Luke 16

CHAPTER XVI

Luke 16:1

1 Moreover, he went on to say also to the disciples: A rich man there was who had a steward. And this man was denounced to him as squandering his possessions.

Another somewhat different one is added to the preceding parables (δέ, “moreover”); the imperfect ἔλεγε is used as it was in 3:7. Καί, which is omitted in the R. V., means that this parable, which no longer deals with finding and recovering the lost but with the life of those found, has its application to the disciples. From 15:1, 2, our present verse, and then v. 14 we gather that all the parables in these two chapters were spoken to an audience that was composed of Pharisees, scribes, publicans, open sinners, and a goodly number of disciples. Compare the further discussion under 15:3.

In his masterly way Jesus places the essentials before us with a few simple words: the rich man and the dishonest steward. This man’s business was extensive; he employed a general manager with full power to handle all affairs as we see from his dealings in v. 5–7, and the values of his affairs were large. Jesus at once places us into a typically worldly atmosphere which is unlike that of the preceding parables. This steward is crooked—nothing new in managers who have powers like his. We are placed at the time of his career when somebody (hidden in the passive διεβλήθη) denounced him to his employer. R. 697 makes οὖτος anaphoric, pointing back to “steward,” but the demonstrative reads as if it were spoken by the man who denounced him: “this fellow was denounced.” The verb is used to indicate secret denunciation, and the efforts to give it a neutral sense in this connection seem to be misplaced.

So also ὡς with a participle, which states the substance of the denunciation, is more than an allegation that is inspired by malice, an allegation that is untrue in fact (R. 1140); here the allegation is undoubtedly true, ὡς being used to express real or assumed crimes (R. 966). The sequel shows that the evidence convinced the employer, who proceeds at once to discharge his steward; and the steward makes no effort whatever to defend himself but admits his guilt. He was charged with squandering his employer’s possessions. Some tone this down to mere carelessness or incompetency; but the fellow presently shows himself as being exceedingly shrewd. He was plainly crooked, that is all, was doing his crooked work at the very time when he was denounced as the present participle states. A wealthy man often used one of his own slaves as a steward (as in 12:42, etc., where the fellow is cut in two); but here the man is a freeman who is merely employed, his master only discharges him.

Luke 16:2

2 And having called him, he said to him: How do I hear this concerning thee! Give due account of thy stewardship, for thou canst no longer be steward.

The employer summons his man at once, exclaims because of what he hears, demands an accounting, and discharges the rascal. As regards τί, R. 1176 is right in making it adverbial, not R. 736 and 916: “What is this?” (R. V.). This is not the interrogative adverbial “why,” it is the exclamatory adverbial “how” (A. V.). The employer is not asking a question, neither “what” nor “why.” He knows “what” he has heard, and he knows “why” the steward did as he did; nor does the steward reply in any way.

The employer exclaims because of his steward whom he thought honest and capable: “How do I hear this concerning thee!” No investigation is needed, no defense is possible; it is already a closed case. The employer demands that due accounting be made; ἀπό in the aorist imperative expresses the idea of “due.” The steward must go, close up his books, and turn them in with whatever they show. The only explanation (γάρ) he receives is the announcement of his discharge: he can no longer “be stewarding.”

Luke 16:3

3 But the steward said in himself: What shall I do, seeing that my lord is taking the stewardship away from me? To dig I have not strength, to beg I am ashamed. I got what I will do, in order that, when I shall be discharged from the stewardship, they may receive me into their own houses!

The preliminaries of the parable (v. 1, 2) are brief; the main point, the shrewdness of the steward, is elaborated at length. We are shown his reasoning, his prompt decision, and the instant execution of his shrewd plan. He did not delay, he debated at once as to what he should do. He had little time as far as turning over the accounts is concerned. If he could do anything, it had to be done at once. So he asks himself what is possible under the circumstances: “What shall I do?” ποιήσω is either the future indicative or the deliberative subjunctive (R. 935); and ὅτι is used in the consecutive sense, compare R. 1001.

He at once eliminates two distasteful courses. To earn his living by digging and downright hard labor is out of the question because he has not the physical strength for that; to go begging and to eke out an existence in that way are also out of consideration because he is ashamed to come down so low after his prominence for a long time. That is straight thinking? But what else is left?

Luke 16:4

4 It is quite impossible to translate the ingressive aorist tense ἔγνων (R., W. P.) accurately since we have no tense equivalent of any kind in English. The punctiliar aorist marks the sudden arrival of the knowledge on which the man resolves to act and marks it as occurring prior even to its expression in words. We venture to translate: “I got,” i. e., the knowledge or idea, “what I will do,” etc. He does not state the knowledge that just flashed into his mind; we deduce it from what he promptly does while the accounts are still in his hands. But he does state what purpose he expects his plan to serve, namely to make his employer’s debtors take him into their own homes so that he can live at ease until something better turns up for him. The ποιήσω is here volitive but again ambiguous as to form (R. 935).

Luke 16:5

5 And having called to him each one of the debtors of his lord, he went on to say to the first, How much dost thou owe to my lord? And he said, A hundred bath of oil. And he said to him, Take thy writing, and, having sat down, quickly write fifty. Thereupon he said to another, And thou, how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred cor of wheat. He says to him, Take thy writing and write eighty.

“Each one.” He deals with them individually and without witnesses. Only two are introduced as samples of the shrewd scheme, but this rich man had a number of such debtors. Until his books and his papers are turned over to his employer the steward is still in power, and, having squandered his lord’s possessions heretofore, he does so once more with a special purpose. He will make “his own (ἑαυτοῦ) lord’s” debtors his own debtors in another sense and live off them.

These do not seem to have been renters of land; the entire description does not suit farming. Though olive oil and wheat are mentioned, the quantities are very large, too large to be considered payment in kind, and one man owes nothing but oil, the other nothing but wheat, which seems as though they were traders, the one in the one commodity, the other in the other. This lord was a wholesaler, the creditors had bought from him and still owed him the money.

Luke 16:6

6 In reply to the question the first tells how much he owes. The steward shrewdly asks the man and makes him tell in order that the man may realize the more what a gift the steward is making him. A “bath” is an old Hebrew measure (R. V. margin and reference) which contains between eight and nine gallons. The selling of between 800 and 900 gallons of olive oil to one customer shows the wealth that this steward handled for his lord. He has pulled the debtor’s note out of the strongbox, hands it to him, and tells him to write a receipt and a note for just half the amount of oil.

That was certainly making a friend of this debtor. All the transactions are in the steward’s hands; he made the sale, received and kept the papers, his lord had other business to do, had employed him as his manager. So the debtor could safely accept the reduction. The matter is rushed: “quickly” the debtor must write and go. The plural τὰγράμματα may refer to one document.

