Pharisees of Palestine, but to
Christians as well, and an allusion to Jesus own death and resurrection is unmistakable.
J. Jeremias (Parables, 186), T. W. Manson (Sayings, 301), and others are right in
thinking that the main stress in the parable lies in the second part. Jesus words are not
meant as a comment on a social problem, but as a warning to people like the brothers of
the rich man. They face a crisis in their lives and do not realize it. However, the Lucan
Jesus is undoubtedly saying something, especially in the first part, about retribution in the
afterlife. As I. H. Marshall puts its (Luke, 633), this does not do justice to the first part of
the parable with its lengthy description of the two men. Jesus may be using in that part
folkloric material and the details may be derived from such a background; to identify it as
such does not eliminate the critical character of the message itself. Indeed, the first part of
the parable inculcates that there is a reward-aspect to human conduct and that Christian
disciples are called upon to recognize it.
This Lucan parable teaches the same basic idea that Paul develops in Rom 10:517.
Luke is stressing that salvation involves a reaction of faith (v. 31) to the word of God
preached through Moses and the prophets. He does not say explicitly that faith comes
from what is heard (h pistis ex akos, Rom 10:17)and we should not expect him to do
so (see pp. 2729). Yet in his own way Luke teaches a message similar to that of Rom
10:510.
T. W. Manson (Sayings, 301) is right in emphasizing the relation of this parable to what
he has called the Gospel of the Outcast (see COMMENT on 15:17) at this point in the
Lucan writings, for it calls indirectly for generous and gracious help for all the victims of
poverty, sickness, or any other ill that may come upon human beings.
Because this parable is the only one in the gospel tradition in which a person is given a
name, the relation of it to the story of the raising of Lazarus in John 11:144 naturally
comes up. In particular, v. 31, with its comment on someone rising from the dead makes
one think of Lazarus resuscitation in the Johannine Gospel. There a man is raised from the
dead, does return to terrestrial life, and some people do come to faith (John 11:45). Ever
since Origen (In Ioann. frg. 77; GCS 10. 543544) the question has been raised whether the
same figure is involved in both stories. J. Weiss once suggested that the name Lazarus
might have been inserted into the parable under the influence of John 11 at the time of the
formation of the NT canon, or that the story of the raising of Lazarus was already part of
the gospel tradition at the time Luke was composing his Gospel and that he added the name
and adjusted the ending of the parable to reflect the Johannine tradition. More recently, R.
Dunkerley (Lazarus) has suggested that the second part of the parable may even have
been added under the influence of the Johannine tradition. In all of this, we can only
speculate. There is no hard evidence to establish a connection between this Lucan parable
and the Johannine miracle-story. (See further R. E. Brown, John, IXII, 428429; R.
Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John [3 vols.; New York: Seabury, 1980,
1980, 1982] 2. 341342. See p. 88.)
NOTES

frg. fragment

GCS Griechische christliche Schriftsteller


16:19. There was once a rich man. See 16:1. The story begins with the description of the life-styles
of two Palestinian Jews, as vv. 22, 24, 25, 27, 30 reveal. In the majority of the Greek mss. the rich
man is nameless, but ms. P75, the oldest Greek text of the Lucan Gospel, adds onomati Neus, by
the name of Neues. The name itself is unintelligible and is probably a shortened form of Nineus,
which is also found in the ancient Sahidic version, epefran pe nineu, whose name was Nineveh.
It further occurs in Sahidic homilies of later centuries in which he is reproached for not having
pitied his neighbor or confrere, Lazarus. See L. T. Lefort, Le nom du mauvais riche (Lc 16,19)
et la tradition copte, ZNW 37 (1938) 6572. Nineveh is a peculiar personal name, but perhaps it
echoes some aspect of the well-known Assyrian city of the same name.
A. von Harnack (Der Name des reichen Mannes in Luc. 16,19, TU 13/1 [1895] 7578)
suggested that Nineus was a corruption of Phinehas, the name of the rich man preserved in
Priscillian, Tract. IX, Ad populum I (CSEL 18.91), spelled Finees; and in Ps.-Cyprian, De pascha
computus 17 (CSEL 3/3.265), spelled Finaeus. This name is probably derived from Exod 6:25 or
Num 25:7, where Phinehas and Eleazar occur together (as father and son).
K. Grobel tried to explain the Coptic name Nineu as two words, nine, nothing, and oue,
one, someone, hence Nobody. See Whose Name Was Neves, 381. But nine is attested
only in Fayyumic, not Sahidic. It is a desperate effort to solve the problem of the name.
A marginal note in a thirteenth-century ms. of Peter of Rigas Aurora reads: Amonofis dicitur
esse nomen divitis, Amenofis [i.e. Amenophis] is said to be the name of the rich man. See M. R.
James, Notes, JTS 4 (19021903) 242243.
In English we often refer to the rich man as Dives, which is a deliberate misunderstanding of
the Latin Vg, Homo quidam erat dives, as There was a certain man, Dives. See further B. M.
Metzger, Names for the Nameless in the New Testament: A Study in the Growth of Christian
Tradition, Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (eds. P. Granfield and J. A. Jungmann;
Mnster in W.: Aschendorff, 1970) 1. 7999; J. A. Fitzmyer, Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Some
Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke, CBQ 24 (1962) 175177; H. J. Cadbury, A Proper Name
for Dives, JBL 81 (1962) 399402; The Name for Dives, JBL 84 (1965) 73; TCGNT 165166.
Pace T. W. Manson (Sayings, 296297), it is eisegetical to read this parable as addressed to
Sadducees (see v. 14) or to make the rich man a Sadducee, a priestly aristocrat of Jerusalem.
What point would the story make on those who deny the resurrection (20:27; Acts 23:8), the
persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards (Josephus, J.W. 2.8,14
165)?

ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

TU Texte und Untersuchungen

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

Vg Vulgate (Vulgata latina)

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

TCGNT B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/New York:
United Bible Societies, 1971)

J.W. The Jewish War


who used to dress in purple and fine linen. Lit. and he was usually clothed in purple and
byssus. His garments, described in OT terms (Prov 31:22), insinuate that he lived like a king.
Purple and fine linen were also the gifts given to Sarai, when Pharaoh restored her to her husband
in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 20:31). See 1 Macc 8:14 for purple as the raiment of
royalty; it was probably fine wool dyed with imported Phoenician purple (made from the murex).
Fine linen would refer to undergarments made of b, byssus (a Hebrew word, borrowed from
Egyptian, along with the product from Egypt; see T. O. Lambdin, Egyptian Loanwords in the Old
Testament, JAOS 73 [1953] 147148; cf. A. Hurvitz, The Usage of and bw in the Bible and Its
Implication for the Date of P, HTR 60 [1967] 117121). Cf. Ezek 27:7, 16; Rev 18:12. Cf. P.
Battifol, Trois notes exgtiques: Sur Luc. xvi, 19, RB 9 (1912) 541 (on Philostratus, Vita Apoll.
2.20); R. Delbrueck, Antiquarisches zu den Verspottungen Jesu, ZNW 41 (1942) 128129.
and feast sumptuously every day. Lit. splendidly making merry daily, the vb. used is
euphrainein, as in 12:19; 15:23, 24, 29, 32. Cf. Jas 5:5.
20. squatted. Lit. had been thrown. The pass. of ballein is often used to describe an afflicted
person, bedridden or crippled. See Rev 2:22; Matt 8:6, 14; 9:2; Josephus, J.W. 1.32,3 629; Ant.
9.10,2 209.
a beggar named Lazarus. Lit. and a certain poor (man), Lazarus by name. The name Lazaros
also occurs in Josephus, J.W. 5.13,7 567; it is a grecized, shortened form of Hebrew or Aramaic
Elzr, known from the OT (e.g. Exod 6:23, son of Aaron); the latter has been found on numerous
ossuaries of the Jerusalem area from the first centuries B.C. and A.D. See J. T. Milik, Le iscrizioni
degli ossuari, in B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, Gli scavi del Dominus Flevit (Monte Oliveto
Gerusalemme), Parte I: La necropoli del periodo romano (Pubblicazioni dello studium biblicum
franciscanum 13; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1958) 9293 (with a full list of occurrences).
Josephus uses the fuller Greek form Eleazaros for over twenty persons. See Ant. 18.4,5 103. One
ossuary from Palestine has the name of the person in both Greek and Hebrew: Eliezros
Eleazarou/Elzer ben Lzr, Eliezer (son of) Eleazar/Lazar. See CII 2. 1337. On the problem
of the shortening of the name in Aramaic, see J. A. Fitzmyer, Another View of the Son of Man
Debate, JSNT 4 (1979) 5868, esp. 6264.

1QapGen Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

HTR Harvard Theological Review

RB Revue biblique

vb. verb

pass. passive

Ant. Antiquities

CII Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum (2 vols.; ed. J.-B. Frey; Vatican City. Institute of Christian
Archaeology, 1936, 1952)

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament


The name Elzr means God has helped, and it is a fitting name for the beggar in this
parable, who was not helped by a fellow human being, but in his afterlife is consoled by God.
covered with sores. Lit. ulcerated, a pf. pass. ptc. heilkmenos related to the n. helkos,
abscess, ulcer. T. W. Manson (Sayings, 298) would have us believe that Greek ptchos, poor =
Aramaic miskn, used as a euphemism for leper. But where is it so used? See E. Littmann,
Torreys Buch ber die vier Evangelien, ZNW 34 (1935) 31; Zur Bedeutung von miskin, ZA 17
(1903) 262265. Then the problem is to explain what he would be doing begging in public. See I.
H. Marshall, Luke, 635.
21. longing to be fed. This is actually the same Greek expression (epithymn chortasthnai) as
that used of the prodigal son in 15:16.
if only with the scraps that dropped from the rich mans table. Lit. from the (things) falling
from the table of the rich man. Some mss. ( 2, A, D, W, , , 063, and the Koine text-tradition)

and ancient versions read tn psichin, tiny crumbs; that phrase is absent in mss. P75, *, B, L,
and some ancient versions; it probably reflects Matt 15:27. My translation is not an attempt to
follow the textus receptus; in either case the sense is not affected. At the end of this sentence some
mss. (f13) and the Sixto-Clementine Vg add and nobody would give him anything, an obvious
scribal harmonization with Luke 15:16.
Dogs too. J. D. M. Derrett (Fresh Light, Law, 89) would have us believe that they belonged to
the rich man himself. Nothing in the text indicates that.
to lick at his sores. The best reading is epeleichon, as in mss. , A, B, L, , , 33; some others
(W, f13, and the Koine text-tradition) have apeleichon, to lick away; ms. 157 has perieleichon, to
lick around. The attention of the dogs has only added to his miseries. The description of the beggar
is vivid and detailed to bring out the lack of concern for him on the part of the rich man.
22. One day the beggar died. Lit. and it happened that the poor man died. Luke uses egeneto
de with infins. See p. 118.
carried away by the angels. I.e. left unburied by human beings, he was carried off by heavenly
beings. This seems to reflect the belief found in Shepherd of Hermas, Vis. 2.2,7; Sim. 9.27,3; and
still later in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.31 (where Pythagoras attributes the role to Hermes, the
herald of the gods in Greek mythology). Apart from T. Asher 6:46, where something similar is
found, the carrying off of the dead by angels is not found in Jewish writings before the mid-second
century. See Str-B 2.223225.

pf. perfect

ptc. participle

n. noun

ZA Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie

T. Testament

Str-B [H. Strack und] P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922
1961)
to Abrahams bosom. I.e. to a place of honor, rest, and bliss in the afterlife. This designation is
unknown elsewhere in pre-Christian Jewish literature, finding its way (from here?) into late
midrashim (Echa rabb. 1.85; Pesqita rabb. 43 108b) and the Babylonian Talmud (b. Qidd. 72a
b). The sense of the phrase in some of these passages is disputed. See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of
the Jews [7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 19121938] 5. 268). It
probably represents a development of the OT idea of sleeping with ones fathers or ancestors. See 1
Kgs 1:21; 2:10; 11:21; 4 Macc 13:17, etc.). In using kolpos, bosom, it may suggest either a place
of honor for a guest at a banquet at the right of the host (see John 13:23) or an association of
intimacy (see John 1:18). See further R. Meyer, TDNT 3. 824826; F. Planas, En el seno de
Abrahan, CB 15 (1958) 148152; Str-B 2. 225227. For an attempt to interpret the phrase as
Abrahams lap, see P. Haupt, Abrahams Bosom, AJP 42 (1921) 162167. Note that the sg.
kolpon of this verse becomes the pl. kolpois in v. 23.
was buried. I.e. with due pomp and ceremony. In this case, there was no question of the man
being left unburied. See 1 Enoch 103:56.
23. in deaths abode. Lit. in Hades, see NOTE on 10:15. In this parable Hades is a locale
distinct from Abrahams bosom, with a great chasm separating them. But it may be that two
different locales in Sheol are really meant. See further L. W. Grensted, The Use of Enoch in St.
Luke xvi. 1931, ExpTim 26 (19141915) 333334.
was tormented. Lit. being (hyparchn, see p. 111) in torments. Cf. 4 Macc 13:15: For a
great struggle of soul and danger in eternal torment await those who transgress Gods
commandment. The implication in this part of the parable is not simply that having wealth in this
life leads necessarily to torment in the hereafter, but the failure to make prudent use of it, as vv. 9,
1415 have already suggested.
he looked up and saw. Lit. raising his eyes, he seesthe historic pres. of the pre-Lucan
source is preserved. See p. 107. The expression itself is a Septuagintism. See p. 114. For the dead of
one locale being able to see those in the other, see 2 Esdr 7:85, 93; 2 Bar 51:56.
Lazarus at his side. Lit. at his bosom or in his lap. See NOTE on v. 22. Some mss. (D, )
and the OL version add a ptc., anapauomenon, resting.
24. Father Abraham. The rich Jew in torment insists on his kinship with Abraham, the father
of all Hebrews, as Josephus called him (Ant. 14.10,22 255). See 3:8 and NOTE there; also 1:73.
See p. 188. The rich man will call Abraham Father again in vv. 27, 30.
he called out. Lit. and calling, he said, unstressed kai autos is used. See p. 120.

TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 19641976; Engl. version of TWNT)

CB Cultura bblica

AJP American Journal of Philology

sg. singular

pl. plural

ExpTim Expository Times

pres. present

OL Old Latin (Vetus latina)


Have mercy on me! See 17:13; 18:38, 39. He who showed no mercy to the poor beggar at his
door during his earthly life now seeks for mercy from Abraham (and implicitly from God).
Send Lazarus. The rich man recognizes the beggar and mentions him by name. This detail
implies that he was known to the rich man in life as the beggar at his door. His request is callous,
stemming from his selfish concern.
that he might cool my tongue. I.e. that part of him with which he feasted during life. Hyperbole
is used in this verse to express the severity of the torment. For thirst as a part of the torment of
Hades, see 2 Esdr 8:59. For water in Hades, see 1 Enoch 22:9.
I am in great pain. See NOTE on 2:48.
in these flames. For flames associated with Hades, see Sir 21:910; 1QH 17:13 (damaged text!);
1 Enoch 10:13; 63:10 (flames of the torment of Sheol). Cf. Isa 66:24.
25. my child. Abraham addresses him with teknon (cf. 15:31 [see NOTE there], the same term
used of the elder brother of the prodigal), acknowledging indeed the rich mans kinship, but not his
right to a share in Abrahams merits. See NOTE on 2:48.
you received your blessings during your life. I.e. on earth. The blessings and misfortunes
are literally expressed as your good things and Lazarus evil things; the contrast here recalls the
beatitude and woe of 6:20, 24.
he is comforted. Lit. he is consoled, i.e. by God (the theological pass., see NOTE on 5:20).
The vb. parakalein recalls the woe of 6:24. See NOTE there.
here. The best reading is the adv. hde, here, but mss. f1 and Marcion read the dem. pron.
hode, this one, viz. Lazarus, in contrast to sy, you, in the last cl. of the verse.
26. Besides. Lit. in all these things, an expression used in the LXX (Sir 48:15; Job 12:9) to
express addition. Not only should the rich mans request not be granted, but it cannotthe situation
is irreversible. The phrase does not mean in spite of all this, pace C. F. Evans, Uncomfortable
Words, 229. A. Plummer (The Gospel, 396) queried whether the phrase could mean, In all these
regions, from end to end. Similarly, M.-J. Lagrange (Luc, 447). That would be to understand some
word like chriois with the phrase, which is possible; but it is not necessary. Some mss. (A, D, W,
, , and the Koine text-tradition) read epi instead of en; this would clearly mean in addition (cf.
3:20), but en is the reading in mss. P75, , B, L, etc.
a great chasm. Lit. a great yawning, i.e. an unbridgeable gulf between the locale of bliss and
that of torment. The phrase itself is found in the LXX of 2 Sam 18:17, with a different meaning.
The separation of locales is implied in 1 Enoch 18:1112 (4QEnc 1 viii 2730). Plato, in the myth of
Er, also speaks of a chasma of the heavens and earth (but again in a different sense; see Resp.

1QH Hdyt (Thanksgiving Psalms) from Cave 1

adv. adverb

dem. demonstrative

pron. pronoun

cl. clause

LXX Septuagint

4QEn Enoch texts from Cave 4


10.614D). See further E. F. F. Bishop, A Yawning Chasm, EvQ 45 (1973) 35; D. de Bruyne,
Notes de philologie biblique: I. Chasme (Luc 16, 26), RB 30 (1921) 400405.
has been fixed. I.e. by God (another instance of the theological pass.; see NOTE on 5:20). The
vb. used is strizein. See NOTE on 9:51. The sense is that the fate of the two men is fixed
irrevocably, as the answer of the rich man which follows reveals.
27. Then I beg you, Father. See NOTE on v. 25.
send him at least to my fathers house. I.e. let him appear in a dream or a vision to my family.
Note the subtle play on father in this verse; the rich mans natural father is contrasted with
Father Abraham. Messengers from the dead are known in Greek literature. See Plato, Resp.
10.614D; Lucian, Demonax 43. Cf. 1 Sam 28:720.
28. five brothers. Cp. 14:19.
he might warn them. Or might testify to them, i.e. might go as an eyewitness and bear
testimony under oath (BAGD 186; cf. Acts 18:5), not only that there is a life after death, but that
retribution for ones conduct is part of it.
29. Abraham replied. Lit. says, the historic pres. See p. 107. Some mss. (A, D, W, , , f1,13,
and the Koine text-tradition) add the pron. aut, to him, but mss. P75, , B, L, 892, etc., omit it.
They have Moses and the prophets. See v. 31 and the NOTE on 16:16. Implied in the patriarchs
answer is that the essential message in the Hebrew Scriptures is still a valid guide for the conduct of
his offspring. Those who will not submit themselves to Gods word will not be convinced by a sign,
even the miraculous return of one from the realm of death. Moses and the prophets is scarcely a
veiled reference to the Sadducees, pace T. W. Manson (Sayings, 297); the phrase does not occur in
the OT, but is found in Essene literature. See NOTE on 16:16.
let them listen to them. Contrast the advice given to the disciples on the mountain of
transfiguration (9:35, see NOTE there).
30. Father Abraham. See NOTE on v. 24. The rich man persists in his petition.
if someone will come back from the dead. The vb. in many of the best mss. is poreuth, go
forth; but ms. P75 reads egerth, were to be raised, and ms. has anast, were to rise. The
latter is a copyists harmonization with v. 31. There is no distinction between tis apo nekrn in this
verse and tis ek nekrn in v. 31. See P. Joon, Notes philologiques, 354.
they will reform their lives. The rich man uses a fut. more vivid condition. The Lucan theme of
repentance and conversion appears again. See pp. 237238.
31. they will not be convinced. Abrahams answer is just as emphatic as the insistent petition of
the rich man. Instead of the majority Greek reading (peisthsontai, the subjunc. of emphatic fut.,
will [not] be convinced), ms. D and Latin and Syriac versions have pisteusousin (fut. indic.),
they will (not) believe. In this way, the sign-seeking generation (11:29) is answered again.

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2d ed.; Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1979)

fut. future

subjunc. subjunctive

indic. indicative
even if someone rises from the dead. The best reading is anast, rises, but ms. P75 again has
egerth, is raised (see v. 30), and ms. W and the OL version have apelth, comes (from). Ms. D
conflates anast kai apelth pros autous, rises and comes (from the dead) to them. See p. 195 on
anast and NOTE on 9:8; cf. p. 195.
Those who reject or care not about Gods word in Moses and the prophets will not be moved
by the testimony of such a messenger even from deaths realm. For the Christian reader of the
Lucan Gospel, the reference to Jesus own death and resurrection is obvious. See 9:22; cf. 18:33.
14

1931. Parable of Dives and Lazarus


19. ] introduces an answer to the derision of the Pharisees in ver. 14.
] fine Egyptian linen for underclothing. Tyrian purple was used only by princes;
it was priced at 1000 denarii the pound, each of the little shell-fish from which it was made
yielding a few drops of dye. See Mayor on Juv. 1:27.
.] of a feast, 12:19; 15:23, 15:29.
20. =Eleazar=God helps.
] had been thrown down.
21. ] a dolorem exasperantes; the touch of the dog was defilement to a Jew. Some
think this was an alleviation of his misery, and also that he really was fed with the
crumbsb of the rich mans table.
22. .] Plural form in ver. 23; a known name with Jewish writers for the place
of happy departed spirits (=Paradise of 23:43). Jos. de Macc. 2. p. 514.
23. ] (=Shel) not the same as , but yet for the evil a place of torment.
24. ] partitive gen. or perhaps gen. of material.
25. Observe is added with what was thy good, but not with .
With - cp. Matt. 6:2.
] here; so all the best MSS. for , T. R.
28. -] witness effectually.
29. Abraham knows Moses and the prophets; an indication of the knowledge of the
dead of their successorsand a testimony to the Canon of O. T.
30. The Jews were always asking for a sign; another Lazarus was actually raised and
they tried to kill him. See John 12:10, 12:11.

14
Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, translation, and
notes (1124). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
a
B.
b
So A.

Jos. Jos. Josephus.


15

11. The Rich Man and Lazarus (16:1931)


There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in
19

luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
21
and longing to eat what fell from the rich mans table. Even the dogs came and
licked his sores.
22
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abrahams
side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,a where he was in torment, he
looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him,
Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in
water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.
25
But Abraham replied, Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your
good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you
are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed,
so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from
there to us.
27
He answered, Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my fathers house, 28for I
have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of
torment.
29
Abraham replied, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.
30
No, father Abraham, he said, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they
will repent.
31
He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be
convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus functions to inform Jesus hearers and Lukes
readers about what happens to those who do not keep the commitments (such as marriage
and duty to the poor) which are taught in the Law. It also provides a marvelous counter-
example concerning using possessions in order to make friends who will welcome a person
into heaven (16:9). It is surely one of the most difficult passages in the Gospel for modern
Americans to accept. It is, however, easy to understand.
19a. The fact that Lazarus has a name is unusual in a parable. It may be this fact and the
reality of Abraham that have led many to misconstrue this parable as an historical account.
However, the fact that it begins, There was a certain rich man and the fact that one
can talk across a gulf between heaven and hell indicate that it should be seen as a parable.
The reader should therefore look for the major point(s) and not press the details. This is not
a picture of what the afterlife will be like. It is a warning for those who do not share their
possessions with the poor.
19b-20. Purple and fine linen are the clothes of the powerful and rich. The statement
that he lived in luxury every day refers to his eating habits (NRSV: he feasted

15
Bond, J. (1890). The Gospel According to St. Luke (134). London: Macmillan.
a
Greek Hades

NRSV New Revised Standard Version


sumptuously every day). His house was also quite luxurious, having a gate where there
was laid a beggar named Lazarus.6 There was little else for people with disabilities but to
be taken where they could beg from those with money. Jesus highlights the miserable plight
of Lazarus, by noting that he was covered with sores, hungry, and licked by dogs.
2223. The idea that the angels carried him to Abrahams side reflects the belief that
angels would gather up the elect at the time of the resurrection and final judgment (Matt
13:39, 49, 16:27, 24:31, 25:31). The phrase Abrahams side is nowhere else used, but it
is a beautiful way of saying that Gods people will be in the presence of Abraham, the
father of the faithful. The rich man also died and was in hell. The term translated hell is
hades, a term which can mean either the place of all the dead (equivalent to the Hebrew
sheol) or, as in this case, the place of the unrighteous dead. The fact that he looked up and
saw Abraham does not mean that heaven and hell will be within seeing distance of each
other. This is a parable, not an historical account of an actual event. Jesus is not describing
the topography of heaven and hell.
2426. The rich mans desire for pity cannot be fulfilled, because he had not pitied
Lazarus when he had the opportunity. His request that Abraham send Lazarus would seem
to suggest that he still sees himself as the superior of Lazarus, who should come serve him.
The traditional picture of hell as a place of never-ending flames is affirmed, as the rich man
wants water to cool his tongue because of his agony in the fire. Abrahams response
recalls the beatitudes and woes: You received your good things, while Lazarus received
bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. Jesus hearers get a
glimpse of the final reversal, in which the hungry now will be filled, and those who
are full now will be hungry (6:21, 25).
2728. The parable could end with verse 26, having made a powerful impression on
Jesus listeners. However, as in the parable of the lost son, Jesus has another point to make
in part two. Even though the rich man was formerly unconcerned about Lazarus, he is now
concerned about those at his fathers house. Again he wants Lazarus to be sent, this time to
his five brothers, who are apparently also unconcerned about the poor. He does not want
them to come to this place of torment. At least this former rich man cares about someone,
but, of course, even sinners love those who love them, (6:32) such as family members.
2930. The rich mans request for Lazarus to be sent to his five brothers is clearly a
request that the brothers be given a sign so that they would change their ways. Abrahams
response (the words put in Abrahams mouth by Jesus) is that they do not need a sign,
because they have Moses and the prophets. The implication is that there is sufficient
teaching about how to treat the poor in the Law and prophets. A person does not need a
miracle to know that it is right to take care of those who are without lifes necessities. The
rich mans response to Abraham says a great deal about him: No, father Abraham, but if
someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent. The rich man contends that
simply knowing what is right is not enough to motivate people. They need a sign from
heaven, and then they will change their ways.

6
It is unusual for a character in a parable to be named. It may be because the name Lazarus
means he whom God has helped. However, it may be simply a way to avoid confusion during the
telling of the story. It is easier to tell a story with named characters.
31. Abrahams final words are Jesus clearest explanation about sign seekers. If they
do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone
rises from the dead. Jesus has performed miracles, only to have some question the source
of his power. Many have heard his words, which are self-evidently true to anyone with an
open mind and heart. Those who are not convinced do not want to be convinced, and even
one rising from the dead will not change their minds. The irony, of course, is that Jesus will
rise from the dead, and most still will not believe.
16

5. The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Vss. 1431)


14
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided
15
[] him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before
men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed 16[lofty, ]
among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth1 into it. 17And it is
easier for heaven and earth to pass [away], than [for] one tittle of the law to fail [fall].
18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and
whosoever [he that2] marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
19
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed [and he was wont to array himself]
in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20And there was a certain beggar
named Lazarus, which3 was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21And desiring to be fed with the
crumbs which fell from the rich mans table: moreover [nay, even] thedogs came and licked
his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into
Abrahams bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried23[entombed]; And in hell [hades]
he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his
bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus,
that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this
flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good
things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is [here4] comforted, and thou art
tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf [chasm] fixed: so
that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that

