Luke 16

Luke 16:1

1. ἔλεγενδὲκαὶ … Jesus now passes from the sin of hypocrisy to the cognate sin of cupidity, as in Matthew 6:18-19. The whole series of parables is anti-pharisaic. In interpreting the two following parables it is very necessary to bear in mind the tertium comparationis, i.e. the one special point which our Lord had in view. To press each detail into a separate dogmatic truth is a course which has led to flagrant errors in theology and even in morals.

τιςἦνπλούσιοςὅςεἶχενοἰκονόμον. The rich man and the steward are both men of the world. It is only in one general aspect that they correspond to God and to ourselves as His stewards (Titus 1:7) who are ‘required to be faithful,’ 1 Corinthians 4:1-5. No parable has been more diversely and multitudinously explained than this. For instance, in the steward some have seen the Pharisees, or the publicans, or Judas Iscariot, or Christ, or Satan, &c. To enter into and refute these explanations would take up much space and would be quite fruitless. We cannot be wrong if we seize as the main lesson of the parable, the one which Christ Himself attached to it (8–12), namely, the use of earthly gifts of wealth and opportunity for heavenly and not for earthly aims.

διεβλήθη. Vulg[294] diffamatus est. In Classic Greek the word means ‘was slandered.’ Here it has the more general sense (see LXX[295] Daniel 6:24), but perhaps involves the notion of a secret accusation.

[294] Vulg. Vulgate.

[295] LXX. Septuagint.

ὡςδιασκορπίζων. He not only ‘had wasted’ (i.e. squandered on himself) his lord’s goods, but was still doing so. The Vulg[296] quasi dissipasset misled the translators of the A.V[297]

[296] Vulg. Vulgate.

[297] A.V. Authorised Version.

Luke 16:2

2. τίτοῦτοἀκούωπερὶσοῦ; This might mean ‘Why do I hear this?’ (So the A.V[298] “How is it” &c.) but it is simpler to render it ‘What is this that I hear about thee?’ comp. Acts 14:15, τίταῦταποιεῖτε; The interrog. and relative clauses are blended.

[298] A.V. Authorised Version.

ἀπόδοςτὸνλόγον. ‘Render the account.’

οὐγὰρδύνῃἔτιοἰκονομεῖν. ‘Thou canst not be any longer steward.’

Luke 16:3

3. σκάπτεινοὐκἰσχύω. ‘To dig I am not strong enough.’

ἐπαιτεῖναἰσχύνομαι. Sir 40:28, “better die than beg.”

Luke 16:4

4. ἔγνωντίποιήσω. The original graphically represents the sudden flash of discovery, ‘I have it! I know now what to do.’ Subito consilium cepit.’ Bengel.

εἰςτοὺςοἴκουςἑαυτῶν. “Into their own houses.” I will confer on them such a boon that they will not leave me houseless. This eating the bread of dependence, which was all the steward hoped to gain after his life of dishonesty, was, after all a miserable prospect, Sir 29:22-28. If different parts of the parable shadow forth different truths, we may notice that the steward has not enriched himself; what he has had he has spent. So at death, when we have to render the account of our stewardship to God, we cannot take with us one grain of earthly riches.

Luke 16:5

5. προσκαλεσάμενοςἕναἕκαστον. In the East rents are paid in kind, and a responsible steward, if left quite uncontrolled, has the amplest opportunity to defraud his lord, because the produce necessarily varies from year to year. The unjust steward would naturally receive from the tenants much more than he acknowledged in his accounts.

Luke 16:6

6. βάτους. The Hebrew bath and the Greek μετρητής, rather less than, but roughly corresponding to, the firkin = 9 gallons. This remission would represent a large sum of money.

δέξαισουτὰγράμματα. ‘Receive thy bill.’ (Vulg[299] cautionem.) The steward hands the bill back to the tenant to be altered.

[299] Vulg. Vulgate.