Luke 16:7

7 He proceeds in the same manner with another debtor, one who had bought a hundred “cor” of wheat, another Hebrew measure, a “cor” amounting to ten bushels, thus a thousand bushels in all. This man is told to make out papers for eighty “cor.” The view that the original documents were altered is untenable. Why did the steward himself not then alter them, he being an expert scribe? But he does not say, “I will write,” but makes each debtor write. Documents that had been tampered with would have been invalid, and the debtors would afterward be held liable for the entire amount. Entirely newly written obligations, which were substituted for the originals, would make the thing sure. So the debtor is also told to sit down, which would not have been necessary for a slight alteration.

Why the difference in the reductions? Surely not, as has been thought, because the steward knew each man and how much to give him. We cannot judge from the quantities but must judge from the monetary value, and fifty bath of oil may have been of no more value than twenty cor of wheat—the trouble is that we do not know how these commodities were priced at just that time.

Luke 16:8

8 So this rascally steward shrewdly provided for himself. And the lord praised the steward of unrighteousness because he acted shrewdly; because the sons of this eon are shrewder beyond the sons of light in their own generation.

The shrewd way in which this conscienceless steward had feathered his nest at the very last moment became clear at last, and when his lord heard it he, too, was shrewd enough to appreciate this shrewd action and praised his steward for it. As we said at the start, the entire parable is a genuine picture of worldliness. Thus also this man is called “the steward of unrighteousness,” which is usually called the qualitative genitive; it is like an adjective (“the unrighteous steward”) but is always stronger. The parable has received its title from this designation: the Unjust Steward, which follows the translation of the A. V.

The usual view is that this ends the parable, and that its exposition and application now begin. But the decided: “and I myself say to you” in v. 9 brings the application so that the sentence: “Because the sons,” etc., still belongs to the parable. Not, indeed, as adding to its narrative part but as putting the parable into the right light for the hearers. This last statement informs them that this parable is taken in toto from the shrewdness of the sons of this eon who exceed the sons of light in this respect when it comes to their own generation, i. e., to dealings with the men of their own time. They know how to gain an advantage for themselves and are not deterred by conscience and moral considerations even as the main figure in the parable, the steward, is boldly marked by the quality of unrighteousness in his entire office and at the end.

“In their own generation,” i. e., for its duration, refers jointly to the sons of this eon and to the sons of light and includes the entire generation in the case of both. Some divide them: worldlings dealing only with worldlings, disciples only with disciples, the former being shrewder than the latter; and one interpreter has suggested this application in the case of the latter: “We all know how stupid Christians can be in their cooperative work”! But do worldlings not deal with Christians as well as with worldlings, and vice versa? How many Christians have not been cheated and fleeced by worldlings! It is a simple fact: in matters of their own generation worldlings are decidedly shrewder than Christians.

But, of course, only for this their generation even as Jesus calls them “the sons of this eon” and uses φρόνιμος, “sensible,” “shrewd,” namely in the way pictured, in earthly affairs. “This eon,” ὁαἰὼνοὖτος, has its contrast in “the eon to come,” ὁαἰὼνμέλλων, the one being the present world era, the other the heavenly world era. The term αἰὼν, however, means more than a vast period, it is one that has a specific character that is derived from what transpires in it, hence we have the modifiers that are always attached. “This eon” is the one that is marked by transient temporalities, sin and its effects, the coming one is marked by the blessed and perfect conditions of heaven.

The term υἱοί is sometimes overlooked. These “sons” are not only “children” (τέκνα) of this eon, for “sons” refers to legal standing as heirs; “the sons of this eon” have nothing to expect except what this eon furnishes, temporalities only. It is true, “the sons of the light” is not an exact verbal opposite, and yet “the light” is in fact the opposite of “this eon,” for this eon is one that is filled with darkness. The sons of this eon continue in this darkness, but the sons of the light receive the divine light of saving truth which God sent into the world, into this eon (John 3:19). The sons of the truth thus have the inheritance that is promised in the truth, in the revelation of God. Their hearts are thus set on the treasures of this truth, the hearts of the worldlings on the treasures of this eon.

No wonder, then, when it comes to dealing with men in their generation, that the latter are far shrewder than the former. It could not be otherwise, and this is by no means said in criticism of the sons of the light. The statement is made in order to bring out the fact that the parable is taken from what is usual among the sons of this eon and is to be understood in that way. The genitives “of this eon” and “of the light” are qualitative like “of unrighteousness.”

Luke 16:9

9 No other parable has caused as much perplexity and has received as many interpretations as this one. Because there are so many interpretations, those who attempt a survey of them find it necessary to classify them into groups and then admit that they have not included all of them. One reads this story with depressed feelings. One interpretation alone is sound, the one Jesus himself gives. Why do only a few adopt it? Because this interpretation is derived from the parable as a whole, not from its details.

And the other point in Jesus’ interpretation is the fact that it is confined only to the disciples even as Luke emphasizes this at the start (v. 1). Not until one becomes a disciple can this parable mean to him what Jesus intends it to mean. The interpretation rests on one point, namely on the picture of the unrighteous steward, the whole of it being treated as a unit. This man, as he is here portrayed, is one of millions of the sons of this eon and is typical in his complete development. The interpretation is given from the direct opposite, and that, too, in full development. Thus: the fully developed unrighteousness we see in this man as regards the unrighteous mammon is to help us to see and to inspire us to attain the complete contrary, the fully developed righteousness with which we are to handle this unrighteous mammon: first, in the use to which we put it (v. 9); second, in the estimate we put upon it, which underlies any use we make of it (v. 10–12); third, in the resistance which we offer it, this underlying both the use and the estimate (v. 13).

Many find the tertium comparationis in φρόνιμος, “shrewd”: as the steward was shrewd in a worldly way in dealing with mammon, so we are to be shrewd in a spiritual way; instead of the weltliche Klugheit we are to have and to use the geistliche Klugheit. But it will be observed that this word is not repeated in Jesus’ application (v. 9–13) whereas, resting on “unrighteousness” in “the steward of unrighteousness,” we have “the mammon of unrighteousness” and then three times the concept ἄδικος, “unrighteous,” and three times its opposite πιστός, plus the corresponding verb πιστεύσει, “faithful” (“trustworthy”) and “will entrust.” These terms put the tertium beyond question and also show that the comparison is one of opposites. As far as sensibleness is concerned, in the disciple this would be wisdom; but v. 9–13 do not turn on this point.

And I myself, to you I say: Make for yourselves friends by the mammon of unrighteousness in order that, when it gives out, they may receive you into the eternal tents.

This is not a simple λέγωὑμῖν, “I say to you,” which is so frequently used by Jesus, but far stronger: ἐγώ, “I myself to you,” as my disciples, “to you alone” (ὑμῖν before the verb) now say. It should be accepted that the exposition begins here, and not until here. We have seen how the steward of unrighteousness used the mammon of unrighteousness in making friends for himself to take him in when he was discharged from office; Jesus orders us to do the same thing but to make our use quite the opposite.