16
Black, M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary (Lc 16.19). Joplin, Mo.: College Press
Pub.
1
[Vs. 16. . Van Oosterzee translates this: thut Gewalt dawider, uses violence
against it. For his vindication of this rendering, see Exegetical and Critical remarks.C. C. S.]
2
Vs. 18.The second of the Recepta is merely a mechanical repetition of the first, and
therefore properly omitted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles.]
3
Vs. 20.The words of the Recepta, , are wanting in B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., X., and on this
ground were already suspected by Griesbach and Lachmann. With Tischendorf [Tregelles] we
believe we should omit them and give the preference to the shorter reading. [Meyer contends for
the Recepta.C. C. S.]
4
Vs. 25., which is wanting in the Recepta, is supported by a preponderance of external
authority. [All the uncials.]
would come from thence. 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest
send him to my fathers house: 28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses
and the prophets; let them hear them. 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went
31
[should go] unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear
not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded [or, won over, V. O.], though
one rose from the dead.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Vs. 14.Derided Him, [lit., turned up the nose at], 2 Sam. 19:21; Ps. 2:4.
An unequivocal, and at the same time hateful, token of deep contempt, whose cause is easy
to give, especially in this case. The rich Pharisees looked down on the poor Nazarene with
contempt, as if they would say: You have spoken very trippingly about the use or misuse
of riches, but we have no mind whatever to trouble ourselves about your counsel. The
answer of the Saviour, vs. 15, gives us to see how He views this hypocritical pride as the
deepest source of this contempt.
Vs. 15.Ye are they.An expression almost like the well-known one of the prophet
Nathan, 2 Sam. 12:7: Thou art the man!Justify yourselves.Comp. Luke 11:39 seq.
and ch. 18:10, where the image of a Pharisee is delineated who will justify himself even in
the eyes of God.But God knoweth your hearts.Comp. 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 7:10.
For what is lofty.The Saviour, of course, speaks not of that which actually in a moral
respect stands high and may stand high, but only that which in mens eyes is prominent
above other things, of which is high ., in general, a thing which in the
eyes of the holy God is abhorrent and damnable; in a special sense, also, impurity, which
was often connected with idolatry; therefore , Matt. 24:15;
Mark 13:14, and the union of and , Rev. 21:27. Here the word is chosen
with the more striking force, because the Pharisees considered themselves as very especial
favorites of God.
Vs. 16. The law and the prophets.Even from old time the expositors of vss. 1618
have been divided into two classes. Some give up all connection; so, e.g., De Wette: Vss.
1618 stand isolated; every attempt made to demonstrate a connection has been a failure.
Among the Dutch theologians, Van Der Palm believed that Luke, before beginning on a
new page a new parable, in order to make use of the yet vacant space of his almost fully
occupied former leaf, noted down some disconnected sayings of the Lord, without any
historical connection. Others, on the other hand, have, with more or less success, sought to
state the connection, as well of these sayings with the rebuke in vs. 15, as also with the
parable, vss. 1931. According to Stier, e.g., All the single sayings fit exactly into most
intimate unity. According to Meyer, the actual centre of gravity falls upon vs. 17, while vs.
16 is merely introductory, and vs. 18 is an example which is intended to explain more
particularly the previous declaration of the continuing validity of the law. According to
LANGE, L. J., iii. p. 464, the Saviour will give the Pharisees to feel that their time is over,
and that without their own notice a new period has dawned. The whole exposition of the
latter deserves to be compared in its connection. Even the very great diversity of these
attempts proves how difficult the question itself is. We, for our part, are acquainted with no
statement of the course of thought of these three verses, whose simplicity and naturalness
satisfy us in every respect, and we therefore regard it as easier to explain each of these three
verses for itself than to state in a satisfactory manner how they are connected with one
another, and why the Saviour on this occasion held up precisely these recollections before
the avaricious Pharisees.
Were until John.Not is to be supplied (Ewald, De Wette), but , or
something of the kind. In any case, the Saviour will intimate, not that the Old Testament
Dispensation was now abrogated (Olshausen), but that the Old Testament up to John
constitutes a whole fully complete within itself, which, as the period of preparation, now
gives place to the word of fulfilmentthe preaching of the kingdom of God.
And every man presseth into it, or, Every man useth violence against it.Comp.
Matt. 11:12, 13. We cannot agree with the common view that here the impulse of
enthusiastic interest and the impetuous longing to press into the kingdom of God is
indicated. The connection, vss. 14, 15, appears to lead us rather to the thought that it is here
a hostile assault that is spoken of, in which the inward malice of the heart reveals itself. In
view of the augmenting opposition which the Saviour found in Israel, He could hardly have
meant to say that so general an eagerness for entrance into His kingdom existed. But
especially does the necessity of an explanation in an unfavorable sense strike the mind
when we compare the parallel passage in Matthew in its whole connection. The , the
powerful of the earth, were in Jesus days, at all events, not in fact very much devoted to
the cause of the kingdom of God, comp. Matt. 11:1619; Luke 7:29, 30, and what ground
could the Saviour have had to speak here of an impulse of heart on the part of many, which,
at all events, was wanting to the Pharisees? By our explanation, on the other hand, it is,
perhaps, possible to show some connection with vs. 14. The Saviour will then say: How
hostilely soever ye are disposed towards a kingdom of God, which (vs. 16) was announced
by the law and the prophets, yet the laws demands and threatenings hold continually good
(vs. 17) in undiminished force (an example, vs. 18), and ye will, therefore, not escape the
judgment of the God who knows your hearts, vs. 15. [I cannot accede to the authors view
of this passage In the first place, his arguments drawn from the connection do not appear to
have great weight, for the original connection is evidently that given in the parallel passage,
Matt. 11:12. Then his identification of the in Matt. 11:12 with the powerful of the
earth, who were opposed to Christ, is quite gratuitous. Persecution against the kingdom of
God, to any considerable extent, between the first preaching of John and the period here
mentioned, there had not been; while there had been from that period on, a widespread and
enthusiastic pressing forward to hear the preaching concerning the kingdom of God, and,
on the part of many, a pressing into it. The every man of Luke, besides that it is hardly so
exact as the terms used by Matthew, need no more be taken with absolute literalness than
Pauls mention of the Gospel as being preached to every creature under heaven. Besides,
the whole complexion of both passages shows that, although our Lord, as Alford remarks,
here contrasts the actual existence of the kingdom of heaven, as a present and powerful
fact, with the bare prophesying of it by John and the prophets, yet He is aware how much
that is ill-considered and external there is in this present enthusiasm. Nor do I see any
reason why the Presents and , in Matthew and Luke, may not have the
tentative sense so frequently found in the Present and Imperfect, and be nearly equivalent to
essay to press into it, or with vehement exertion to appropriate it, with the implication
that the future will show how far this eagerness will accomplish its end.C. C. S.]
Vs. 17. And it is easier.Comp. Matt. 5:1820, and LANGE, ad loc. The Saviour, it is
true, teaches here no external validity of the law; for, according to his own teaching, heaven
and earth will one day pass away, Matt. 24:35, but till the dawn of the new economy the
moral obligation of the law remains in inviolable force. In the world of perfection there is
no longer need of a law, since every one purposes the right to himself. As, therefore, for
God there is no law, so is there also for the perfected world no law. For, like God, so is also
this a law unto itself.
Vs. 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife.According to the most, a special example
by which the principle expressed in vs. 17 is further established. The singularity of this
example misled Olshausen to the curious view that here we have to understand spiritual
idolatry of the Pharisees, who honored Mammon more than Jehovah, and has brought Stier
to the conjecture that here there is an indirect allusion to the scandal which Herod had
given, Mark 6:18. Possibly it is true, but, in our apprehension at least, not probable. Is it not
much simpler to assume that Luke, who nowhere else in his gospel has a place to take in
the doctrine of the Saviour respecting the inviolableness of marriage (comp. Matt. 19:3
12), here, on the mention of the inviolableness of the law, without observing the original
historical connection, adds the statement of a particular from which it may appear how
strictly the Saviour regarded its moral precepts? In a more complete form we find this
precept respecting marriage and divorce noted down, Matt. 5:31, 32. But if our Lord really
uttered this the second time on this occasion, we may then confidently suppose that He
paused in His discourse a moment or so before He proceeded to deliver the parable of
Lazarus and the Rich Man.
General Remarks on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.Manifestly this
parable was uttered by reason of that which took place vss. 14, 15, with a look at the
Pharisees. It stands in this place very congruously, for it has the unmistakable purpose of
teaching these people to see of how little value it is to show ones self pious before men
when one is reprobate before God; to give them to feel the baseness of an unloving temper,
of which they had already made themselves guilty in their judgment of the publicans, ch.
15:2; but especially to draw their attention to the terrible consequences of the misuse of
earthly good, to which their hearts clave so closely. The intention of the parable, therefore,
is not to give a special instruction about future retributionalthough we thankfully accept
the rays of light that fall upon this also, yet it is immediately obvious that the whole parable
is veiled in the costume of the Jewish eschatologybut to proclaim the great truth, that if
one neglects the application of wealth to beneficent purposes, this becomes the source of
eternal calamity. So far, this parable is the obverse of the foregoing, and stands in a natural
connection with it. Whoever, like the Steward, makes himself friends of the unrighteous
Mammon, is received into the eternal tabernacles; whoever, out of pride and selfishness,
does not expend his treasure to this end, is appointed to everlasting torment!
In particular, the first part of the parable, vss. 1926, has this definite purpose, while
vss. 2731 must be regarded more as an appendix, which in a parabolical form occupies the
place of an application of the whole delineation. In this representation, also, some (De
Wette, Strauss, the Tbingen school) have been disposed to see a proof that the Saviour
found in earthly riches something to be reprobated, and in poverty itself something
meritorious, and have appealed for the truth of this to the fact that here there is no more
mention of the moral demerit of the rich man than of the piety of the poor man, and that
Abraham only refers to the different lot of the two here below (vs. 25), which is now
reversed. Yet the onesidedness and superficiality of this inference is obvious of itself.
Faults of the rich man in act, definite examples of his want of love, it is true, do not appear
in the parable; yet from this very fact appears the beauty of the representation, the deep
earnestness of the moral: not the good which the rich man does, but the good which he
omits, is sufficient to condemn him before God. Could the Saviour make His teaching, vs.
9, more impressive than by a representation which shows how a man who omitted this, and
gave ear not to love but to selfishness, became everlastingly unhappy? In order to be
banished into eternal torment, it was not even necessary that one should have maltreated a
poor Lazarus upon earth; even those who allowed him to pine helplessly away and left him
to the care of the dogs would have to give a heavy reckoning of it! Just such an apparently
blameless gormandizer was the one to be held up as a mirror to the Pharisees who appeared
pious before men; in the rich man too there was nothing, so the common opinion was, to
blame, and yethe came to the place of torment. Besides, there are not wanting indirect
proofs of the moral condemnableness of the rich man; in Gehenna he still desires bodily
refreshment; he repeatedly imagines himself capable of directing Lazarus, as if the latter
were in his service; nay, in the entreaty that one might go from the dead to his brothers (vs.
30), there is implied the indirect confession that he himself had not been converted. As
respects Lazarus now, he is in this delineation not the chief but a subordinate character,
who appears more as suffering than as acting. But hardly would the Saviour have
represented him as carried by the angels into Abrahams bosom if he could have shown to
his ancestor no other letter of recommendation than his former poverty. And have we here
liberty so entirely to overlook the high significance which is implied in his humble silence?
It is, finally, entirely unnecessary, with some expositors, to assume that the Saviour
here wished to give a true history of a living or deceased man. Even if it is true, according
to tradition, that at that time there had been a well-known beggar at Jerusalem who bore the
name of Lazarus, yet it is entirely accidental that the poor man in the parable had the same
name with him. The conjecture, indeed, is obvious that the Saviour in naming him so was
thinking especially of His but just deceased friend at Bethany, whither His own journey
was now directed; but this does not admit of proof. But least of all have we here to find
allusion to Annas, with his five sons and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, whose Sadducean
frivolity the Saviour in such a way is supposed to have held up to view. Such a thing,
certainly, was not according to His spirit, and might also have had the appearance of a
personal feud. Had this set at that moment risen before the Saviours mind, He would,
perhaps, have chosen other numbers, in order to avoid even the appearance of so unseemly
an allusion. But that here something higher than an isolated historical truth, that the highest
ideal really lies at the basis of this whole parabolic discourse, we hope we need not now for
the first time remind our readers.
Vs. 19. A certain rich man.The omission of the name is no sign of reprobacy
(Euthym. Zigab. and others), but a means of generalizing the representation. That the
Saviour undertook to draw from life one of Sadducean sentiments is entirely without proof.
Nullum adest vestigium vel mentio transitus ullius a Pharisis ad Sadducos, says
Bengel with justice; and it can scarcely be doubted that among the Pharisees also there
were not a few to whom the description of the rich mans sumptuous manner of life was
fully applicable, comp. Ps. 73:49. As entirely without proof is it that our Lord had the
history of historical characters of earlier times, Saul, Laban, or others, in mind.In purple
and fine linen.The first the designation of the Syrian upper garments; the other of the
Egyptian upper garments. Fine linen, byssus, an Egyptian linen that was sold for twice its
weight in gold, mentioned also in Rev. 18:12, in association with silk, comp. PLINY, H. iv.
19, 1, and many other passages gathered by WETSTEIN, ad loc. That the rich man was
accordingly clothed above his position (Starke), we do not for this reason alone need to
assume. But that under the byssus garment no heart full of love and sympathy beat, appears
sufficiently from the sequel of the parable.
Vs. 20. Named Lazarus.Perhaps a symbolical name, , the Helpless,
Forsaken (Olshausen, Baumgarten, Cramer, Lange). According to Lightfoot and Meyer, a
contracted name, which denotes Deus auxilium (Eleazar, Godhelp). If we assume that the
Saviour was in His thoughts with the dying friend at Bethany (see above), then the giving
of the name is sufficiently explained. In no event is there here (De Wette) a traditional
confusion with John 11.
Laid at his gate, .He had been laid there by others, who either wished to rid
themselves of him, or to secure to him what fell from the rich mans table (Stier, Meyer),
and he remained lying there helpless, as if for a daily silent reproach to the unloving temper
of the rich man.Full of sores (entirely covered therewith, )Desiring to be
fed.Comp. Matt. 15:27. Whether this wish was fulfilled or not the Saviour does not
directly say; yet quite early the gloss crept into the text, , See the
Vulgate and Luke 15:16. Critically untenable, yet as an explanation correct, so far as this,
that the wish of Lazarus, as a rule, was not fulfilled, as appears from what follows.
Vs. 21.Nay, even the dogs came and licked his sores.The enigmatical
. appears to be best understood in such a sense that thereby not a diminution but an
augmentation of his misery is stated. That the poor man got no crumbs at all from the rich
mans table, the parable, it is true, does not say; how could he indeed have then remained
lying at the gate without famishing? But although he now and then got only the crumbs and
scarcely the crumbs, he yet saw even this meagre fare partially disputed him by the dogs.
Understand masterless dogs which ran around on the streets of the capital [as everywhere in
Western Asia, comp. Ps. 59:6.C. C. S.], and allured by so rich a fall of crumbs as that
from the table of the rich man, now robbed even the poor beggar of a part of that which
perhaps had now and then fallen to his share. [The crumbs are, of course, not the trifling
fragments which would fall from one of our tables, but the soft part of the thin cakes of
bread in use in the East, which the wealthy, it appears, are sometimes accustomed to wipe
their fingers with, and throw it under the table, themselves eating only the crustC. C. S.]
These wild and unclean brutes, moreover, licked his sores, and thereby increased the pain
of the helpless Lazarus. To describe his suffering as mitigated through the compassion of
the brutes, would be directly opposite to the intention of our Lord. The antithesis of
and gives us occasion here to suppose a climax in the mournful scene, rather than
an anti-climax. Neither is the suffering of the rich man in Sheol mitigated by anything; and
even though we assume that it was the Saviours intention to oppose the compassion of the
brutes for the fate of Lazarus to that of the rich man, a sympathy of this kind, if it stopped
there, must have heightened his misery the more. Comp. MEYER, ad loc. [It is undoubtedly
true that the mention of the dogs licking the sores of Lazarus is meant to heighten our
conception of his misery. There are two ways now of heightening this; one is to represent
the dogs licking his sores as a new infliction, the other is to represent his misery as so great
that the very dogs had pity on him. The latter, which is the common view, appears at once
more forcible and more natural, to say nothing of its agreement with the effects of the touch
of a dogs tongue, whose grateful smoothness every one is acquainted with. The view of the
author, therefore, though supported by Meyer, is justly rejected by Bleek, De Wette, and
Alford.C. C. S.]
Vs. 22.And it came to pass.With this transition the theatre of the history is at once
transferred into another world. En subita mutatio: qui modo non hominum tantum, sed et
canum ludibrium fuerat, repente Angelorum ministerio honoratur. Grotius.Carried by
the angels.As, of course, is understood, as to his soul. That Lazarus is not buried at all,
but carried, soul and body, into Abrahams bosom, where he now lives again and is happy
(Meyer), is an explanation incapable of proof. Respecting other Israelites, concerning
whom it is said that they have come into Abrahams bosom, no one doubts that
nevertheless their bodies, as usual, were committed to the earth. Why then should it have
been otherwise with Lazarus? No, his burial was (Euthymius) so mean, that in comparison
with that of the rich man it deserves no mention, and the contrast lies rather in the honor
that was shown to the two, to the rich man here, to the poor man yonderto the rich man
by pall-bearers, to the poor man by angelsto the rich man as to his body, to the poor man
as to his soul.Into Abrahams bosom.A metaphorical expression of the blessedness
which immediately after death was prepared for pious Israelites in common with their
blessed ancestor (John 8:56). In all probability the expression is synonymous with Paradise,
Luke 23:43 (Light foot). In Sheol, the general appellation for the abode of departed spirits,
the Jews, as is known, distinguish, on the one hand, a place of punishment, Gehenna; on the
other hand, Paradise, for the pious. We have to understand the rich man as being in the
former; Lazarus as being in the other. The two are so near one another that the inhabitants
can see each other and hold converse. See DE WETTE, Bibl. Dogm. 178182.
Vs. 28. And in Hades, .General designation of the abode of departed
spirits, while from the immediately following it appears that he found himself
in that special place which is named the place of punishment, the . . As this
was conceived as being in the deepest part of Hades, one would have had to look up
(Lange) in order to be able to discover the condition of the blessed. The rich man is now
represented as awakening from a condition of momentary unconsciousness to full
consciousness, and one of the objects which he first discovers in Abrahams bosom
(, the customary plural of the Greeks also) is the familiar Lazarus reposing there.
Vs. 24.Father Abraham.He knows Abraham, therefore, and recognizes him as his
ancestor; as Abraham also afterwards does not refuse to address him as , without,
however, this merely outward relationship availing him anything. He desires that Lazarus
may be sent to him to cool with a single waterdrop his burning tongue. The gastronome
feels him self now so severely punished, precisely in that part of his frame with which he
had so long sinned, and desires only a brief refreshment, perhaps only so slight a one
because he had seen the man in the uncleanness of his sores (Lange). It is noticeable that
he still imagines himself able to direct Lazarus, whom he had all his life lightly esteemed.
Even so does he afterwards despise Moses also (vs. 30). Only his external condition, what
surrounds him, is altered, but not his individuality.
Vs. 25. Son, remember.It looks very much as if, according to Abrahams
declaration, Lazarus is only comforted for the reason that he has suffered on earth, and the
rich man only tormented for the reason that he on earth had received only good. But in
order to be fair, this answer must be complemented with all which the parable gives us on
good grounds to conjecture of the moral condition of both, while at the same time the
antithesis between and without a pronoun, is not to be overlooked.
What the rich man had enjoyed was really his good, had been in his eyes the highest good;
the , on the other hand, which came upon Lazarus, were not actually his, but as
providences of God he had borne them with meekness.Now he is here comforted.The
received into the text strengthens the local character of the representation, but the
by no means warrants us in assuming that it is not an irrevocable and final term that is
spoken of (Stier). One may surely, in a place of torment, still have room for reflections,
without, for that, a better future being disclosed along with this possibility. Or was,
forsooth, the of Lazarus also merely something provisional ?
Vs. 26. And besides all this.Statement of the ground why it is literally impossible to
him to fulfil the rich mans wish, even if he desired it. , literally a cleft when two
places are so parted from one another by a torrent or fall of earth, that an unfathomable
depth or immeasurable breadth is between, 2 Sam. 18:17; Zech. 14:4. The here-indicated
thought of an irrevocable separation is in itself intelligible enough, but the form in which
the Saviour here expresses it is entirely peculiar. The Greeks, it is true, know of a in
Tartarus; this; however, is not regarded as a space separating two regions; but the Rabbins
speak only of a dividing wall between the two parte of Hades, or of an intervening space of
an hand-breadth, nay, even only of a hairs breadth. Then also the hope of, perhaps, even
yet getting over this is very much weakened by the statement of the particular
purpose for which this cleft is established, namely, for the very purpose () of
rendering the transition from one to the other side impossible. For the explanation of the
imagery, compare the well-known passage of VIRGIL, neid, 6:126.:
Facilis descensus Averni,
Noctes atque dies patet atri janua Ditis:
Sed revocare gradus, superasque evadere ad auras,
Hoc opus, hic labor est.
Vs. 27. I pray thee, therefore.It appears almost as if the unhappy man sought some
mitigation of this torment in continuing the conversation, although he could scarcely have
hoped for the granting of his petition. For the second time he addresses himself to
Abraham, that he may send Lazarus to his brethren. Perhaps he remembers that he by word
and example had encouraged them in their sinful life, and feels himself, therefore, the more
constrained to adventure an attempt for their delivery. , here
without definite object (otherwise, Acts 20:21, and elsewhere). . Wahl; per
deum hominumque fidem testor vel affirmo; de adhortantibus: graviter moneo. An actual
statement that sin is so terribly punished, he does not consider as any longer necessary for
his brothers, but so much the more ardently does he long that by irrefragable testimony that
may be confirmed to them, which they know indeed, but in their hearts do not believe.
Vs. 29. They have Moses and the prophets.This time the compassionate is
omitted, and the tone becomes sterner, in order in the last answer of Abraham, vs. 31, to
pass over into a distinct and inexorable refusal. Moses and the prophets here appear as the
summary of a Divine revelation of all that which was needful for Israel in order to find the
way to life. To hear these means, of course, not simply to listen to them externally, but
designates also at the same time an actual obedience and following of their precepts. That
the Hagiographa are included in this mere summary of the Old Testament is, of course,
understood.
Vs. 30. Nay, Father Abraham.The unhappy one now pretends to know his brothers
better than Abraham himself, but acknowledges at the same time thereby that he had not
repented, and therefore his condemnation was a righteous one.
Vs. 31. If they hear not Moses and the prophets.Comp. Isaiah 8:19; 34:16; John
5:45. A reference to Elijahs appearance (Baumgarten-Crusius) is by no means contained
here. But the resurrection of Jesus, which was announced to the Jews without moving them
to faith, may in a certain measure serve as an indirect confirmation of this declaration of
our Lord. The enmity against Lazarus also, who had risen from the dead, John 12:10,
although he, it is true, had brought them no positive intelligence from Hades, affords the
proof that no extraordinary signs can constrain the impenitent man to faith when he once
refuses to give heed to the word of God and His ambassadors extraordinary. As to the rest,
this conclusion of the parable must have shamed the Pharisees the more deeply the less it
gave them ground to hope that their unappeasable thirst for miracles (John 4:48) would
afterwards find yet more satisfaction. Quite natural, therefore, that they now again give
unmistakable signs of how deeply they are offended with the word of the Saviour, which
gave Him then occasion for the immediately succeeding warning in reference to .
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The distinction which appears to exist between the Saviour and Paul, when the
former brings forward with emphasis the perfect inviolableness and eternal validity of the
law, the other proclaims the abrogation of the law through the New Testament, by no
means warrants the hypothesis that the Master thought differently, respecting this question
of controversy, from His highly enlightened Apostle, and that, therefore, Christianity in
Paul took a step beyond Jesus. On the contrary, here also the well-known rule is applicable:
distingue tempora, et concordabit scriptura. The Saviour, who was speaking to His
contemporaries in Israel, could not do otherwise than emphasize the relative truth that the
law and the prophets remain in force; but Paul, who appeared in the midst of heathenism,
must immediately proclaim that the ministry which preaches condemnation, the
ministration of the letter, was abrogated. The word of the Saviour aims exclusively at the
spirit, the heart; the eternal substance; the word of the Apostle, on the other hand, at the
form, the letter, the external constraining authority of the Old Testament. How far Paul was
in principle from Antinomism appears from Rom. 3:31.
2. Whosoever putteth away his wife committeth adultery. According to this saying
literally interpreted, it certainly appears as if our Lord declared Himself unconditionally
against all divorce, and as if the Roman Catholic Church were fully right when she permits
at the most a separatio quoad torum et mensam, but never quoad vinculum. We must,
however, complement this declaration of the Saviour from Matt. 5:32; 19:9, and assume
that the transgression by which marriage is dishonored by the one party gives to the other
party also libertywe by no means say obligationto regard it on his or her side also as
broken. Whether it is more Christian to make use of this permission or not, this is not to be
deduced from the letter of the Saviours words, although we believe that it is in His spirit if
the question is answered negatively. But, certainly, he who in the case stated avails himself
of his liberty for a divorce, is not on this account alone to be condemned, and the innocent
party, therefore, of two married people separated on this legitimate ground, need not be
forbidden to conclude a new connection. The limitation is therefore here
also by no means to be left out of consideration, for in the case of an actual divorce
has already taken place, so that the legal one is only the normal continuation of it, and the
injured spouse in this case does not abandon his wife, but an adulteress, who has ceased
to conduct herself as his wife. In short: Jesus negatives the question whether the man
could arbitrarily divorce the woman, and declares Himself against every one-sided and
arbitrary divorce. De Wette.
3. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is the sublimest delineation of this side and
of that side of the grave in its astounding antitheses. What is the trilogy of a Dante, in
which he sings Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, compared with the trilogy of this parable,
which places with few but speaking strokes the great whole of Earth, Gehenna, and
Paradise at once before our eyes ? In the vesture of a figurative discourse which is taken
from the eschatology of His time, the Saviour gives here the most astonishing disclosures,
and lifts the veil which covers the secrets of the future.
4. The antithesis which in the parable takes place between the rich man and the poor
man on earth, exhibits to us the picture of the most mournful reality. Comp. Prov. 22:2. The
Saviour, like Moses, is far from wishing to annihilate the distinction between the rich and
the poor as if by a stroke of magic, Deut. 15:711; Mark 14:7. He permits the antithesis
here on earth to exist, and therein one of the greatest riddles of the righteous administration
of Providence. But at the same time He removes the stumbling-block, inasmuch as He
depicts to us this life not as the life, but only as the first half of our being, and inasmuch as
He causes the light of eternity to rise over the dark night of this earth.
5. Although it is not the immediate purpose of this parable (see above), to give a special
instruction about future things, yet many a question about the other world is here answered
in a satisfactory manner. So much is shown to us at once: after death the life of the pious
continues uninterruptedly, as well as that of the ungodly. Far from teaching a sleep of souls,
the Saviour declares on the other hand that consciousness continues beyond the grave. The
rich man sees, it is true, his external condition altered, but in his inner man he has remained
the same. He knows who and where he is; he recognizes Lazarus; can speak of his fathers
house, and his five brothers, and their moral condition is to him not unknown. Quite as
puffed up as before, he looks down upon Lazarus, and his character yonder, therefore, still
shows the same shadows as here. The pain which he suffers consists in a righteous
retribution of the evil which he has done here; to Lazarus the crumb was refused, to him a
drop is forbidden. [A refinement hardly borne out by the text.C. C. S.] Traces of true
repentance he does not show, but he does of suffering and despair. He calls not on God but
on father Abraham, and is not grieved at his sins but only at their consequences. Natural
feeling for his brethren makes him tremble at the thought that they also may come to the
place of torment, but indirectly he still excuses himself as if he had been in this life not
sufficiently warned. No wonder that when such an inward difference exists between him
and the blessed, an outward cleft also exists which can no more be filled up than passed
over. Although the Saviour here speaks of the condition immediately after death, not of that
after the Parusia, it appears, however, that according to His conception the sharp separation
beyond the grave, between the children of light and those of darkness, becomes in any
event a cleft and abyss. As well the doctrine of purgatory, as that of the Apocatastasis, is
opposed by this parable, and according to the last word of Abraham to the rich man, we can
on this side expect nothing more for the unbeliever than an irrevocable silence.
6. The happiness of the life to come consists, according to this parable, in this, that the
redeemed of the Lord is comforted (, vs. 25). The soul, freed from the earthly
probationary suffering, is carried by angels to a happier place. What the Saviour here
teaches of the ministerium angelorum is indirectly confirmed by such passages as Luke
15:10; Hebrews 1:14, a. o. Paradise, which is here spoken of as the destined place of the
blessed, must be carefully distinguished from the third heaven, 2 Cor. 12:4, the dwelling-
place of the perfected righteous. The Paradise is, on the other hand, in the intermediate state
a place of incipient, although very refreshing, rest, in which the Jews conceived all the
saints of the Old Testament as united in joy. By the bosom of Abraham, we are to
understand the most swelling part of the garment, which is made by casting it around upon
the breast. Here also, as in Matt. 8:11, 12; Luke 13:2529, and other passages, future
blessedness is designated under the image of a feast, where the favorite of the father of the
family, in this case Abraham, so lies upon his couch that he can rest upon his bosom. The
ideas of refreshment and fellowship are therefore here most intimately united. The poor
Lazarus rests in the bosom of the rich Abraham, as if to show that not poverty or riches in
itself, but faith and obedience, constitute the ground of their blessedness. This blessedness
is experienced in union with others of the same character, as is also true of the state of
perdition (comp. the ); but the thought of the fate of the damned
does not disturb the rest of the blessed. With full composure Abraham can address the rich
man, Lazarus can hear him without rejoicing, but also without giving him hope. How much
more sublime is this representation than that in the Koran, e.g., where the blessed scoff at
the damned, and gloat over the contemplation of their torments!
7. In our predilection for the first and chief end of the parable, we must not overlook the
dogmatic and Christological importance of its second purpose. It is noticeable how the
Saviour here also in unequivocal tone gives testimony for the sufficientia scriptur V. T. A
fortiori may this testimony be extended also to the Scriptures of the New Testament.
United, these means of grace are, for the enlightenment, for the renewal and sanctification,
of the sinner, so perfectly adequate, that it is as inconceivable as fruitless to expect even yet
more powerful voices of instruction. That, moreover, if the word is to accomplish this
purpose, the operation of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary, is by no means denied by
our Lord. The word is the seed for the new birth, yet sunshine and rain from above must
make the seed fruitful upon the field. But there is no operation of the Spirit to be expected
where the power of the word is lightly esteemed; the narrative shows sufficiently, that any
extraordinary awakening, which any one believes himself able to bring to pass in any other
way than that of the living , is of brief duration and doubtful significance. No
sufferer can, therefore, reckon upon being saved by God in extraordinary ways, if he has
despised the common way described in Gods word; and could even the sign of Jonah be
again repeated, it would be in vain for him who despises the preaching of Jonah.
8. In the conclusion of this parable the Saviour utters at the same time a condemnation
of all extraordinary attempts which are made in our time also by knocking-spirits, table-
tippings, appearances of ghosts, somnambulism, &c., to come upon the trace of the secrets
of the future world. Such a superstition is the less to be excused, because it is commonly
united with secret unbelief in Gods word and testimony. It appears in this, moreover, only
too plainly, that even those who fancy themselves in possession of such extraordinary
energies and revelations, yet are often not converted, and therefore their obstinacy itself
confirms the last word which Abraham has here uttered.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The truth, recognized by the conscience, opposed by the sinful heart.The enmity of
the Pharisees against the preaching of the law of love.The Pharisaical temper exists in
every natural man; they wish to appear righteous before God.God knoweth your
hearts; this truth may be considered: 1. As a certain; 2. as a terrifying; 3. as a comforting,
truth.The heaven-wide distinction between the judgment of God and the judgment of
man, 1 Sam. 16:7.The Old Testament period, a period of preparation.So soon as the
kingdom of God is proclaimed with power it is vehemently opposed.The inviolableness
of the law: 1. In what sense? 2. with what right? 3. for what purpose, does the Saviour
proclaim the inviolableness of the law?Married life transfigured by the Spirit of Christ.
Divorce not something relatively good, but a necessary evil.
The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them both.How poor a
rich man, how rich a poor man, may be: 1. In the present; 2. in the future, world.The rich
man, a. poor in true joy; b. in sympathizing love; c. in well-grounded hope; d. in eternal
happiness.The poor man, a. rich in calamities; b. rich in pain; c. rich in everlasting
consolation.The comedy and the tragedy of earthly life only a few steps removed from
one another.How the good living of the earth does not soften, but hardens, the heart.
The inexcusableness of an unloving temper exhibited in the person of the rich man: 1. The
poor man is alone; 2. hard by the door; 3. well known; 4. daily before his eyes; 5. incapable
of labor; 6. modest enough not to complain; 7. content even with crumbs; 8. an object of
the attention of the dogs, and yet is he contemned by the rich man.Death the end of the
inequality of life. Comp. Job 3:1719.Death to one the greatest gain, to the other the
most terrible loss.The care of angels for the dying saint, on its undoubtedly certain, on its
indescribably consoling, side.What avails the last honor shown the dying sinner, if it is
immediately after death followed by eternal ignominy?The awakening in the morning of
eternity: 1. What there continues of that which we here possess at every awakening: a. our
consciousness, b. our personality, c. our memory; 2. what there falls away of that which we
here recover at every awakening: a. the illusive joy of the sinner, b. the perplexing trial of
the saint, c. the work of the grace of God on both; 3. what there begins of that which we
here at every awakening see approaching somewhat nearer: a. a surprising meeting again,
b. a righteous retribution, c. an eternal separation.The mutual beholding of each other by
the blessed and the damned.The carnal relationship with Abraham is in the spiritual
world not denied, but it avails nought.The Jus talionis in the future life.The sorrow of
the damned: 1. Over that which they lack; 2. behold; 3. endure; 4. expect.Woe to the man
who knows no higher good than that which he has received in this life!The great cleft: 1.
Its depth; 2. its duration; 3. its two opposing sides.Not earthly suffering opens the way to
heaven, but the manner in which it is borne.The terrible recollection, in the place of
torment, of relatives whom one has left behind on earth.If natural relationship does not
become a spiritual one, it becomes at last only a source of suffering the more.If sinners
really believed how terrible hell is, they would without doubt be converted.Gods word
the only and adequate means for the conversion of the sinner. Whoever contemns this
means, has no other to expect.One risen from the dead even would not be able to bring
the sinner to true faith.Whoever expects another means of grace, outside of those
ordained by God; 1. Such an one miscalculates fearfully; 2. such an one sins deeply.
STARKE:QUESNEL:There comes a time when God, in turn, scoffs at those who have
scoffed at His truth.The avaricious man likes to deck himself with feathers of
hypocrisy.CRAMER:There are two kinds of pridespiritual and worldly; neither
pleases God, both are an abomination to Him.BRENTIUS:The New Testament age
requires New Testament people. Heathen sumptuousness of living prophesies for
Christendom nothing good.HEDINGER:Piety goes often a-begging, but is rich in
God.QUESNEL:Sickness of body serves often for healing of the soul; happy he whom
the Chief Physician counts worthy to be thus cured.Nova Bibl. Tub.:Shame on you, ye
uncompassionate rich! The rational man is shamed by irrational beasts!Those who
become everlastingly glorious, must before have been wretched.Ah, how is the leaf
turned after death!CANSTEIN:False trust in the outward fellowship of the covenant with
God is found even in the damned.HEDINGER:In cruel eternity all grace and comfort has
an end. Prov. 11:7.The condemned have in their pain longing for mitigation, but obtain it
not, and the vain longing will increase their pain.They who, through a bad example, give
others too occasion to sin, will, in hell, on this account, be tormented by their
consciences.MAJUS:Each one must indeed have concern for the salvation of his
friends, but early and betimes. James 5:20.CANSTEIN:Evil men will not accommodate
themselves to Gods dispensation, but despise and censure it, and will, according to their
own fancy, manage yet more conveniently for themselves.HEDINGER:Out of love to
atheists and those who do not like the Scriptures, God will do no miracles.Ungodly men
do not change, and fear not God, even in hell: let no one wonder at this.Nova. Bibl.
Tub.:Faith is content with the word of God, which is full of miracle and proof; but
unbelief nothing will suit.HEUBNER:God will hereafter destroy all seeming.The
more lofty ones schemes have been, the deeper will he fall.Riches easily mislead to
living well without doing well.To be voluptuous and without love is quite enough to be
damned for.Of rich men like Dives, there are enough; of poor men like Lazarus, few.
Death for the pious sufferer a wished-for friend, who brings him redemption.How
various is the entering of men into the other world!Short pleasure followed by eternal
torment.God punishes not with vehement indignation, but with composed
righteousness.Whoever seeks heaven in earthly things will hereafter lose the true
heaven.One need not be poor and full of sores, and yet may be like Lazarus.Take heed
against building the foundation of salvation on natural kindness of heart.The damned
torment one another.It may be that the dead think oftener of the living than the living of
them.Faith is content with the proofs which God gives, but unbelief has never enough of
them.Man has no right to prescribe to God how He will lead him to salvation.Here
have we also the ground why Christ, after His resurrection, did not appear to the
unbelieving.
On the Pericope, comp. four sermons of Chrysostom on this section. Ed.
MONTFAUCON, tom. 1.The sermon of MASSILLON, Sur le Mauvais Riche.LISCO:Of
the unbelief of false citizens of the kingdom.How we have to judge the complaint of the
inaccessibleness of the Christian means of salvation.SCHULTZ:Our soul retains in the
future life its consciousness and its memory.FLOREY:Four declarations in the New
Testament, which this Gospel proclaims and confirms to us: 1. Matt. 19:23; 2. 1 John 2:17;
3. James 1:12; 4. 2 Tim. 3:14, 15.WOLF:That death alters the fate of earthly-minded
men, but not their temper.DETTINGER:Eternityhow it judges, how it parts, how it
brings together.Ruling:The gulf between the child of the world and the child of God is
not filled up by death, but only fixed in reverse order.FUCHS:1. The poor Lazarus, a. a
poor man, but also a rich man, b. a sick man, but also a well man, c. a sojourner, but also a
citizen; 2. the rich man, a. a rich man and yet a poor man, b. a well man and yet a sick man,
c. a citizen and yet a vagrant.L. A. PETRI:The worldly mans wretched life and fate: 1.
Poor in life; 2. wretched in death; 3. lost in eternity.RAUTENBERG:Death on two sides:
1. Oh death, how bitter art thou! 2. oh death, how beneficent art thou!VON KAPFF:
What Jesus here teaches of the condition, of souls after death: 1. Of those that live without
God; 2. of those that live in God.UHLE:Some glimpses over the grave out into the still
realm of the dead.COUARD:Voluptuousness: 1. Its nature; 2. its source; 3. its
consequences.SAURIN:The sermon Sur le suffisance de la Rvlation. Serm., tom. i. p.
404.
________
6. Parabolic Address to the Disciples concerning Genuine Faith, which overcomes Offences
(CH. 17:110)
1
Then said he unto the [his1] disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but
woe unto him, through whom they come! 2It were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend [or, cause to
offend] one of these little ones. 3Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass againtst
thee, rebuke him; 4and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times
in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, 2 saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive
him. 5And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. 6And the Lord said, If ye had
faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up
by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
7
But which of you, having a servant ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by
and by [immediately], when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat 8[recline at
table]? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird
thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou 9shalt eat and
drink? Doth he thank that [the3] servant because he did the things that were commanded
him4? I trow not.5 10So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are
commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty
to do.
17

Ver. 19g: There was a certain rich man.] Whoever


believes this not to be a parable, but a true story, let him believe also those little friars