γράψονπεντήκοντα. Since Hebrew numerals were letters, and since Hebrew letters differed but slightly from each other, a very trivial forgery would represent a large difference.

Luke 16:7

7. κόρους. The cor was the same as the Hebrew homer = 10 ephahs. It is said to be about an English ‘quarter,’ i.e. 8 bushels, but from Jos. Antt. XV. 9, § 92, it seems to have been nearly 12 bushels. The steward knows what he is about, and makes his remissions according to the probabilities of the case and the temperament of the debtor. His astuteness tells him that some can be bought cheap.

Luke 16:8

8. ὁκύριος. The lord is of course only the landlord of the parable. φρονίμως does not mean ‘wisely’ (a word which is used in a higher sense), but prudently. The tricky cleverness, by which the steward had endeavoured at once to escape detection, and to secure friends who would help him in his need, was exactly what an Oriental landlord would admire as clever, even though he saw through it. And the last act of the steward had been so far honest that for the first time he charged to the debtors the correct amount, while he doubtless represented the diminution as due to his kindly influence with his lord. The lesson to us is analogous skill and prudence, but spiritually employed. This is the sole point which the parable is meant to illustrate.

The childish criticism of the Emperor Julian that it taught cheating (!) is refuted by the fact that parables are meant to teach lessons of heavenly wisdom by even the ‘imperfections’ of earth. There is then no greater difficulty in the Parable of the Unjust Steward than in that of the Unjust Judge or the Importunate Friend. The fraud of this “steward of injustice” is neither excused nor palliated; the lesson is drawn from his worldly prudence in supplying himself with friends for the day of need, which we are to do by wise and holy use of earthly gifts. This οἰκονόμοςτῆςἀδικίας (see Luke 16:9) was φρόνιμος, but he was not also πιστός, as we are urged to be (Luke 12:42). But faithful stewards may imitate him in the only point here touched upon, namely, the due application of means to ends.

οἱυἱοὶτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτουκ.τ.λ. ‘The sons of this age are more prudent than the sons of the light towards’ or ‘as regards (εἰς) their own generation’; i.e. they make better use of their earthly opportunities for their own lifetime than the sons of the light (John 12:36; Ephesians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:5) do for their lifetime; or even than the sons of light do of their heavenly opportunities for eternity. The zeal and alacrity of the “devil’s martyrs” may be imitated even by God’s servants. With υἱοὶφωτός comp. τέκναὑπακοῆς, 1 Peter 1:14, τέκνακατάρας, 2 Peter 2:14, ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας, 2 Thessalonians 2:3. It is a vivid Hebraism.

ὑπέρ. The word helps out the decaying force of the comparative.

Luke 16:9

9. ἑαυτοῖςποιήσατεφίλουςἐκτοῦμαμωνᾶτῆςἀδικίας. Comp. Luke 16:8, ὁκριτὴςτῆςἀδικίας, Luke 18:6. It is the qualitative genitive, and describes the characteristic abuse of wealth. This descriptive genitive in Hebrew makes up for the paucity of adjectives. The Greek may imply either, Make the unrighteous mammon your friend; or make yourselves friends by your use of the unrighteous mammon.

There is no proof that mammon is the Hebrew equivalent to Plutus, the Greek god of wealth (Matthew 6:24). ‘Mammon’ simply means wealth, and is called ‘unrighteous’ by metonymy (i.e. the ethical character of the use is represented as cleaving to the thing itself) because the abuse of riches is more common than their right use (1 Timothy 6:10). It is not therefore necessary to give to the word ‘unrighteous’ the sense of ‘false’ or ‘unreal,’ though sometimes in the LXX[300] it has almost that meaning. We turn mammon into a friend, and make ourselves friends by its means, when we use riches not as our own to squander, but as God’s to employ in deeds of usefulness and mercy.

[300] LXX. Septuagint.

ὅτανἐκλίπῃ. Cum defecerit. ‘When it (mammon) fails,’ which the true riches never do (Luke 12:33). The reading ἐκλίπητε means ‘when ye die.’