The parallel is quite close, which makes the point of opposition stand out the more boldly. He is a steward—we too; he is entrusted with property and values—we too; these are the unrighteous mammon—in our case too; he makes friends with it—we too; he comes to an end—we too. The two lines run in the same direction, side by side, until in a flash the final phrase reverses the second line and makes it run in the opposite direction: “into the eternal tents.” The sons of this eon care for earthly houses, the sons of light are set on entering eternal habitations, heavenly mansions. And this reverses the entire line so that the two now run like this , the one being motivated by unrighteousness, the other by its opposite, righteousness.

The aorist ποιήσατε is constative, summing up into one the doing of the entire life; and ἐκ has the idea of source: “out of the means afforded by mammon” (μαμωνᾶ, a Doric genitive). The derivation of μαμωνᾶς (which is always written with one m except in some minuscules) has not been determined (C.-K. 712), but its meaning is clear; it is not the name of an idol but a designation for valuable possessions; it is probably of Aramaic origin yet was current among the Greek Christians and was not translated. Luke uses it much as we ourselves still do. In v. 13 it enables Jesus to put its idea in opposition to God.

The genitive is again qualitative: “the mammon of unrighteousness,” exactly as was “the steward of unrighteousness.” Mammon has the very quality of unrighteousness. The explanation that it is so called because it tends to unrighteousness is too weak. The usual explanation is that money and wealth circulate among sinful men and are used in sinful ways and for sinful purposes and thus get this quality and retain it when they come into a Christian’s possession. The idea of ill-gotten wealth in the hands of the publicans and of the Pharisees who are here addressed by Jesus, some of the former having become disciples, is untenable; 19:8 shows that money of that kind must be returned.

The moment we ask who it is that receives us (“welcomes” is too weak) into the eternal tents we shall see that the friends we are to make by means of mammon cannot be fellow Christians whom we have helped with charitable gifts. Those who hold this view feel constrained to add that some of these Christians preceded the donors in death. How many received the malefactor? Christ and God alone receive in heaven and not even the angels of whom some have thought and have forgotten that only by making God and Christ our friends do we make the angels our friends. Matt. 25:40 makes the matter plain: what we do for the least of our brethren we do for Christ who will receive us into the heavenly mansions. This also bars out anything like meriting heaven, for all the works enumerated in Matt. 25:35 are evidences of faith and no more. So Jesus here speaks to disciples who already have heaven by faith and by the fruits and evidences of faith must show that their faith still endures.

“When it (mammon) gives out” (eclipses) is the hour of death when even our very body will become the property of others and certainly every cent of our money. So the steward found his income suddenly gone and needed another abode. Σκηνή is not “habitation” (A. V.), and whether we translate it “tent,” “booth,” “tabernacle,” the expression is peculiar, the noun denoting a transient structure and its adjective modifier being “eternal.” The fact that heaven is meant is plain. But Jesus is not speaking of the judgment day as some suppose; “when mammon gives out” refers to the Christian’s hour of death.

Luke 16:10

10 One sentence gives us the gist of the interpretation; but this involves more. Back of the use made of mammon is the estimate we put upon it. Involved in the use made by the steward was unrighteousness, involved in our use is to be trustworthiness. So Jesus adds this point. He who is faithful in very little, also in much is he faithful; and he who in very little is unrighteous, also in much is he unrighteous. If, therefore, you did not prove to be faithful in the unrighteous mammon, the genuine thing—who will entrust it to you? And if in what is another’s you do not prove faithful, what is your own—who will give it to you?

First, the estimate. To the sons of this eon mammon is the very greatest thing, they will sell themselves into unrighteousness for it. But to the sons of light, who judge it in the light of divine truth, it is “a very little thing,” yea, “the least” as compared with their eternal possessions. On this estimate there rests the axiomatic statement, the principle on which all men act: any man who is faithful in administering the littlest thing is certainly to be trusted in much more, and men readily make the venture with regard to him; and the reverse is equally true about a man, and no one will think of entrusting him with more.

Note the significant terms πιατός and ἄδικος, each being repeated twice. These are the key terms for interpreting the parable. “Least” and “much” refer to things entrusted to us; the fact that all disciples are stewards need not be said. One may think that what is “least” does not count so that he may treat it as he pleases; but no, it is quite decisive as revealing our true character. One may think that if something very great were entrusted to him, he would be faithful; men will not agree with him, they will first want to test him out with something that is very small.

Luke 16:11

11 That is the case with regard to “the unrighteous mammon” (the adjective suffices since it has been used twice just preceding this verse). For the disciples this is, indeed, “the very least” of what is entrusted to them. And Jesus draws the conclusion (οὖν) for them: if they do not prove faithful in administering this, who would ever think of entrusting to them τὸἀληθινόν, “the genuine thing”? Mammon is, indeed, not the genuine thing, transient, fleeting, deceptive as it is, bound presently to give out altogether (v. 9). They are fools who place that estimate upon it. “The genuine thing” is that which never gives out, never disappoints. It is left unnamed, but by analogy it is all our spiritual and heavenly wealth. Jesus uses the condition of reality: εἰ with the indicative in the protasis, any tense in the apodosis.

Luke 16:12

12 “Least” and “more,” “mammon” and “the genuine thing,” do not exhaust the analysis of this estimate. We are stewards, and our earthly wealth is ‘another’s,” of which we must necessarily give an accounting. If it were ours, we might more easily think that we are free to do with it as we please. Therefore Jesus asks very pertinently: “If we are not faithful in what is “another’s,’ for which we are accountable, who will give us ‘what is our own,’ which we would therefore treat as not being connected with an accounting?” “What is your own” (ὑμέτερον) is, of course, the same as “the genuine thing” (τὸἀληθιόν). These objects are placed forward in the questions for the sake of emphasis.

Luke 16:13

13 Back of the use of our earthly wealth and of the estimate we place upon it is the resistance we offer to its deceptive power. No house servant is able to be slave to two lords; for either he will hate the one and will love the other, or he will hold to the one and will despise the other. You cannot be slaves to God and to mammon. Compare Matt. 6:24.

Earthly wealth not only tends to unrighteousness in its use and leads us to place a false estimate upon it, it would also make us its slave and at the same time lead us to think that we could also be slaves to God. Hence the resistance needed by every disciple against both being enslaved and being deceived by mammon. The statement of Jesus is again axiomatic, self-evident. The matter is viewed from the standpoint of the slave and is more pointed here than it is in Matthew, for the specification “house servant” is added, one who would thus serve in one house only. How two masters would act in the case is not touched upon. A slave’s person and his work belong only to one master.

Two or more masters might jointly own a slave and might even divide his service; but this would make the owners one and thus not affect the proposition. The underlying thought is that no man is his own master; it is our very nature that our heart, will, and work are governed by another. The only question is who this shall be.