1
Vs. 1. has a decided weight of authority. See TISCHENDORF, ad locum.
2
Vs. 4.The more this is required by the connection, the more probable is the conjecture
that, strongly as it is attested, it is an interpolation a seriore manu.
3
Vs. 9.The of the Recepta is lacking in A., B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., X, &c., and appears to be
only an explicative addition.
4
Vs. 9.. The spuriousness of this word is pretty certain [only found in D., X. of the uncials],
and is conceded by most of the modern critics.
5
[Vs. 9. . This sentence is not found in B., Cod. Sin., L., X., although it has 11 other uncials
for it, with most of the cursives, the Vulgate, most copies of the Itala, both the Syriac versions, &c.
Tischendorf retains it, Lachmann brackets it; Tregelles, Alford omit it. Meyer vindicates it, and
Bleek is doubtful. Alford meets Meyers allegation that it might have been inadvertently left out on
account of its resemblance to the following , by remarking that this is always written in
the ancient MSS. if we suppose it an interpolation, it must be the marginal ejaculation of some
ancient scribe at the hypothetical presentation of so preposterous an inversion of relations. But it
appears more natural to take them as our Lords own words.C. C. S.]
17
Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., van Oosterzee, J. J., & Starbuck, C. C. (2008). A commentary on the Holy
Scriptures : Luke (251). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
g
English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 454.
[fratricellis], whose trade it is to shew the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point
exactly to the place where the house of the rich glutton stood. Most accurate keepers of
antiquity indeed! who, after so many hundreds of years, such overthrows of Jerusalem, such
devastations and changes, can rake out of the rubbish the place of so private a house, and
such a one too as never had any being, but merely in parable. And that it was a parable, not
only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it.
The main scope and design of it seems this, to hint the destruction of the unbelieving
Jews, who, though they had Moses and the Prophets, did not believe them, nay, would not
believe, though one (even Jesus) arose from the dead. For that conclusion of the parable h
abundantly evidenceth what it aimed at: If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither
will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.
Ver. 20: Lazarus.] I. We shew in our notes upon St. John 11:1, in several
instances, that the word Lazar is by contraction used by the Talmudists for
Eleazar. The author of Juchasini attests it:
in the Jerusalem Talmud every R. Eleazar is written without an Aleph, R. Lazar.
II. In Midras Cohelethk there is a certain beggar called Diglus
Patragus, or Petargus: poor, infirm, naked, and famished. But
there could hardly be invented a more convenient name for a poor beggar than Lazar,
which signifies the help of God, when he stands in so much need of the help of men.
Butl perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse
is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his
servantm, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse [in potentia] the
heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into
Abrahams bosom? Which I leave to the judgment of the reader, whether it might not hint
the calling of the Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.
The Gemarists make Eliezer to accompany his master even in the cave of Machpelah:
R. Baanahn painted the sepulchres: when he came to Abrahams cave, he found Eliezer
standing at the mouth of it. He saith unto him, What is Abraham doing? To whom he,
He lieth in the embraces of Sarah. Then said Baanah, Go and tell him
that Baanah is at the door, &c.

h
Ver. 31.
i
Fol. 81. 1.
k
Fol. 98. 2.
l
Leusdens edition, vol. ii. p. 546.
m
Gen. 15.
n
Bava Bathra, fol. 58. 1.
Full of sores.] In the Hebrew language, stricken with ulcers.
Sometimes his body full of ulcers, as in this story: Theyo tell of Nahum
Gamzu, that he was blind, lame of both hands and of both feet, and in
all his body full of sores. He was thrown into a ruinous house, the feet of his bed being put
into basins full of water, that the ants might not creep upon him. His disciples ask him,
Rabbi, how hath this mischief befallen thee, when as thou art a just man? He gives the
reason himself; viz. Because he deferred to give something to a poor man that begged of
him. We have the same story in Hieros Peahp, where it were worth the while to take notice
how they vary in the telling it.
Ver. 22: He was carried by the angels.] The
Rabbins have an invention that there are three bands of angels attend the death of wicked
men, proclaiming, There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wickedq. But what
conceptions they have of angels being present at the death of good men, let us judge from
this following passage:
Ther men of Tsippor said, Whoever tells us that Rabbi [Judah] is dead, we will kill
him. Bar Kaphra, looking upon them with his head veiled with a hood, said unto them,
Holy men ands angels took hold of the tables of the covenant, and the hand of the angels
prevailed; so that they took away the tables. They said unto him, Is Rabbi dead then?
The meaning of this parabolizer was this; Holy men would fain have detained R. Judah still
in the land of the living, but the angels took him away.
Into Abrahams bosom.] So ver. 23, in the plural number,
, which doth not alter the sense, but strengthens it. The Jewish schools
dispose of the souls of Jews under a threefold phrase, I can hardly say under a threefold
state:
I. In the garden of Eden, or Paradise. Amongst those many instances that
might be alleged, even to nauseousness, let us take one wherein this very Abraham is
named:
Het shall be as a tree planted by the rivers of waters. This is Abraham, whom God
took and planted in the land of Israel; or, whom God took and planted in
Paradise. Take one instance more of one of equal fame and piety, and that was Moses:

o
Taanith, fol. 21. 1.
p
Fol. 21. 2.
q
Bemidb. Rabb. fol. 245. 4.
r
Hieros. Kilaim, fol. 32. 3.
s
English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 455.
t
Midras Tillin, fol. 3. 1.
Whenu our master Moses departed into Paradise, he said unto Joshua, If thou
hast any doubt upon thee about any thing, inquire now of me concerning it.
II. Under the throne of glory. We have a long story in Avoth R.
Nathanx of the angel of death being sent by God to take away the soul of Moses; which
when he could not do, God taketh hold of him himself, and
treasureth him up under the throne of glory. And a little after; Nor is Mosess soul only
placed under the throne of glory; but the souls of other just persons also are reposited
under the throne of glory.
Moses, in the words quoted before, is in Paradise; in these words, he is under the throne
of glory. In another placey, he is in heaven ministering before God. So that under
different phrases is the same thing expressed; and this, however, is made evident, that there
the garden of Eden was not to be understood of an earthly, but a heavenly paradise.
That in Rev. 6:9, of souls crying under the altar, comes pretty near this phrase, of being
placed under the throne of glory. For the Jews conceived of the altar as the throne of the
Divine Majesty; and for that reason the court of the Sanhedrim was placed so near the altar,
that they might be filled with the reverence of the Divine Majesty so near them, while they
were giving judgment. Only, whereas there is mention of the souls of the martyrs that had
poured out their blood for God, it is an allusion to the blood of the sacrifices that were wont
to be poured out at the foot of the altar.
III. In Abrahams bosom: which if you would know what it is, you
need seek no further than the Rhemists, our countrymen (with grief be it spoken), if you
will believe them; for they upon this place have this passage: The bosom of Abraham is
the restingplace of all them that died in perfect state of grace before Christs time; heaven,
before, being shut from men. It is called in Zachary a lake without water, and sometimes a
prison, but most commonly of the divines Limbus patrum; for that it is thought to have
been the higher part or brim of hell, &c.
If our Saviour had been the first author of this phrase, then might it have been tolerable
to have looked for the meaning of it amongst Christian expositors; but seeing it is a scheme
of speech so familiar amongst the Jews, and our Saviour spoke no other than in the known
and vulgar dialect of that nation, the meaning must be fetched thence, not from any Greek
or Roman lexicon. That which we are to inquire after is, how it was understood by the
auditory then present: and I may lay any wager that the Jews, when they heard Abrahams
bosom mentioned, did think of nothing less than that kind of limbo which we have here
described. What! Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, &c., in a lake without water, in prison, on
the very brim of hell! Is this to be in paradise? is this to be
under the throne of glory? And was Lazarus carried thither by angels when he was carried
into Abrahams bosom?
u
Temurah, fol. 116. 1.
x
Cap. 10.
y
Pesikta, fol. 93. 1.
We meet with a phrase amongst the Talmudists; Kiddushin, fol. 72: it is quoted also
from Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. Let us borrow a little patience of the reader, to transcribe the
whole passage:
Rabbi [Judah] saith to Levi, Represent the Persians to me by some
similitude. He saith, They are like to the host of the house of David.
represent to me the Iberians. They are like to the angels of destruction.
Represent to me the Ismaelites. They are like the devils of the
stinking pit. Represent to me the disciples of the wise, that are in Babylon. They are like to
ministering angels. When R. [Judah] died, he said,
Hmnia is in Babylon, and consists of Ammonites wholly.
Mesgaria is in Babylon, and wholly consists of spurious people.
Birkah is in Babylon, where two men interchange their wives.
Birtha Sataia is in Babylon, and at this day they depart from God.
Acra of Agma is in Babylon. Ada Bar
Ahava is there. Thisz day he sits in Abrahams bosom.
This day is Rabh Judah born in Babylon.
Expositors are not well agreed, neither by whom, nor indeed concerning whom, those
words are spoken, This day he sits in the bosom of Abraham. And for that reason have I
transcribed the whole period, that the reader may spend his judgment amongst them. The
author of Juchasin thinks they may be the words of Adah Bar Ahavah spoken concerning
Rabbi Judah. Another Gloss saith, They are spoken of Adah Bar Ahavah himself. Let us
hear them both: Thea day that Rabbi died, Rabh Adah Bar Ahavah said, by way of
prophecy, This day doth he sit in Abrahams bosom. Thereb are those indeed that
expound, This day doth he sit in Abrahams bosom, thus; that is, This day he died. Which if
it be to be understood of Adah Bar Ahavah, the times do not suit. It seems to be understood
therefore, This day he sits in Abrahams bosom: that is, This day is Adah Bar Ahavah
circumcised, and entered into the covenant of Abraham.
But the reader may plainly see, having read out the whole period, that these words were
spoken neither by Adah nor of him, but by Levi, of whom we have some mention in the
beginning of this passage, and spoken concerning Rabbi Judah that was now dead. It is
Levi also that saith, that in his room, on that very selfsame day, was Rabh Judah born in

z
English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 456.
a
Juchasin.
b
Gloss.
Babylon, according to the common adage of their schools, which immediately follows; A
just man never dies, till there be born in his room one like him. So saith R. Meir; When
R. Akibah died, Rabbi [Judah] was born: when Rabbi Judah died, Rabh Judah was born:
when Rabh Judah died, Rabba was born: when Rabba died, Rabh Isai was born.
We have here, therefore, if we will make up the story out of both Talmuds, another not
very unlike this of ours. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Judah is conveyed by angels; in
the Babylonian, he is placed in Abrahams bosom: neither would the Glosser have doubted
in the least either of the thing, or of the way of expressing it, so as to have fled to any new
exposition, had he not mistook the person concerning whom these words were uttered. He
supposeth them spoken of Adah Bar Ahavah (wherein he is deceived): and because the
times do not fall in right, if they were to be understood of his death, he therefore frames a
new interpretation of his own, whiles, in the mean time, he acknowledgeth that others
expound it otherwise.
We may find out, therefore, the meaning of the phrase according to the common
interpretation, by observing, first, that it was universally believed amongst the Jews, that
pure and holy souls, when they left this body, went into happiness, to Abraham. Our
Saviour speaks according to the received opinion of that nation in this affair, when he saith,
Many shall comec from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham.
Give me leave to transcribe a story a little more largely than usual: There d was a
woman the mother of seven martyrs (so we find it also 2 Macc. 7) When six of her sons
were slain, and the youngest brought out in order to it, though but a child of two years and a
half old, the mother saith to Csar, , By the life of thy head, I beseech thee, O
Csar, let me embrace and kiss my child. This being permitted her, she plucked out her
breasts and gave it suck. Then she; By the life of thy head, I entreat thee, O Csar, that
thou wouldest first kill me and then the child. Csar answered, I will not yield to thee in
this matter, for it is written in your own law, The heifer or sheep, with its young one, thou
shalt not kill on the same day. To whom she; O thou foolishest of all
mortals, hast thou performed all the commands, that this only is wanting? He forthwith
commands that the child should be killed. The mother running into the embraces of her
little son, kissed him and said, Go thou, O my son, to
Abraham thy father, and tell him, Thus saith my mother, Do not thou boast, saying, I built
an altar, and offered my son Isaac: for my mother hath built seven altars, and offered seven
sons in one day, &c.
This woman, questionless, did not doubt of the innocence and purity of the soul of this
child, nor of its future happiness, (for we will suppose the truth of the story;) which
happiness she expresseth sufficiently by this, that her son was going to his father Abraham.
There are several other things to the same purpose and of the same mould, that might be
produced, but let this suffice in this place: however, see notes upon ver. 24.
Now what this being in Abrahams bosom may signify amongst the Jews, we may
gather from what is spoken of the manners and the death of this R. Judah; concerning

c
Leusdens edition, vol. ii. p. 548.
d
Midras Echah, fol. 68. 1.
whom it is said, This day he sits in Abrahams bosome.
Rabbi Judah had the toothache thirteen years; and in all that time there was not an abortive
woman throughout the whole land of Israel. For to him it is that they apply those words of
the prophet, Hef was a man of sorrows, and hath borne our griefs. And for these very
pains of his, some had almost persuaded themselves that he was the Messiah. At length this
toothache was relieved by Elias, appearing in the likeness of R. Chaijah Rubbah, who, by
touching his tooth, cured him. When he died, and was to be buried on the evening of the
sabbathg, there were eighteen synagogues accompanied him to his grave. Miracles were
done; the day did not decline, till every one was got home before the entrance of the
sabbath. Bath Kol pronounced happiness for all those that wept for him, excepting one by
name; which one when he knew himself excepted, threw himself headlong from the roof of
the house, and so died, &c. But to add no more, for his incomparable learning and piety he
was called R. Judah the holy. And whither would the Jew think such a one would go
when he went out of this world? Who amongst them, when it was said of him that was in
Abrahams bosom, would not without all scruple and hesitancy understand it, that he was in
the very embraces of Abraham, (as they were wont at table one to lie in the others bosom,)
in the exquisite delights and perfect felicities of paradise? not in a lake without water, a
prison, the very brink of hell.
Ver. 23: , He seeth Abraham afar off, and
Lazarus.] Instead of commentary, take another parable: Thereh are wicked men that are
coupled together in this world. But one of them repents before death; the other doth not: so
the one is found standing in the assembly of the just; the other in the assembly of the
wicked. The one seeth the other, [this agrees with the passage now before us,] and saith,
Woe! and alas! here is accepting of persons in this thing: he and I robbed together,
committed murder together; and now he stands in the congregation of the just, and I in the
congregation of the wicked. They answer him, O thou most foolish
amongst mortals that are in the world! Thou wert abominable, and cast forth for three days
after thy death, and they did not lay thee in the grave: the worm was under thee, and the
worm covered thee: which when this companion of thine came to understand, he became a
penitent. It was in thy power also to have repented, but thou didst not. He saith unto them,
Let me go now and become a penitent. But they say, O thou foolishest of men, dost thou
not know that this world in which thou art is like the sabbath, and the world out of which
thou camest is like the evening of the sabbath? If thou dost not provide something on the
evening of the sabbath, what wilt thou eat on the sabbath day? Dost thou not know that the
world out of which thou camest is like the land, and the world in which thou now art is like
the sea? If a man make no provision on land for what he should eat at sea, what will he
have to eat? He gnashed his teeth and gnawed his own flesh.
e
Hieros. Kelaim, fol. 42. 2.
f
Isa. 53.
g
English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 457.
h
Midras Ruth, fol. 44. 2. Midras Coheleth, fol. 86. 4.
Ver. 24: And he cried and said.] We have mentioni of the
dead discoursing one amongst another, and also with those that are alive. R. Samuel Bar
Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, How doth it appear that the dead have any discourse
amongst themselves? It appears from what is saidk, And the Lord said unto him, This is the
land, concerning which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and Jacob , saying,:
Whatl is the meaning of ?The Holy Blessed God saith unto Moses, Go thou
and say to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, The oath which I sware unto you, I have performed
unto your children. Note that: Go thou and say to Abraham, &c. There is a story of a
certain pious man, that went and lodged in a burying-place, and heard two souls discoursing
amongst themselves. Said the one unto the other, Come, my companion, and let us wander
about the world, and listen behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the
world. To which the other replied, O my companion, I cannot; for I am buried in a cane
mat: but do thou go, and whatsoever thou hearest, do thou come and tell me. The soul
went, and wandered about the world, &c.
The year following he went again, and lodging in a place of burial, he heard two souls
discoursing between themselves. Saith the one unto the other, O my companion, come, let
us wander about the world, and hearken behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming
upon the world. To which the other, O my companion, let me alone; for the words that
formerly passed between thee and me were heard amongst the living. Whence could they
know? Perhaps some other person that is dead went and told them.
There was a certain person deposited some zuzees with a certain hostess till he should
return; and went to the house of Rabh. When he returned she was dead. He went after her to
the place of burial, and said unto her, Where are my zuzees? She saith unto him, Go, take
it from under the hinge of the door, in a certain place there: and speak to my mother to send
mem my black lead, and the reed of paint [de stibio meo, et de canna fuci] by the woman N.,
who is coming hither to-morrow. But whence do they know that such a one shall die?
Dumah [that is, the angel who is appointed over the dead] comes
before, and proclaims it to them.
The zuzees that belonged to orphans were deposited with the father of Samuel [the
Rabbin]. He died, Samuel being absent. He went after him to the place of burial, and said
unto them [i. e. to the dead], I look for Abba. They say unto him,
Abba the good is here. I look for Abba Bar Abba. They say unto him, Abba
Bar Abba the good is here. He saith unto them, I look for Abba Bar Abba the father of
Samuel; where is he? They say unto him, He is gone up to the
i
Berac. fol. 18. 2.
k
Deut. 34:4.
l
Leusdens edition, vol. ii. p. 549.
m
English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 458.
academy of the firmament. Then he saw Levi [his colleague] sitting without. (The Gloss
hath it, The dead appeared as without their graves, sitting in a circle, but Levi sat without
the circle.) He saith unto him, Why dost thou sit without? why dost thou not ascend? He
answered him, They say unto me, Because there want those years wherein thou didst not
go into the academy of the Rabbi. When his father came, he saw him weep. He saith unto
him, Why dost thou weep? He saith unto him, Where is the orphans money? He saith
unto him, Go, and take it out of the mill-house, &c. But I fear, the reader will frown at
this huge length of trifles.
And cool my tongue.] Theren was a good man and a
wicked man that died. As for the good man, he had no funeral rites
solemnized, but the wicked man had. Afterward, there was one saw in his dream the good
man walking in gardens, and hard by pleasant springs: but the wicked man
with his tongue trickling drop by drop at the
bank of a river, endeavouring to touch the water, but he could not.
Ver. 26: . A great gulf fixed.] It is well known from the poets,
that in the Greek, and inferi among the Latins, comprehend the seat both of the
blessed and the damned, denoting in general the state of the dead, be they according to the
quality of their persons allotted either to joys or punishments. On this hand, Elysium for the
good; on that hand, Tartarus for the wicked; the river Cocytus, or Acheron, or some such
great gulf fixed betwixt them. The Jews seem not to have been very distant from this
apprehension of things. Godo hath set the one against the other [Eccles. 7:14;] that is,
hell and paradise. How far are they distant? A
handbreadth. R. Jochanan saith, A wall is between. But the Rabbins say,
They are so even with one another, that you may see out
of one into the other.
That of seeing out of the one into the other agrees with the passage before us; nor is it
very dissonant that it is said, They are so even with one another; that is, they are so even,
that they have a plain view one from the other, nothing being interposed to hinder it, and
yet so great a gulf between, that it is impossible to pass the one to the other. That is worth
noting, Rev. 14:10, Shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy
angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
Ver. 29: They have Moses and the prophets.] The
historical books also are comprehended under the title of the Prophets, according to the
common acceptation of the Jews, and the reading in their synagogues: All p the books of
the Prophets are eight; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and

n
Hieros. Chagigah, fol. 77. 4.
o
Midras Coheleth. 103. 2.
p
Gloss. in Bathra, fol. 13. 2.
the twelve. So the Gemara also reckons themq. So we find , the
Octateuch of the Prophets, as well as , the Pentateuch of Moses, in
Photiusr; of which we have spoken elsewhere.
But are the the Hagiographa excluded, when mention is made only of the law
and the prophets? Our Saviour speaks after the usual manner of their reading Moses and
the Prophets in their synagoguess; where every ordinary person, even the most rude and
illiterate, met with them, though he had neither Moses nor the prophets nor the
Hagiographa at his own house. Indeed, the or the holy writings, were not read in
the synagogues (for what reason I will not dispute in this place), but they were, however,
far from being rejected by the people, but accounted for divine writings, which mayt be
evinced, besides other things, even from the very name. Our Saviour therefore makes no
mention of them, not because he lightly esteems them, but because Moses and the prophets
were heard by every one every sabbath day; and so were not the Hagiographa.
Ver. 31: , Neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.] Any one may see how Christ points at the infidelity of the
Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy to judge what
was the design and intention of this parable.
18

16:19 There was a certain rich man. This parable is introduced by the same words as the
parable of the shrewd manager: There was a certain rich man (16:1). This strongly
suggests that, in both of these parables, there is an intention to teach the proper use of
wealth.
splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen. The clothing mentioned was that of royalty,
and the implication is that the rich man lived like a king (cf. Prov 31:22; Luke 7:25).
Leaney (1958:225226) wonders if the rich man in view was King Herod Antipas, ruler of
Galilee and Perea, who had five brothers when the parable was originally composed, a
possibility cited by Evans (1990:250), though there is no necessary reference to a historical
person and generally parables do not name their characters (even though Lazarus is
mentioned here).

q
Ibid. fol. 14. 2.
r
Cod. 230.
s
Leusdens edit., vol. ii. p. 550.
t
English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 459.
18
Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica,
Matthew-1 Corinthians: Volume 3, Luke-John (165). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
16:20 At his gate lay. The Gr. verb ebeblto [TG906, ZG965] translated here as lay is
pluperfect passive: He had been placed there and was still there (Rienecker and Rogers
1977:190).
a poor man. There is a great deal in the Bible on the needs of the poor. The OT legal texts
seek to protect the poor, orphans, widows, or strangers (Lev 19:910; 25:25, 35; Deut
15:711; 24:1921). The prophets show a real concern for those who are exploited and
warn against oppressing the poor (Isa 3:1415; 5:8; Amos 2:7; 4:1; 5:11). The Psalms
speak of God as the defender of the poor (Pss 22:26; 35:10; 40:17; 70:5). The Gospel of
Luke shows an empathy for the poor and hostility toward the rich that is more pronounced
than in the other Gospels [note Luke 6:20; cf. Matt 5:3] (Freedman 2000:1071). For more
details, see DJG 701710; Davids 1980:458.
16:21 Lazarus. Another point of contrast between the rich man and Lazarus is that only
Lazarus is given a namethat is, significance. His name means God has helped, and this
feature might point to the contrast with his earthly life, when human help was in scarce
supply. The parable has been rightly seen as in keeping with one of Lukes key themes:
Eschatological reversal is central in Lukes understanding of the final coming of the reign
of God. The story is here used by Luke to address Pharisees who loved wealth and
scoffed at Jesus position on the subject (v. 14) (Craddock 1992:195).
16:22 the poor man died and was carried by the angels. An accepted idea among the Jews
was that angels carried the dead to their eternal destination (see The Testament of Asher
6:46). This belief might also be found in The Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 2.2.7;
Similitudes 9:25). On the role of angels, see Gardner 1995:4449 and the comments on
1:1117; 2:820; 4:10.
to be with Abraham. Lit., into Abrahams bosom (cf. NLT mg). The Gr. word kolpos
[TG2859, ZG3146] is the noun used here to denote chest or bosom (cf. John 1:18).
Abrahams bosom was equated in Jewish tradition with paradise (see b. Qiddushin 72a-b;
cf. Luke 23:43) as the abode of the righteous dead, who stayed there in a place of rest,
honor, and blessedness while awaiting future vindication by God. In using kolpos,
bosom, it may suggest either a place of honor for a guest at a banquet at the right of the
host (see John 13:23) or an association of intimacy (see John 1:18) (Fitzmyer 1985:1132).
Notice that Abraham is mentioned as participating in the messianic banquet in Luke 13:28,
so to be with Abraham means that the beggars place was right next to the father of all
Israel, in his bosom, at the place of honor (Tolbert 1970:132).

TG
Tyndale-Strongs Greek number
ZG
Zondervan Greek number

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Green McKnight, Marshall) [1992]

Lit. literally

NLT New Living Translation

mg margin
The rich man also died and was buried. The marked contrast continues in this verse, for
no burial rites are mentioned for the wealthy man, while Lazarus has been borne by angels
to paradise. At death there is a decided reversal of roles.
16:23 the place of the dead. Gr., hads [TG86, ZG87] (Hades). In the LXX, hads is used
over 100 times, usually to translate the Heb. word sheol ([TH7585, ZH8619]), the place that
receives the dead. It is viewed as a place of darkness and gloom, where God is not
remembered (Job 10:2122; 26:5; Pss 6:5; 30:9; Prov 1:12; 27:20; Isa 5:14). hads occurs
10 times in the NT, appearing only in Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Revelation. It is found
within the earth (Matt 11:23; Luke 10:15; cf. Matt 12:40). Like a city, it is pictured with
gates (Matt 16:18, KJV). It is viewed as only a temporary place, for it must give up its dead
again at the Resurrection (Rev 20:13). According to Acts 2:27, 31 and Luke 16:23, 26, all
the dead are in Hades (TDNT 2:207).
Many readers view the two compartments spoken of in 16:2223 as an actual depiction of
postmortem conditions. However, this story is not intended to give a concrete description or
revelation of the way things are after death or the state of the OT saints (Craddock
1992:195). Details such as this and the angels in 16:22 were characterized by Jesus
according to local color to make the contrast between the two men vivid and memorable.
Rather, the description of the two places points clearly to an unbridgeable gulf between
the locale of bliss and that of torment (Fitzmyer 1985:1133). People are accountable for
their relationships to their fellows (see 10:27; Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39), and in the final
analysis are answerable for their actions to God (cf. Heb 9:27).
16:24 dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. While Paradise was favored
with abundant water, hell (Hades) was depicted in Jewish tradition as hot and dry, as in 2
Esdr 8:59, which says, so the thirst and torment which are prepared await them. (Cf. 2
Esdr 7:7987, which describes the torments of those who have not kept the way of the
Most High, who have despised his law and hated those who fear God.)
I am in anguish in these flames. The notion of fire in hades, as Evans has pointed out, can
probably be traced back to Isa 66:24, which is quoted in Mark 9:48 (see also Rev 20:4
15). The anguish now experienced by the rich man is similar to (but more severe than) the
burning pain the poor man had experienced because of his ulcerous condition (1990: 251).
16:26 great chasm. The reference to a great chasm fixed is no doubt a pictorial detail, but
it means that in the afterlife there is no passing from one state to the other (Morris
1974:254; see related note on 16:23). Fitzmyer calls this an unbridgeable gulf between the
locale of bliss and that of torment and notes that the phrase itself is used with a different
meaning in 2 Sam 18:17, LXX (1985:1133).

LXX Septuagint
TH
Tyndale-Strongs Hebrew number
ZH
Zondervan Hebrew number

KJV King James Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols., Kittel, Friedrich; trans. Bromiley)
[19641976]
16:30 if someone is sent to them from the dead. No external evidence alone is adequate to
compel faith. On this verse, note the perceptive remark of Siebald (1992:208): The
climactic statement has to do with one who rose from the dead, an evident allusion to the
resurrection of Jesus, which suggests that the story is also a polemic directed against those
who refuse the gospel, failing to heed Moses and the prophets.
then they will repent. The importance of repentance, or turning from sin, is a frequent
theme in Luke-Acts (10:13; 16:30; 17:34; Acts 3:19; 17:30; 20:21). Repentance is a major
element in the preaching of John the Baptist (3:3, 8), Jesus (5:32; 13:35; 24:47), and in the
preaching of the early church (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 26:20).
COMMENTARY
The parable on the rich man and Lazarus continues the teaching on the right and wrong
uses of money presented in the opening verses of chapter 16. God intended that material
resources be shared with others, and those in desperate need were to be cared for (use your
worldly resources to benefit others, 16:9). This was common Jewish thinking, but
covetous people often rejected it. Aggressive landlords employing rapacious business
practices fleeced the poor (cf. Job 22:611; 29:1116; Isa 58:78; Ezek 18:59, 1418;
Amos 8:46). Mark 12:40, for instance, expresses Jesus condemnation of the scribes and
Pharisees for just this offence: They shamelessly cheat widows out of their property and
then pretend to be pious by making long prayers in public. Because of this, they will be
more severely punished.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not describe such a vicious, deliberate
exploitation of the poor. Rather, it is presented as an illustration of the proper use of
material resources in the face of conspicuous human need. If Jeremias is correct, it adapts a
popular Egyptian folk-tale of the journey of Si-Osiris to the underworld, which concludes
with the words: He who has been good on earth, will be blessed in the kingdom of the
dead, and he who has been evil on earth, will suffer in the kingdom of the dead. Jeremias
suggests that Alexandrian Jews brought the tale to Palestine where it became popular. He
argues that Jesus was familiar with the story, noting that he used it in the parable of the
Great Supper (14:1524; 1963:183). Similarly, Fitzmyer notes seven other tales about
retribution in the afterlife from rabbinic sources of later date, the earliest of which is found
in two forms in the Palestinian Talmud (y. Sanhedrin 6.23d and y. Hagigah 2.77d)
scarcely before AD 400 (1985:1126).
In Luke, the parable is really a drama in two acts, and it is the only parable given by
Jesus in which one of the characters is actually named. Further:
The picture of the fate in store for the good and the evil after death is also drawn from traditional
Jewish sources (cf. 2 Enoch 9:10). But it was not the intention of Jesus to propagate a strict doctrine
of rewards and punishments (nothing is said about the piety of Lazarus), or to give a topographical
guide to the afterworld. As he tells it, the point of the story is to be found in the character of the rich
man and in the reasons for his failure to use the two kinds of opportunity granted to him, the first by
his wealth, the second by his religion. (Caird 1963:191)
Act I presents the figure of Lazarus, a person with dire human need, who was literally at
the door of the rich man, and yet whose pressing needs went unmet. The rich man, who
remains unnamed, but is often called Dives from the Latin Vulgate version meaning rich
man, was daily confronted with a poor man covered with sores (a use of precise medical
language). Dives, who enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, ignored Lazarus repulsive condition. He
basked everyday in luxury and wore splendid clothing (16:19). He was quite unprepared to
go out of his way to minister to the physical condition of a weak, helpless man at his door.
There was no expression of compassion offered, despite the poor mans longing for scraps
from the rich mans table (16:21). Luke painted a sad picture of two virtual solitudesone
rich and luxurious, the other poor and pitiable. No contact was made between the two men.
Things were different after death. In Act II, the affluent man died and received a proper
Jewish burial. (No burial is mentioned in Lazarus case.) The rich mans earthly life was
over, and all the luxury and extravagance of his selfish lifestyle were behind him. Luke tells
us that his soul went to the place of the dead (hads [TG86, ZG87]; see note on 16:23).
When the poor man died, he was carried by the angels to be with Abraham, the great father
of the Jewish people who had been given a divine promise that in him and in his family all
the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen 12:13; 22:1718). Lazarus was now in the
place of comfort in the bosom of Abraham, the great patriarch of the people of God.
While Lazarus had faced all manner of difficulties in his earthly existence, things were
totally changed. Eschatological reversal had taken place, and death changed the situation
for both men.
The situations of the two men had been dramatically reversed in the afterlife, though the
metaphysical details of that life are not described. The point made is that Gods view of
things differs from mans earthly perspective. Lazarus was now in the blessed company of
Father Abraham, while the rich man was in torment (16:2223). Dives was seeking pity
because he was in anguish, so he made an earnest request that Lazarus be sent over to
ease his pain (16:24). His request was met with a reminder that during [his] lifetime he
had all kinds of opportunities to enjoy everything [he] wanted, but those opportunities
were over now (16:25). A great chasm separated those in fellowship with Abraham from
those suffering anguish and torment, and there was no possibility of bridging that gulf
(16:26). God had pronounced judgment on the destinies of the two men; it was final and
irreversible.
The parable concludes with an epilogue in which Dives begs for an opportunity to send
Lazarus to alert his five brothers to the similar danger that they faced (16:2728). Despite
the natural concern that Dives had to spare his brothers his own unenviable destiny, he was
reminded that they had actually received sufficient warning already in the Scriptures:
Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote
(16:29). Divess urgent, repeated request for a personal word of warning was rejected. The
lesson is clear to Jesus critics and the skeptics: if people refuse to give heed to the
teachings of Scripture and find themselves out of favor with God in the future life, then
they have only their own stubbornness and impenitence to blame. Even if one were to come
back from the dead to speak to them (an apparent reference to those who later refused the
evidence of the resurrection of Jesus), it would not be enough to convince and change them
(16:31). The wheels of Gods justice may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine
(Sextus Empiricus Adversus Mathematicus 1.287). The ultimate day of reckoning was
coming, and adequate notice had been given of the need to be prepared! Once again, Lukes
Gospel stresses the importance of genuine repentance and turning to God, and warns about
the dangers of neglect and carelessness.
Jesus point in the parable is not to give a guided tour of the afterlife, nor to teach a
strict doctrine of rewards and punishments (note that nothing is said about the godliness of
Lazarus), nor to answer speculation about things that God has not chosen to reveal to his
servants, but to encourage practical action in the face of obvious human need (cf. Deut
29:29; Jas 2:1417). Jesus stressed the character of the rich man and exposed his failure to
use the opportunities he was given through both his material resources and his religious
inheritance in the Law and the Prophets. And one might add that a third factor in the
opportunities given him was his proximitythe needy man was placed right before him
and called out for help.
The parable has two important lessons for the modern reader, as Hunter has pointed out:
First, it clearly points to the requirement that believers meet pressing human needs such as
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and ministering to the helpless
(cf. Matt 25:3445). Second, it insists that human beings must act on the revelation of
Gods purposes they have been given and not demand some supernatural sign before they
act (11:29; cf. Matt 12:39; 16:4; 1971:170).
19

16:1931 The Parable of The Show-off: A Rich Man;


and
The Beggar: Lazarus
19 Once there was a rich man who was in the habit of dressing up in purple and fine linen and
living in dazzling splendor day in, day out. 20 And a certain beggar named Lazarus, covered with
sores, had been laid at his gate. 21 He was eager to be fed with the scraps that fell from the rich
mans table. Yes, even the dogs used to come and lick his sores.
22 In course of time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Abrahams bosom.
The rich man also died, and he was buried. 23 And in Hades,461 being in torment, he lifted up his
eyes. He sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus by his side. 462 24 And he cried out and said, Father
Abraham, take pity on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool
my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.
25 But Abraham answered, Son, remember that during your lifetime you received in full your
good things, and similarly Lazarus (received) the bad things. Now he is being comforted here, and
you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a vast chasm has been fixed, in order
that those who want to cross from this side to you would not be able to do so, and that those who
would pass over from there to us would (also) not be able.
27 He answered, Then I beg you, father, that you send Lazarus to my fathers house, 28 for I
have five brothers, lest they too come into this place of torment.
29 But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.
30 No, father Abraham, he replied, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will be
converted.
31 He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be
convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
First a few introductory remarks. Is there any connection between 16:118 and this
parable? It might seem at first that there is none. Careful examination reveals, however, that
there is indeed a connection, a rather close one. As has been pointed out, chapter 15
exposes the wrong attitude toward people; chapter 16 opens by showing us the sinful use of
material possessions. The parable found in verses 1931 is as it were a climax, combining