δέξωνται. The ‘they’ are either the poor who have been made friends by the right use of wealth (comp. Luke 16:4), or the word is the impersonal or categoric plural, as in Luke 12:11; Luke 12:20, Luke 23:31. Comp. Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27; Tob 4:7. The latter sense seems to be the best, for it is only by analogy that those whom we aid by a right use of riches can be said (‘by their prayers on earth, or their testimony in heaven’) to ‘receive’ us. The notion of a human welcome into heaven does not occur in Scripture.

εἰςτὰςαἰωνίουςσκηνάς. ‘Into the eternal tents,’ John 14:2, “And give these the everlasting tabernacles which I had prepared for them,” 2Es 2:11. (Comp. 2 Corinthians 5:1; Isaiah 33:20, and see p. 384.) The general duty inculcated is that of “laying up treasure in heaven” (Matthew 6:20; comp. 1 Timothy 6:17-19). There is no Ebionite reprobation of riches as riches here; only a warning not to trust in them (Mark 10:24).

Luke 16:10

10. ἐνἐλαχίστῳ. Comp. Luke 19:17. The most which we can have in this world is ‘least’ compared to the smallest gift of heaven.

Luke 16:11

11. τὸἀληθινόν. The ideally genuine; lit. ‘that which is true,’ i.e. real and not evanescent. Earthly riches are neither true, nor ours.

Luke 16:12

12. ἐντῷἀλλοτρίῳ. The expression refers to the faithlessness of the unjust steward. The lesson of the verse is that nothing which we possess on earth is our own; it is entrusted to us for temporary use (1 Chronicles 29:14), which shall be rewarded by real and eternal possessions (1 Peter 1:4). “Vitaque mancipio nulli datur, omnibus usu,” Lucr. III. 985.

Luke 16:13

13. οὐδεὶςοἰκέτης … δουλεύειν. No domestic can slave, &c.

δυσὶκυρίοις. God requires a whole heart and an undivided service. “If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ,” Galatians 1:10. “Whosoever … will be the friend of the world is the enemy of God,” James 4:4. “Covetousness … is idolatry,” Colossians 3:5.

οὐδύνασθεκ.τ.λ. If this point had been attended to commentators would not have fallen into the “unspeakable misrepresentations and unrighteous judgments” which have marked so many explanations of the preceding parable.

Luke 16:14

14. φιλάργυροι. ‘Lovers of money,’ 2 Timothy 3:2. The charge is amply borne out by the references in the Talmud to the rapacity shewn by the Rabbis and Priests of the period. See Matthew 23:13.

ἐξεμυκτήριζον. Kept scoffing at Him. Comp. LXX[301] 2 Samuel 19:21; Psalms 2:4. The word is one expressive of the strongest and most open insolence, Luke 23:35. There is a weaker form of the word in Galatians 6:7. Here the jeering was doubtless aimed by these haughty and respected plutocrats at the deep poverty of Jesus and His humble followers. It marks however the phase of daring opposition which was not kindled till the close of His ministry. They thought it most ridiculous to suppose that riches hindered religion—for were not they rich and religious? And had not Shammai mentioned ‘riches’ as one of a Rabbi’s qualifications?

[301] LXX. Septuagint.

Luke 16:15

15. ἐνώπιοντῶνἀνθρώπων. Luke 7:39, Luke 15:29; Matthew 23:25, &c.

γινώσκειτὰςκαρδίας. Hence God is called καρδιογνώστης in Acts 15:8; and “in thy sight shall no man living be justified,” Psalms 143:2. There is perhaps a reference to 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9.

ὑψηλόν. ‘Lofty.’

βδέλυγμα. Their ‘derision’ might terribly rebound on themselves. Psalms 2:4.

Luke 16:16

16. μέχριἸωάννου. This is one of our Lord’s clearest intimations that the aeon of the Law and the Prophets was now merging into a new dispensation, since they were only “a shadow of things to come,” Colossians 2:17.