With γάρ Jesus elucidates the impossibility from the viewpoint of the slave. Suppose he did try to be a slave to two masters—not, indeed, that he could get himself two masters, but that the slave were fool enough to accept such an abnormality. Then, Jesus says, he himself will demonstrate that no slave can be a slave to two masters. He will hate the one and will love the other; or he will hold to the one and will despise the other. In other words, in his very heart and by his very thoughts he will make one of the two his real master, give him heart service, and will make the other his sham master, give him only outward service. Though it is used with regard to a slave, ἀγαπᾶν is still the love that involves a certain understanding plus corresponding purpose; more is involved than just φιλεῖν or liking. Note the contrast between ἀντί and κατά in the compound verbs: “to hold oneself face to face with”—“to think down or against someone,” R. 573.

The two masters whom Jesus has in mind are God and mammon. What is never attempted in the case of other masters and lords is often attempted in the case of these, but the outcome is only as is indicated—only one can really be master and lord in our hearts. This, we may add, will never be sham service to mammon and heart service to God; the danger is always in the other direction, hiding our heart service, love, and devotion to mammon by a show of service to God. We must constantly resist the power of mammon in this direction, purge our hearts of this unrighteousness also, and serve God alone.

We have had no reason to make anything especial of “the rich man” in the parable (v. 1), either to make him picture God as some do or mammon as others do. He belongs to the essence of the parable no more than do the oil or the wheat or any difference between the two. The debate about having a rich man represent God in this parable whereas in others he represents a godless man (12:16; 16:19) is of no interest to us; also how mammon can be spent and wasted by the steward and yet be his personified god. If we abide by Jesus’ own interpretations, all such difficulties are avoided.

Luke 16:14

14 Now there were listening to all these things the Pharisees, who were money-lovers, and they turned up their noses in derision at him.

The last parable was addressed only to the disciples (v. 1), but we see that the Pharisees, etc., were still present (15:1, 2). The two imperfect tenses are descriptive, and “all these things” is best regarded as including all that Jesus had said from 15:3 onward. The reaction of the Pharisees came to view as Jesus offered the last parable and its exposition. They, of course, resented the implications that were directed against them in the other parables but gave no sign of this until Jesus, though now speaking only to his disciples, touched their avarice and their greed (Matt. 23:14). Luke notes this when he says that they were “money-loving.” They then “began to turn up their noses in derision at him,” sie ruempften die Nase, although they ventured no reply in words. They probably thought that such talk was easy for Jesus, seeing that he himself had no property.

Luke 16:15

15 Jesus promptly takes them up. And he said to them: You are they who are justifying your own selves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts, seeing that the thing high among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

The reply of Jesus to the scorn of the Pharisees takes investly more than the one point of their love of money and their wicked ways of getting it while they made long prayers and a great pretense of holiness. The reply strikes at their fundamental sin, namely at the hypocrisy with which they covered up their avarice and all other flagrant sins. The emphasis is on ὑμεῖς: “You, just you are the ones who keep justifying your own selves!”

The participle, like all uses of this verb and its derivatives, is strongly forensic. Every criminal likes to oust the real judge who pronounces the verdict, “Guilty!” upon him and likes to usurp the judge’s seat, sit on his own case, and pronounce upon himself the verdict, “Innocent—acquitted!” That is exactly what these Pharisees did, not once, but habitually; the present participle makes this self-justification their outstanding characteristic. They condemned others without mercy as if their judgment were divine. In their own cases they ignored and set aside God and his verdict and, like a supreme court, acquitted themselves.

Jesus adds significantly “in the sight of men.” Men they could and to a great extent did deceive. Men they could get to accept their self-justification. Men considered them as high and holy. But men only. “But God knows your hearts,” all the baseness which your false justification covers up. He, the divine, eternal Judge, is the great Καρδιογνώστης, “Knower of hearts” (Acts 1:24; 15:8), and him they do not for one moment deceive.

“Seeing that” is intended as a translation of the ὅτι consecutivum (R. 1001); it states the point that makes the preceding statement so important. What difference does it make that God sees the hearts of these Pharisees? This—“the thing high among men, abomination is it in the sight of God.” He abominates all self-exaltation, especially that of hypocritical self-justification. The thing that men thus deem high, look up to, admire, boast of in themselves, glory in, is not only low but utterly abhorrent in God’s eyes. The more the Pharisees managed to get exaltation among men, the more abominable they made themselves before God. Jesus is letting these Pharisees know what God’s verdict on them is; he does this in order, if possible, to move them to repentance.

Why the thing high among men is abomination before God needs no explanation. Exaltation that disregards God and all true, divine exaltation by way of his grace must be crushed as an imitation of the devil’s own pride.

Luke 16:16

16 What Jesus tells the Pharisees is what the eternal Word of God as well as the kingdom that is now being preached to them have long declared, and a further striking example is the Jewish contradiction of the law which is manifested in their flagrant disruptions of marriage. The connection of thought is not that Jesus justifies what he says against the charge that he is running contrary to the Old Testament with his preaching of the kingdom, which permitted the Pharisees to justify themselves for rejecting what he says. This would make these verses a defense; they are undoubtedly an attack, one which drives the matter home by pointing to God’s own eternal Word which these Pharisees still claimed to obey, yea, obey perfectly, and base their self-exaltation on this very obedience.

The law and the prophets—till John; from then on the kingdom of God is being preached as good news, and everyone is energetically pressing into it. But it is easier that the heaven and the earth pass away than for one particle of a letter of the law to fall.

This is a powerful assertion of the unchanging authority of the divine Word. What Jesus has just said about the Pharisees’ justifying themselves before men when God regards them as an abomination is sealed by the Word of God. Compare the interpretation of Matt. 11:12, 13 on v. 16.

“The law and the prophets” is a standard title for the Old Testament. This Word stood as God’s authoritative revelation from Malachi onward for 430 years until God sent John. And from that time onward, during the past three to four years, God gave the Jews even more: “the kingdom of God (see 4:43) is being preached as good news” (the verb is used as it was in 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; etc.). This is the kingdom in its fullness as it is now being established by Christ. It existed in the old covenant but was to merge into the new covenant when all the promises of redemption were fulfilled. This fulfillment was now in progress, and the good news was being heralded throughout Judaism.

Jesus brings to the Jews the whole of God’s revelation up to the moment of his speaking: law and prophets, then John’s and Jesus’ preaching the promises about the kingdom as now being fulfilled. We have no comparison between law and prophets on the one hand and John, etc., on the other; not a thing of any defending the latter by an appeal to the former. The two are presented as a unit.

When Jesus adds: “and everyone is energetically pressing into it,” his disciples, a goodly band of them, to whom he had just addressed the last parable, were right there as evidence of his claim; and this addition is made in order to ask the Pharisees why, when the law and the prophets to which they claimed to hold are now receiving their fulfillment in the good news of the kingdom, they, too, did not develop energy to press into it. This clause is a supplementary touch and no more. A comparison with Matt. 11:12 is helpful on the verb as that will show that the verb is not passive: “everyone is being pressed in,” for which meaning there is no call here, but that it is the middle: “presses himself in.” Nor need we stress the “violence” when the context is satisfied with energy, that decisiveness which is wrought by the preaching of the kingdom in all who accept it. “Everyone” is naturally restricted by the sense of the clause and includes those who enter the kingdom and those alone.