19
Trites, A. A., & William J. Larkin. (2006). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 12: The Gospel of
Luke and Acts. "With the entire text of the New Living Translation." (227). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale
House Publishers.
461
Or: hell.
462
Literally: in his bosom.
these two. It describes the terrible result of the wicked handling of people and wealth. The
rich man of this parable completely neglected to make friends for himself by means of
the mammon of unrighteousness (16:9). He was the kind of person who, because of his
wealth, must have been highly regarded by men, but because of his selfishness was
disgusting in Gods sight (16:15). He was, moreover, the very opposite of The Samaritan
Who Cared (10:3037). For the connection see also pp. 539, 540.
The section (verses 1931) can be conveniently divided into two very unequal parts. In
the first part (verses 1922) we are shown the rich man and the poor beggar in this life;
in the second (verses 2331) we see them again, but now in the hereafter.
A. In This Life
19. Once there was a rich man who was in the habit of dressing up in purple and fine
linen and living in dazzling splendor day in, day out.
He was rich. Well, so was Abraham and so was Joseph of Arimathea. Nowhere does the
Bible blame them for being rich. But with reference to Abraham and Joseph we do not read
what is said further in the description of the rich man of this parable, namely, that he was in
the habit of dressing up in purple and fine linen. Obtaining purple dye from the shellfish
was an expensive process. It is not surprising, therefore, that a purple outer garment, such
as worn by the rich man of this parable, was often reserved for royalty. Think of the
expression royal purple. In addition to this purple outer garment or robe, this man wore a
fine linen undergarment. Add to this the fact that he was living in dazzling splendor day
in, day out, and it becomes apparent that what is stressed here is not so much that he was
rich but something else.
He was not just rich. He belonged to that class of people to whom the epithet filthy rich
is often applied, and not without reason. His living day by day in dazzling splendor marks
him as a show-off, a strutting peacock. He wanted everybody to know that he was rich. He
was in love with himself. That he was utterly selfish will become clear as the parable
moves along:
20, 21. And a certain beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores, had been laid at
his gate. He was eager to be fed with the scraps that fell from the rich mans table.
Yes, even the dogs used to come and lick his sores.
Here is the test, the opportunity for the opulent swaggerer to show whether, after all, he
has a heart. A very, very poor man, one in need of everything, is lying at the gateway (cf.
Matt. 26:71; Acts 10:17) of the rich mans mansion, having been laid there, this evidently
indicating that he was unable to walk.
He was a beggar, and his name was Lazarus (cf. John 11:2 f.). This name is Latin and is
derived from the Greek Lazaros (from Eleazaros), which, in turn, represents the Hebrew
name Eleazar, meaning God has helped. There is a difference of opinion with respect to
the question whether this name was given to him simply because, as the story develops (see
especially verse 24), this man needed a name, or whether Jesus purposely gave the man this
name in order to indicate that the beggar, in all his distress, placed his trust in God. Cannot
both be true?
Not only was Lazarus a begger, totally unable to provide for his own needs, he was also
covered with sores.
Here, then, was an opportunity for the rich fop to show pity, for whenever he went into
or out of the gateway, he could not help seeing Lazarus. Besides, the beggar was eager to
be fed with the scraps that fell from the rich mans table. The parable does not say that he
received these scraps. Does not that omission leave the impression that he must have
received very little? One thing is certain: the rich exhibitionist paid no attention to the
beggar, did not himself help him in any way, lived only for himself.
What must have made the poor mans condition even worse was that the big, unclean,
pesky pariah dogs were in the habit of coming to him and licking his sores!
22. In course of time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to
Abrahams bosom. The rich man also died, and he was buried.
The beggars misery ended at last. He died. Whether he was also buried is not even
mentioned. If there was a real burial, it must have been so obscure and dismal that it better
be passed by in silence. On the other hand, what happened to the soul of Lazarus is all-
important. Hefor mans soul or spirit is the real personwas carried away by the angels
to Abrahams bosom.
Two expressions here merit special attention:
First of all the angels. According to Scripture
ANGELS ARE:
A. ttendants of Christ (II Thess. 1:7), their exalted Head (Eph. 1:21, 22; Col. 2:10).
B. ringers of good tidings concerning our salvation (see on Luke 2:14; 24:47; Acts 1:11; I
Tim. 3:16).
C. horisters of heaven (Luke 15:10; I Cor. 13:1; Rev. 5:11, 12).
D. efenders of Gods children (Ps. 34:7; 91:11; Dan. 6:22; 10:10, 13, 20; Matt. 18:10; Acts
5:19; II Thess. 1:710; Rev. 12:7), though the latter outrank them and will judge them (I
Cor. 6:3; Heb. 1:14).
E. xamples in obedience (Matt. 6:10; I Cor. 11:10).
F. riends of the redeemed, constantly watching over them, deeply interested in their salvation,
and rendering service to them in every way, including executing the judgment of God upon
the enemy (Matt. 13:41; 25:31, 32; Luke 15:10; 16:22; I Cor. 4:9; Gal. 3:19; II Thess. 1:7;
Heb. 1:14; I Peter 1:12; Rev. 20:13).
Next, Abrahams bosom. The fact that Lazarus was by the angels carried to Abrahams
bosom certainly proves that he had been true to his name. While on earth he had placed his
trust in God as his Helper, and now God had ordered the angels to take his soul to Paradise.
He who had yearned to receive crumbs and scraps is now reclining at heavens table, where
a banquet is being held. Moreover, to recline in Abrahams bosom, as the apostle John was
going to recline in the bosom of Jesus, indicates special favor, as has been shown in
connection with Luke 14:7; see on that verse. See also John 1:18. We should not forget, in
this connection, that Abraham is regarded in Scripture as being not only the great patriarch
(Heb. 7:4) but also the father of all believers (Rom. 4:11).
The rich man also died and was buried. It must have been a splendid burial. Note the
meaningful contrast: nothing is said about the beggars burial; on the other hand, nothing is
here said about the rich mans soul, as to what happened to it at the moment of death.
B. In the Hereafter
23, 24. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes. He sees Abraham afar
off, and Lazarus by his side. And he cried out and said, Father Abraham, take pity on
me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my
tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.
A few matters stand out:
a. The rich show-off is pictured as being in Hades. The popular view, according to
which the term Hades in the entire New Testament is the abode of all the dead, believers
and unbelievers, is certainly incorrect. As far as the Gospels are concerned463 the following
is true:
In the present parable Hades is clearly the place of torments and of the flame. It is hell.
So also hell may well be the correct rendering of Hades in Matt. 11:23 and in Luke 10:15,
for there Hades is sharply contrasted with heaven, and should probably be understood in
the figurative sense of thorough ruin. In Matt. 16:18 the thought may well be that not even
all the demons streaming forth out of the gates of hell will ever be able to destroy Christs
true church.
b. The condition of the dead and the communication between them is represented here
in very literal, earthly terms, so that a vivid impression is created. It should be clear,
nevertheless, that much of what is here conveyed cannot be interpreted literally. For
example, we read about the lifting up of the eyes, of seeing people afar off, of a finger and
of a tongue, even though we have been told that the rich man had been buried.
This does not take away the fact, however, that certain definite truths concerning the
life hereafter are conveyed here, one of them being that the departed ones are not asleep but
fully awake; another, that some are saved, others are suffering.
c. If all this is understood, it will have become clear that the one great truth here
emphasized is that once a person has died, his soul having been separated from his body,
his condition, whether blessed or doomed, is fixed forever. There is no such thing as a
second chance. Therefore opportunities to help those in need and, in general, to live a
fruitful life to the glory of God should be seized now.
These preliminary remarks should guard us against taking literally what was never
meant to be so interpreted.
With all this in mind, note that the rich man of the parable is here represented as being
in torment, a condition which is not relieved by the fact that in the distance he sees
Abraham and Lazarus by his side. Very respectfully he now addresses the arch-patriarch as
Father Abraham, and asks him to take pity on him. Such pity he, the rich man himself,
had never shown when he had the opportunity to do so. He requests that Abraham dispatch
Lazarus, so that the latter, having dipped the tip of his finger in water, might cool the
sufferers tongue. I am in agony in this flame, he adds.
Note the word flame. That hell is a place of fire or of the flame is the language of
Scripture throughout (Isa. 33:14; 66:24; Matt. 3:12; 5:22; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8, 9; 25:41;
Mark 9:4348; Luke 3:17; Jude 7; Rev. 14:10; 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8). This fire is
unquenchable. It devours forever and ever.
Yet, hell is also the abode where darkness dwells. For some it is the place of outer
darkness (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). It is the region where the evil spirits are kept in
everlasting chains under darkness (Jude 6; cf. Jude 13).
But if hell is a place of fire, how can it also be a place of darkness? Are not these two
concepts mutually exclusive? Well, not always necessarily. For example, by means of a
certain form of radiation people have been seriously burned even though when it happened
they were in a dark room, Nevertheless, it is advisable not to speculate. Everlasting fire has

463
For more on Sheol and Hades see my book The Bible on the Life Hereafter, Grand Rapids, 1971,
pp. 8386.
been prepared for the devil and his angels, yet these are spirits. It should be sufficient to
conclude from all this that such terms as fire and darkness should not be taken too literally.
Each in its own way indicates the terrors of the lost in the place from which there is no
return.
Note that the rich mans character has not changed any. He still views Lazarus as his
servant, and is not a bit ashamed to ask for a favor from the very person who never received
a favor from him! Also, he expects Abraham to send Lazarus, even though he, the show-
off, never tried, during his life on earth, to imitate Abrahams faith.
25, 26. But Abraham answered, Son, remember that during your lifetime you
received in full your good things, and similarly Lazarus (received) the bad things.
Now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between
us and you a vast chasm has been fixed, in order that those who want to cross from
this side to you would not be able to do so, and that those who would pass over from
there to us would (also) not be able.
Abraham answers in a friendly manner, even calls him son, for the rich man has
called Abraham father. Besides, is not the sufferer a child of Abraham, biologically
speaking?
In his answer Abraham intends to indicate that for two reasons the request cannot be
honored: to grant it would be (a) improper and (b) impossible.
It would be improper, contrary to the requirements of justiceDuring your lifetime
you received your good things; that is, those things you considered good, namely, being
dressed in purple and fine linen, and living in dazzling splendor day in, day out. Those
matters were first on the list of your priorities. Implied is: to help poor Lazarus and, in
general, to live a life of being useful to your fellow men and of glorifying God was not at
all your aim. Now, then, you receive what is coming to you. On the other hand, Lazarus
received the bad things, not his bad things. He did not bring them upon himself. (On the
contrary, he was true to his name.) Now he is being comforted and this, again, is as it
should be.
It would also be impossible. Abraham tells the doomed man that there is a vast chasm, a
yawning gorgea typically Palestinian figure, for the country where this parable was
spoken has many of these ravines (see the note on 16:26 on page 789)separating the lost
from the redeemed. Crossing over from one side to the other is, therefore, forever and
absolutely impossible. This is a very graphic and unforgettable symbolical representation of
the irreversibility of a persons lot after death. The chasm was intended for rendering
crossing over impossible.
27, 28. He answered, Then I beg you, father, that you send Lazarus to my fathers
house, for I have five brothers, lest they too come into this place of torment.
Here, for the first time in this parable, the man who used to be rich reveals a bit of
sympathy. But even this interest in others may have been mixed with selfishness. He wants
his five brothers to be warned so that they may stay out of hell. The most favorable
construction one can put on this request is that it issued from love for his brothers. Other
possibilities that have been suggested by commentators are: (a) He is trying to say, If I
myself had only been warned, I would not be here today, and (b) He does not want his
brothers to join him for fear they will blame him for the bad example he gave them.
However that may be, note that even now he is not asking that anything be done for
people in general, only for his five brothers. And even now he seems not to be able to get
rid of the notion that Lazarus is his messenger boy!
29. But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.
This passage does not always receive the attention it deserves. Why did Jesus insert it in
the parable? The obvious reason is that if the doomed man himself had only read and taken
to heart Moses and the Prophets, and if his brothers would only do the same, they would
not be lost. Why not? What is the point? Is it not this, that it is precisely in the books of
Moses and in the writings of Isaiah, etc., that the life which is the exact opposite of that
which the rich man had lived is commended? Trust in God, self-denial in the interest of
others, kindness, help for the needy, for widows and orphans, the humble, etc., is constantly
being urged. To give but a few examples:
MOSES: Gen. 50:21; Exod. 2:17; 22:22, 25; 32:32; Lev. 19:10; 25:2547; Deut. 10:18;
14:29; 15:4; 16:11, 14; etc.
THE PROPHETS: Isa. 14:32; 25:4; 29:19; 57:15; Dan. 4:27; Amos 2:6, 7; 4:1; 5:11,
12; Jon. 4:11; Mic. 6:8; Zeph. 3:12; Zech. 7:10, 11.
Besides, did not both Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18) and the Prophets (Isa. 42:3; ch. 53) point
forward to him who would give himself as a ransom for many?
30. No, father Abraham, he replied, but if someone from the dead goes to them,
they will be converted.
How wrong he was! Someone from the dead did actually appear to the people. And his
name was Lazarus (though not the Lazarus of the parable). The story is found in John 11.
Was the result that everybody was converted? Not at all. The result was that Christs
enemies planned to put to death the risen Lazarus (John 12:10), and were more determined
than ever to destroy Jesus (John 11:4750).
31. He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will
they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
Jesus rose from the dead. But those who refused to believe Moses and the Prophets
were not convinced, and certainly not converted. Read Matt. 28:1115. The important
lesson is: Accept Scripture as the Word of God and, by Gods grace, live the kind of life it
demands and which, in the person of Jesus Christ, it illustrates. Cf. Eph. 4:325:2.464
Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 16:1931
Verses 19, 23
A rich man living in dazzling splendor in torment, he lifted up his eyes.
One great lesson to be learned from this parable: no sin, whether of omission or of commission,
ever stands alone: the chord one touches here vibrates there. You dial a number in New York, the
phone rings in San Francisco.
Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 16:1931
Verse 19
, third per. s. imperf. middle of , to dress. Cf. Mark 15:17, They
dressed him in a purple robe. In middle, as here in Luke 16:19, to dress oneself.
, acc. s. of , purple garment or robe. Cf. Rev. 17:4; 18:12.
, acc. s. of *; cf. Hebrew , butz, byssus, fine yellow flax and the linen cloth
and undergarment made from it. The outer robe was of purple; the inner garment, of fine linen.
, nom. s. masc. pres. middle participle of . See the note on 15:23 on
page 762. Here, in Luke 16:19, the meaning to make merry fits the context. Add *,

464
Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 16:1931 begin on page 788.
brilliantly (cf. lamp), and the result is: he made merry brilliantly; that is, he was living in dazzling,
ostentatious splendor. He was a rich show-off, a dandy or coxcomb.
Verse 20
, third per. s. pluperf. indicat. pass. of , to throw, put, lay. There are those who
think that the verb here used implies that Lazarus had been flung there. But it is a well-known
fact that the verb also has weakened meanings, as indicated.
, perf. pass. participle of *, to make sore, to cause ulcers; hence, in the pass.
as here: covered with ulcers. The acc. pl. of the noun is used in verse 21. The English word
ulcer is related to the Greek .
Verse 21
For , as also in 15:16, aor. pass. infinitive of , see the note on 6:21 on
page 345. The meaning is to feed; in the pass., as here, to be fed.
, third per. pl. imperf. of *, to lick.
Verses 22, 23
, aor. pass. infinitive (after ) of (see also Mark 15:1; Acts 19:12;
I Cor. 16:3; Rev. 17:3; 21:10), to carry away.
acc. s. of , bosom, breast, place of closest friendship and fellowship. In verse 25
note dat. pl., with perhaps no essential difference in meaning, unless it be that of placing even
greater emphasis on the striking contrast between the blessedness of Lazarus and the wretched
condition of the rich man. For the meaning bosom see also John 1:18; 13:23. A related meaning is
lap, formed by the fold of a garment and providing room for things to be stored and carried (Luke
6:38). There is also the connotation bay (Acts 27:39), with its bosom-resembling shape. With
cf. gulf.
, third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. pass. of , to bury; in pass., as here, to be buried. See
the note on 9:59, 60 on page 566.
, dat. s. of , Hades. See also 10:15; then Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18;
6:8; 20:13, 14.
, nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle of ( plus ), to lift up, raise.
, lit. in torments, dat. pl. of ; cf. gen. s. in verse 28, agony, torment, torture.
Cf. basanite and see the note on 8:28 on page 452; and N.T.C. on Mark, footnote 288 on p. 260.
, third per. s. pres. (dramatic) indicat. act. of , to see.
Verse 24
, sec. per. s. aor. subjunct. (after ) act. of , to dip; so also in John 13:26 and in
Rev. 19:13, where dyed (in blood) has been suggested.
, top, tip; also in Heb. 11:21. In Matt. 24:31 and Mark 13:27 the meaning is end,
extremity, farthest reach. Cf. acropolis.
For , gen. s. of , see the note on 11:20 on page 633, and on 15:22 on page
761.
, third per. s. aor. subjunct. act. (after ) of ** = plus , to
blow; hence, to cool off by blowing; and so simply to cool. The Greek literally says to cool down,
where our idiom is to cool off; or, again, simply to cool.
For , first per. s. pres. indicat. pass. of , to pain; in pass., as here, to be in pain
or agony; see the note on 2:48 on page 188. See also Acts 20:38.
Verse 25
, sec. per. s. aor. imperat. pass. of , to remember; in pass. to be reminded of,
which, when used in the imperative, is about the same as to remember.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary


, sec. per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. act. of , to receive in full. Note also 15:27;
18:30; 23:41; and see the note on 6:34 on page 359.
, third per. s. pres. indicat. pass. of (lit. to call to ones side), to invite,
comfort, console, encourage, cheer up, etc.; and here, in the pass., to be comforted. When we bear in
mind that this verb occurs about a hundred times in the New Testament, we see more clearly that
this book is indeed a source of comfort and encouragement. And back of the book is God Triune,
the God of all comfort.
Verse 26
*, chasm. The Greek word is derived from , to gape, yawn. Very informative is the
article by E. F. F. Bishop, A Yawning Chasm, an Exegesis of Luke 16:1931, EQ (1973), pp. 3
5. What is meant is a ravine, vast in depth, length, and breadth; a wadi, gorge.
, third per. s. perf. indicat. pass. of , to set fast, fix; in pass., as here, has
been fixed and so stands firmly and permanently.
(third per. pl. pres. subjunct. of ), in order that they be not able
(to cross over). Differently expressed, the sense is: to prevent them from crossing over, etc. Not
merely result but purpose is expressed here.
, third per. pl. pres. subjunct. of , to pass over. See also Matt. 9:1; 14:34;
Mark 5:21; 6:53; Acts 21:2.
Verse 29
, third per. pl. aor. imperat. act. of , to hear.
Verse 30
, third per. pl. fut. indicat. of , to be converted. For more on the
meaning of this verb see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 196, 197.
Verse 31
, third per. s. 2nd aor. subjunct. of , to raise up. But the 2nd aor. and all middle
forms are intransit.; hence here: to rise.
20

16:19 And a-certain man was rich, and he-was-clothing-himself with-purple-clotha


and fine-linen, every day being-merry sumptuously.b

EQ Evangelical Quarterly
20
Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953-2001). Vol. 11: New Testament commentary :
Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New
Testament Commentary (782). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
LEXICONa. (LN 6.169) (BAGD p. 694): purple cloth [BAGD, LN]. The phrase
purple cloth and fine linen is translated purple and fine linen [AB, Arn, BECNT, Lns,
NTC, WBC; HCSB, KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV], purple and the finest linen [REB],
the finest clothes [NCV], expensive clothes [CEV, GW], the most expensive clothes

LN Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

BAGD Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Translated and adapted from the fifth edition, 1958 by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur
Gingrich. Second English ed. revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W.
Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

AB Fitzmyer, Jospeph A. The Gospel According to Luke. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981
and 1985.

Arn Arndt, William F. Luke. St. Louis: Concordia, 1984.

BECNT Bock, Darrell L. Luke. 2 vols. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1994 and 1996.

Lns Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Lukes Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1946.

NTC Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. New Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.

WBC Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1989 and 1993.

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers, 2000.

KJV The Holy Bible. Authorized (or King James) Version. 1611.

NASB New American Standard Bible. La Habra, Calif.: Lockman Foundation, 1995.

NET The NET Bible. New English Translation, New Testament. Version 9.206. www.bible.com:
Biblical Studies Press, 1999.

NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

NRSV The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

REB The Revised English Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press,
1989.

NCV New Century Version. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991.

CEV The Holy Bible, Contemporary English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1995.

GW Gods Word. Grand Rapids: World Publishing, 1995.


[TEV]. The phrase he was clothing himself with purple cloth and linen is translated was
splendidly clothed [NLT]. The purple cloth was dyed from a dye obtained from the purple
shellfish murex [LN, NIGTC], which was found along the Phoenician coast [MGC].
b. (LN 88.255) (BAGD 466): sumptuously [BAGD], luxuriously, with
ostentation, showing off [LN]. The phrase being merry sumptuously is translated
making merry splendidly [Lns], joyously living in splendor [NASB], rejoiced in living
luxuriously [LN], made merry in a splendid manner [WBC], enjoying himself in
splendor [Arn], lived in luxury [NCV, NIV, NLT], lived in great luxury [TEV], living
in dazzling splendor [NTC], ate sumptuously [BECNT], feasted sumptuously [AB;
NET, NRSV, REB], feasting lavishly [HCSB], fared sumptuously [KJV], ate the best
food [CEV], (every day) was like a party to him [GW]. He enjoyed himself by eating
sumptuously [NAC]. This refers to the feasts that rich men gave [NIGTC, TH]. He
celebrated life with daily feasts as only a rich man could [BECNT].
QUESTIONHow was the rich man dressed?
The imperfect tense of was clothing himself implies that this was his habitual conduct
[NIGTC, TH]. The purple cloth was a purple outer garment [Alf, Arn, BECNT, Crd, Gdt,

TEV Good News Bible, Todays English Version. Second ed. New York: American Bible Society,
1992.

NLT The Holy Bible, New Living Translation. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1996.

NIGTC Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Greek Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

MGC Pate, C. Marvin. Luke. Moody Gospel Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

NAC Stein, Robert H. Luke. New American Commentary. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1992.

TH Reiline, J., and J. L. Swellengrebel. A Handbook on The Gospel of Luke. New York: United Bible
Societies, 1971.

Alf Alford, Henry. The Four Gospels. The Greek Testament, vol. 1. 1874. Reprint. Chicago: Moody,
1968.

Crd Creed, John Martin. The Gospel According to St. Luke. London: MacMillan, 1930.

Gdt Godet, F. A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. 2 vols. 1870. Reprint. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1957.
Hlt, ICC, My, NTC, Rb, TG, TH, TNTC, WBC], an upper garment [TH], a long robe [Lns,
NICNT], a mantle [NIGTC]. It was an expensive process to obtain purple dye from the
shellfish and such a purple outer garment was often reserved for royalty [NTC]. The color
purple was used by kings and nobles [Lns, MGC]. It would be a costly wool mantle, the
kind a king would wear [Gdt, NIGTC]. Probably it was fine wool that was dyed with
imported purple [AB]. The linen garment was an undergarment [AB, Alf, Arn, BECNT,
Crd, Gdt, Hlt, ICC, My, NAC, NICNT, NTC, Rb, TG, TH, TNTC, WBC] a tunic next to
the body [Lns]. Fine linen was a product from Egypt [AB, ICC, NAC].
16:20 And a-certain poor-man, Lazarus by-name, had-been-laida at his gate,b being-
covered-with-soresc 16:21 and desiring to-be-fed from the (things) fallingd from the
table of-the rich-man. Bute also the dogs came (and) were-licking his sores.
TEXTIn 16:20, instead of and a certain poor man,
Lazarus by name, was laid, some manuscripts read
and there was a certain poor man, Lazarus by name, who was laid. GNT does
not deal with this variant. and there was a
certain poor man, Lazarus by name, who was laid is read by KJV.
TEXTIn 16:21, instead of the things falling, some manuscripts read
the crumbs the ones falling and some manuscripts read
the falling crumbs. GNT reads the things falling with a B
decision, indicating that the text is almost certain. the crumbs
the ones falling is read by KJV.
TEXTIn 16:21, following rich man, some manuscripts add
and no one was giving to him. GNT rejects this addition with an A decision, indicating
that the text is certain.

Hlt Hiltgren, Arland J. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2000.

ICC Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. The
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

My Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and
Luke. [American Edition.] New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884.

Rb Robertson, Archibald Thomas. The Gospel According to Luke. Word Pictures in the New
Testament, vol. 2. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1930.

TG Bratcher, Robert G. A Translators Guide to the Gospel of Luke. London, New York: United Bible
Societies, 1982.

TNTC Morris, Leon. Luke. Revised Edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988.

NICNT Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament.
[Replacement.] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

GNT The Greek New Testament. Edited by B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. Martini, and B.
Metzger. Fourth ed. London, New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.
LEXICONa. pluperf. pass. indic. of (LN 15.215, 85.34) (BAGD 1.b. p. 131): to be
thrown [BAGD, LN]. The pluperfect passive form of this verb could mean that he was
thrown down [NICNT], was thrown at the gate, that is, men just dropped him there [Lns].
But the verb has weakened meanings such as was laid at [KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV],
had been laid at [Arn, NTC], was brought to [CEV], was left at [HCSB], used to be
brought to [TEV], was regularly brought to [GW], was positioned at [WBC]. Or the
passive absolute simply means that the man was lying before the door [BAGD, NIGTC].
The pluperfect indicates the result of being laid down, not the action [TH]: lay at
[BECNT; NLT, NRSV, REB], or squatted at [AB]. The verb suggests that he was too ill
to move [BECNT]. There is no roughness implied [ICC].
b. (LN 7.48) (BAGD 1. p. 729): gate [Arn, BAGD, BECNT, LN, NTC, WBC; all
versions except NLT, TEV], portal [Lns], door [AB, LN; NLT, TEV]. The gate would
be a wide entrance opening into the large courtyard of the palace [Gdt, Lns]. It was a high
and ornate gate of a mansion [BECNT], an impressive gateway [Arn].
c. perf. pass. participle of , (LN 23.180) (BAGD p. 251): to be covered
with sores [AB, Arn, BAGD, LN, NTC; all versions except KJV], to be full of sores
[BECNT, LN; KJV], to have many sores [LN], diseased [NLT], to suffer from ulcers
[Lns], in an ulcerated condition [WBC]. The medical cause of the sores is unknown, but it
is clear that they caused a health problem that kept him from employment [WBC]. Probably
these were surface ulcers or abscesses [BECNT]. Lazarus was covered with ulcerous boils
in contrast with the rich man who was covered with purple and linen garments [Su].
d. pres. act. participle of (LN 15.118) (BAGD 1.a. p. 659): to fall [BAGD, LN]. The
phrase the things falling [Lns] is also translated the things which fell [WBC], what fell
[Arn, BECNT; HCSB, NET, NIV, NRSV], the scraps that fell [NTC; CEV, GW], scraps
that dropped [AB], scraps [NLT, REB], the crumbs which fell [KJV], the crumbs
which were falling [NASB], the bits of food that fell [TEV], the small pieces of food
that fell [NCV]. This refers to the crumbs that fell from the table [Su]. Perhaps they were
the pieces of bread which the guests used to wipe their hands and then threw under the table
[BECNT, NICNT, NIGTC]. Or, it was the food that was thrown away after the meal [Lns,
TH].
e. (LN 89.125) (BAGD 3. p. 3): but [BAGD, LN]. The phrase but also is
translated but instead [WBC; HCSB], but even [Arn], and [CEV, GW, NCV],
moreover [BECNT; KJV], in addition [NET], besides, even [NASB], yes, even
[NTC], yea, even [Lns], even [NIV, NRSV, TEV], too [AB], not explicit [NLT, REB].
This conjunction is not adversative, it merely adds a striking detail [Lns]. It adds another
touch to the sorrow [TH], it was the culmination of his misery [NAC, TH].

pass. passive

indic. indicative

perf. perfect

Su Summers, Ray. Commentary on Luke. Waco, Texas: Word, 1972.

pres. present

act. active
QUESTIONWhy was the poor man lying at the gate?
He was probably crippled and had been carried to the gate [BECNT, MGC]. Presumably
Lazarus was begging near the outer gate, not at the actual door of the building [WBC].
Probably his desire for scraps from the table was not met [Arn, BECNT, NAC, NIC, NTC,
WBC]. What little food he received was given him by others [Arn, NIC]. Or, since Lazarus
remained there instead of seeking another location, perhaps scraps were thrown out into the
street for scavenger dogs to eat and the servant boy who did this could have given some to
Lazarus [Lns]. Perhaps he shared bits of meat with the dogs, yet it was not enough to
satisfy his hunger [ICC]. He had been laid there, probably because he was unable to walk
[Lns, NTC].
QUESTIONWhat is the significance of the dogs licking his sores?
1. This was an undesirable situation [AB, Arn, BECNT, Crd, Gdt, Hlt, ICC, MGC, My,
NAC, NICNT, NIGTC, NTC, TG, TH, TNTC, WBC; NET]. The misery endured by
Lazarus is brought out by adding that he had to put up with these dogs [TH]. Instead of
being fed, even the dogs came to add to his misery [My]. But also has the sense of and
worse of all the dogs aggravated his sores by licking them [NIGTC]. Street dogs licking
the sores would be degrading, and would prevent the sores from healing [Hlt]. These were
big, unclean pariah dogs from the streets [NTC]. The wild dogs were ceremonially unclean
and since Lazarus could not avoid them, he was rendered unclean himself [BECNT]. He
was too weak to avoid the dogs [Arn, ICC]. Or, the dogs belonged to the house and after
they had eaten scraps from the table, they came out to lick the sores [WBC].
2. This was a desirable situation [Lns, Su]. The dogs were his only friends as they licked his
sores to clean them and ease the pain [Lns]. The dogs licked his sores as they would their
own and thus showed more concern for the poor man than the rich man had [Su].
16:22 And it-happened the poor-man died and he was-carried-awaya by the angels to
Abrahams bosom.b And also the rich-man died and he-was-buried.
LEXICONa. aorist pass. infin. of (LN 15.202) (BAGD 1.a.. p. 101): to be carried
away [AB, Arn, BAGD, LN, NTC, WBC; HCSB, NASB, NRSV, REB], to be carried
[KJV, NET, NLT, TEV], to be taken up [BECNT], to be taken away [BAGD, LN], to
be borne away [Lns]. The passive is also translated actively with the angels as the subject:
to carry [GW, NCV, NIV], to take [CEV].
b. (LN 1.16) (BAGD 1. p. 442): bosom [BAGD, LN]. The noun indicates the
region of a body from the breast to the legs [LN]. The phrases (22) to Abrahams bosom
(23) and Lazarus in his bosoms is translated into/to Abrahams bosom and/with
Lazarus in his bosom [BECNT; KJV, NASB], into Abrahams bosom and Lazarus at
his bosom [BECNT], to the bosom of Abraham and Lazarus in his bosom [BECNT,
Lns, WBC], to the arms of Abraham with Lazarus at his side [NCV], to Abrahams
side with Lazarus at/by his side [HCSB, NET, NIV], to be with Abraham with
Lazarus by his side [NRSV], to be with Abraham with Lazarus close beside him
[REB], to be with Abraham and Lazarus [GW], to be with Abraham Lazarus with
Abraham [NLT], to sit beside Abraham at the feast in heaven with Lazarus at his side

NIC Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on
the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.

infin. infinitive
[TEV], to the place of honor next to Abraham and Lazarus at his side [CEV]. The
second reference to bosom in 16:23 is in the plural, but with no change of meaning from the
singular form in 16:22 [WBC]. Or, the plural bosoms at 16:23 could mean in the
folds of Abrahams garment [Arn].
QUESTIONWhat did the angels carry away?
They carried away Lazarus soul after death [AB, Alf, Arn, Crd, Gdt, ICC, Lns, NTC, Rb,
TH; NLT], not his body [TH]. The story does not mention that his body was buried, but
assumes that it was [Arn]. That he died implies that his soul separated from his body [ICC].
Perhaps the burial was so obscure and dismal that it was best not to mention it [Lns, NTC].
He was left unburied [AB]. Or, since this is a parable, the whole man, body and soul, was
carried away [EGT, My]. Or, it is possible that this does not refer to the normal fate of the
righteous, but to Lazarus translation to heaven like Enoch and Elijah [Hlt, WBC] and the
fact that the angels carried him to heaven implies his bodily ascension into heaven [Hlt].
QUESTIONWhat is meant by Abrahams bosom?
Although the phrase is not a synonym for Paradise, this is where Abraham was thought to
be [BECNT, ICC, My, NIGTC]. The phrase means heaven [LN (1.16), Lns, Rb].
Abrahams bosom is a Jewish idiom meaning the presence of God [Pnt].
1. This is a metaphor suggested by a child lying in its parents bosom or lap [Crd, Lns, NIC,
NIGTC]. This is a picture of a child being laid on Abrahams bosom and being embraced
by him, and it is a metaphor for being in heaven where Abraham is and also being in
intimate association with the father of believers [Lns].
2. The metaphor suggests the position of a guest reclining next to the host at a banquet [Arn,
Gdt, MGC, NIGTC, NTC, TG, TH, TNTC; CEV, NET, TEV]. The picture is of a feast in
which the favored person reclines with his head on Abrahams bosom [NTC, TNTC]. The
context of the rich man feasting and Lazarus starving before they died favors this
interpretation [MGC, TNTC].
3. This perhaps combines both of the above so that this pictures the poor man enjoying close
fellowship with Abraham at the messianic banquet [NIGTC, WBC].
16:23 And in Hadesa being in torments,b having-lifted-upc his eyes he-sees from far-
awayd Abraham and Lazarus in his bosoms.
TEXTSome manuscripts omit the first word in this verse, and. GNT reads and with
an A decision, indicating that the text is certain.
LEXICONa. (LN 1.19) (BAGD 1. p. 17): Hades [Arn, BAGD, BECNT, LN, Lns, WBC;
HCSB, NASB, NRSV, REB, TEV], the underworld [BAGD], the world of the dead
[LN], the place of the dead [NCV, NLT], deaths abode [AB], hell [CEV, GW, KJV,
NET, NIV]. See this word at 10:15.
b. (LN 24.90) (BAGD 1. p. 134): torment [BAGD, LN], severe pain, severe
suffering [LN]. The phrase being in torments [Lns; KJV] is also translated being in
torment [Arn, BECNT, WBC; HCSB, NASB], as he was in torment [NET], was
tormented [AB], where he was in torment [NIV, REB], where he was being tormented
[NRSV], in torment [NLT], he was in much pain [NCV], where he was in great pain

EGT Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Synoptic Gospels. Expositors Greek Testament, vol. 1. 1910.
Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Pnt Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
[TEV], he was suffering terribly [CEV], he was constantly tortured [GW]. In 16:24 it
says that he was suffering in a flame and the picture of hell as a place of fire is stated
throughout Scripture [NTC]. Or, the suffering was more mental than physical, an anguish
brought on by realizing that he would eternally be separated from righteous people and
from God [Arn, BECNT].
c. aorist act. participle of (LN 24.34) (BAGD 1. p. 281): to lift up [BAGD, LN].
The phrase having lifted up his eyes is translated he lifted up his eyes [BECNT, Lns;
KJV, NASB], he lifts up his eyes [Arn], he raised his eyes [WBC], he looked up [AB;
CEV, GW, HCSB, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV], not explicit [NCV, NLT]. The picture
seems to have Lazarus positioned in a place above the rich man [WBC]. Ancient people
thought Hades was deep in the earth and Paradise was high above the earth [TG]. However,
the statement that the rich man lifted up his eyes was a stereotyped expression and need
not indicate that Abraham was located above him [NIGTC].
d. (LN 83.30) (BAGD p. 488): far away [BAGD, LN; NASB, NCV, NIV,
NRSV, REB, TEV], far off [CEV, NET], afar off [KJV], from afar [Arn, BECNT,
Lns, WBC], a long way off [HCSB], in the distance [GW], in the far distance [NLT],
at a distance [AB], from a distance [BAGD]. Abraham was far away, yet within hearing
distance [EGT, TH].
QUESTIONWhere are the places of Hades and Abrahams bosom?
1. Hades is the intermediate abode of the dead, so that both the rich man and Lazarus are in
Hades, but in different sections of it [AB, Alf, Arn, Gdt, ICC, My, NICNT, NIGTC, Rb,
WBC]. Hades is the place where all those who have died go until the time of the final
judgment [ICC, NIGTC, WBC]. The rich man is said to be in Hades, but Abraham is
considered to be there also [Alf, NIGTC]. Hades includes both Gehenna and Paradise [Alf,
Arn, Gdt, ICC]. Torment is a feature of the intermediate state as well as the final state in
hell [NIGTC].
2. Hades means hell in the parable, the place of torment, and Abraham was not in Hades but
in Paradise [BNTC, EGT, Hlt, Lns, NTC, Su, TG, TNTC; CEV, GW, KJV, NET, NIV].
Hades is the final abode of the lost [Su]. Hades is hell and Paradise is heaven and there are
no intermediate places [Lns]. This noun is used for the Hebrew word Sheol and it is
practically equivalent to hell [TG].
QUESTIONHow could the rich man see Lazarus?
The details are not to be taken literally [Arn, BECNT, EGT, ICC, Lns, NAC, NIGTC].
Lifting his eyes, seeing people far away, the mention of a finger and tongue cannot be taken
literally since we are told that the rich mans body had been buried [NTC]. The story
requires that communication by shouting be possible [NIGTC]. The rich man and Lazarus
and Abraham are seen in bodily terms since this is the only way they can be visualized and
these details are not be to be taken literally [Lns, NIGTC].
16:24 And calling he said, Father a Abraham, have-mercyb on-me and send Lazarus in-
order-that he-may-dip the tip of-his finger (in) water and may-cool my tongue,
because I-am-sufferingc in this flame.