εἰςαὐτὴνβιάζεται. The phrase is classical. Thuc. I. 63, VII. 69. It implies ‘is making forcible entrance into it,’ Matthew 11:12-13. The allusion is to the eagerness with which the message of the kingdom was accepted by the publicans and the people generally, Luke 7:20; John 12:19. The other rendering, ‘every man useth violence against it,’ does not agree so well with the parallel passage in St Matthew.

Luke 16:17

17. μίανκεραίαν. The tip or horn of a letter, such as that which distinguishes ב from כ or ה from ח. Thus the Jews said that the letter Yod prostrated itself before God, because Solomon had taken it from the law (in the word Nashim) by marrying many wives, and God made this same answer to them. Similarly they said that when God took the Yod (the “jot” of Matthew 5:18) from the name Sarai, He divided it between Sarah and Abraham, since Yod = 10, and H = 5.

πεσεῖν. ‘To fall.’ See Matthew 5:18. The law did not fall to the ground; its abrogation was only its absolute fulfilment in all its eternal principles. The best comment on the verse is Matthew 5:27-48. The bearing of these remarks on the previous ones seems to be that our Lord charges the Pharisees with hypocrisy and men-pleasing, because while they professed the most scrupulous reverence to the Law, they lived in absolute violation of its spirit, which was alone valuable in God’s sight.

Luke 16:18

18. ὁἀπολύωντὴνγυναῖκααὐτοῦ. At first sight this verse (which also occurs with an important limitation in Matthew 5:32) appears so loosely connected with the former as to lead the Dutch theologian Van der Palm to suppose that St Luke was merely utilising a spare fragment on the page by inserting isolated words of Christ. But compressed as the discourse is, we see that this verse illustrates, no less than the others, the spirit of the Pharisees. They professed to reverence the Law and the Prophets, yet divorce (so alien to the primitive institution of marriage) was so shamefully lax among them that great Rabbis in the Talmud practically abolished all the sacredness of marriage in direct contradiction to Malachi 2:15-16. Even Hillel said a man might divorce his wife if she over-salted his soup. They made the whole discussion turn, not on eternal truths, but on a mere narrow verbal disquisition about the meaning of two words ervath dabhar, ‘some uncleanness’ (lit. ‘matter of nakedness’), in Deuteronomy 24:1-2.

Not only Hillel, but even the son of Sirach (Sir 25:26) and Josephus (Antt. IV. 8, § 23), interpreted this to mean ‘for any or every cause.’ (Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12.) Besides this shameful laxity the Pharisees had never had the courage to denounce the adulterous marriage and disgraceful divorce of which Herod Antipas had been guilty.

Luke 16:19

19. ἄνθρωποςδέτις. He is left nameless, perhaps to imply that his name was not “written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). Legend gives him the name Nimeusis or Nineues. ‘Dives’ is simply the Latin for ‘a rich man.’ Our Lord in the parable continues the subject of His discourse against the Pharisees, by shewing that wealth and respectability are very differently estimated on earth and in the world beyond. The parable illustrates each step of the previous discourse:—Dives regards all he has as his very own; uses it selfishly, which even Moses and the Prophets might have taught him not to do; and however lofty in his own eyes is an abomination before God.

πορφύρανκαὶβύσσον. The two words express extreme luxury. He wore purple without, Egyptian byssus underneath. Robes dyed in the blood of the murex purpurarius were very costly and were only worn by the greatest men.

“Over his lucent arms

A military vest of purple flowed

Livelier than Melibaean or the grain

Of Sarra (Tyre) worn by kings and heroes old

In time of truce.”

Byssus is the fine linen of Egypt (Genesis 41:42; Esther 8:15; Proverbs 31:22; Ezekiel 27:7; Revelation 18:12), a robe of which was worth twice its own weight in gold.