Luke 16:17

17 This preliminary statement lays the groundwork for the main thought that follows, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away in one sweep (παρελθεῖν, aorist) than for even the least little horn or projection on one or the other letter of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to fall so that the sense would be changed by the falling away. Jesus does not say that every copyist of the Old Testament is infallible. Some of the Hebrew letters differ only in the presence or the absence of a little projection, and a copyist might, indeed, make a mistake. Jesus is speaking of God. In the case of God not a letter of his Word shall fall, lose its authority, be abrogated, be altered into something else.

Ὁνόμος has the same force here as ὁνόμοςκαὶοἱπροφῆται, the entire Old Testament is designated by either expression. The idea that Jesus in v. 17 speaks only of the legal requirements of the Old Testament and not of the teaching of the prophets is a misconception. It is not because the prophets taught also the legal requirements, but because the Torah (ὁνόμος in the stricter sense), the Pentateuch, together with the prophets taught the gospel faith which makes true children of God who alone can keep the legal requirements as God desires. Of the Old Testament in this sense Jesus says that its validity and its authority stand unalterable for all time.

“God knows your hearts” thus means not only that he sees the vices and the wickedness in the hearts of the Pharisees but their entire condition of unbelief, from which their avarice, etc., spring. He sees not only that they transgress his legal requirements but also that they scorn his gospel, that gospel which is being revealed in the entire New Testament and then still more fully in the good news that was preached by John and by Jesus. Did the Pharisees think that they could repudiate it in their hearts under a show of holiness, and repudiate it with impunity? Why, it was easier for heaven and earth to be swept away than for God to cancel one particle of the authority of his Word which damns not only this and that vice but the very source from which every vice springs, unbelief and hardness of heart. Justifying oneself before men is a farce; the only justification that avails is that on the part of God and his authoritative Word.

Luke 16:18

18 Jesus is not throwing together heterogeneous and nonpertinent thoughts when he now scores the Jewish practice of dissolving marriage ad libitum. Among the “open sinners” who drew near to Jesus were harlots (15:1, 2), and some of these may have been in the present audience. But did these holy Pharisees keep the Sixth Commandment any better when they drove one wife after another away and took a new one as often as they pleased? So this statement is decidedly pertinent.

It is in order, too, because the parable and its exposition (v. 1–13) dealt with mammon, and the scorn of the Pharisees was aroused by what Jesus said on that subject (v. 14). Jesus therefore brings in this other flagrant sin of the Pharisees and exhibits likewise how they manipulate the Word of God in order to permit its open violation, their most famous teachers showing them the way. But here, too, no single letter of the Word can be abrogated, God will judge also these sins according to that authoritative Word, never according to the Pharisaic perversions of that Word. By bringing in this different group of open sins Jesus makes the Pharisees understand that he could go on and on by enumerating still other sins. To understand the wickedness of their love of money they must understand this same wickedness in its workings also in other directions. Jesus rips away their defenses and drives hard at their conscience.

Everyone having released his wife and marrying another commits adultery; and he marrying one that has been released from a husband commits adultery.

This is not an exposition on marriage and divorce; this is a charge which Jesus hurls at the Pharisees who are before him. That is why the statement is brief and summary. They were making mean remarks about Jesus (15:2) for having anything to do with open sinners like harlots. Were these Pharisees any better than harlots? No; they lived in the same open violation of the Sixth Commandment. Jesus now confronts them with that fact.

What he tells them is this: You Pharisees also disregard and violate God’s law of marriage by changing from one wife to another at pleasure, by marrying a discarded wife as if her having been discarded in such a way meant nothing whatever to God’s law. Jesus is not expounding what is commonly called divorce but is scoring the dissolution of marriage; ἀπολύειν, “to release,” “to dismiss,” and thus to dissolve the marriage, this being the standard term. On at least two other occasions he fully expounded this subject, in Matt. 5:31, 32; in 19:3–9; and in Mark 10:11, 12. See the exposition of these passages for all details.

Only a charge is made here which is wide and strong and includes every transgressor. The charge is: μοιχεύει! The English translation is inadequate: “he commits adultery.” The verb means ehebrechen, ruin marriage. In the Sixth Commandment, οὐμοιχεύσεις (Matt. 5:27), as here in the charge against the Pharisees the verb means far more than πορνεύειν, to practice forbidden sexual intercourse; it means to do anything that destroys or helps to destroy the divine institution of marriage, the very nature of which is permanency (Mark 10:6–9). Fornication on the part of a husband or a wife, of course, does that (Matt. 5:32), but so does every Jewish dismissal of a wife for other reasons or for no special reason at all. And that is why Jesus here includes, as being equally guilty, the Jew who marries a wife who is dismissed by a Jewish husband and says of him as he says of the other: μοιχεύει, he helps to ruin the permanency of marriage.

These Jews and Pharisees were all alike; none of them regarded marriage as having been made a permanent relation by God and his Word. All of them regarded marriage as being something that was to be dissolved at pleasure. The man who married a discarded wife married her only in this way, i. e., himself to discard her when he so pleased. In the very act of marrying her (γαμῶν expresses action that is simultaneous with that of μοιχεύει) he thus violated God’s law of marriage.

Unless this is clearly understood, wrong deductions will be made. Jesus is scoring these Pharisaic violators of the permanency of marriage and is neither legislating concerning marriage (he never legislates) nor giving instructions to his disciples regarding marriage (that he does fully elsewhere). In both the Matthew and the Mark passages the verbs are passive (our versions, the commentaries, and some dictionaries regard them as being active); all these passages leave the discarded wife innocent of any blame; they all bring out the fact that the discarded wife is sinned against, and that the man who discards her sins against himself and sins likewise against the man who eventually marries the discarded wife. Those passives must stand as they are; indeed, to change them into actives has Jesus say what he cannot have said since it would not be true—that the discarded wife commits adultery by the husband’s act of discarding her!

Once this is clear, no attempt will be made to alter the sense of the Matthew and the Mark passages by a reference to Luke. A discarded innocent wife (Mark says also husband) may marry again even as Paul so plainly declares in 1 Cor. 7:15; and the man who marries her as he should honors marriage as it was made permanent by God, condemns the man’s action in breaking his own and her marriage, and commits no sin. Far otherwise any Jew or Pharisee who marries her in his way as he should not. He rejects the permanency of marriage, consents to the other man’s action in breaking his marriage, is ready at any time to do so himself if he feels like it. By this very act of marrying this man, μοιχεύει, bricht die Ehe, exactly like the other and helps to break down the divine institution of marriage.