BNTC Leaney, A. R. C. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. 2d ed. Blacks New
Testament Commentary. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1966.
LEXICONa. (LN 10.20) (BAGD 1.b. p. 635): father [AB, Arn, BAGD, BECNT, Lns,
NTC, WBC; all versions except CEV, REB], my father [REB], ancestor, forefather
[LN], not explicit [CEV]. This is an honorary title or a form of respectful address [BAGD].
Being a Jew, the rich man is speaking to the father of his race [AB, NAC, NIBC, Su, TG].
This may indicate the basis on which he feels he can make his plea [Hlt, WBC].
b. aorist act. impera. of (LN 88.76) (BAGD p. 249): to have mercy [AB, BAGD,
BECNT, LN, Lns, WBC; GW, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NRSV], to be merciful
[BAGD, LN], to show mercy [BAGD, LN], to have pity [CEV, NIV], to have some
pity [NLT], to take pity [NTC; REB, TEV], to show pity [Arn]. The use of the aorist
tense points to a specific act of mercy which the rich man spells out [TH]. He is asking for
gracious help in his time of helplessness [NIGTC]. See this word at 17:13; 18:38.
c. pres. pass. indic. of , (LN 24.92) (BAGD 1. p. 555): to suffer [GW,
NCV], to suffer terribly [LN; CEV], to be in pain [WBC], to be in great pain [AB, LN;
TEV], to be in agony [NTC; HCSB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, REB], to be in anguish
[BECNT; NET, NLT], to be anguished [Lns], to suffer torment [BAGD], to be
tormented [Arn; KJV].
QUESTIONHow could the rich man speak with Abraham?
Since the rich mans soul is in torment and not his body, this account is a picture of the rich
mans terrible situation [Arn]. In reality, the damned cannot see or speak with the blessed in
heaven and the conversation is put in the parable to teach the hearers what Abraham could
answer every unbeliever in hell [Lns].
QUESTIONWhat did the rich man think would happen if Abraham showed him mercy?
Even though the flames could not be put out, he was suffering so terribly that even the
smallest alleviation would be welcome [Arn, EGT, ICC]. The water would have been on
Abrahams side of the chasm, so Lazarus would have to dip his finger in water before he
came over to where the rich man was [TH].
16:25 And Abraham said, Child,a remember that you-received your good (things)
during your life, and likewise Lazarus (received) the bad (things). But now he-is-
comfortedb here, and you are-suffering.
LEXICONa. (LN 10.28) (BAGD 1.b. p. 808): child [Arn, BAGD, Lns, WBC; GW,
NASB, NCV, NET, NRSV], descendant [LN], my child [AB; REB], son [BECNT,
NTC; HCSB, KJV, NIV, NLT], my son [TEV], my friend [CEV].
b. pres. pass. indic. of (LN 25.150) (BAGD 4. p. 617): to be comforted [AB,
Arn, BAGD, BECNT, Lns, NTC; HCSB, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV], to
be consoled [LN, WBC]. God is the one who comforts him [AB, NAC]. The passive voice
is also translated actively with Lazarus as the subject: to have consolation [REB], to have
peace [GW], to be happy [CEV], to enjoy himself [TEV]. This refers to the mental
comfort Lazarus received in his new situation [BECNT].
QUESTIONWhy did Abraham call the rich man his child?

NIBC Evans, Craig A. Luke. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1990.

impera. imperative
Abraham acknowledged the racial relationship claimed by the rich man who had called
him, Father [ICC, NAC, NTC, TG, TH, TNTC, WBC]. This is a gentle refusal [EGT,
ICC]. This makes the reply tender, in spite of being firm [BECNT, TNTC].
16:26 And in (addition to) all these (things) a-great chasma has-been-fixedb between us
and you, so-that the (ones who) want to-come-over from (here) to you are- not -able,
neither from-there to us may-they-cross-over.
LEXICONa. (LN 1.54) (BAGD p. 879): chasm [BAGD, LN]. The phrase a great
chasm [AB, Arn, Lns, WBC; HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV] is also translated a
vast chasm [NTC], a great gulf [KJV, REB], a big pit [NCV], a deep pit [TEV], a
deep ditch [CEV], a wide area [GW]. It is a deep and impassible valley or space between
two points [LN]. It is a yawning gorge [NTC]. Here it is unbridgeable gulf between the
place of bliss and the place of torment [AB, BECNT, NIBC].
b. perf. pass. indic. of (LN 85.38) (BAGD 1. p. 768): to be fixed [AB, Arn,
BAGD, LN, Lns, NTC, WBC; HCSB, KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB], to be
established [BAGD, LN]. The passive voice is also translated actively: there is [CEV,
NCV], is lying [TEV], is separating [NLT], separates [GW]. The perfect tense
indicates that this is a permanent situation [ICC, Lns, TH]. The passive voice implies that
God has fixed the chasm [AB, BECNT, Gdt, Hlt, MGC, NAC, WBC].
QUESTIONWhat things are referred to in the phrase in addition to all these things?
These are the things described in 16:25 [Lns]. These things are the moral aspects described
in 16:25 [TH], what has been done according to Gods justice [NAC]. Verse 16:25 shows
that on equitable grounds, alleviation of the rich mans sufferings is not possible [ICC]. It is
retributive justice [NIGTC]. If the rich man wanted to argue that the principle of equity had
been carried too far, 16:26 is an additional reason to show that it impossible to change
things [EGT].
QUESTIONWhat relationship is indicated by in order that?
It indicates the purpose God had in fixing the chasm between the two locations [Alf, Arn,
EGT, ICC, Lns, NAC, NTC, TH]. It is practically the same as result [NIGTC].
16:27 And he-said, Thena I-ask you, father, that you-send him to the house of my
father, 16:28 becauseb I-have five brothers, in-order-thatc he-may-warn them, in-
order-thatd they not also come to this place of-torment.e
LEXICONa. (LN 89.50): then [AB, Arn, LN, Lns, NTC, WBC; all versions except KJV,
NLT], therefore [LN; KJV], not explicit [BECNT; NLT]. It has the meaning in that case
[TH]. Since his former request cannot be granted, he makes this request concerning his
brothers [BECNT, EGT, Lns, NIGTC, WBC].
b. (LN 89.23): because [LN; HCSB], for [Arn, BECNT, LN, Lns, NTC, WBC; KJV,
NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV], not explicit [AB; CEV, GW, NCV, REB, TEV].
c. (LN 89.59): in order that [LN, Lns; NASB], so that [BECNT, LN], that [AB,
Arn, WBC; KJV, NRSV], to [NET], not explicit [NTC; CEV, GW, NCV, NIV, REB,
TEV]. This conjunction is also translated as a verb phrase: and I want him to [NLT]. This
gives the purpose for sending Lazarus [My, NIGTC, TH].
d. (LN 89.59): in order that [Arn, LN], so that [WBC; GW, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV,
NRSV, REB, TEV], to [HCSB]. The phrase in order that not is translated lest [AB,
BECNT, Lns, NTC; KJV], so (they) wont [CEV, NLT].
e. (LN 24.90) (BAGD 1. p. 134): torment. See translations of this word at 16:23.
QUESTIONHow did the rich man think Lazarus could be sent to his five brothers?
Perhaps he thought that Lazarus could appear to the five brothers in a vision or a dream
[AB, BECNT, MGC], but he didnt think Lazarus would be resurrected in order to go to
them [BECNT]. Or, Lazarus would rise from the dead to go to them [TEV].
QUESTIONWas the rich mans father still alive?
This does not assume that his father was still alive, but it indicates that the five brothers still
lived together in their fathers house [TG]. He does not speak about warning his father, so
probably the father had died and the five brothers lived together because they had decided
not to divide their shares of the inheritance [NIGTC].
QUESTIONWhat relationship is indicated by because in the clause because I have
five brothers?
It explains why Lazarus should be sent to the rich mans fathers house [TH]. This is a
parenthetical clause [NIGTC, TH]. The clause is enclosed in dashes [Lns; NASB, NRSV],
in parentheses [NET], or it is treated as a separate sentence [GW].
QUESTIONWhat did the rich man want Lazarus to warn his brothers about?
They must be warned of what awaits them [TNTC]. It is implied that the brothers led the
same kind of life he had and would share his fate if they did not repent [Hlt, Su]. He knew
that his brothers needed to repent and needed to be warned that the way he had lived had
ended in disaster [BECNT]. He wanted to warn them that there was life after death and
there will be retribution for sinful conduct [AB]. The brothers needed to have someone
from the dead warn them that their present way of life would bring them into torment and
they needed to change their ways so they wouldnt end up where the rich man was
[NIGTC, TG]. The brothers must be warned to repent [NAC, NIC] and do good deeds such
as using their wealth to help people like Lazarus [NAC]. Perhaps the rich man thought that
only a warning from someone who had died and had found out about the fact of eternal
punishment could save them from such a fate [BECNT].
QUESTIONWhat is the relationship of in order that in the clause in order that they not
also come to this place of torment?
This indicates the purpose of the warning [NAC, NIC]. The rich man thought such a
warning would keep them from coming to the place where he ended up [NIGTC, TH]. The
rich man thought that if God had properly warned him, he would have escaped the place of
torment and he implied that he hadnt had a fair chance [ICC, TNTC].
16:29 And Abraham says, They-havea Moses and the Prophets. Let-them-listenb to-
them. 16:30 But he-said, No,c father Abraham, but if someone from (the) deadd
should-go to them they-will-repent.e
LEXICONa. pres. act. indic. of (LN 57.1) (BAGD I.2.d. p. 332): to have [AB, Arn,
BAGD, BECNT, LN, Lns, NTC, WBC; GW, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV,
REB], to have at ones disposal [BAGD]. The phrase they have Moses and the prophets
is translated they have the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets [NCV], your
brothers can read what Moses and the prophets wrote [CEV], your brothers have Moses
and the prophets to warn them [TEV], Moses and the prophets have warned them [NLT].
b. aorist act. impera. of (LN 24.52, 36.14) (BAGD 4. p. 32): to listen [AB, BAGD,
BECNT, NTC, WBC; GW, HCSB, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV], to hear [Arn, LN (24.52),
Lns; KJV, NASB], to pay attention to and obey [LN (36.14)], to pay attention to [CEV],
to learn from [NCV], to respond to [NET]. The clause is translated your brothers can
read their writings anytime they want to [NLT].
c. (LN 64.2) (BAGD 2. p. 598): no [AB, Arn, BAGD, BECNT, LN, NTC, WBC; all
versions except CEV, KJV, TEV], nay [KJV], no, thats not enough [CEV], that is not
enough [TEV], no, on the contrary [Lns].
d. (LN 23.121) (BAGD 2.a. p. 535): dead [BAGD, LN]. The phrase from the dead
[Arn, BECNT, Lns, NTC, WBC; CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NRSV] is
also translated comes back from the dead [GW], will come back from the dead [AB], is
sent to them from the dead [NLT], someone from the dead visits them [REB], were to
rise from death and go to them [TEV].
e. fut. act. indic. of (LN 41.52) (BGD p. 512): to repent [Arn, BAGD, BECNT,
LN, Lns, WBC; HCSB, KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB], to turn from their sins
[NLT], to be converted [NTC], to listen and turn to God [CEV], to reform their lives
[AB], to believe and change their hearts and lives [NCV], to turn to God and change the
way they think and act [GW].
QUESTIONIn what sense did they have Moses and the prophets?
They had the writings of Moses and the writings of the prophets [Arn, TNTC; NLT], or
their teachings [GW]. Moses wrote the Pentateuch and in a broad sense of the term, the
prophets wrote all the other books of the OT [Arn, Lns]. This means the Law and the
Prophets, that is, the whole OT [Alf, EGT, Hlt, NAC, NIVS, Su, TNTC]. They had the
writings in the sense that the passages from the writings of Moses and the prophets were
read and explained in the synagogue [TH]. They could have it read to them [TG].
QUESTIONIn what sense were they to listen to the writings of Moses and the prophets?
Listen especially refers to listening to the Scriptures that were regularly read and
explained in the synagogue [NIGTC, TG, TH]. To listen means to obey the writings
[BECNT, TH], to respond to them [BECNT], to heed them [NAC]. They were to hear so as
to receive the message in their hearts [Lns]. They were to listen and also obey what they
heard [TH]. The Scriptures had sufficient instructions so they could learn about the way
should live in relation to God and people [Su]. The Law and the prophets told of Gods
requirements for fellowship with him, and told how people were acceptable to him [Pnt].
QUESTIONWhy did the rich man say No to Abraham?
He disagreed with Abraham and meant no, they would not listen to Moses and the
prophets [My, TH], they will not believe or be persuaded [Alf], no, that is not enough
[EGT, ICC, NIGTC; CEV]. From his personal experience he knew that his brothers would
not take the Scriptures any more seriously than he had done and something more was
needed [Arn, BECNT, EGT, ICC, MGC, NIGTC, TNTC].
16:31 And he-said to-him, If they-do- not -listen-to Moses and the Prophets, neither
will-they-be-persuadeda if someone should-come-back-to-lifeb from (the) dead.
LEXICONa. fut. pass. indic. of (LN 33.301) (BAGD 3.a. p. 639): to be persuaded [Arn,
BAGD, LN, Lns, WBC; GW, HCSB, KJV, NASB], to be convinced [AB, BAGD, LN,
NTC; NET, NIV, NRSV, TEV], to believe [BECNT], to listen to [CEV, NCV, NLT],
to pay heed [REB].

fut. future

NIVS Barker, Kenneth, ed. The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.
b. aorist act. subj. of (LN 23.93): to come back to life, to live again, to be
resurrected [LN]. The phrase to come back to life from the dead is translated to come
back from the dead [CEV, NCV], to rise from the dead [AB, Arn, BECNT, NTC, WBC;
HCSB, KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV, REB], to rise up from the dead [Lns], to
rise from death [TEV], to come back to life [GW].
QUESTIONWhat would they not be persuaded to do?
They would not be persuaded to repent [EGT, ICC, My, NAC, TG]. They would not be
persuaded of the truth of the Good News [Arn]. They would not be persuaded that someone
had really risen from the dead [Lns]. The verb implies conversion and salvation [NIBC].
QUESTIONWhat is the significance of ignoring the request to send Lazarus and instead
making a general statement of the possibility of someone being resurrected?
Even a far mightier miracle than the rich man asked would be ineffectual [EGT, ICC]. The
resurrection of another Lazarus later did not persuade the unbelieving Jews [Alf, Arn,
NAC, TNTC]. The rich man had asked for a mere visit from Lazarus to warn his brothers,
and now Abraham spoke of someone coming back to life [BECNT]. This probably alludes
to Jesus later resurrection [BECNT, Hlt, MGC, NAC, NIC, Su, TNTC; NET].
QUESTIONWhy wouldnt people be persuaded by the miracle of someone being raised
from death?
For people who had already hardened themselves against Gods message in the OT, even
the resurrection of a person would not make an impact on their hearts [NIGTC, NTC, Su,
WBC]. Their wills prevent them from believing the empirical evidence [BECNT].
21

Luke 16.19.
Exegesis anthrpos de tis n plousios there was (once) a rich man. No connexion with the
preceding is indicated or suggested. (CP. also on v. 1.)
kai enedidusketo porphuran kai busson and he used to dress in purple and fine linen. The
imperfect tense suggests habitual conduct.
endiduskomai () to dress onself.
porphura () purple, hence purple garment, here referring to the upper garment.
bussos () fine linen, hence fine linen cloth, here referring to the undergarment. Both
words suggest expensive clothing.
euphrainomenos kath hmeran lamprs enjoying himself splendidly every day. The
participial clause is syntactically subordinate to the preceding clause but semantically of the
same order. euphrainomenos refers probably to the feasts which the rich man gives.
lamprs () splendidly, luxuriously.
Translation Who was clothed or, used to dress in purple and fine linen, or, his garments
were of purple cloth and fine linen, (cp. N.T.Wb./20,) clothe. one may have to shift to
terms for garments, and or/material known in the culture as expensive and luxurious, e.g.

subj. subjunctive
21
Blight, R. C. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Luke 12-24 (2nd ed.) (188). Dallas, TX: SIL
International.

Greek word occurs only once in the Gospel of Luke.

Greek word occurs only once in the New Testament.


in silk and satin (East Toradja 1933), or to make that connotation explicit, e.g. ...in
expensive red and white cloth (cp. Kekchi), beautifully dressed in a smooth sarong of fine
cloth (cp. South Kekchi), in a luxurious robe and shirt, in the most expensive clothes
(TEV).
Feasted sumptuously, or, was having (lit eating) big feasts (Sranan), and cp. the note on
making merry in 12.19.
Luke 16.2021.
Exegesis ptchos de tis onomati Lazaros a beggar named Lazarus. For ptchos cp. on
4.18. The religious connotation is also present here. No special meaning is to be attached to
the name Lazarus even though this is the only time that a personal name occurs in a
parable.
ebeblto pros ton pulna autou lit. had been laid at his gate. The pluperfect tense of
ebebleto denotes the result of laying down, rather that the act, cp. BI-D, 347.1, (had been
prostrated and) lay.
puln () gate, entrance, of the gate of a large house or palace.
heilkmenos covered with sores, past participle of helko () to cause sores.
(v. 21) epithumn chortasthnai apo tn piptontn apo ts trapezs tou plousiou longing
to satisfy himself with that which fell from the rich mans table. epithumn is syntactically
co-ordinate with heilkmenos. ta piptonta lit. that which falls refers to that which was
thrown away after the meals, or to that which fell from the table during the meals.
preferably the former.
alla kai hoi kunes erchomenoi epeleichon ta helk autou but (not only) that, even the
dogs used to come and lick his sores, adding another touch of sorrow to the picture of the
poor mans situation.
epileich () to lick. the imperfect tense points to a habitual situation.
helkos () sore, abscess.
Translation At his gate lay a poor man....,who...., introducing a second character, which
may require something like there was (also) a poor man...., lying at his (or, the rich mans)
gate/door. He... At his gate, or, at the entrance of his house, in the front of his house (lit.
at his opening) (West Nyanja). In other cultural situations one may have to say e.g. at the
lower-end of the rich mans stairs, or, at the place where-one-steps-inside (i.e. the upper
end of the stairs)-of-him (East or South Toradja, where the houses are built on poles), at
the gate of the fence around his house (Thai 1967, similarly Shona 1966), at the entrance
of the others compound (Zarma).
Full of sores. For full of see 5.12; for sores, or, ulcers, cp. N.T.Wb/76, wound.
(v. 21) Desired to be fed with, or, desired to be given (to eat), longed to receive (for
food), wished to satisfy his hunger with.
What fell from the rich mans table, i.e. scraps/bits (thrown away) from the....table/meal,
what the servants threw away from the...meal, the leftovers from the rich mans food
(Toba Batak).
Moreover the dogs came..., the climax in this description of Lazarus misery, as brought out
in he was even forced to put up with the dogs who used to come... (cp. Rieu). For dogs cp.
also N.T.Wb/34f, FAUNA.
Luke 16.22.

TEV Todays English Version


Exegesis egeneto de apothanein ton ptchon it happened that the beggar died, cp. on 1.8.
As to its function egeneto de may be placed under (2) or (4) of the list given there,
preferably the latter.
kai apenechthnai auton hupo tn aggeln eis ton kolpon Abraam and that he was carried
by the angels to Abrahams bosom, dependent upon egeneto.
apopher () to lead away, to carry away, here of the carrying away of the soul after
death. The identity of a man and his soul is expressed by the fact that auton is subject of
apenechthnai.
kolpos (cp. on 6.38) here bosom. The phrase eis ton kolpon Abraam is best understood as
referring to the place next to Abraham while reclining at the table, cp. Mt. 8.11, Jn. 13.23.
apethanen de kai ho plousios kai etaph the rich man also died and was buried, without
details or indication of place. No significance is to be attached to the fact that the rich
mans burial is mentioned and the beggars not.
Translation Was carried by the angels to goes with the poor man. But it may be
impossible thus to refer to a deceased person in the same way as to a living person, e.g. in
South Toradja, where the subject of the sentence must be his soul (i.e. what leaves the
body at death, and continues the deceaseds personality in the Land of the Souls). To carry
(away) to is sometimes better rendered by two verbs, cp. e.g. to take-up/away..., (and)
bring to (Malay), and in some languages only things can be said to be carried, whereas
personal entities, including souls, require another verb, cp. e.g. to lead/take-with-one, or,
to accompany..., (and) putdown-)at (Balinese, South Toradja).
To Abrahams Bosom is, as a rule, better not rendered literally: hence, put in Abr.s hands
(Sranan), to sit with Abr. (East Toradja), to Abr.s side (TEV), near Abr. (Kekchi).
Buried, cp. on 9.59.
Luke 16.23.
Exegesis kai en t had and in Hades, going with all verbs of v. 23. For hads cp. on
10.15 and N.T. Wb., 72f/ Hell.
eparas tous opthalmous autou raising his eyes. preparing the way for hora, etc. Cp. also
on 6.20.
huparchn en basanois being in torment, parenthetical insertion, describing his situation
in Hades. huparchn is equivalent to n.
basanos (also v 28) torment, torture.
hora Abraam apo makrothen he saw Abraham far away, yet within hearing distance.
kai Lazaron en tois kolpois autou and Lazarus at his bosom, dependent upon hora.
Translation For Hades, i.e. the abode of the dead, see N.T. Wb/43, Hell; TBT, 4181f, 1953;
for he lifted up his eyes cp. 6.20.
Being in torment, or, while/where he was in torment, or, underwent suffering, or, suffered
great pain. For to torment cp. 8.28.
Far off here sometimes best taken with Abraham, e.g. saw Abr. who was far away (from
him).
Luke 16.24.
Exegesis kai autos phnsas eipen and he raising his voice said, hence, and he called
out.
pater Abraam father Abraham, cp. on 3.8.
eleson me have pity on me; the aorist tense points to a specific act of pity as indicated by
pempson, etc.
pempson Lazaron send Lazarus, i.e. send him over to this place.
hina baps to akron tou daktulou autou hudatos (in order) to dip the tip of his finger in
water. Strictly speaking the dipping precedes the going over. This implies that pempson
means not only order to go but also order to do.
bapt () to dip, here with genitive of that into which something is dipped (hudatos), cp.
B1-D, 172.
akron () tip of a finger, top of a mountain.
kai kaptapsux tn glssan mou and to cool my tongue, only a very small alleviation.
glssa, cp. on 1.64.
katapsuch () to cool off, to refresh.
odunmai en t phlogi taut I am in agony in these flames, cp. on 2.48.
phlox () flame, here in a collective sense, flames, fire.
Translation Called out, or, called to him and said (Goodspeed), cried out, saying
(Indonesian languages).
Have mercy upon me, cp. on 1.50.
To dip the end of his finger, stressing the smallness of the matter requested:
immerse/moisten for a moment only a small part of the smallest finger.
To cool has in many languages been rendered by causative verbs built on cool/cold/fresh,
elsewhere by to ease (Toba Batak), to alleviate the pain/heat of, to besprinkle (East
Toradja, designating the act itself instead of its result).
I am in anguish, or, I suffer pain, referring to the emotion felt by him while being in
torment (v. 23), which refers to what happened to him.
Luke 16.25.
Exegesis teknon child, i.e. my child, implying that he is still considered as belonging to
the people of Abraham.
mnsthti remember, pointing to what he was supposed to know.
apelabes to agatha sou en t z sou you received to the full your good things during/in
your lifetime. apolambano means usually to receive back, but here to receive to the full
(cp. apech in 6.24). ta agatha sou does not mean your possessions (cp. 12.18) but the
good things that were your share, your share of blessings (cp. Goodspeed). For z
meaning lifetime cp. A-G s.v. I a.
kai Lazaros homois ta kaka and Lazarus likewise the bad things, with apelaben
understood. homois is best understood as corresponding to en t z sou in the preceding
clause.
nun de hde parakaleitai now he is being comforted here. nun goes with this and with the
next clause and indicates the contrast with the life of Lazarus and the rich man before
dying; hde refers to the place where Abraham now is.
su de odunasai and you are in agony.
Translation Remember, or, think again, bring back to mind; and cp. the note on
remembrance in 1.54.
In your lifetime, or, while you were (still) alive (cp. NEB, Balinese).
You....received your good things, or, you were very greatly favoured (Tzeltal), you saw
good (Kituba). In Foe the verb is rendered in the far past tense, referring to yesterday and
before, and in the aspect used when a speaker describes what he observed. Your good
things, or, your share of the good things, or, good fortune (Javanese), or, pleasure (Bahasa

NEB New English Bible


Indonesia RC), or, happiness (Marathi), or, joy, whatever which good to-you (Trukese),
things that pleased you (Shona 1966), or, gave you joy.
And Lazarus in like manner evil things, taken as the opposite of the preceding that-clause
but in elliptical form, sometimes has to be filled out entirely, but that L. in his lifetime
received his evil things (or equivalent expressions, see above, and cp. e.g. great his
suffering he lived in the world, Tzeltal), but more often partially, only some of the
corresponding terms being repeated, or rendered by a synonym, as required by idiom. See
also Wonderly, BTPU, 188. For evil cp. also Nida, BT, 220f.
Comforted, c.p. on received...consolation in 2.25.
Luke 16.26.
Exegesis kai en pasi toutois and besides all this, i.e. the moral aspects described in v. 25.
metaxu hmn kai humn between us and you. The plural humn shows that the reference
is to the deceased rich man and those that are with him in Hades. metaxu also 11.51.
chasma mega estriktai a great chasm has been fixed. The perfect tense of estriktai
points to a permanent and unchangeable situation. For striz cp. on 9.51.
chasma () chasm, gulf.
hops hoi thelontes diabnai enthen pros humas m dunntai in order that those who want
to pass from here to you may not be able, final clause to indicate the intended result,
semantically very close to a consecutive meaning (cp. Phillips). diabain (). humas is used
here in the sense of the place where you are.
(hops) mde ekeithen pros hmas diapersin and (in order that) they may not cross from
there to us. The subject of diapersin is not specified. hmas is used here in the sense of
the place where we are.
diapera () to cross, here virtually synonymous with diabain.
Translation Besides all this, or, moreover (Balinese). but that is not all (NEB).
Between us (referring to Abraham and those with him) and you, or, more economically,
between us (inclusive, covering both parties) (Mazatec, Toba Batak).
Great chasm, or, wide ravine (Bahasa Indonesia KB), a great trench/ditch (as around a
village) (Bamilk).
Has been fixed, or simply exists, is, or more expressively, yawns (Willibrord), is-
extended (Bahasa Indonesia KB).
Pass from here, or, cross (or, go over, or simply, go) from here. Here, i.e. where we
(exclus.) are.
None may cross from there, or, more fully, nobody may be able to cross (or, come over, or
simply, come) from there, or, from where you (Plur.) are. For pass and cross cp. also
Wonderly, BTPU, 187.
Luke 16.2728.
Exegesis eipen de he said, change of subject.
ert se oun then I beg you. oun means in that case.
hina pempss auton eis ton oikon tou patros mou that you send him to my fathers house,
i.e. family, implying a restoring to life. oikos tou patros mou refers to his brothers, as v.
28 shows, not to his father.
(v. 28) ech gar pente adelphous for l have five brothers, parenthetical clause explaining
my fathers house.
hops diamarturtai autois in order to warn them, final clause dependent upon pempss.
diamarturomai () to warn, or, to testify, i.e. to inform fully, preferably the former.
hina m kai autoi elthsin lest they too may come, final clause dependent upon
diamarturtai.
eis ton topon touton ts basanou to this place of torment. ts basanou (cp. on v. 23)
qualifying genitive.
Translation He said. The speaker often has to be specified.
Beg, cp. N.T.Wb/12f, Ask.
My fathers house, or, those who live in my fathers house, my nearest kin, my family.
(v. 28) Where a more specific term for brothers (see 6.14) is obligatory they may be taken
to have been younger brothers and/or of the same parents.
So that they may warn them, often better as a new sentence here, cause him to warn them,
or, let him (go and) warn them (cp. e.g. Sranan, East Toradja, TEV). Warn them, or more
analytically, tell them not to do as I did.
Lest they...come, or, in order that they...may not come, viz. once they will have died;
hence some adjustments may be required, cp. v. 22.
Place of torment, or, place where I (or, we, exclus.) suffer torment/pain.
Luke 16.29.
Exegesis echousi Musea kai tous prophtas they have Moses and the prophets, i.e. they
have the written word of God which is read and expounded in the synagogue, cp. 4.16ff;
16.16; Acts 28.23.
akousatsan autn let them listen to them, presumably in the synagogue. akou implicitly
means here to listen and obey.
Translation Moses and the prophets, or, the books/writings of M. and the prophets
(several Indonesian versions), what M. (or, the prophet M., cp. on 2.22) and the (other)
prophets have written.
Hear them, or, hear their words, listen to (or, obey) what they say. The verb to hear
often can be used also with reference to books/writings, but sometimes adaptation is
needed, cp. e.g. they should listen to their-sound (i.e. to what is written in them) (Malay).
Luke 16.30.
Exegesis ouchi no, i.e. they will not listen to Moses and the prophets.
all ean tis apo nekrn poreuth pros autous metanosousin but if someone comes to them
from the dead, they will repent. For apo nekrn (going with poreuth, not with tis) cp. on
9.7. For metanoe cp. on 10.13 and reference there.
Translation Goes to them from the dead, or, goes to them from the-midst-of the dead
(Bahasa Indonesia KB), visits them from the land of the dead, or, from where the dead
are.
Luke 16.31.
Exegesis eipen de aut but he (i.e. Abraham) said to him, change of subject.
oud ean tis ek nekrn anast peisthsontai not even if someone rises from the dead, will
they be convinced. anistamai occurs only here and 24.46 in Luke together with ek nekrn
and is synonymous with egeiromai ek nekrn, cp. 9.7.
peith to persuade, to convince.
Translation Neither will they be convinced if some one....., or, in an active construction,
then no one will convince them, even if he (or, even a person who)...., even some one
who....will not gain them over so-that they believe (Sranan). Be convinced, or, pay heed
(NEB); or, linking-up with v. 28, be-warned (Bahasa Indonesia KB), accept warning
(Malay), accept (it) (South Toradja).
Rise from the dead, see on 9.7f.
22

19. . Now a certain man was rich is less probable than


Now, there was a certain rich man: comp. ver. 1, 13:11. Note the .
. The former for the upper garment, the latter for the under. Both
were very costly. The former means first the murex, secondly the dye made from it (1 Mac.
4:23), and then the fabric dyed with it (Mk. 15:17, 20). Similarly, is first Egyptian
flax, and then the fine linen made from it (Exod. 26:1, 31, 36; Ezek. 16:10, 27:7). The two
words are combined Prov. 31:22: comp. Rev. 18:12, 16. For comp. 12:19,
15:23, 29: occurs nowhere else in bibl. Grk.
20. . For see on 5:27: the expression is freq. in Lk. Nowhere
else does Christ give a name to any character in a parable. That this signifies that the name
was written in heaven, while that of the rich man was not, is farfetched. Tertullian urges
the name as proof that the narrative is not a parable but history, and that the scene in Hades
involves his doctrine that the soul is corporeal (De Anim, 7.).2 It is possible that the name
is a later addition to the parable, to connect it with Lazarus of Bethany. He was one who
went to them from the dead, and still they did not repent. As he was raised from the dead
just about this time, so far as we can determine the chronology, there may be a reference to
him. But it is more probable that the name suggests the helplessness of the beggar; and
some name was needed (ver. 24). Tradition has given the name Nineuis to the rich man.
The theory that the story of the raising of Lazarus has grown out of this parable is
altogether arbitrary.
. Not had been flung at his gate, as if contemptuous
roughness were implied. In late Greek often loses the notion of violence, and
means simply lay, place: 5:37; Jn. 5:7, 7:6, 18:11, 20:25, 27, 21:6; Jas. 3:3; Num. 22:38.
By is meant a large gateway or portico, whether part of the house or not (Acts
10:17, 12:14; Mt. 26:71; 2 Chron. 3:7; Zeph. 2:14). It indicates the grandeur of the house.
. The verb occurs here only in bibl. Grk., but is common in medical
writers, especially in the pass., be ulcerated.
The irregular augment, instead of the usual , is well attested here, and perhaps arose from
analogy with . Comp. (Rom. 15:18). WH. ii. App. p. 161; Greg. Proleg. p. 121. Syr-Sin.
omits.