εὐφραινόμενοςκαθ’ ἡμέρανλαμπρῶς. Literally, ‘making merry (Luke 12:19) every day, splendidly.’ Luther, lebte herrlich und in Freuden. It indicates a life of banquets. The description generally might well apply to Herod Antipas, Luke 7:25; Mark 7:14; Mark 7:21.

Luke 16:20

20. Λάζαρος. Lazarus is not from lo ezer, ‘no help,’ i.e. ‘forsaken,’ but from Elî ezer, ‘helped of God,’ Gotthilf. It is contracted from the commoner Eleazar. This is the only parable in which a proper name occurs; and the only miracles of which the recipients are named are, Mary Magdalene, Jairus, Malchus, and Bartimaeus. Whether in the name there be some allusive contrast to the young and perhaps wealthy Lazarus, brother of Martha and Mary, as Prof. Plumptre has conjectured, is uncertain. From this parable come the words—lazaretto, lazzarini, a lazar, &c.

ἐβέβλητο. Not ‘was laid,’ as in A.V[302], but ‘had been cast down,’ implying by one graphic touch the careless roughness and neglect with which he was treated.

[302] A.V. Authorised Version.

πρὸςτὸνπυλῶνααὐτοῦ. Not a mere πύλη but a πυλών—a stately portal.

Luke 16:21

21. ἀπὸτῶνπιπτόντων. ‘From the things that fell.’ The word ψιχίων in some MSS. is a reminiscence of Mat 15:27. The clause καὶοὐδεὶςἐδίδουαὐτῷ in some MSS. is a gloss from Luke 15:16. It is not said that such fragments were refused him.

οἱκύνες. There was no one to look after him. He was left to these unclean beasts. This seems to be involved in ἀλλὰκαί. The only dogs in the East are the wild and neglected Pariah dogs, which run about masterless and are the common scavengers.

ἐρχόμενοιἐπέλειχον. The ἐρχόμενοι adds to the vividness of the picture. The incident is only added to give in one touch the abjectness of his misery, and therefore to enhance the rich man’s neglect. The fault of Dives was callous selfishness.

Luke 16:22

22. εἰςτὸνκόλπονἈβραάμ. Comp. Luke 13:28. This expression is used as a picture for the banquet of Paradise (comp. Numbers 11:12; John 1:18; John 13:23, and Ps. Josephus, De Maccab. 13).

ἀπέθανενδέ. “They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave,” Job 21:13.

καὶἐτάφη. Nothing is said of the pauper-funeral of Lazarus. In one touch our Lord shews how little splendid obsequies can avail to alter the judgment of heaven.

“One second, and the angels alter that.”

Luke 16:23

23. ἐντῷᾅδῃ. ‘In Hades.’ See Luke 10:15. Hades, which is represented as containing both Paradise and Gehenna, and is merely the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, ‘the grave,’ is the intermediate condition of the dead between death and the final judgment. The scene on earth is contrasted with the reversed conditions of the other world. The entire imagery and phraseology are Jewish, and are borrowed from those which were current among the Rabbis of Christ’s day. Beyond the awful truth that death brings no necessary forgiveness, and therefore that the retribution must continue beyond the grave, we are not warranted in pressing the details of the parable which were used as part of the vivid picture. And since the scene is in Hades, we cannot draw from it any safe inferences as to the final condition of the lost. The state of Dives may be, as Tertullian says, a praelibatio sententiae, but it is not as yet the absolute sentence.

ἀπὸμακρόθεν. One of the numerous mixtures of analytic and synthetic expressions (see my Brief Greek Syntax, pp. 1–6) which we find in the decadent stages of a language. Μακρόθεν alone means ‘from afar,’ but is helped out by ἀπό, and the pleonasm is unconscious, as in Mon cher Monsieur.

ἐντοῖςκόλποις. The plur. is often used for ‘bosom’ because the word properly means the folds of the robe (sinus). For the meaning of the metaphoric expression see John 1:18; John 13:23.