Luke 16:19

19 Jesus proceeds to relate a new parable without a break and after the interlude (v. 14–18), the unrighteous use of mammon, presents one who has wealth in his own right, misuses it in utter selfishness all his life, and thus ends in hell. The two parables are thus a pair, the second being an advance upon the first, which take us into the hereafter and thus exhibit God’s final judgment, and do that in full. This parable presents an extreme case, necessarily so, in order to include all lesser cases in which selfishness does not come cut so boldly yet is the mainspring of a man’s life. This parable again strikes the rich, utterly selfish Pharisees; it delivers the final blow. In a marvelous way, as it seems at the spur of the moment, Jesus weaves in what he has just said (v. 16, 17) regarding the law and the prophets (v. 29). So this is another marvelous masterpiece.

Now there was a rich man, and he constantly put on himself purple and fine linen, making merry day by day splendidly. Moreover, a beggar, by name Lazarus, had been thrown at his portal, suffering from ulcers and longing to be filled from the things falling from the table of the rich; yea, even the dogs coming kept licking his ulcers.

Like living pictures, the two men are distinctly flashed on the screen. But this is preliminary, the main scene is to follow. We have τίς twice which is used like our indefinite article. We construe: “A rich man there was,” not: “A man was rich,” although either construction is possible. His being rich is nothing that could be reckoned against him, for Abraham, too, was rich and appears in this very parable. Jesus gives this man no name; when we call him “Dives,” that means “Rich.” One is struck by the fact that he appears without a name while the poor man is given one. His name was not known in heaven.

We still read discussions as to whether these were two actual men whom Jesus knew and used for this parable, or whether, as in other parables, notably in the one preceding, these were imaginary persons. The question answers itself—the main part of the parable is placed into the other world, these are figures that are used only in a parable. Nor need we disturb ourselves as to whether this is a real parable or not and puzzle about the definition of a parable.

Nor was this rich man a Sadducee, many of whom were, indeed, rich and ostentatious. Those who hold this view refer to some actual person like Caiaphas. But Sadducees denied the resurrection, and this man believed in it (v. 30). Could he have been a Pharisee when Pharisees did not live so voluptuously? And is Jesus not speaking to Pharisees so that this man ought to be one? The question is pointless, for the parable does not turn on the fact of being rich or poor but on unbelief which is exhibited in heartless selfishness in this life and in open contradiction in the hereafter.

We regard ἐνεδιδύσκετο as a middle (not as a passive), for it was his own doing that “he put on himself” (whether by the aid of a valet or not) “purple,” such as kings and nobles wore, in the form of a magnificent long robe, “and byssus,” the finest of linen, in a tunic next to the body. Both are named together in Esther 1:6 and Rev. 18:12. The point is that he wore such garments all the time as the imperfect states—he moved in constant splendor. Likewise, “making merry day by day (distributive κατά) splendidly”—his whole life was one gorgeous celebration. The parable concerns him, hence the fact that he had a great following of friends who admired him and basked in his favor is not added. All the parables are drawn with chaste simplicity.

Luke 16:20

20 We now have the complete opposite, but it is at once connected with the other. Πτωχός is more than “poor”; it is derived from the verb “to crouch or cringe,” as a noun it means “beggar,” as an adjective “beggarly,” which is exactly what Lazarus was. Jesus has, however, ennobled the word (as he did in 6:20, etc.); and here, too, this “beggar” shines with a nobler splendor than the rich man.

In one of the regular ways, with the dative ὀνόματι, his name is stated: “Lazarus” (nominative). It is as if Jesus had looked into the book of life and found his name there but failed to find the other man’s name. It is this naming of the beggar that leads many to think that both men were real. Although it is exceptional in a parable, this common name seems to be symbolical, “God a help.” It is shortened from Eleazaros and, stated right at the start, marks this man as being one who put all his trust and faith in God.

And now we have the connection of these two men: “he had been thrown, dumped, at his portal,” the grand, wide entrance through the wall that opened into the spacious courtyard of the rich man’s palace; had been dumped and was now lying there. He could not move himself even on crutches and those who carried his diseased body just dropped it down regardless of the groan of pain they caused. Through that portal the rich man and his friends had to pass, had to see him in his wretchedness, had to hear his quavering, begging voice as he stretched out his hand. That is why he was put there—a golden opportunity for alms and for more than alms. “Disgusting!” thought the rich man. Not one of the Old Testament statements about helping the helpless even entered his mind, and his following imitated him. One word, a perfect participle, thus describing his present state, explains the dumping at this place: “suffering from ulcers,” loathsome, festering, painful, untended sores.

Luke 16:21

21 The present participle ἐπιθυμῶν, “longing to be filled,” etc., leaves unsaid whether his longing was satisfied or not; and many feel certain that it was not. But why did he then remain here and not seek another station? “The things falling from the table of the rich man” were, indeed, the “off-falls,” waste to be thrown away into the street for the scavenger dogs to devour. Not by any desire or order on the part of the rich man did the beggar receive any of these scraps but by the kindness of some slave boy who was sent out to dispose of them.

The ἀλλά is not adversative: “but even the dogs,” etc. Our versions have the correct feeling when they avoid “but” and translate “moreover” (A. V.) and “yea” (R. V.). This is the copulative ἀλλά (R. 1186) which merely carries the description forward by adding a striking detail. This is the fact that the dogs kept coming and licking the ulcers. These are the ownerless dogs that roam the city and act as general scavengers and are known in all Oriental cities where they have not been abolished.

There is a dispute as to whether this licking of the ulcers was an affliction or an alleviation. It marks the abject state of this beggar, it was so low that such dogs were his only friends. The views that they aggravated his ulcers, and that he was too weak to fend them off; or that they treated him as almost being a carcass, reveal lack of dog knowledge. These dogs licked the beggar’s sores as they would have licked their own, to clean and to ease them with their soft tongues. Dogs did that, no one else would.

Luke 16:22

22 The main part of the parable begins. Now it came to pass that the beggar died and was borne away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham; moreover, there died also the rich man and was buried.

The accusative with the infinitives is the subject of ἐγένετο, compare 6:1. The beggar’s disease killed him. Nothing is said about his burial; his body was ignominiously dumped into an obscure grave; but his soul was borne into the bliss of heaven by God’s own angels. Tissot has a wonderful painting of two glorious angels with six wings bearing the beggar’s soul into the empyrean. The view that this was his body needs only to be mentioned in order to be rejected.

“Abraham’s bosom” is a Jewish designation for heaven. Abraham is the father of believers who stood at the head of the old covenant. When the soul goes where he is, that means entrance into heaven. “Bosom” does not refer to a feast at which the guests recline on the left elbow on broad couches so that the person next to Abraham, on turning back, would let his head rest against Abraham’s bosom. “Borne into Abraham’s bosom” conveys the idea of a child being laid on Abraham’s bosom and being embraced by him. The expression is figurative, not only for being in heaven where Abraham is, but as being in the most intimate association with the father of believers, accepted and acknowledged as a son of Abraham (19:9). So all true believers are borne into Abraham’s bosom.