22
Reiling, J., & Swellengrebel, J. L. (1993], c1971). A handbook on the Gospel of Luke. Originally
published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Luke, 1971. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (569). New York: United Bible Societies.
2
Ambrose also takes it as history: Narratio magis quam parabola videtur, quando etiam nomen
exprimitur (Migne, xv. 1768).

WH. Westcott and Hort.

Greg. Gregory, Prolegomena ad Tischendorfii ed. N. T.

Syr Syriac.

Sin. Sinaitic.
21. . This does not imply (Iren. ii. 34, 1) that his desire was not
gratified. His being allowed to remain there daily, and his caring to remain there daily,
rather indicates that he did get the broken meat. He shared with the dogs (Mk 7:28). But
perhaps it does imply that what was given to him did not satisfy his hunger. Some
authorities insert from 15:16 et nemo illi dabat, which even as a
gloss seems to be false.
The silence of Lazarus throughout the parable is very im pressive. He never murmurs
against Gods distribution of wealth, nor against the rich mans abuse of it, in this world.
And in Hades he neither exults over the change of relations between himself and Dives, nor
protests against being asked to wait upon him in the place of torment, or to go errands for
him to the visible world.
. Nay, even the dogs. This shows his want and his helplessness.
Not only was his hunger unsatisfied, but even the dogs came and increased his misery. He
was scantily clad, and his sores were not bound up; and he was unable to drive away the
unclean dogs when they came to lick them. The suggestion that the dogs were kinder to him
than the rich man was, is probably not intended; although the main point of vv. 20, 21 is to
continue the description of Dives rather than to make a contrast to him. Here was a constant
opportunity of making a good use of his wealth, and he did not avail himself of it.
. Licked the surface of. Here only in bibl. Greek. The reading has very little
authority. For comp. 12:7, 24:22.
22. This verse serves to connect the two scenes of the parable. The reversal of the
positions of the two men is perhaps intimated in the fact that Lazarus dies first. The
opportunity of doing good to him was lost before the rich man died, but the loss was not
noticed.
. . His soul was carried, a loco alieno in patriam. Clearly we are
not to understand that what never happened to anyone before happened to him, and that
body and soul were both translated to Hades. In saying that he died () the
severance of soul and body is implied. And the fact that his burial is not mentioned is no
proof that it is not to be understood Jesus would scarcely have shocked Jewish feeling by
the revolting idea that close to human habitations a corpse was left unburied, In each case
the feature which specially characterized the death is mentioned. See Aug. De Civ. Dei, xxi.
10, 2.
. The transition was painless and happy. A Targum on Cantic. iv. 12
says that the souls of the righteous are carried to paradise by Angels. Comp. the
of Heb. 1:14 and the of Philo. But it is no
purpose of the parable to give information about the unseen world. 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, and must not be understood as confirming those beliefs. The properties of bodies are
attributed to souls in order to enable us to realize the picture.
. This is not the objective genitive, the bosom which contained
Abraham, but the subjective, that in which Abraham received Lazarus. Comp. Mt. 8:11.

Iren. Irenus.

Aug. Augustine.
Lazarus in Sheol reposes with his head on Abrahams breast, as a child in his fathers lap,
and shares his happiness. Comp. Jn. 1:18. The expression is not common in Jewish
writings; but Abraham is sometimes represented as welcoming the penitent into paradise.
Edersh. L. & T. 2. p. 280. Comp. (v.l. )
(4 Mac 13:17). Such expressions as go to ones fathers (Gen.
15:15), lie with ones fathers (Gen. 47:30), be gathered to ones fathers (Judg. 2:10),
and sleep with ones fathers (1 Kings 1:21), apply to death only, and contain no clue as to
the bliss or misery of the departed. Abrahams bosom does contain this. It is not a
synonym for paradise; but to repose on Abrahams bosom is to be in paradise, for Abraham
is there (Jn. 8:56: Diptychs of the Dead in the Liturgy of S. James).
. It is not the contrast between the magnificence of his funeral (of which
nothing is stated) and the lack of funeral for Lazarus (of which nothing is stated) that is to
be marked, but the contrast between mere burial in the one case and the ministration of
Angels in the other.
Some authorities seem to have omitted the before and to have joined these words with
. Vulg. has et sepultus est in inferno: elevans autem oculos suos. Aug. has both arrangements. Comp.
Jn. 13:30, 31 for a similar improbable shifting of a full stop in some texts. Other examples Greg. Proleg. p.
181.
23. . In Hades, the receptacle of all the departed until the time of final
judgment, and including both paradise and Gehenna. That Hades does not mean hell as a
place of punishment is manifest from Acts 2:27, 31; Gen. 37:35, 42:38, 44:29; Job 14:13,
17:13, etc. That Hades includes a place of punishment is equally clear from this passage. In
the Psalms of Solomon Hades is mentioned only in connexion with the idea of punishment
(14:6, 15:11, 16:2). See Suicer, s.v. The distinction between Hades and Gehenna is one of
the many great advantages of RV. Dives lifts up his eyes, not to look for help, but to
learn the nature of his changed condition.
. Torment is now his habitual condition: not , but .
That he is punished for his heartless neglect of great opportunities of benevolence, and not
simply for being rich, is clear from the position of Abraham, who was rich. Comp.

(4 Mac. 13:15); and contrast ,
(Wisd. 3:1). Luxurioso carere deliciis poena est (Ambr).
. The Jews believed that Gehenna and paradise are close to one another:
Edersh. Hist. of Jewish Nation, p. 432 ed. 1896. We need not suppose that the parable
teaches us to believe this. The details of the picture cannot be insisted upon.
. The is pleonastic, and marks a, late use, when the force of the adverbial termination
has become weakened: Mt. 27:51; Mk. 5:6, 14:54, 15:40, etc. In LXX we have (freq. in 1 and 2
Sam.), , : and in Aq. and .
With comp. of a single garment (Acts 18:6; Jn. 13:4, 19:23) and of a single
wedding (12:36). We have similar plurals in late class. Grk.

Edersh. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

Vulg. Vulgate.

RV. Revised Version.


24. . He appeals to their relationship, and to his fatherly compassion.
Will not Abraham take pity on one of his own sons? Comp. Jn. 8:53. Note the characteristic
(see on 1:17, 5:14). The implies raising his voice, in harmony with
.
. Not that he assumes that Lazarus is at his beck and call, although
Lange thinks that this is the finest masterstroke of the parable that Dives unconsciously
retains his arrogant attitude towards Lazarus. See also his strange explanation of the finger-
drop of water (L of C. i. p. 507). On earth Dives was not arrogant; he did not drive Lazarue
from his gate; but neglectful. In Hades he is so humbled by his pain that he is willing to
receive alleviation from anyone, even Lazarus.
. The smallest alleviation will be
welcome. On earth no enjoyment was too extravagant: now the most trifling is worth
imploring.
With the part. gen. comp. (Lev. 14:16). To
understand and make nom. to is an improbable constr. See win. xxx. 8. c, p. 252.
. I am in anguish in this flame of insatiable desires and
of remorse: a prelude to the (Mt. 5:22). For see on 2:48.
25. . He does not resent the appeal to relationship: the refusal is as gentle as it is
decided. The rich man cannot fail to see the reasonableness of what he experiences.
. Thou didst receive in full. This seems to be the meaning of the -.
Nothing was stored up for the future: Comp. , 6:24; Mt. 6:2, 5, 16. Note the
. It is only in the mythological Hades that there is a river of Lethe, drowning the
memory of the past. See second small print, p. 425.
. Herein also was fatal error. He had no idea of any other good things, and
he kept these to himself.
. There is no . His evil things were not his own, but
he accepted them as from God, while the rich man took his good things as possessions for
which he had no account to render. Comp. vv. 11, 12.
. Contrast of time and place: But now here. The of TR. has scarcely
any authority. The same corruption is found 1 Cor. 4:2. Comp.
(Ecclus. 14:16). There is, however, no hint that during their lives Dives had been
sufficiently rewarded for any good that he had done, and Lazarus sufficiently punished for
any evil that he had done. And there is also no justification of the doctrine that to each man
is allotted so much pleasure and so much pain; and that those who have their full allowance
of pleasure in this world cannot have any in the world to come. Abrahams reply must be
considered in close relation to the rich mans request. Dives had not asked to be freed from
his punishment. He accepted that as just. He had asked for a slight alleviation, and in a way
which involved an interruption of the bliss of Lazarus. Abraham replies that to interfere
with the lot of either is both unreasonable and impossible. Dives had unbroken luxury, and
Lazarus unbroken suffering, in the other world. There can be no break in the pangs of
Dives, or in the bliss of Lazarus, now. Apoc. Baruch, lxxv. 9.
. An intermediate form between and . Such things belong to the popular Greek
of the time. Comp. (Rom. 2:17; 1 Cor. 4:7), (Rom. 11:18), and see on and
(Lk. 17:8). See Expos. Times, viii. p. 239.

TR. Textus Receptus.


26. . In his omnibus (Vulg.). The (A, etc.) for ( B L) is a
manifest correction. While ver. 25 shows that on equitable grounds no alleviation of the lot
of Dives is admissible, ver. 26 shows that the particular kind of alleviation asked for is
impossible. Can it mean, In all these regions, from end to end?
. Has been and remains fixed. Evidence is lacking to show
that the Jews pictured the two parts of Hades as divided by a chasm. Here only in bibl. Grk.
is found: not Num. 16:30.
Chaos magnum firmatum est (Vulg. f), chaus magnum confirmatus est (d), chaos magnus firmatus est
(1). For this use of chaos comp. Posita est mihi regia clo: Possidet alter aquas, alter inane chaos (Ovid,
Fast. iv. 599). Bentley conjectured chasma, the ma having been lost in magnum and chas expanded into
chaos. This conjecture finds support in two MSS. of Vulg., M having chasma and Y chasmagnum. Jerome
would be likely to correct chaos into chasma.
. Not, so that they cannot (AV.); but, in order that they may not
be able.
. Nor yet: this would be still less permissible. The before is probably
not genuine, but we may understand a new subject. Groups from each side are supposed to
contemplate crossing; not one group to cross and recross.
27. But perhaps there is no between paradise and the other world; and Dives
makes another request, which, if less selfish than the first, is also less humble. It implies
that he has scarcely had a fair chance. If God had warned him sufficiently, he would have
escaped this place of torment.
28. . May bear witness successfully, right through to a good
issue. But the - need not mean more than thoroughly, earnestly (Acts 2:40, 8:25,
10:42, 18:5, 20:21, 23, 24, 23:11, 28:23). Elsewhere in N. T. only five times, but freq. in
LXX. That any five persons then living, whether Herods, or sons of Annas, or among the
audience, are here alluded to, is most improbable. That the request is meant to illustrate the
Pharisees craving for signs is more possible: and the lesson that the desire to warn others
from vicious courses may come too late is perhaps also included. But the simplest
explanation of the request is that it prepares the way for the moral of the parable,the duty
of making use of existing opportunities.

A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as
a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

Cod. Sinaiticus, sc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt.
Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.

B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 1533 1 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de
Paul 3, etc., p. 86).

L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

AV. Authorized Version.


29. . Nemo cogitur. Auditu fideli salvamur, non apparitionibus.
Herodes, audire non cupiens, miraculum non cernit (Beng.). Wonders may impress a
worldly mind for the moment; but only a will freely submitting itself to moral control can
avail to change the heart.
30. , . Not, No, they will not repent for Moses and the Prophets,
which Abraham has not asserted; but, No, that is not enough. He speaks from his own
experience.
It is better to take with than with . Vulg. is as amphibolous as the Greek: si quis
ex mortuis ierit ad eos. See on 1:8.
. They will repent. Not, they will give all to the poor, or they will
leave all and become as Lazarus. There is no hint that being rich is sinful, or that the poor
are sure of salvation. In ver. 28 he did not say that wealth had ruined himself.
31. . If, as matters now stand, they are refusing to hear. We go
beyond the tenour of the reply when we make it mean that a far mightier miracle than you
demand would be ineffectual for producing a far slighter effect. Does
imply a far mightier miracle than ? And does imply
a far slighter effect than ? Persuaded obviously means persuaded to
repent; and one who goes from the dead to warn the living must rise from the dead.
By this conclusion Christ once more rebukes the demand for a sign. Those who ask for it
have all that they need for the ascertainment of the truth; and the sign if granted would not
produce conviction. Saul was not led to repentance when he saw Samuel at Endor, nor were
the Pharisees when they saw Lazarus come forth from the tomb. The Pharisees tried to put
Lazarus to death and to explain away the resurrection of Jesus. For allegorical
interpretations of the parable see Trench, Parables, p. 470, 10th ed.1
In the negative belongs to the verb so as almost to form one word, and is not influenced
by the : If they disregard. Comp. 11:8, 12:26, 18:4. The pres. indic. represents the supposition as
contemporaneous. Note the change from with pres. indic. to with aor. subjunc. The latter is pure
hypothesis.
THE IDEA OF HADES OR SHEOL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
It is surprising how very little advance there is in O.T., respecting conceptions of the unseen world, upon
Greek mythology. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that, until about B.C. 200, the Jewish Sheol is
essentially the same in conception as the Hades of Greek poetry. There are no moral or spiritual distinctions in
it. Good and bad alike are there, and are apparently much in the same condition. Moreover, there is no thought
of either of them rising again. In some places, possibly, Sheol or Hades is merely a synonym for the grave or
death, which receives good and bad alike, and retains them: e.g. Gen. 37:35, 42:38; 1 Sam. 2:6. But in
passages in which the unseen world of spirits is plainly meant, the absence of the religious element is
remarkable. Nay, in one way the bad are better off than the good; for while the Just have lost the joys which
were the reward of their righteousness, the wicked have ceased to be troubled by the consequences of their
iniquity. See Davidson on Job 3:1619. Sheol is a place of rest; but also of silence, gloom, and ignorance. In
the only passage in which the word occurs in Ecclesiastes we are told that there is no work, nor device, nor
knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou goest (9:10). Those who have gone thither return no more,
and none escape it (Job 7:9, 10, 10:21, 22, 20:9). It is a land of forgetfulness, in which there is no more
remembrance of God or possibility of serving Him (Ps. 6:5, 30:9, 88:12; comp. Is. 38:11, 18). And it is
insatiable (Prov. 1:12, 27:20, 30:16; comp. Is. 5:14). In some Psalms there is some trace of hope for eternal
life in God in the other world (49:15), but not of hope for resurrection. In 17:15 when I awake probably
does not mean awake from death, but from sleep. It is the daily renewal of communion with God that is

Beng. Bengel.
1
Near the end of the Koran are two passages worth comparing. (Sales Koran, chs. 102, 104).
desired. In Is. 25:8, and still more in Is. 26:19, hope in a resurrection from Sheol is expressed; and in Dan.
12:2 we reach idea of resurrection with rewards and punishments. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 740; D.C.G. ii. p.
514.
Side by side with the hope of a resurrection (2 Mac. 12:4345, 14:46) comes the belief did Sheol is only
an intermediate state, at any rate for the rightous (2 Mac. 7:9, 11, 14, 36, 37; Enoch li.): and along with the
idea of a resurrection to rewards and punishments comes the idea that there is retribution in Sheol itself, and
consequently a separation of the righteous from the wicked (Enoch xxii.). But the idea of rising again to be
punished does not seem to have prevailed. The view rather was that only the righteous were raised, while the
wicked remained for ever in Sheol (Enoch lxiii. 810, xcix. 11). In this way Hades becomes practically the
same as Gehenna (Ps. Sol. 14:6, 15:11, 16:2). In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus there is nothing to
show whether Hades is intermediate or final: but the doctrine of its being a place of retribution, with a
complete separation of the righteous from the wicked, could hardly be more clearly marked. In the Talmud,
Sheol is identical with Gehenna, just as in popular English hell is always a place of punishment, and
generally of final punishment. See DB.2 art. Hell; Herzog, PRE.2 art. Hades; Charles, Book of Enoch, p.
168.
23

The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:1431)


The first parable of this chapter (vv. 18a) was followed by comments on the parable
and the subject of possessions generally (vv. 8b13). By contrast, the second parable is
preceded by comments that bear upon the parable (vv. 1418), although in ways not
explicit or clear to the reader. The audience is no longer disciples but Pharisees, who are
here portrayed as lovers of money who make fun of Jesus position on money (v. 14). It is
not necessary to picture these men as godless materialists whose religion is only a facade,
even though our culture has come to suspect that money madness prompts holding up a
Bible and talking easily of faith in God. The Pharisees love money within a theological
framework that justifies their position (v. 15). Jesus has separated God and mammon (v.
13), and they scoff at his view. This apparently means that theirs is a theology in which
God and mammon are comfortably joined. Such a theology is often called Deuteronomic,
because in that book (and others of that tradition) the word is clear: obey God and you will
be blessed in war, in the marketplace, in the field, and at home (Deut. 28). Godliness is in
league with riches; prosperity is the clear sign of Gods favor. This debate within the Bible
and among Christians today was discussed at 13:15 and need not be repeated here. It is
enough here to say that Jesus and these Pharisees differed on their theological
interpretations of wealth and poverty. If the Pharisees further justified their position by
alms and acts of charity out of their abundance, Jesus says that God perceives what is really
going on, and Gods assessment of our endeavors is frequently a reversal of our own.
The shift of audience from disciples to Pharisees seems abrupt, but the sudden shift is
softened by the fact that the subject remains unchanged: money. However, verses 1618
present the reader with real problems of contextual continuity. A number of theories have
been offered as explanation for what seems to be a strange insertion. Some scholars hold
that Luke found these sayings together in his source (called Q, a designation for material
held in common by Matthew and Luke) and that he simply left them as they were. Those
who find in Deuteronomy the primary source for Lukes literary format (cf. the discussion
at 9:51) handle the difficulty here by pointing to similar literary discontinuities in that book.
For example, verse 18 introduces into the discussion words of Jesus on marriage and

23
Plummer, A. (1896). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke
(391). London: T&T Clark International.
divorce. In Deuteronomy 24 marriage and divorce are discussed in a context in which
possessions and financial obligations are the major topic. Other commentators, of a more
practical and pastoral mind, do not regard a statement on divorce out of order at all in a
discussion of material goods; the two subjects are universally joined. Experience has
confirmed the truth of the familiar line in Gustave Flauberts novel, Madame Bovary: Of
all the winds that blow on love, the demand for money is the coldest and most destructive.
Perhaps the most ingenious, and somewhat persuasive, treatment of these verses is by E.
Earle Ellis (The Gospel of Luke, p. 201), who sees them as introducing the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus (vv. 1931). As we shall see shortly, this parable seems to fall into
two parts: verses 1926, which tell of the rich man and Lazarus and their fates, and verses
2731, which speak of not believing the law and the prophets and therefore not believing
the gospel. Ellis holds that verses 1415 introduce the first part of the parable and verses
1618, concerned as they are with the law and the prophets, introduce the second part. This
theory may be a bit too intricate to satisfy the reader of Luke. However, if the Pharisees
misread the law and the prophets in justifying a love of wealth, and if the rich man in the
parable interpreted his and Lazarus conditions as evidence of Gods favor and disfavor
according to a certain reading of the law and the prophets, then both the Pharisees and the
rich man are judged by the very Scriptures they had used to justify their life-styles. Thus
verse 31 would conclude what is introduced not at verse 19 but at verse 14. We will walk
through these verses assuming such continuity but not for a moment unaware of the
difficulties that beset every approach.
The Pharisees found in Deuteronomy and other selected texts a gospel of wealth. There
can be no denying it: Scriptures can be found that support the position that the righteous
prosper and the wicked suffer (cf. comments at 13:15). Jesus, who blessed the poor and
urged a free sharing of ones goods with those in need, regarded the Pharisees view as a
gross misinterpretation of the Old Testament. Even though the gospel of the kingdom has
been preached since John and multitudes are storming the door (v. 16), this does not mean
that the law and the prophets have been canceled. Jesus contention with Pharisees is not a
case of the new superseding the old; by no means. His contention is over a proper reading
of the old. Not one dot (a decorative scribal marking on the text) of the law was void (v.
17); what Jesus is saying and doing is according to the law rightly understood. For
example, Deut. 24:14 was interpreted by some of the Pharisees to get out of one marriage
and into another, but, says Jesus, marriage is sacred and a life covenant, the breaking of
which is a sin (v. 18). It is difficult to see any reason for verse 18 here except as an example
of proper versus improper use of the law. Both Matthew (Matt. 19:312) and Mark (Mark
10:212) deal at some length with issues of marriage and divorce and provide a context for
the discussion (cf. also I Cor. 7:1016). The subject in Luke 16:1431 is not marriage and
divorce but correct interpretation of the law and the prophets. Jesus now provides a story
that vividly dramatizes to the Pharisees a gross misreading of the Scriptures and the
consequences of it.
We have been referring to the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable, as it is so
designated in much of the literature. We are aware, however, that this is the only parable
of Jesus in which proper names occur: Lazarus and Abraham (in the Latin Vulgate rich
man is translated Dives, but that is not the mans name). In addition, the use of the name
Lazarus and the mention of raising him from the dead naturally prompt questions about the
relationship between Lukes story and the account of the raising of Lazarus in John 11.
There seems to be more than coincidence here, but speculations about sources and
influences will not advance our discussion of verses 1931. And finally, on the issues of
whether this story is a parable is the question of its unity: Is it one story or one story with
an addition, or two stories? Every reader notices that verses 1926 have one focus and
verses 2731 another. It has rather generally been referred to by students of parables as a
double-edged parable. In the remarks that follow, it will be assumed that verses 2731
are essential to the parable in that they return the reader to the reason for the parable in the
first place. The story is addressed to Pharisees not simply on the issue of wealth and
poverty but on a justification of their view on the basis of the law and the prophets. That
matter is not fully addressed until verse 31. Apparently Luke has taken a popular and
familiar story and developed it into a strong polemic on the proper interpretation of
Scripture.
The first part of the parable (vv. 1926) is a much-traveled story, forms of it being
found in several cultures. Some scholars trace its origin to Egypt, where stories of the dead
and of messages being brought from the dead are in abundance. At least seven versions are
to be found in the rabbis. In one version the characters are a rich merchant and a poor
teacher; in another, a rich and haughty woman and her servile husband. The story in Luke
is, of course, Jewish in orientation (Father Abraham), appropriate to an audience of
Pharisees and to the point that Luke is making. Theologically it is most congenial to Luke,
not only in its perspectives on rich and poor but also in the reversal of the fortunes of the
rich man and Lazarus. An eschatological reversal is central in Lukes understanding of the
final coming of the reign of God. The parable reflects popular beliefs about the hereafter
and the state of the dead. The preacher will want to avoid getting reduced into using the
descriptions of the fates of the two men as providing revealed truth on the state of the dead.
In other words, this is not a text for a sermon on Five Minutes After Death. Details are
rich and sharp. For the rich man, life is a daily banquet at a bounteous table, his abundance
spilling over onto his person, draped as he is in robes of royalty over fine Egyptian
undergarments. Nothing about him even hints of need. The poor man, clothed in running
sores, squats (lies) among the dogs, gaunt, hollow-eyed, and famished, his face turned
toward the rich mans house in the museum stare of the dying. Both die, but only the rich
man has a burial (v. 22). Now their roles are reversed. Lazarus is an honored guest at the
messianic banquet, while the rich man lies in anguish in the flames of Hades (Old
Testament: Sheol). Their conditions are now unalterably final.
Let us pause to remind ourselves that whatever this story meant in other contexts, it is
here used by Luke to address Pharisees who loved wealth and scoffed at Jesus position on
the subject (v. 14). As Pharisees whose religion was of the Book, their love of wealth found
its confirmation in the law and the prophets, as pointed out at verses 1415 above. Whoever
is careful to obey the commands of God shall be highly favored: Blessed shall you be in
the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, and
the fruit of your ground, and the fruit of your beasts, the increase of your cattle, and the
young of your flock (Deut. 28:34). The equations are quite clear to them: wealth =
blessed of God = obedience to Gods commandments. If, then, the parable is to address
them, the rich man cannot be an exaggeration of godless materialism but a realistic portrait
of a man whose wealth was taken as evidence of Gods favor, a man with whom the
Pharisees can identify. Otherwise the story has interest but no power. And as for the poor
man, is not his condition the punishment of God on a life unknown to us but known to
God? It is true that Luke reveals nothing directly about the characters of these two men, and
some have faulted the story for its apparent economic prejudice: the rich go to hell, the poor
go to heaven. But there is a theology assumed in the parable that Luke is attacking, a
theology that says of the one who delights in Gods law, In all that he does, he prospers,
but the wicked are not so (Ps. 1:34). In fact, and may this thought self-destruct
immediately, the rich man could have defended his not helping Lazarus with the argument
that one should not interfere when God is punishing a person. Such has been the reasoning
of some church people in this country who have refused to minister to the hungry and the
homeless.
This portrait of the rich man has been drawn to fit the Pharisees before whom he is
placed. Whatever confirmation and support the rich man and the Pharisees found in the
Scriptures for their love of wealth, it is a fact that the situation presented in the parable is a
clear violation of those same Scriptures. The law of Moses specifically required that the
harvest be shared with the poor and the transient (Lev. 19:910), and the law spelled out
other ways to carry out the fundamental injunction, You shall open wide your hand to your
brother, to the needy and to the poor, in the land (Deut. 15:711). And the prophets
offered no release from the law:
Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Isaiah 58:67
Neither did Jesus: But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the
law to become void (v. 17). It is because of this point about the law and the prophets that
for Luke the parable must continue, even though stopping at verse 26 would have already
made a point vital not only for Luke but for all disciples of Jesus: wherever some eat and
others do not eat, there the kingdom does not exist, quote whatever Scripture you will.
In verses 2732, the rich man wants a message sent to his five brothers so they can
avoid the torment of Hades. Abraham tells him that they already have in the law and the
prophets the adequate and sufficient message, just as the rich man did. The rich man knows
that just as he missed the word of God to him in the Scriptures, so might his brothers.
Something more extraordinary is needed, such as someone rising from the dead. Not only is
Abrahams word true in principle, that the Scriptures are sufficient for faith and for a life in
the will of God, but it was also, in Lukes view, true historically: the rejection of the risen
Christ had its root in the misunderstanding of the true meaning of the law and the prophets.
According to Luke, it is not only on the subject of wealth and poverty that Jesus and not the
Pharisees properly interprets Scripture; Luke has been careful to show, from the birth
narratives on, that what Jesus says and does is according to Scripture. Later, Luke will point
out that the risen Christ taught his disciples to understand Moses, the prophets, and the
writings (24:2527, 4447). And even later, in Acts, Luke will present the early churchs
message about Jesus as being true to the Jewish Scriptures (Acts 2:1636). Luke does not,
as many preachers after him have, handle the tensions with Judaism by easily speaking of
the Old superseded by the New. Jesus and the church lived within that tradition and worked
at an interpretation of that tradition which opened the way for the full reign of God. The
meaning of Scripture and the will of God concerning material goods, wealth, and poverty
was a vital subject in the debate between Jesus and some of the Pharisees. The debate
continues, but now it is between Jesus and some of his followers.
Luke 17:110
24

Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:1931)* After a brief note about kingdom
values, Jesus turns back to the use of resources. Raising a negative example, he discusses
kingdom ethics and values in caring for others. Gods concern for people also becomes
evident. The disciple is to be giving and outward in orientation, as the rich man painfully
discovers through his failure. As Jesus shows, wealth is not always what it is assumed to
be.
Donald Trump, Aristotle Onassis, J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller are among the
extremely rich figures of history. Every generation has its very wealthy, those who live
high. American culture calls this the good life, success, making it, reaching the top
or living in the penthouse. In short, the very rich person has arrived. For many, wealth
is the essence of life. It means self-sufficiency, independence and plenty of opportunity to
enjoy material pleasures. Though few people attain such wealth, many strive for it.

24
Craddock, F. B. (1990). Luke. Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching
(192). Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press.

16:1931 This account is unique to Luke. Some even debate whether it is a parable, seeing it
as a real event (Gooding 1987:227). The arguments for an event include (1) no parable or
comparison language like that which normally introduces a parable, (2) the naming of a character,
which is unprecedented for parables, and (3) the fact that a specific, one-time event is in view,
rather than a repeatable event as is often the case in parables. But replies to these arguments
exist (Blomberg 1990:205). Parables often open with reference to a certain man (NIV a rich man;
compare Lk 10:30). The story has a three-point structure like other parables (compare 14:16).
Parables can lack introductions (Mk 12:1; Lk 15:11). Linnemann (1966:45) calls the account an
example story, which is probably the best name for it. It is like the parables of the rich fool and
good Samaritan in recounting a single event that reveals a lesson.

The parables second feature is its discussion of the afterlife. Since it is an example story, some
of these features are no doubt literary. To see literary elements does not mean, however, that we
should deny the existence of the afterlife or a place like Hades. However, the conversation related
should be seen as a literary device to make the storys point. If a great chasm indeed exists
between the blessed and condemned (v. 26), then could the rich man actually engage Abraham in
conversation? Also, the mans torment by fire may be simply symbolic of horribly painful torment.