Luke 16:24

24. ὕδατος. The partitive genitive—‘in some water.’ But he who refused the crumbs is denied the drops.

ὀδυνῶμαι. ‘I am suffering pain.’ The verb is not βασανίζομαι. See Luke 2:48, where ὀδυνῶμαι is rendered ‘sorrowing.’

ἐντῇφλογὶταύτη. Perhaps meant to indicate the agony of remorseful memories. In Hades no

“Lethe the river of oblivion rolls:

Her watery labyrinth, whereof who drinks

Forthwith his former state and being forgets,

Forgets both joy and grief, pleasure and pain.”

As for the material flame and the burning tongue, “we may,” says Archbishop Trench, “safely say that the form in which the sense of pain, with the desire after alleviation, embodies itself, is figurative.” Even the fierce and gloomy Tertullian says that how to understand what is meant by these details “is scarcely perhaps discovered by those who inquire with gentleness, but by contentious controversialists never.”

Luke 16:25

25. τέκνον. ‘Child.’ Even in the punishment of Hades he is addressed by a word of tenderness (Luke 15:31, Luke 19:9).

ἀπέλαβες. ‘Receivedst to the full.’ Comp. ἀπέχειν, Luke 6:24.

τὰἀγαθάσου. The “good things” of Dives were such as he had accounted to be absolutely his own, and to be really good (Matthew 6:2); the “evil things” of Lazarus were not ‘his,’ but part of God’s merciful discipline to him, Revelation 7:14. The parable gives no ground for the interpretation that the temporal felicity of Dives was a reward for any good things he had done, or the misery of Lazarus a punishment for his temporal sins.

νῦνδὲὧδε. ‘But now, here.’

ὀδυνᾶσαι. ‘Thou art pained,’ as before. The parable is practically an expansion of the beatitudes and woes of Luk 6:22-25.

Luke 16:26

26. χάσμαμέγαἐστήρικται. This, as Meyer says, is the argument ex impossibili after the argument ex aequo. Change of place is not a possible way of producing change of soul. Dives while he still had the heart of Dives would have been in agony even in Abraham’s bosom. But 1 Peter 3:19-20 throws a gleam of hope athwart this gulf. It may be (for we can pretend to no certainty) no longer impassable, since Christ died and went to preach to spirits in prison. With this “great gulf” (2 Samuel 18:17, LXX[303]) compare the interesting passage of Plato on the vain attempts of great criminals to climb out of their prisons. Rep. x. 14.

[303] LXX. Septuagint.

ὅπως … μὴδύνωνται. ‘In order that they may not be able.’

Luke 16:27

27. εἰςτὸνοἶκοντοῦπατρόςμου. It is difficult not to see in this request the dawn of a less selfish spirit in the rich man’s heart.

Luke 16:28

28. πέντεἀδελφούς. If there be any special meaning in this detail, the clue to it is now lost. Some have seen in it a reference to the five sons of the High Priest Annas, all of whom succeeded to the Priesthood,—Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and the younger Annas, besides his son-in-law Caiaphas. But this seems to be very unlikely. An allusion to Antipas and his brethren is less improbable, but our Lord would hardly have admitted into a parable an oblique personal reflexion.

ὅπωςδιαμαρτύρηται. ‘That he may bear (effectual) witness.’

Luke 16:29

29. Μωϋσέακαὶτοὺςπροφήτας. See John 1:45; John 5:39; John 5:46.

Luke 16:31

31. πεισθήσονται. “We are saved by faithful hearing, not by apparitions,” Bengel. This was most remarkably exemplified in the results which followed the raising of another Lazarus (John 12:10), and the resurrection of our Lord Himself (Matthew 28:11-13). Observe that the reply of Abraham (‘be persuaded,’ ‘arose,’ ‘from among’ [ἐκ not ἀπὸ] the dead) is much stronger than the words used by Dives. “A far mightier miracle … would be ineffectual for producing a far slighter effect,” Trench.