“Borne by the angels into Abraham’s bosom”—these words have made an indelible impression on all Christendom, and all the interpretation of learned exegetes who try to disturb the honest faith which humbly accepts these words as they read has never succeeded in shaking it in the least. In spite of everything I truly believe that God’s angels will stand around my deathbed and will carry my soul into Abraham’s bosom!

We here meet the simple way in which Jesus speaks about the souls or spirits of the dead. All conceptions of time and space, succession and distance, must be removed for the other world. We know that they do not exist there. But our finite minds are inexorably fettered to these mundane concepts and are unable to think in terms of the supernatural world. Hence the Scriptures, even as Jesus here, condescend to us and use earthly terms to convey something of the heavenly realities to us. If Jesus should speak in the terms of that world, no human mind would understand a thing.

Two facts follow. We can only receive and accept what is thus told us and can do no more. It is folly to rationalize, speculate, draw conclusions with our finite minds beyond what is so inadequately conveyed to us. This extends to the spirits of the dead. Abraham has a bosom, the rich man eyes and a tongue, yet as disembodied spirits they have neither. For us on earth no other way of speaking about human or angelic spirits in the other world exists. To argue from this language that these spirits have some kind of an impalpable body is unwarranted. To go farther and to say that God creates these bodies for men as they die one by one, or that these bodies already now await us is to increase the confusion of thought.

Whether sooner or later—it makes no difference—the rich man also died. The same word is used with reference to both: each died. They were alike in this regard. “And was buried” means far otherwise than the beggar was buried. That is why the word is used—vast mourning, hundreds of friends, great display and honor. But no angels. How, then, did this man’s soul get to hell? They know who get there!

Luke 16:23

23 And in hades, having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he sees Abraham from afar and Lazarus in his bosom. And he, calling out, says, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water! and cool my tongue, because I am anguished in this flame!

The fact that the rich man’s soul went to hell needed not to be stated. It is a master touch in the parable to take that for granted. See 10:15 on the etymology of hades. The commentators are divided on this word, and especially its use in this parable. First there is a group which sees only an accommodation to the current Jewish views in all that Jesus says about the other world; then there are those who reduce everything to their conception of the Old Testament sheol; finally there are those who make this passage their sedes doctrinæ for the view that there are at least four places in the other world and regard “hades” as being the Totenreich, the realm of the dead which has two compartments, an upper and a lower. The latter is developed so as to make possible a conversion for those who in this life remained without the gospel, and the borders between this idea and the Catholic purgatory become very dim.

Other views are added such as that the soul of Jesus also entered this realm of the dead and remained there until his resurrection, and that his descent into hell meant that he went into this realm of the dead and released from its upper part the souls of the old covenant saints and took them with him in triumph to heaven. So this part of the realm of the dead is now vacant. The Scriptures and Jesus know nothing of this speculation but contradict it at every point.

The Biblical facts are these. Sheol is used in the Old Testament as a general and an indeterminate term, somewhat but not exactly like our “beyond” or “hereafter.” All that makes departure from this life sad such as death, the grave, parting from the dead, etc., including also the godly dead, is thus connected with sheol. This broad view justifies the translation “grave” in certain connections, namely where only the general idea of removal from this life obtains. Those who deny the reality of hell use this translation for all the Old Testament passages that have sheol; all are referred only to “grave,” and so hell as the eternal abode of the damned is erased.

But the Old Testament uses sheol also in a specific sense with reference to the wicked alone, who go down in terror to sheol; and in these passages the translation “hell” should be used. But we should keep in mind the broad meaning of sheol, literally, “a place into which one goes down, comparable to a belly and according to Ps. 139:8, etc., the direct opposite to heaven,” E. Koenig, Hebraeisches und aramaeisches Woerterbuch 474. Thus it is always described as “down,” never as being at the borders of the world.

Neither the Greek, the English, nor the German has an exact equivalent for sheol. The Greek used “hades,” the unseen place, for sheol in the sense of the abode of the damned. It was the best the LXX could do. “Hades” is narrower than sheol but serves well enough in the New Testament with its clearer revelation about the other world and always means “hell,” the abode of the damned. The linguistics regarding the term are of help only when all the contexts are considered; thus also in the New Testament the terrible descriptions of “hades,” which, whatever its name, is always the same place of terror.

The Scripture and Jesus are a unit in revealing the existence of only two places in the other world, heaven, the abode of God and of the angels and the saints, and hell, the abode that has been especially prepared for the devil and his angels, to which also all those who follow the devil are consigned. Why the Scriptures speak of both as being places we have explained above, also why our ideas of space are absolutely inadequate for the understanding of the other world; look at Rev. 21:16: heaven, the Holy City, “the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal,” “foursquare,” a perfect cube, which is beyond mundane conception. The Scriptures speak of places, abodes (μοναί, John 14:2), not merely of conditions, and with that we must be content in our present thinking. All speculation which claims the discovery of a third or intermediate abode treads the outworn paths of Romanism and merely modifies the Catholic views.

“And in hades (the unseen place) having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he sees Abraham from afar,” etc., is thought to mean that Abraham and Lazarus, too, were “in hades,” and this statement is thus regarded a sedes for the intermediate place. All the dead are placed there, saints and damned; all are in hades, but this is divided into an upper and a lower part—for did the rich man not “lift up” his eyes? Although the parable does not say so, the upper place is called Paradise whereas no special name is given to the lower. This sedes loses its validity the moment we note that in the sentence the phrase “in hades” is removed as far as possible from “Abraham.” “From afar” refers to the gulf that is mentioned in v. 26, ἀπό being idiomatic, the Greek measuring from the far place to the beholder, not as we do from the beholder to the far place. Abraham is pictured as being in heaven, the rich man as being in hell. What is gained by inventing a second kind of heaven (Paradise) and a second kind of hell and by uniting them with a gulf between them into a realm of the dead when we already have the real heaven and Paradise and the real hell, both properly divided? The entire Scripture analogy is against this alleged intermediate place.

“Being in torments” certainly states the condition of the souls in hell—or is there a difference between the torments in hell and those suffered by the rich man? The statement is made that Jesus has already placed the rich man “in hell” (realm of the dead) and must add “being in torments” in order to indicate that he is in the lower and not in the upper part of it. This is answered when we note that according to this assumption Jesus should certainly have indicated, first of all, in what part of this realm of the dead Abraham was. The rich man is in hell, the abode of the damned, and Abraham is in the heaven of God, and “being in torments” is added, not so that we may properly locate these persons in an alleged realm of the dead, but to explain what seeing Abraham and Lazarus meant to this tormented rich man. The plural κόλποι is merely idiomatic (R. 408) and is used interchangeably with the singular (v. 22).