16:31 In Greek the if clause in this verse is a first-class condition; this means that the if is
presented as if failing to hear is the case. The grammatical choice creates a presumption in the
parable that many are failing to hear Moses and the prophets.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not really about money. It is about much
more than the dollar, yen, mark or pound. There may not be many Donald Trumps in the
world, but appeals to greed and the desire for self-indulgence abound, especially in
advertising. Jesus wants disciples to see the great spiritual danger in that path.
The account is an example story, not a parable. It pictures reality through a two-
character story that mirrors life. The rich man is never named. He is nameless because he
represents the danger of wealth. He could be anyone. The name of the second character,
Lazarus, is derived from Eleazar, which means God helps. He is the only named
character in any of Jesus example stories or parables.
Two people and two contrasting sets of life circumstances drive this story. On the
surface the rich man has all the cards and all lifes blessings, while Lazarus has nothing.
The rich man is in with style, while Lazarus is definitely out. But often the way we
read circumstances and the way God does are not the same.
The contrast is set up from the opening of the account. The rich man is finely clothed
and eats well. Fresh linen and clothes of purple dye indicate his wealth, as do his daily
feasts inside his mansion with its own gate. Clothes of purple dye (derived from a snail)
were very expensive (Strack and Billerbeck 1926:2:20). Linen may allude to expensive
undergarments; the two terms together suggest a power dresser (Fitzmyer 1985:1130
31). This man lives like a king (Prov 31:22; 1 Maccabees 8:14; 1QapGen 20:31).
While some people eat heartily and can afford expensive underwear, others have
nothing. So we meet Lazarus. He is very poor and probably crippled, since he lies down at
the gate. If he is not crippled, he is very sick. He is looking for food. Even crumbs will do.
His hope of sustenance is alms, the offerings of those who have something. His skin is a
snack to lick for the wild dogs that roam the streets. These dogs were considered unclean,
because it was likely that they had previously licked animal corpses. The image is
purposefully gruesome: they lick his sores and render him unclean (see 1 Kings 14:11;
16:4; 21:19, 2324; 22:38; 1 Enoch 89:4243, 47, 49, on dogs as a negative figure of those
that devour; Michel 1965b:1103; Danker 1988:283). Lazarus wears his povertys pain on
his ulcerated skina graphic contrast to the rich mans soft clothes. If the panhandlers of
our cities streets look bad, Lazarus would serve as a worthy ancestor. Later rabbis would
have seen Lazaruss life as no life at all, since they had a saying that three situations
resulted in no life: depending on food from another, being ruled by ones wife and having a
body covered with sores (t. Bea [=Yom ob] 32b). According to this saying, Lazarus is
doubly deprived.
The storys initial impression is clear: the rich man has a great life, while the poor man
does not. The rich man throws away food; the poor man must scrounge for it. Some people
have nothing, while others have expensive underwear. Observing this scene, we might well
conclude that God has blessed the rich man, while the poor man must be the object of
Gods judgment. Lazarus must be lazy or sinful, paying for his depravity with his
destitution. But the parable will show that appearances can be deceiving. Jesus parables
often come with a twist.
In this parable Lazarus never speaks. His situation is so pathetic that no one would
likely hear him if he did. Here is dire need that the rich man could easily meet, even with
leftovers sticking to a discarded finger towel. The ancient finger towel was used to wipe up
the last bites of bread and gravy. After use it was often thrown out or given to dogs.
Lazarus would have regarded such a tossed-out napkin as a feast, a generous, life-
comforting gift.
It is amazing what we take for granted when we have much. Right after the Berlin Wall
fell in late 1989, I had the chance to visit Romania within six weeks of the change of
government there. We went in with supplies of food and clothes for believers. To go to
Eastern Europe then was to enter a time machine and travel back in history and culture. In
some cases the journey crossed several decades. The most precious food people had to offer
us was eggs from their own chickens. For four days all we had was eggs. The people could
not count on bread at the stores. The shock of seeing how people lived daily has never left
me. But it did not take long to realize that we were receiving the best they had to offer and
to appreciate the meals as a result. Often as we ate the hosts serenaded us with hymns in
their own tongue to thank us for bringing them needed supplies. We slept in the beds of
these generous hosts while they took the floor outside. For them life was simple, and they
were rejoicing in their newfound freedom to worship God openly. So it did not matter what
they lacked materially.
Others from the West who traveled into that region during the same period were
similarly stunned by what they saw. Several marveled to me about what we take for granted
and how frivolously we use resources. One Christian woman who lives in a very wealthy
area of Dallas said her lifeespecially her shopping practices and her attitudes toward the
needs of otherswas changed permanently by her trip to Eastern Europe. Both she and I
learned a lesson the rich man never did: we should never forget to look out our window and
consider those less fortunate than ourselves. I pray that I never will.
If this parable were a television docudrama, it would take a commercial break here.
Imagine how advertisers might flood images of their wares into the pause, entreating us to
participate in the high life. Life often gets defined in terms of things or activities, as we
ignore people and souls in need. Our advertising differs little from the rich mans attitude.
Only the occasional public-service announcement is the exception.
Imagine you were a guest from another planet and television was your eye into this
world. How selective is the eye of television? How much does it reflect real life and our
worlds pain? The news often does, but people do not enjoy watching that, nor do they
often try to do much about the harsh realities that are portrayed. We feel helpless to do
much to help, even if we want to. So documentaries that shed light on the hurting world are
zapped away with the touch of a remote-control switch (no ratings, no TV time). Often
people have to fall into totally desperate straits before others concern translates into
actionand for many the action never comes. So we hide behind our gates and hope the
worlds neediness will go away. Are we more like the rich man than we think?
This parable is not about money. It is about roots, the roots of our heart. Where do they
reach? What nourishes them? Are our roots tied to earthly treasure? Are we looking to line
the walls of our life with things and leisure? Are we too busy to notice the screams of
human desperation? Or are the roots of our life drawing from the spiritual well of Gods
concern and compassion, which ministers comfort to a world in pain?
A film that stormed the evangelical world on the sensitive issue of abortion was called
The Silent Scream. Yet some cultural critics have charged that Western Christians have
great compassion about life while it is in the womb but could not care less about the lives
of persons once they are born. Could that charge, though certainly overstated, be partially
true? Is there another silent scream which we ignore, a scream that would assault our senses
as a protest and an eyesore in every corner of our world, including the corners of our own
inner cities? Is it possible that this parable addresses the pain of living in areas where
human life itself is constantly at risk and where dogs live better than people? Could this
parable be about us?
The parable exposes our values as it now considers Lazarus from an eternal perspective.
Some time has passedhow much is not said. The rich man and Lazarus have both died.
Each has a ticket for a permanent destination, one that money cannot buy. Who is in and
who is out now, and why?
A remarkable reversal has taken place. Now Lazarus is in and the rich man is out. This
is known as an eschatological reversal. It is a true rags-to-riches story, only eternal destinies
are the prize. Lazarus is by Abrahams side, while the rich man is in dire need of relief,
living in torment. The term for torment here, basanos, was often used for the kind of
punishment meted out to a slave to elicit a confession of wrongdoing (Wisdom of Solomon
3:110; 4 Maccabees 13:15; Schneider 1964a:563). The passages mood is set by the
distance and difference between the two figures. Everything is reversed, and the changes
are all very permanent.
Lazarus is next to Abraham, the figure of promise, sharing in blessing (Schweizer
1974:647 n. 182). This is another way to say that he has been gathered to the fathers (Gen
15:15; 47:30; Deut 31:16). The angels carried him to Abrahams side, to heaven, in one of
the greatest funeral processions of all time. Here as elsewhere, Luke emphasizes that
sometimes the poor are headed for glory. Ones social status on earth need not dictate ones
spiritual status before God.
On the other hand, the rich mans new address reads Hades (Greek; NIV has hell).
Mr. Deep Pockets has found the road to nowhere, the deep pocket of the universe. A selfish
life is a rootless life, for everything it yields withers and fades. The rich man has joined a
new kind of country club where the dues are permanent.
Interestingly, however, the rich man still sees Lazarus as his pawn, his social inferior.
Having learned nothing in his new situation, he begins trying to negotiate his way to relief.
There is now no drop of water for him, just as there had been no food for Lazarus before.
The measure by which the rich man had lived was now being measured to him. Irony
abounds. The wealthy man had not even acknowledged Lazarus in his earthly
circumstances, but here he knows his name. Maybe he had seen the poor man all along and
had ignored him. Lazarus had been good for nothing to him, only the object of a casual
uncaring glance. God sees the potential of the poor very differently (Jas 2:5).
Divine riches do not take notice of earthly wealth or social status. The rich mans
chance to use his wealth in a way that pleases God had passed. Now he is outside the gate
of the mansion of eternal blessing (see 6:2026; Jas 5:16).
I am reminded of a wealthy man whom God blessed with bankruptcy during the
recession of the 1980s. Interpreting the experience positively, he said it made him
reconsider his values. He called himself a recovering materialist. Sometimes to lack is to
realize what blessings one does possess.
Now Jesus is not against wealth. He is concerned with how it is used. The story of
Zacchaeus shows Jesus commending a wealthy and formerly corrupt man who became
generous with his resources (19:110). But Jesus wants to warn about the danger of abusing
resources. This story of an unrepentant rich man reveals the tragedy of learning this lesson
too late. His deep pockets had been sewn tight when it came to others, and thus he had
sewn up his fate.
His personal appeal fails. Abraham tells him a grand canyon (chasma; NIV chasm)
lies between them. No crossing is allowed. The distance he kept from others needs in his
earthly life has become a distance he cannot cross. The Greek term used for crossing here,
diabain, is often used of crossing a river that serves as a boundary between regions. There
are no bridges between heaven and hell. When Abraham tells the rich man, Remember
that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, he
is saying it is too late. Lazarus will be comforted, and the rich man is destined for anguish.
Many today reason that a loving God will change his mind in heaven and grant eternal life
to many who do not honor him now; they say there is no permanent judgment or
condemnation from God. Abraham disagrees. The parable is a negative illustration of 16:9.
So the rich man gives up on himself and begins thinking of others. He has learned the
lesson, but too late to help himself. Still, maybe he can help others avoid his error. There is
irony here also, for what the rich man is denied the storys imagery supplies. No one will be
sent to warn the rich mans brothers, not even Lazarus. Nevertheless, the rich mans plea
provides the parables lesson, a voice of one who has seen Gods judgment: Be warned
wealth does not mean spiritual health. How exactly the rich man thinks the dead can contact
his brothers is not cleara resurrection, a vision? What is clear is that his brothers share
the same philosophy of life that has condemned him. He knows they need to be warned.
Many follow the same philosophy as he: to enjoy pleasures while ignoring the needs of
others. Research shows that residents of the United States, for example, use a substantial
amount of the earths resources but give only a few percentage points of what they earn to
charities of any type. What conclusion must we draw about our values? Even when the
government extends aid to other nations in need, we often complain about the burden we
bear to help.
The rich man now wants to warn others who are like him and let them know what God
desires. But what would this warning be? In the parables context it seems clear that the
warning would center on values and lifestyle. The rich mans perspective on such questions
had been his downfall. The call would be to repent before God and be more generous to
others. Those who love God and wish to honor him will have compassion on those like
Lazarus. They will not confuse material blessing with divine blessing.
The mans request that a messenger be sent to his brothers is denied for a crucial
reason. Abraham simply declares that Moses and the Prophets are good enough. The Old
Testament makes clear what God desires of those who know him. Deep pockets that are
holy have holes. God wants us to love him and to love our fellow human beings. He wants
generosity. A text like Deuteronomy 24:1022 seems to be in view, with its call to be
generous and remember what it was like to be a slave in Egypt. So Gods people were to
care for the stranger, the fatherless and the widow, even leaving some of their own precious
harvest for them. In fact, numerous Old Testament texts make the same point, with many
prophets calling for compassion (Deut 15:13, 712; 22:12; 23:19; 24:7, 1415, 1921;
25:1314; Is 3:1415; 5:78; 10:13; 32:67; 58:3, 67, 10; Jer 5:2628; 7:56; Ezek
18:1218; 33:15; Amos 2:68; 5:1112; 8:46; Mic 2:12; 3:13; 6:1011; Zech 7:910;
Mal 3:5). Just reading Moses and the Prophets should make it clear that those who hear
God serve others, because they recognize that in ministering to others in need they show
Gods compassion. Love for God changes ones values, so that persons made in Gods
image become more valuable than things. Money is a resource, not a reward. It is to be
used, not hoarded. It is to serve, not become master. Jesus said as much in his own ministry
(Mt 6:24; Lk 10:2528). To love God is to love and show compassion to the humanity he
loves (Lk 6:2636; Jn 3:16; Gal 6:10; 1 Jn 3:18).
The rich man does not give up. He suggests trying a sign. He seems to argue that the
Word of God is not enough, but a message from the dead would be convincing. The reply is
equally clear: revelation is better than a sign; besides, signs are ignored. Abraham insists,
If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone
rises from the dead. Jesus has already warned that signs other than the call to repentance
will not be given (11:2932). If Gods prophetic Word cannot convince and put a crack in a
hard heart, neither will miracles. Jesus own resurrection is testimony to the point: only an
open heart sees the evidence for Gods presence and hears his voice.
This parable is ultimately about the heart. Where our treasure is, there our heart is.
Where is our treasure being stored? Jesus says, Healthy seed reflecting Gods desire is not
planted in riches. Rather, it should penetrate the heart and be planted into people, especially
people in need. Jesus warns that treasure invested for the self yields emptiness, while
treasure invested for God yields compassion.
25

2. TWO DESTINATIONS (16:1931)


RICH AND POOR
Jesus again used riches and poverty to teach a spiritual truth by telling a story about a
rich man who lived in luxury (16:19) and a beggar named Lazarus who lay at the gate
(16:20) of the rich mans house. Lazarus was covered with sores and (16:20) the dogs
came and licked his sores (16:21). His life was so pathetic and destitute that he longed to
eat what fell from the rich mans table (16:21). The scene Jesus painted was one that
could have illustrated any number of places in Israel, since the divide between the rich and
the poor was sharp, clear, and repeated often. This was perhaps more than a fictional story,
since a name is given to the beggar who sat at the gate of the rich mans house. Parables
were stories used to teach a particular truth and usually did not include named persons, so
there is reason to believe this is a real story of a real man. Lazarus was covered with sores,
and his stomach cried out for food. He didnt ask for or expect much, just leftover crumbs
that would be swept up and thrown away. The only companions he had were the dogs who
came by and licked his sores. At least the dogs didnt ignore him like the people who
passed by. The picture was of a rich man consuming his wealth on himself and a poor man
consumed by his suffering and poverty. The differences between the two could not have
been greater.
Riches have the capacity of creating a great chasm between the poor and the rich, when
the rich no longer are moved with compassion toward those in misery outside their gates.
The rich man had the capacity to make a tremendous difference in a poor mans life, but he
did not. It was not as if a charity was soliciting a contribution for some mythical, unnamed
poor person whom the rich man would never see. This was Lazarus, a real person who
could be seen every day when the rich man looked out his window. This was a real
opportunityone for which he had capacity to take advantage of and one for which he
would be held responsible. How could anyone close his eyes or his heart to such an obvious

25
Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Lc 16.19). Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
need? Perhaps the rich man lived with the curtains pulled shut so he could insulate himself
from the sight outside.
Death is the ultimate statisticone out of every one dies. Death is no respecter of
persons, young or old, rich or poor, prepared or unprepared. We enter with nothing, and we
exit with nothing. The time came when the beggar died, and the angels carried him to
Abrahams side. The rich man also died and was buried (16:22). The chasm that had
been created by the rich mans lack of response to Lazarus would now begin to widen.
Before, he was the one who lived with advantage, but now his riches could not buy him any
advantage. It was the beggar man who would gain true riches. When the beggar died, he
was carried by angels to the presence of Abraham. When the rich man died, he was carried
by mourners to the cemetery and was buried. The rich man lived for what was temporal,
and when his time came there was nothing more to say than he was buried. It was the end.
The poor man, however, had lived in the spiritual dimension, and when his time came he
was carried into heaven. No doubt he was also buried but it was not viewed as the end, just
a change.
HEAVEN AND HELL
The great divide between the two men suddenly took on a more serious reality. It was
not just a difference of financial or social standing that separated them. The rich man found
himself in hell, where he was in torment (16:23). Three different words are generally
translated hell in the New Testament: hades, gehenna, and tartaroo. The word hades,
appears twice in Lukes gospel (12:5; 16:23). Hades was generally used to speak of the
realm of the dead. Another word translated hell is gehenna. This originally referred to the
Valley of Ben Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city
were cast out and burned. It came to be used for the place of the future punishment of the
wicked. Close in meaning to gehenna is the word tartaroo, which appears only in 2 Peter
2:4 and refers to the abode of the wicked dead where they suffer punishment for their evil
deeds. In this reference, Luke uses hell as the spiritual realm of the dead and includes the
fact that the rich man was in a present state of torment.

KEY IDEA
HELL
Early in the ministry of evangelist Vance Havner,
he pastored a country church where he preached a
sermon on hell. A member didnt like the subject
and told the Rev. Havner that he should Preach
about the meek and lowly Jesus. Havner replied,
Thats where I got my information about hell.
The distance between the two men was great, but the rich man looked up and saw
Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side (16:23). By whatever means, the rich man
knew Abraham and he recognized Lazarus. Abraham was an icon of the Jewish faith. The
rich man had entertained many notable persons in his home, but to be in the presence of
Abraham would have surpassed being with any of the prominent persons he had known in
life. And there, next to Abraham, was the beggar he had tried to shut out of his sight.
Lazarus, who had been ignored by the masses, was talking things over with Abraham.
The rich man called for Abraham to have pity on him and send Lazarus to dip the
tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire
(16:24). The person of privilege now cried for pity. Hell had a fire that caused agony but
did not consume. It added real pain to the torment of separation from God, regret, and the
awareness of lost opportunity. The man who denied the beggar even a crumb from his table
was now denied even a drop of water from the beggars finger. Abrahams word to the rich
man was Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while
Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony
(16:25). Life after death will bring justice, and the inequities of life will be corrected.
Comfort in this life does not guarantee comfort in the next life, and bad things experienced
in this life can melt into oblivion in the celebration of good things in the next life.

KEY IDEA
HEAVEN
In Pilgrims Progress, John Bunyan wrote,
Drawing near to the city, they had yet a more
perfect view thereof. It was built of pearls and
precious stones, also the streets thereof were
paved with gold; so that, by reason of the natural
glory of the city, and the reflection of the
sunbeams upon it, Christian with desire fell sick;
Hopeful also had a fit or two of the same disease.
The deepest desire of a Christian is not for the
glory of the city, but for the glory of the Son who
reigns there.
Abraham said, Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those
who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us
(16:26). A great chasm has been fixed. The chasm between Lazarus and the rich man
could have been bridged so easily in the previous life. All it would have taken was for a
person who had plenty to share it with someone who had nothingfor a man to shift his
focus from himself to someone else. But now, based on where they had placed their faith,
they were on either side of a fixed chasm that could not be bridged. No travel will take
place between heaven and hell. Even if some were to be moved with compassion to want to
ease the suffering of those in hell, they could not. Now is the time for bridging the divides
between people and for deciding on which side of the chasm you will spend eternity.
Personal torment led the rich man to think of family who were living just like he had
and who would end up in the same place of torment he was now experiencing. He begged
Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of
torment (16:2728). His concern for the spiritual well-being of his family was noble but
too late for him to affect. Abraham responded that his family had every opportunity to
listen to the word of Moses and the Prophets (16:29), but the rich man was convinced that
if something spectacular happened, if someone from the dead goes to them, they will
repent (16:30). To this, Abraham replied, If they do not listen to Moses and the
Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead (16:31).
Each of us has adequate opportunity to respond to the call of God in our lives. Whatever
our response to Gods grace may be, a time will come when it will be sealed for eternity.
The time for responding in faith is now.
This story, whether real or a parable, teaches us several things about death and life after
death. It teaches us that the soul is immortal. Death does not end our existence, but it does
change the nature of our existence. It teaches us that upon death, we move into a spiritual
realm of peace or torment, based on our relationship with God. It teaches us that people are
recognizable in the afterlife by the identities known to us in this life. It teaches us that hell
is a real place of torment for those who reside there. It teaches us that eternal destiny is set
forever after death. There are no second chances or opportunities to cross the chasm
between heaven and hell. It teaches us that there is a conscious state in the realm of the
dead where emotions are felt and where pain is experienced, even in the absence of a
physical body as we know it.
It is terribly sad to see people live for things in this life that will keep them apart from
God in the next life. He cannot be purchased and neither can His gift of eternal life.
26

vi. The Rich Man and Lazarus 16:19-31


The editorial comment in 17:1 reminds us that the audience for this parable is still the
Pharisees; there has in fact been no break in the teaching of Jesus since v. 15. Two themes
are combined in the parable. The first is the reversal of fortunes in the next world for the
rich and the poor; this sums up the theme found in 1:53 and 6:20-26 and the warning
against covetousness in 12:13-21. The earlier part of the parable indicates that the rich man
did not go out of his way to help Lazarus; the latter received only the left-overs from the
table as they casually fell on the ground, and was not the object of any decent charity. The
poor man is not specifically stated to be righteous or pious, but this is perhaps to be
deduced from his name and from Lukes general equation of poverty and piety. Thus the
rich man may possibly be intended as an example of the misuse of wealth over against the
example of the proper use of wealth earlier in the chapter (cf. Schlatter, 376).
The second theme is that if the law and the prophets are insufficient to call the rich to
repentance, even the return of someone resurrected from the dead will not achieve the
desired effect. Miracles in themselves cannot melt stony hearts. Here again there is a link
with the earlier part of the chapter in which the validity of the law and the prophets during
the era of the gospel is upheld.
The parable is thus given as an example, or rather a warning, with regard to human
conduct. The attempt by J. D. Crossan* (10:29-37 note), 297-299, to find a parable of the
kingdom in an original form of the story is highly unconvincing.
It is, therefore, appropriate to see in the story some connection with similar OT teaching
on attitudes to the poor, especially in Dt. 24:6ff., but the links are not very strong. Other
attempts to find an OT basis for the story are more doubtful. The most plausible is a
connection between Abraham and Lazarus in the story and Abraham and his servant Eliezer
in Gn. 15:1f.; cf. Derrett, 85-92, who finds in Lazarus the servant of Abraham sent to

26
Heer, K. (2007). Luke: A Commentary for Bible Students (222). Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan
Publishing House.

* The work cited is listed in the bibliography at the end of the introduction to the relevant section
of the commentary.
discover whether the Jews are acting hospitably (just as in Jewish tradition Eliezer visited
Sodom). C. H. Cave* notes that Eliezer was a gentile and suggests that the parable teaches
the severity of the judgment that will come upon the sons of Abraham if they fail to repent:
they will see the gentiles finding mercy instead of themselves. But it is questionable
whether either of these views reaches the heart of the parable.
We have in fact one of the cases where the background to the teaching is more probably
found in non-biblical sources. An Egyptian folk tale, to which attention was drawn by H.
Gressmann*, tells the story of an Egyptian who was reincarnated after his death as Si-
Osiris, the miraculous son of a childless couple. When his father one day remarked on
how a rich man had had a sumptuous funeral while a poor man had been simply buried, Si-
Osiris took him to Amnte, the land of the dead, where he was able to see the rich man in
torment and the poor man in luxury. The explanation is added that the good deeds of the
poor man had outweighed his evil deeds, but the opposite was true of the rich man. The
general motif of this story found its way into Jewish lore, and it is attested in some seven
versions, the earliest of which concerns a poor scholar and the rich publican, Bar Majan.
Part of this story has been quoted above as a possible background to the parable of the great
supper (14:15-24 note). Because of his one good deed Bar Majan had a great funeral, but
the poor scholar had a simple burial. One of the scholars friends, however, had a dream in
which he saw the poor man after his death in paradisial gardens beside flowing streams,
while the publican was standing on the bank of the river but unable to reach the water. Thus
the scholar received no reward in this life, in order that he might have a full reward in the
next, while the publican received his reward for his one good deed in this world, so that he
might have no reward in the next. It is clear that Jesus parable bears some relation to this
folk tale. Jeremias (Parables, 182-187) draws the parallel, and concludes that the point of
Jesus parable is to be found where it goes beyond the Jewish story, namely in the lesson
that no sign will be given to this generation to lead it to repentance if it refuses to hear the
word of God. This interpretation does not do justice to the first part of the parable with its
lengthy description of the two men.
The relation between the Egyptian tale and the parable has been raised afresh by the
fact that in some textual authorities a name is given to the rich man, Nineveh. The
authorities in question are Egyptian, and it may be that the name is derived from some
Egyptian form of the story. K. Grobel* has accordingly taken a fresh look at the story and
is able to explain several of its difficulties in the light of the Egyptian parallel.
The unity and authenticity of the parable are problematic. The fact that the parable has
two parts and two points inevitably suggests that the second part is secondary. Bultmann
212f., argued that the story resembles a Jewish legend in which a husband repents after his
wife (who had died earlier) sent him a warning message from the underworld; the present
story originally had the same point, but has had a secondary ending added in order to show
that messages from the dead will not convert anybody. For further difficulties in the story
see C. F. Evans*. The basic question is whether two themes may be linked in the one
parable, especially since the second may be seen as a post-Easter addition by the early
church in the light of Jewish failure to respond to the message of the resurrection, whether
of Jesus or of Lazarus (Jn. 11). The parable thus falls under some suspicion of being a
Lucan composition along with the other parables peculiar to this Gospel (cf. Drury, 161f.).
In the present case, however, the two-tier structure arises as a result of the adaptation of
an existing story. Moreover, this story already contains the basic elements, including the
thought of a messenger from the world of the dead, which are found in the parable.
Although a much more concrete interpretation would be given to it by Christians, v. 31
could have been spoken in a pre-Christian setting. Grobels treatment shows that the
parable can be successfully explained as a unity. There is no law that parables of Jesus
must conform to a particular one-point pattern. The present parable probably rests on
tradition traceable back to Jesus himself.*
(19) The opening phrase is reminiscent of 16:1, but here the rich man is of importance
in his own right. After p75 has the doubtless secondary insertion ;
cf. the addition of the name Nineue in sa; the rich man is given the name Finaeus in
Pseudo-Cyprian, Finees in Priscillian, and Amonofis in Peter of Riga (Metzger, 165f.).
The origin of these names is uncertain. Amonofis is a form of Amenophis, a name of
several ancient Pharaohs. Finaeus/Finees may be based on the Phinehas who appears along
with Eleazar in Ex. 6:25; Nu. 25:7, 11; Jos. 22:13, 31f.; 24:33. Alternatively, it may be
explained as a combination of the Coptic article with Neues (K. Grobel*, 381f.). Neues is
most plausibly explained as due to haplography of the longer form , as attested by
sa, and no doubt crept into the Greek text from the Sahidic tradition. As for Nineue, this has
been explained as a corruption of , which in its turn is equivalent to Bar Majan (H.
Gressmann, cited by Creed, 211, who comments rightly that this is a precarious
identification). More obvious is an allusion to the rich city of Nineveh and Gods judgment
upon it. Most ingenious is the suggestion of Grobel that it represents a Coptic word
meaning Nobody, a derisory word to describe the status of the rich man in the
underworld, which was used in an Egyptian version of the basic story and thence was added
by a scribe to the Lucan version.
The rich mans sumptuous way of life is now described. It was his custom
(, imperfect) to wear garments of purple and fine underwear. ,
originally the purple fish (murex), was used of the dye obtained from it, and then of cloth
so dyed (Mk. 15:17, 20; Rev. 18:12**). A costly mantle of wool, such as would be worn by
royalty is meant (cf. SB II, 222). (Rev. 18:12 v. 1.**) is a loan word, Hebrew b,
(Est. 1:6; cf. Pr. 31:22), fine linen (cf. SB II, 222; J. Weiss, 488, however, claims that fine
Egyptian cotton is meant). For linen and purple see Pr. 31:22; 1QapGen. 20:31.

*
See H. Gressmann, Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus, Berlin, 1918 (not accessible to me);
Jeremias, Parables, 182-187; Derrett, 78-99 (Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. II. Dives and Lazarus and
the preceding Sayings, NTS 7, 1960-61, 364-380); H. J. Cadbury, A Proper Name for Dives, JBL 81,
1962, 399-402; K. Grobel, Whose Name was Neves, NTS 10, 1963-64, 373-382; C. H. Cave,
Lazarus and the Lucan Deuteronomy, NTS 15, 1968-69, 319-325; C. F. Evans, Uncomfortable
Words V. (Lk. 16:31), Exp.T 81, 1969-70, 228-231; O. Glombitza, Der reiche Mann und der
arme Lazarus, Nov.T 12, 1970, 166-180.

** All the occurrences of the word in the NT are cited.

SB H. L. Strack und P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch,
Mnchen, 19563
(12:19) here has the sense of feasting, and **, splendidly, can be
applied to feasting ( , PGM 1, 111, cited by AG).
(20) The poor man is deliberately contrasted with the rich man. Unlike the rich man he
is named, as , i.e. laazar, an abbreviation of elzr, He (whom) God helps
(SB II, 223; cf. Vermes, 53, 190f., on the currency of the shortened, dialectical form). This
is the only instance of a name being given to a character in the parables of Jesus. Its
significance may be that it hints at the piety of the poor man, although the general use of
in Lk. (4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 21:3) already indicates that the poor are in general pious
and the recipients of Gods grace (cf. 14:13, 21). The name may be included also because it
facilitates the dialogue in vs. 24ff. The coincidence of the name with that of Abrahams
servant has also been noted, and hence a symbolical significance has been seen in it.
Although the name was an extremely common one, it remains surprising that the man
whom Jesus raised from the dead in Jn. 11 bore the same name, and that his resurrection
failed to convert the Jewish leaders and divert them from plotting against Jesus. Hence it
has been argued that either the parable has influenced the form of the miracle story, or vice
versa (R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, Freiburg, 1971, II, 429f.). The
structure of the sentence is altered by the addition of and in A W f1 f13 pm
lat; TR; Diglot. The pluperfect could mean that he had been laid by friends in a
suitable place for begging, but more probably it means he was lying (BD 3472; AG, citing
Jos. Ant. 9:209); the implication is that he was ill or crippled. *, gate, refers to a
large, ornamental gateway to a city or a mansion (Mt. 26:71; Acts 10:17; 12:13f.; 14:13).
** (BD 68) is to cause sores, ulcers; the perfect participle means covered with
ulcers. Manson, Sayings, 298, suggests that he may have been a leper (but would he then
have begged in public?).
(21) As in 15:16 may represent an unfulfilled wish, since the beggar lay at
the gate, and not beside the table from which the scraps fell; the words
are added from 15:16 by f13 1 vgcl. is partitive, and the noun is
added in most MSS from Mt. 15:27 (omitted by p75 *B L it sys; Metzger, 166). is
used as the passive of (10:18); the reference may be, therefore, not to crumbs that
fell unwittingly from the table, but to pieces of bread which the guests used to wipe their

AG W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, Cambridge, 1957

TR Theologische Rundschau

Diglot Luke: A Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators (British and Foreign Bible Society,
London, 1962; this work incorporates the projected 3rd edition of the BFBS text of the Greek New
Testament prepared by G. D. Kilpatrick)

BD F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (translated by R. W. Funk),
Cambridge, 1961

* All the occurrences of the word in Lk. are listed (in some cases, all the occurrences in Acts are
similarly noted).
hands and then threw under the table (Jeremias, Parables, 184; but no evidence is provided,
and the description is strange). Such crumbs were normally eaten by the dogs (Mt. 15:27;
note the close correspondence in language), which also turned their unwelcome attention to
the beggar. has the sense and worse than all (Easton, 252). The dogs aggravated
the sores by licking them (**, apparently a hapax legomenon; cf. , 1 Ki.
22:38; , sore, ulcer, Rev. 16:2, 11**); they were also ceremonially unclean
(Klostermann, 168). J. Weiss, 488, suggests that they treated the beggar as if he was already
dead. The main point is clear: the rich man and his associates did nothing to help the
beggar, beyond possibly throwing him some scraps. It is quite false to infer that the rich
mans lack of charity does not figure in the story.
(22) The decisive point in the story is introduced with an construction
(3:21). The poor man dies and is carried away (, Acts 19:12; Mk. 15:1; 1 Cor.
16:3; Rev. 17:3; 21:10**) by the angels to Abrahams bosom. The imagery is unusual. The
thought of angels accompanying the souls of the righteous is not found in rabbinic sources
before AD 150 (SB II, 223-225; the text of T. Ash. 6:6 is uncertain). K. Grobel*, 378,
suggests that the angels are a Jewish substitute for some bearer of the dead in the Egyptian
version of the story. In any case, the point is the divine care lavished upon Lazarus. The
metaphor of the bosom (; cf. 6:38 for a different meaning) may suggest: 1. a child
lying on its parents lap (Jn. 1:18; Jeb. 77a in SB I, 25; cf. Creed, 212; Manson, Sayings,
299); 2. the proximity of a guest to the host at a banquet (Jn. 13:23; cf. 2 Clem. 4:5;
Jeremias, Parables, 184; R. Meyer, TDNT III, 824-826); 3. a late form of the idea of being
gathered to ones fathers (Gn. 15:15). See further SB II, 225-227. We should probably
combine suggestions 1. and 2., so that the poor man enjoys close fellowship with Abraham
at the messianic banquet (cf. 13:29). For Abraham receiving the righteous martyrs cf. 4
Mac. 13:17. Nothing is said about where Abraham is thought to be. Abrahams bosom is
not a synonym for Paradise, although Abraham may be thought to be in Paradise (Test.
Abr. 20A, cited by J. Jeremias, TDNT V, 769, n. 37). K. Grobels* suggestion (379) that
the four depressions () in the abode of the dead in 1 En. 22 could be called is
not very helpful.
The rich man simply died and was buried, without any heavenly honours. To the end of
his life he enjoyed luxury, and did not suffer any earthly loss (such as lying unburied)
which might have mitigated his fate in the next world (SB II, 227). A reversal of position
was all that he could expect (1 En. 103:5-8).
(23) So the rich man found himself in (10:15 note). Since the reference is to the
state of the man immediately after his death, it is most likely that the intermediate abode of
the dead before the final judgment is meant (cf. 1 En. 22; SB II, 228; IV:2, 1019f.; J.
Jeremias, TDNT I, 146-149; V, 769 n. 37). An allusion to the final abode of the dead
(Gehenna; so J. Weiss, 489; Klostermann, 168f.) is less likely. The reason for the
suggestion is that only the rich man appears to be in Hades. But this depends on where we
regard Abrahams bosom as being situated. Lazarus is separated from the rich man by a
great gulf, which suggests that they are adjacent to each other, as in 1 En. 22; cf. 4 Esd.
7:85, 93; 2 Bar. 51:5f., but the visibility of the blessed from the abode of the damned also
seems to be possible after the last judgment (Lk. 13:28, but this may be to over-press the

TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (translated by
G. W. Bromiley), Grand Rapids, 1964-76
language). The Egyptian background supports the view that we have a picture similar to
that in 1 En. 22. The difficulty is due to the fact that Jewish representations of the after-life
were fluid and developing, so that consistent pictures are hardly to be expected (cf. SB IV:
2, 1016-1165). The fact that the rich man lifted his eyes (cf. 6:20) to see Lazarus does not
necessarily indicate that the latter was above him; the phraseology is stereotyped (see
especially 2 Sa. 18:24; K. Grobel*, 379). Torment (, 16:28; cf. Mt. 4:24**) is a
feature of the intermediate state as well as of the final state of the wicked (1 En. 22; cf. Wis.
3:1; 4 Mac. 13:15; 2 Clem. 17:7; 10:4). The historic present is pre-Lucan (Rehkopf,
99). The use of (18:13; 22:54; with (strictly redundant) as here, 23:49*; for
Classical , BD 1043) shows that the wicked and righteous are well separated from
each other, so that neither can reach the other; nevertheless, the story requires that
communication by shouting is possible. The dead are visualised in bodily terms, since there
is no other way in which they can be visualised (cf. SB II, 228-231); the story has no
bearing on the question of the resurrection of the body. It is manifest too that the details are
not to be taken literally. For the plural cf. BD 1415.
(24) Abraham occupies a position of authority and importance because he is the
spiritual father of Israel; the rich mans address to him echoes 3:8 (Danker, 176), and lays
claim to his share in his merits (SB I, 116-121; J. Jeremias, TDNT I, 8). He calls out for
mercy (, 17:13; 18:38f. par. Mk. 10:47f.), i.e. gracious help in time of need and
helplessness. He thinks that Abraham will send Lazarus to help him. Even in Hades he
thinks of Lazarus as there to look after his wants, while in his lifetime he had never spared
a thought for Lazaruss wants; he remains totally blind and unrepentant. The fact that he
knows the beggars name indicates that he knew who he was, even if he never did anything
for him.
His great need is thirst (4 Ez. 8:59; 2 En. 10:1f.; SB II, 232) consequent upon the
burning heat of the fire in Hades (1 En. 63:10; SB IV:2, 1075-1083). is to dip (Jn.
13:26; Rev. 19:13**) and takes the accusative of the thing dipped and the genitive of that
into which it is dipped (BD 172). is high point, top, hence tip (Mk. 13:27; Mt.
24:31; Heb. 11:21**). **, is to cool, refresh, and is flame (Acts 7:30; 2
Thes. 1:8; Heb. 1:7; Rev. 1:14; 2:18; 19:12). It is presupposed that Lazarus has access to
water, as is the case in the stories of Satme and Bar Majan (cf. 1 En. 22); the association of
water with Osiris is frequent (K. Grobel*, 379f.).
(25) It is not clear whether Abrahams use of the address to the rich man is
merely formal (cf. Mk. 2:5; 10:24) or represents an acceptance of his claim to kinship (cf.
Jn. 8:37). In any case, the physical relationship is no entitlement to favour. The person who
has enjoyed good things in life now experiences a reverse of fortune. After an
emphatic in W f1 pm; TR; Diglot; draws the contrast with Lazarus.
(12:18) is not simply possessions, but is contrasted with . is used non-
theologically of earthly life (cf. 12:15, but here the sense is more real life; cf. Acts 8:23;
17:25). For a few witnesses have (f1 pc Mcion), which is preferred by MH III, 44;
the usage would then be akin to 10:39. The sufferer on earth is comforted in the next life
(, Mt. 5:4). The rich mans fate is pain; (2:48; 16:24; Acts 20:38**) can

MH J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard and N. Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, I,


1906; II, 1929; III, 1963; IV, 1976
refer to physical pain, but F. Hauck, TDNT V, 115, holds that in this verse it is the
spiritual torture of remorse.
(26) Not only is help unavailable because of the action of retributive justice; it is also
impossible because of the eternal separation between the two parts of the abode of the dead.
is said to mean in spite of all this (C. F. Evans*, 229, but no evidence is
cited). The literal meaning in all these regions (Plummer, 395f. with caution; Lagrange,
447) is unlikely. The variant reading suggests the sense in addition to all this (most
translations; Creed, 213). Could it mean because of all these things (cf. AG s.v. III, 3)?
, chasm, is found here only; is the perfect passive of (9:51); the
clause is tantamount to result; is to go across (Acts 16:9; Heb. 11:29**)
is from here (Mt. 17:20**); the v. 1. is found in K al; TR; Diglot. After
supply ( is added in most MSS except p75 *B D).
is to cross over (Acts 21:2). For the separation of the two groups of people cf. 1 En.
22:8ff. The judgment is thus irrevocable; there is no suggestion of purgatory (Jeremias,
Parables, 186).
(27) The change of subject is not announced. The rich man now bends his efforts to
doing what may still be possible, namely to prevent his brothers from joining him. For
cf. 14:18f. The rich man still thinks of Lazarus as a possible messenger; he has
evidently not yet realised that he has no jurisdiction over him. The possibility of a
messenger from the dead was a recognised one (Plato, Rep. 10, 614d).
(28) The five brothers are envisaged as living at home with their father, probably
because the family estate has not been broken up (cf. 15:12; 12:13f.); it is not clear whether
the rich man had also lived with them, but the story suggests that he had his own
independent establishment. Five is no doubt a round number; attempts to find allusions to
the Herod family are ill-directed. After the parenthetic clause, a purpose clause
continues the construction of v. 27. is to warn (AG) or to bear witness
(Acts 2:40; et al.). The thought is that if the brothers know that their present way of life will
bring them into torment, as testified by a witness from the dead, then they will amend their
ways. It is unnecessary to suppose that they are Sadducees who did not believe that there
was any life after death (so Manson, Sayings, 300f.); they simply thought that they were
secure from any post-mortem penalties by reason of their descent from Abraham. Nor is the
rich man necessarily showing the saving grace of compassion; he failed to show it to
Lazarus, and in any case it is now too late to show it, even to wealthy brothers (cf. O.
Glombitza*, who stresses the element too late in the story).
(29) For , Diglot has with weak external evidence. The brothers
have Moses, i.e. the Torah (24:27; cf. Jn. 5:46 and the prophets (cf. 16:16, 31; 24:27, 44;
for the combination cf. 1QS 1:3; 8:15f.; cf. CD 5:21; 6:1; it is not found in rabbinic
Judaism; SB IV:1, 415-417; Braun, Qumran, I, 91). let the brothers listen to them, i.e. in
the readings in the synagogue (O. Glombitza*, 175-177), and take in the force of what they
say.
(30) But the rich man knows from personal experience that his family do not take
seriously what the law and the prophets say. Something more is needed, and he persists
with his request to Abraham. If someone visits them from the dead, perhaps in a dream or
vision, this will lead them to repent. For Lukes readers there would be an inescapable
allusion to the resurrection of Jesus (9:22; 11:29f.; 13:32), and for readers of the New
Testament a reference to the story of Lazarus in Jn. 11. The reference in the story would
also have point for the original hearers, since the idea of messages from the next world was
by no means unheard of; angels were known to visit men, and in Jewish and pagan thought
men might appear from the dead. Hence there is nothing specifically Christian in this verse.
(31) But the request is refused, because it will not work. Note the double condition,
expressive of present fact (they do not listen to the law and the prophets) and future
possibility (if someone rises from the dead). The possibility is couched in terms of
resurrection, rather than simply a messenger from the dead, and fits in with the language of
Jesus and the early church. Miracles will not convince those whose hearts are morally blind
and unrepentant; they will not be persuaded. The parable ends on a note of solemn warning.
27

The Use and Misuse of Wealth


(Luke 16:131)
The unity of the chapter is apparent first of all from the concern with possessions that runs
through it. The chapter falls into two parts, 16:113 and 16:1431, each dominated by a
parable beginning There was a rich man (v. 1; v. 19). The first part is addressed to
disciples (v. 1), the second to Pharisees (v. 14cf. 17:1 where the audience switches back
to disciples).
The first part of chapter 16, vv. 113, is composed of a parable with some
interpretations (cf. a similar phenomenon in 18:6ff.). Verse 1a is a Lukan introduction; vv.
1b-8a give the parable; v. 8b is one interpretative comment about the story; v. 9 is a second
interpretation; vv. 1012 are an elaboration of the second interpretation; v. 13 is a
conclusion to the second interpretation and its elaboration (vv. 912). These separate pieces
are held together by a complex web of interlocking devices. Verse 8a reads, The master
commended the steward of unrighteousness because he acted shrewdly (tes adikias hoti
phronims epoisen). Each of the italicized words serves as a link with what follows: (1)
v. 8b says, for the sons of this world are shrewder (phronimoteroi) in their own
generation than the sons of light; (2) v. 9 tells the disciples, make (poisate) friends for
yourselves by means of the mammon of unrighteousness (ts adikias); furthermore, v. 9s
reference to being received (dexontai) into eternal habitations echoes the being received
(dexontai) into the houses of earthly associates in 16:4); (3) v. 10s he who is dishonest
(adikos) in a very little is dishonest (adikos) also in much echoes the adikias
(unrighteousness) of vv. 8a, 9. In addition to these links with v. 8a, there are other links
between later verses. Verse 11s unrighteous mammon (adik mamna) ties it to v. 9. The
occurrence of faithful links vv. 10 and 12. Verses 11 and 12 are linked by a similar
structure: If you have not been faithful who ? Verse 13 again uses mammon. By
means of such links the evangelist has constructed a unit from diverse materials in vv. 1

27
Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. Includes indexes.
The New international Greek testament commentary (632). Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press.
13. He issues a call for Jesus disciples to be wise in their use of wealth and gives reasons
why such wisdom is desirable.
The Lukan call for a wise use of wealth by disciples is located in the parable of the
steward (vv. 1b-8a) and its first interpretation (v. 8b). The parable has provoked much
controversy, often unnecessarily. The story is about a man who, when confronted with a
crisis, acted shrewdly (cf. 12:5759). Caught in the act of wasting his masters goods, the
steward received notice of the termination of his job. Not strong enough to do manual work
and too proud to beg, with prospects of future employment virtually nil, the steward acted
to guarantee his future. How? There are two possible ways of reading the remainder of the
story that are worthy of attention. (1) Some say that as an agent, he was entitled to a
commission. Seeing he was to be dismissed, he decided to forego his commission in order
to get the people who would benefit to reciprocate (cf. 6:32) and receive him into their
houses when he was unemployed (v. 4). In this act there was no dishonesty, only prudence
to prepare for the future. (2) Others claim the key to the situation is that no one yet knows
the steward has been fired. He summons the debtors who therefore assume the entire bill-
changing is legitimate. They assume the master authorized the reductions in what they
owed and that the steward talked him into it. The steward then delivered the changed
accounts to his master. The master looked at them and reflected on his alternatives. Either
he could go to the debtors and explainin which case he would be cursedor he could be
silent, accept the debtors praise, and allow the clever steward to ride high on the wave of
popular enthusiasm. He chose the latter course of action and said to the steward, You are a
wise fellow. Either way the steward acted to guarantee his future by means of his use of
the wealth under his control. When the master (the rich man, not Jesus) commended the
stewards shrewdness, it was no praise of his original waste. It was rather an
acknowledgment that the stewards subsequent actions had wisely guaranteed his future.
The first interpretation of the parable (v. 8b) notes that non-Christians are shrewder in their
use of money than are disciples. That is, they, like the dishonest steward, use it to guarantee
their future. This serves as a call for disciples of Jesus to act as wisely in their use of the
wealth under their control.
What would constitute a wise use of wealth by disciples? Verse 9 explains what is
implied in v. 8b. If a dishonest manager could provide for his future by a shrewd use of
possessions, how much more should the sons of light, by giving alms (unrighteous
mammon means worldly wealth, not possessions acquired dishonestly), provide for their
future in heaven (they is a circumlocution for God; cf. Mishna, Yoma 8:9He who
says, I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent, to him give they no opportunity to
repent.). Wise use of money will gain ones welcome in heaven (eternal habitationscf.
1 Enoch 39:4; 2 Esdr 2:11). Verses 1012 elaborate on this. If disciples have not been
faithful in their use of earthly wealth that is on loan from God (Pirke Abot 111:7), how can
they be trusted with the true riches of eternal life? This is one of the few places in the NT
where the idea of stewardship is applied to material possessions.
Why is disciples use of wealth tied to their future in heaven? Verse 13 tells us plainly:
Ones use of wealth points to whom one serves. Jesus says, You cannot serve God and
mammon. Given this, Christians need to answer the call to manifest a shrewdness in the
use of wealth under their control. Affluence in the hands of disciples is to be used
sacramentally as a means of expressing love, both to God and to other people who have
needs. The church in Acts embodies a proper response to Jesus call. There was first a
spontaneous (Acts 2:4445; 4:32, 34ff.) and then an organized (Acts 6:1ff.) sharing of
wealth within the community to meet needs. Sharing was carried on between congregations
some distance from one another (Acts 11:27ff.). This Lukan spirit reflects that of the early
church fathers generally. Justin Martyr (Apology 1, 67) says,
And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is
deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows, and those who, through
sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning
among us, and in a word, takes care of all who are in need.
Tertullian (Apology 39.10) says, We do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one
another. All things are common among us but our wives. A shrewd use of wealth by
disciples would be to use it for meeting the needs of others. Such use signals an end to the
worship of money and the existence of ones service of God. It also opens the door to a
warm reception by God in heaven.
The second part, 16:1431, is addressed to the Pharisees (vv. 1415), those who held
that possession of wealth points to the one whom God loves. The section, which is an
attack on the Pharisaic assumptions about wealth, is organized into a two-pronged group of
sayings (vv. 1418), followed by a double-edged parable (vv. 1931). Verses 1926 of the
parable are an exposition of vv. 1415, while vv. 2731 serve as an illustration of vv. 16
18 (Ellis 1974, 201, following a hint by John Calvin). This pattern gives unity to the
section.
The first of the double-pronged group of sayings, vv. 1415, makes two points. (1)
Verses 1415a emphasize that it is not the outer appearance of righteousness and its
rewards that counts but what God sees in the heart. The Pharisees scoff at Jesus statement,
You cannot serve God and mammon (v. 13). Given their assumptions, this was
predictable. For them tragedy is a sign of Gods displeasure; success (e.g., financial
prosperity) is evidence of ones righteousness and of Gods pleasure. It is no wonder they
scoffed at Jesus either God or money stance (cf. 18:2426 where the disciples, after
being told of the difficulty of a rich mans being saved, ask, Then who can be saved?).
Money for them was a sign, a sure sign, of Gods favor and of their place in the kingdom.
Their position had roots in their Scriptures (e.g., Deut 28:1213 where wealth and plenty
are a sign of Gods blessings). Jesus response to their scoffing was to contrast their outer
public appearance with their inner-private reality (cf. 11:3941; 18:914). (2) In their inner
selves they were exalted (that is, self-sufficient, independent of God). This is a stance God
hates (v. 15b). Jesus was speaking out of another strand of OT thought that saw the poor as
symbolic of total dependence upon God and the rich as symbolic of independent self-
sufficiency. These rich ones oppressed their poor brethren and thereby violated the
covenant (Amos 8:46), instead of giving alms (Deut 15:11). Jesus point, therefore, is that
prosperity is an ambiguous signonly a knowledge of the heart can tell for sure whether or
not one is righteous.
The first part of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (vv. 1925; 26 is a transition)
amplifies the two themes of vv. 1415. (1) The first is that wealth is not necessarily a sign
of righteousness. In the parable the rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and
who feasted sumptuously every day is an example of the misuse of wealth. He neglected
the law relating to the poor. Deuteronomy 15:4 says there should be no poor person in
Israels midst. So generosity toward the poor was counted as righteousness (Prov 11:2324;
21:26; 29:7). It was regarded as a good thing to help the poor and weak through kindness
(Prov 14:31; 17:5), loans (Prov 19:17), and liberality (Prov 11:25; 21:26). In Sifre
Deuteronomy 11618, we find a rabbinic commentary on Deuteronomy 15:711. From v. 9
of Deuteronomy 15 the lesson is drawn: Be careful not to refuse charity, for every one
who refuses charity is put [by the text] in the same category with idolaters, and he breaks
off from him the yoke of Heaven, as it is said, wicked, that is, without yoke. In the
mainline Jewish tradition it was believed one should not withhold needed relief for the
poor. In this parable, however, Lazarus received only the leftovers from the table that fell
on the groundwhat the dogs ateand was not the object of any significant charity. The
rich man, then, was definitely not righteous (cf. 1 John 3:17).
If wealth is no guarantee of ones righteousness, then poverty is no proof of anothers
evil. This is the only parable of Jesus that names a character. The name, Lazarus (he whom
God helps), is symbolic of the beggars piety. Moreover, ritual uncleanness is no evidence
against piety (the unclean dogs who licked his sores rendered him unclean, from a Pharisaic
perspectivecf. Luke 10:2937; Acts 10). A parable that portrayed its hero as an unclean
beggar must have been as startling to Pharisaic assumptions (clean plus rich equals
righteous) as one that depicted a Samaritan as hero. The first part of the parable, then,
illustrates the initial theme of vv. 1415prosperity is an ambiguous sign.
(2) The first part of the parable also elaborates the second point of vv. 1415: God who
looks on the heart regards anyone who is proud-exalted as an abomination. The rich man
accordingly ended in torment, crying for Abraham to send Lazarus to dip the end of his
finger in water to cool his tongue since he was in anguish in the flame. The proud rich man
who demonstrated no charity to the poor in this life finds his status reversed in the next.
The Lukan God is the opponent of the exalted (self-sufficient who are insensitive to the
needs of the poor). Luke 16:1925 says plainly that the failure to use ones wealth on
behalf of the poor in this life leads to torment in the afterlife. The first half of the parable of
the rich man and Lazarus, then, illustrates both themes of vv. 1415.
The second of the group of sayings, vv. 1618, likewise makes two points. (1) Verse 16
speaks of the inclusiveness of the kingdom. A very different version of the saying is found
in Matthew 11:1213. The Lukan version says that since John the Baptist the kingdom of
God has been proclaimed as good news (cf. 4:18; Acts 1:2122). Two possible
consequences of this are worth our attention. (a) Is it that everyone (pascf. 3:6; 4:2527;
7:110; 8:26ff.) is pressing hard (biazetai taken as middle voice means to overpower by
force, to press hard, to act with violence) into it? (b) Or is it that everyone is expressly
invited to come in (biazomai taken as passive voice with the meaning found in the LXX
e.g., Gen 33:11means to be begged earnestly, to be urged)? Either way, in the Lukan
context the emphasis is on the universality of the kingdoms outreach and the option for
everyone to enter it (cf. Acts 13:48; 28:28). (2) Verse 17 (cf. Matt 5:18) affirms the
continuing validity of the law (cf. Acts 20:2728). In this context doubtless the evangelist
is thinking of the law that teaches about the care of the poor. One should remember that in
the OT laws relating to the care of the poor dealt not only with an individuals giving alms
or assistance but also with structural provision for the poor within society at large (e.g.,
Leviticus 25 equalizes land ownership every fifty years; Deuteronomy 15 gives Hebrew
slaves their freedom in the sabbatical year; Ruth 2 indicates the law of gleaning was
designed to prevent debilitating poverty among the people of God and the sojourners in the
land).
The second part of the parable (vv. 2731) amplifies the two themes of vv. 1618. (1)
The first theme is that there is a universality in the kingdoms composition. Everyone enters
it. This is certainly illustrated by the story of the unclean beggar Lazarus. Who, in this life,
would have thought he, of all people, would end in Abrahams bosom and be asked to go to
warn the rich mans brothers of their fate? If Lazarus succeeded, the kingdom is certainly
inclusive. (2) The second theme is that the law is still in force, in particular that law dealing
with the treatment of the poor. In the parable, when the rich man asks father Abraham to
send Lazarus to warn his five rich brothers of their destiny unless they change, Abraham
answers, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them (v. 29). If the law and
the prophets do not call the rich to repentance, then even if someone goes to them from the
dead it will make no difference. They will not repent. Once again the parable serves to
illustrate themes set forth earlier in the chapter (vv. 1618). Since in double-edged parables
the second part receives the emphasis, the evangelist wants to accent the point about the
continuing validity of the law and its teaching on the use of wealth on behalf of the poor.
In Luke 16 the evangelist issues a call and gives a warning. On the one side, he calls for
disciples to be as wise as the steward in their use of wealth to guarantee their future. On the
other side, he warns that one not assume wealth to be so much a guarantee of ones being
approved by God that one neglects the less fortunate, failing to follow the guidance of
Moses and the prophets, and thus finds oneself cast out.
28

(10) The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:1931)


19
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in
luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
21
and longing to eat what fell from the rich mans table. Even the dogs came and
licked his sores.
22
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abrahams
side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he
looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to
him, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger
in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.
25
But Abraham replied, Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your
good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you
are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed,
so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from
there to us.
27
He answered, Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my fathers house, 28 for
I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place
of torment.
29
Abraham replied, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.
30
No, father Abraham, he said, but if someone from the dead goes to them,
they will repent.
31
He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be
convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

28
Talbert, C. H. (2002). Reading Luke : A literary and theological commentary on the third Gospel
(Rev. ed.). Reading the New Testament series (183). Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.
Context
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is connected to the preceding as an example
(Luke 16:1926) both of a man who was a lover of money (16:14) and who foolishly made
poor use of his possessions (16:913) as well as an example (16:2731) of the continued
validity of the law and the prophets (16:1618). The audience envisioned by the parable fits
well the Pharisee of 16:14, and 17:1 suggests this by changing the audience to the disciples.
This parable is unusual for at least two reasons. For one it is the only parable in which a
character is named. Because of the name Lazarus (16:20, 2325), it has been suggested
that 16:1931 is not a parable but a historical account. 221 Luke, however, clearly thought
this was a parable, for he introduced it with There was a [certain] rich man (see
comments on 10:30). Within the Gospel are seven instances in which an account begins a
certain man ( anthropos tis ). In all but one (14:2) this was used to introduce a parable
(10:30; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1 [rich is added]; 16:19 [rich is added]; 19:12 [of noble
birth is added]). The last six examples are furthermore all introduced by he [Jesus]
said/was saying whereas 14:2 is clearly part of a narrative. This account also begins with
the same introduction as the parable in 16:1, There was a rich man, so that Luke intended
for his readers to interpret this as a parable, not as a historical account.
The parable is also unusual in that it is a two-part parable (cf. 15:1132). Some have
argued therefore that originally this was not one parable but two (16:1926 and 16:2731).
As in 15:1132 there is no compelling reason why this could not have consisted from the
beginning as a two-part parable. 222 Non-Lukan vocabulary throughout the parable indicates
that the present two-part form is pre-Lukan, and there is no reason Jesus could not have
spoken the parable essentially in its present form unless we claim that the parable explicitly
refers to Jesus resurrection (16:3031) and that he could not have made such a reference.
The meaning of the parable is relatively clear. The first part (16:1926) illustrates the
blessedness of the poor believer (6:20) and the woe of the unbelieving rich (6:24). This
reversal of roles between this life and the next was well-known in Egyptian and Jewish
folklore, and Jesus may have borrowed some of the material for his parable from such
folklore. Such a reversal fits well Jesus teaching and Lukes emphasis concerning riches
(cf. 12:1321). See Introduction 8 (5). The second part of the parable (16:2731) teaches

221
The striking similarities between this parable and Lazaruss resurrection in John 1112 include:
the name Lazarus, the death of Lazarus, the request to send him back from the dead (16:27)
Lazaruss return from the dead (John), and the lack of faith resulting from such an event (Luke
16:31; John 12:911). It has been suggested that the Johannine account is a historization of the
parable. (See R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John , AB [Garden City: Doubleday, 1966], 428
30.) It has also been suggested that the parable arose from the story. Others suggest that they
were independent accounts but that the name Lazarus was added to the parable due to
influence from the Johannine story (not the Gospel but the story during its oral period). The
similarity between these two accounts is interesting and curious, but there is no solid evidence
that the account in either Gospel caused or influenced the material in the other. The similarities
while interesting remain unfortunately quite puzzling.
222
See C. L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 204.
that unbelief and the refusal to repent are not the results of lack of evidence (or lack of a
sign) but due to a stony heart.
Comments
16:19 There was a rich man. By this introduction (literally a certain rich man ), Luke
indicated that what follows is a parable (see Context and comments on 10:30). Some
manuscripts supply a name for the rich man, no doubt to parallel the name of the poor man.
Various names are found, but the best known is Dives, which is the word used to
translate rich in the Latin Vulgate. The oldest recorded name is Nives, which is found
in the Bodmer Papyrus ( 75 ). The mans richness is described in two ways: his dress and
his eating habits.
Dressed in purple and fine linen. Compare Prov 31:22. The purple indicates that he
dressed royally. Compare 1 Macc 8:14, where wearing purple is associated with
kingship; cf. also Mark 15:17, 20; Rev 18:12. He also wore a linen, probably a fine
Egyptian linen undergarment.
And lived in luxury every day. This phrase is literally enjoying himself [by eating ]
sumptuously each day . For enjoying himself cf. Luke 12:19; 15:2324, 29, 32. The
extravagance of this feasting is indicated by the additions of sumptuously and even more
so by every day. This daily feasting is not to be compared with the occasion of feasting in
the parable of the gracious father (15:23f.) but is more indicative of the attitude of the rich
fool in 12:19. Compare 3:11; Jas 5:5.
16:20 At his gate . The rich mans home was large enough to have a gate (cf. Acts
10:17; 12:13; Matt 26:71).
Was laid. Was laid is literally had been cast . This expression is frequently used to
describe the sick and the lame (Matt 8:6, 14; 9:2; Mark 7:30).
Lazarus. Lazarus, a common name, is the Greek form of Eleazar and means He
(whom) God has helped. This is the only instance in a parable where a character is named.
Jesus may have named the poor beggar intentionally as a pun in order to help his hearers
understand that this poor man (whom God has helped) should be identified with such
poor as referred to in 4:18; 6:20; 7:22 and later in 21:3, i.e., he was a poor believer. The
name may also have been intended to facilitate the discussion in 16:2431. If Jesus
intended this pun, there is still the question of whether Luke recognized the play on the
name and whether Lukes readers would have understood it. This is doubtful. Regardless,
Luke did not call attention to the possible pun. Yet Luke continued the theme of reversal by
giving the forgotten, poor man a name while the rich man went nameless. The plight of the
poor man is now described by means of a fourfold contrast between the rich man and
Lazarus: 16:19 (2021), 22b (22a), 23a (23b), 2425a (25b). For similar contrasts and
reversals, cf. 1:5153; 3:5; 6:2026; etc.
Covered with sores. The sores were ulcers. Since he was begging in public and at the
gate of this mans house, the poor man in the parable was not a leper.
16:21 Longing to eat. Compare Luke 15:16. This is an unfulfilled wish, as in the case
of the prodigal son.
What fell. Whether this refers to the crumbs or scraps of the meal or the pieces of bread
used as napkins to clean ones hands is uncertain and immaterial. The rich mans dogs were
better fed than the poor Lazarus (cf. Matt 15:27).
Even the dogs came and licked. The Greek indicates this was the culmination of
Lazaruss misery. In Jewish eyes dogs were not romanticized as mans best friend but
were seen as impure, disgusting scavengers. Even the dogs tormented the poor man by
licking his ulcerated sores. Luke wanted his readers to understand that the rich mans
continual neglect of Lazarus, who lay at his gate and was known by name (Luke 16:24),
while he himself feasted sumptuously was the reason he went to hades.
16:22 The beggar died and the angels carried him to Abrahams side. This
introduces the second contrast. Lazarus was not even buried. Nevertheless he entered into
Gods presence. The expression and thought angels carried him is unusual. The
expression Abrahams bosom (KJV) is unknown elsewhere in first-century Judaism, but
such passages as 4 Macc 13:17; 1 Kgs 1:21; 2:10; 11:21 contain a similar idea. The exact
meaning of Abrahams side is uncertain, but Lazarus clearly enjoyed close fellowship
with Abraham in the afterlife (Luke 13:29). Although not a technical term for heaven in
Jesus day, through the parable it later became one.
The rich man also died and was buried. Even in death he was treated differently in
this world from Lazarus. He was buried.
16:23 In hell. Hell is literally hades . In Greek thought this was the place of the dead,
and in the LXX it was used to translate Sheol. In the OT it can mean the place of the dead
or the place where the unrighteous dead go. It is contrasted with heaven in Ps 139:8 and
Amos 9:2. In the present context it refers to the place of the unrighteous dead in contrast to
Abrahams side, or the place of the righteous dead. It probably is a synonym here for
Gehenna, or hell.
In torment. The parable does not see the wicked as being annihilated but continuing in
a terrible conscious and irreversible condition after death. Although many aspects of the
parable do not have a corresponding reality, the reality being taught by the parable would
be meaningless unless this were true. 223 Compare 1 Enoch 103:57.
Looked up and saw. This picture part of the parable should not be pressed to mean that
those in hades are below Abrahams bosom or that those in hell can see into heaven 224 or
that they can converse with those in heaven. These details are necessary to make the
parable work, but there is no corresponding reality to which they refer.
Abraham far away. There is a great, unbridgeable chasm between heaven and hell
which, as Luke 16:26 makes clear, is uncrossable.
16:24 Father Abraham. Compare 16:27, 30. Abraham was the father of the Jewish
people (3:8; 13:16; 19:9; Gen 12:13).
Have pity on me. Compare Luke 17:13; 18:3839. The merciless now desires mercy
but will not receive it (6:2425), for the time of grace is over (cf. 12:20, 3940, 58; 13:8
9).
Send Lazarus. Since the rich man knew the name of the beggar, readers should assume
that he was aware of the continual misery and need of the beggar lying at his gate.
Water and cool my tongue. Should this be understood as an actual or symbolic
description of the torments of hell (cf. 2 Esdr 8:59; 1 Enoch 22:9)? Since this description is
found in a parable, it would not be wise to assume that this is a literal portrayal of hell.

223
Cf. Sabourin (Luke , 301): No attempt should be made to gain from the parable any precise
information on afterlife, except that a different situation awaits there the poor and the rich who
had no concern for them.
224
Cf. 2 Esdr 7:85, 93; 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:56; cf. also Luke 13:28.
Nevertheless, the reality of hells horror is so terrible that in the picture even licking water
from a fingertip would bring some welcome relief.
Agony in this fire. Flames are frequently associated with the final destiny of the
unrighteous.225
16:25 Son. Compare Luke 15:31. Although the rich man was physically a son of
Abraham, apart from repentance Abrahams offspring, like the rest of humanity, will
experience Gods wrath (3:78; cf. John 8:39).
In your lifetime you received good but now you are in agony. The rich
mans posthumous fate illustrates the great reversal. 226
While Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted. This illustrates the
reversal of 6:20; 13:30. Is comforted is a divine passive meaning God is comforting him .
The blesseds and woes of 6:2026 are now fulfilled.
16:26 And besides all this. The phrase is literally and in all these things . Not only was
the rich mans request of 16:24 not granted because of Gods justice, in addition the
situation in which he found himself was irreversible. Here lies the real horror of his
situation. His punishment was eternal.
Great chasm has been fixed. This is a divine passive indicating that God has
established this great chasm. Compare 1 Enoch 18:1112.
So that. So that ( hops) indicates purpose here. 227 God has established this
unbridgeable chasm for the twofold purpose of (1) keeping those in hades, such as the rich
man, from coming to Abrahams bosom and (2) keeping those in Abrahams bosom, such
as Lazarus, from crossing over to give aid as the rich man requested.
16:27 Send Lazarus to my fathers house. The second part of the parable begins at
this point. In the parable this request expresses the rich mans desire to warn his brothers of
their need to act shrewdly as the dishonest manager (Luke 16:8), i.e., to prepare for their
future and not wind up where he is. In 16:30 what they needed to do is explicitly stated.
They needed to repent and produce fruit in keeping with repentance (3:8) such as using
their worldly wealth (16:9) to help people like Lazarus.
16:28 Five brothers. This is simply a round number (cf. 14:19) and should not be
allegorized. Speculation about whether the brothers were unmarried, still living with the
father, or whether his parents were still alive is immaterial. If this were necessary to
understand the parable, Luke would have included this information.
Warn them. Warn them means warn/witness to them to repent (16:30). The request
asked that Lazarus be sent as a sign to verify the message of the law and the prophets. In
all the other instances where Luke used this Greek term, witness tends to be a better
translation. 228 To warn should therefore be understood in the sense of witnessing to
them, so that the five brothers would not experience the same fate as their brother. There is,
of course, in all witnessing a negative side that warns.

225
Cf. Luke 3:17; Isa 66:24; Matt 18:89; 25:41; Mark 9:48; cf. also 1 Enoch 10:13.
226
Cf. Luke 6:2425; 12:1321; 13:30; 16:1112.
227
As in Luke 2:35; 7:3; 10:2; 11:37; 16:28.
228
Acts 2:40; 8:25; 10:42; 18:5; 20:21, 2324; 23:11; 28:23.
So that. This so that (hina ) indicates the purpose of the warning. The thought here
may be that additional information (of his brothers evil condition resulting from his way of
life) would lead the brothers to repent. Or it may be that Lazaruss return from the dead
would function as a sign that indicates this message of repentance should be obeyed. The
latter interpretation is more likely in light of 16:31 (cf. also 11:16, 2930).
16:29 Moses and the Prophets. Moses and the Prophets means the Law and the
Prophets , or the OT. See comments on 16:6.
Let them listen to them. Listen carries the sense of heed .229 Abrahams reply was
that the brothers already had the OT, which warned them of their need to repent (and which
witnessed to Jesus). The OT also spoke of the need to be concerned for the poor. 230
16:30 No but if. This is best understood not as an additional witness, i.e., the OT
and Lazarus, but as a sign confirming what the OT says. See comments on 16:28.
They will repent. This indicates that the rich mans fate was not due to his being rich
but his lack of repentance. See comments on 3:3, Introduction 8 (6).
16:31 If they do not listen. See comments on 16:29.
They will not be convinced. The rich man saw Lazaruss return as a sign that would
compel his brothers belief and repentance. Abraham replied that a sign would not compel
faith. Even if someone rises from the dead, this will not compel faith. This is confirmed in
John when Lazaruss resurrection helps some to believe (John 11:45; 12:11) but does not
compel faith from those who oppose Jesus (11:47; 12:1011).
Even if someone rises from the dead. The wording of the request in Luke 16:27 has
been changed at this point to fit more closely Jesus resurrection (cf. 18:33; 24:7, 46; Acts
2:24). In Jesus situation such a statement would have been interpreted abstractly: If a
person, any person, would come back from the dead. In Lukes situation this would have
been understood as the fulfillment of the sign of Jonah (11:2930), for even Jesus
resurrection from the dead (cf. 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; Acts 17:31) did not result in Israels
coming to faith. The Scriptures are a sufficient witness for faith (cf. Luke 24:2732). As
Marshall aptly notes, Miracles will not convince those whose hearts are morally blind and
unrepentant.231
The Lukan Message
Two strong Lukan themes are found in this parable. The first, which is found in the first
part of the parable (16:1926), involves the great reversal. See Introduction 8 (5). Tied to
this are two related Lukan emphases involving the need for repentance (see comments on
3:3; Introduction 8 [6]) and the stewardship of ones possessions. See Introduction 8 (7).
The rich man suffered reversal in the afterlife not because he was rich but because he was
rich and lacked compassion for the needy. He could callously feast each day sumptuously
and ignore the needs of poor Lazarus lying at his gate. He suffered irreversible damnation
(16:26) because he lacked a repentance (16:31) that produced fruit (3:8). His actions reveal
a heart never made tender by repentance and regeneration. Gods love did not abide in him
(1 John 3:17). As a result his attitude toward his possessions was one of self-serving greed.

229
Cf. Luke 8:8; 9:35; 10:16; 14:35; 16:31.
230
Exod 22:2124; Deut 24:1015; Isa 58:7; Amos 6:17.
231
Marshall, Luke , 639.
Like another rich fool (Luke 12:1321), foolishly ignoring that his worldly wealth was only
on loan, he possessed no true riches that would be eternally his (16:1112) and lost his very
self (9:25). Theophilus and the other readers were reminded once again that they needed to
make certain they were rich toward God (12:21) and possessed treasure in heaven
(12:33). Only by using their worldly wealth to serve God and others would they possess
true riches (16:11).
The second part of the parable (16:2731) involves Jesus adamant rejection of a sign to
satisfy his opponents. The parable argues that a refusal to repent is not due to the lack of a
sign. If one is sincere, all that is necessary for faith is the Scriptures (16:31). A sign does
not necessitate faith, as 11:1423 has already shown (see comments on 11:16). Jesus at the
very beginning of his ministry refused this way of fulfilling his messianic mission (4:113).
Jews demand miraculous signs (1 Cor 1:22), but only the preaching of Christ crucified is
necessary for those with a tender heart for God. For those with stony hearts even a witness
returned from the dead will not convince them to believe. This is seen elsewhere in the
Gospels, for when Lazarus was raised from the dead (John 11:3812:9), instead of faith the
result was a plot to kill him (12:1011). There is little doubt that Jesus original audience
would have understood the rich mans request (Luke 16:27) and Jesus concluding
statement about someone from the dead (16:31) as involving the sending of Lazarus to
his brothers. In Lukes setting, however, his readers could not have helped thinking of
Jesus resurrection and applying 16:3031 to him. The Lord had indeed risen from the dead
(16:30), but even this did not result in Israels repenting (16:31). It is on this point that the
main emphasis of the parable falls. Compare Rom 10:517.
Another theme found in the second part of the parable involves the continued validity of
the OT (Luke 16:2931). Luke prepared his readers for this by what he already had said
about the OT Scriptures in 1:1f., but in the immediate context he prepared them for this in
16:17. From the first chapter of the Gospel (cf. 1:6, 45) to the last (cf. 24:2527, 32, 44
48), from the first chapter of Acts (cf. 1:1618) to the last (28:23, 2527), the eternal
validity of the OT Scriptures is taught both explicitly and implicitly.
29

29
Stein, R. H. (2001, c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American
Commentary (421). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

You might also like