Luke 16:24

24 The question of the propinquity of the rich man and Abraham and of the great chasm that divided them is answered when we remember that our ideas of space do not apply to the other world, and that what applies there cannot be put into human language. Thus any argument for hades as being a realm of the dead that is based on the nearness of the persons and the fact that they are in one place over against a far wider separation of heaven and hell, is met in the same way. All arguments regarding the other world that are based on our ideas of physical space are inadequate, that world is spaceless as it is timeless. The real question is whether the blessed and the damned are able to see and to speak with each other as that is here represented. The answer is negative. The conversation that is put into this parable is placed there for its own sake—so Abraham, the father of believers, (note: not Lazarus or any other saints) would answer every unbeliever in hell and justify God’s judgment on the blessed and on the damned. The very frankness of the parable ought to keep us from drawing false conclusions.

Luke uses αὐτός and its plural freely as subjects with little or no emphasis. How did the rich man know Abraham when he saw him now for the first time? Exactly as Peter, James, and John knew Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. No introductions are needed in the other world.

Do not ask what kind of fire caused the flame by which the rich man was anguished. Physical fire as we know it on earth does not determine anything about the fire and the burning which are constantly predicated of hell beyond its power to produce the intensest pain. That fire torments the devils who have no bodies, the spirits of the damned before they are reunited with their earthly bodies, and finally also their bodies. Is that not effect enough without prying into the nature of that fire? Much is made of the fire, nothing whatever of the water into which Lazarus was to dip the tip of his finger. When Jesus speaks of things incomprehensible in comprehensible language, let us therewith rest content.

It is the languague of a parent to a child about things that are beyond the child’s comprehension. The parent must either be silent or descend to one-syllable baby words.

“Father Abraham!” cries he who all his life disowned Abraham. Yes, he was a physical descendant of Abraham who had no further relation to Abraham exactly as were the Jews who are mentioned in John 8:39–42. Exactly in the same sense Abraham addresses him as “child.” He who knew not the quality of mercy nor its exercise when human need called out to him day after day at his own portal, now himself cries out for mercy: “mercy me,” the Greek verb being transitive.

The fact that the entire conversation is intended to teach an underlying thought to the hearers of the parable and is not a report of an actual conversation should need no proof. All mercy is ended in hell. Even the least mercy as when a mere drop of water is asked for a tongue that is burned to a crisp; R. 495 makes the genitive ὕδατος one of place; C.-K. 172 regards it as being due only to the verb. This very request shows plainly that the conversation is only a vehicle for something that underlies it. He whose tongue daily tasted the finest wines and the most delectable cooling drinks now burns with ceaseless flame. Pitiless are the final judgments of God, and this is the illustration. Let men ignore them or rave against them now and say they cannot believe in such a God, the facts stand as they are depicted here.

Luke 16:25

25 But Abraham said: Child, remember that thou didst get in full thy good things in thy life, and Lazarus likewise the bad things; but now here he is being comforted while thou art anguished. And in connection with all these things between us and you a great chasm has been fixed in order that those wanting to cross from here to you may not be able, nor that they may pass over from there to us.

All his life the rich man had forgotten, and he still forgets, and Abraham must tell him to remember; all his life he thought the impossible possible, that, although living the life he did, he might pass into heaven, and he still thinks impossible things possible, that Abraham might send Lazarus from heaven to hell to cool his fiery tongue. The damned do not learn even in hell.

’Από in ἀπέλαβες adds the idea of getting what is “due” so that one can ask for no more; and the rich man certainly had no more coming to him. Abraham states only the facts, that the conditions of the rich man and of Lazarus are now reversed—that and no more. Why they are reversed is not stated—that comes later. Let it sink in that God’s judgment so decides, and that settles the matter eternally.

It would be wrong to take this statement to mean that because a man has good things in this life therefore he is anguished in hell, and because a man has good-for-nothing things (κακά) in this life, therefore he is comforted in heaven. Abraham does not say this, nor would it be true. But when a man in hell asks for mercy, or when living men think hell ought to be changed by even a drop of water, they may think on this reminder to the rich man in hell. Hence also Abraham says “thy good things,” those the rich man alone thought good, while he cared nothing for spiritual and heavenly treasures and showed that his life was bare of these by his lack of mercy; but not “his bad things,” for these were only trials that were sent to Lazarus to refine his faith and to make his trust rest on God alone. Regarding good things as the rich man did, he had them all, no more were coming to him; having spurned all others, he must now do without. Patiently taking and bearing the bad things God sent Lazarus, keeping his faith under them all and his hope in God, the good things of heaven were now his.

Luke 16:26

26 “Besides all this” renders the sense of the phrase which means literally “in connection with these things” (not: “through all these regions,” Robertson’s translation), i. e., in connection with the reversal which God made in his judgment he has also separated heaven and hell forever. The Greek always names the first person before the second: “between us and you”; not as we do: “you and us.” The perfect passive ἐστήρικται has the present connotation of being fixed so now and ever. “Those wanting to cross from here to you” does not mean that there will be such although one may well suppose that those in hell would like to cross over to heaven. The sense of the statement is that death decides forever, it is either heaven or hell. This is not stressed by those who believe in the realm of the dead and make room for conversions in its lower part and thus a transfer into the higher part.

Luke 16:27

27 However, he said: I then request thee, father, that thou send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—in order that he may thoroughly testify to them lest they, too, come into this place of torment.

The rich man is presented as seeing and dealing with Abraham and Lazarus only, and they only with him. So also the request is made of Abraham and not of Lazarus, the latter is treated as Abraham’s servant who would do what Abraham ordered. All these features, plus the conversing of the rich man with Abraham, are means which the parable uses for bringing out first, the finality of the judgment at death (v. 23–26), second, the all-sufficiency of the Word. So the rich man is not presented as asking Abraham to warn the brothers but to send Lazarus; and we are not to ask whether Abraham’s going to them would not have been more effective than sending only a beggar like Lazarus. The rich man uses a respectful tone when he says, ἐρωτῶ, “I request,” but what he requests is as bad as his complete disregard of Moses and the prophets, yea, also of Abraham’s faith, during his earthly life. Οὖν, “then,” intends to say that if the other request cannot be granted, he would ask this. He still calls Abraham “father”; the Pharisees who are listening to this parable are to note that Abraham has such “sons.”

Luke 16:28

28 The rich man seems to have great concern for his five brothers since he wants them to go to heaven and not to hell. They evidently lived much as he had lived during his earthly life. But this man fails to see even in hell that his unbelief brought him to hell. He does not repent of that unbelief. He invents a new means of grace for his brothers, one that God should have applied also in his case but did not apply. His plea for his brothers is a covert accusation of God who could have prevented his arriving in hell by a simple means but failed to use that means.

If the rich man had been warned as he now proposed to have his brothers warned he would not be in this place of torment. Yes, he is more concerned about his brothers than God is, knows better than God how to save them, and blames God for his terrible fate.

Luke 16:29

29 But Abraham says: They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them! He, however, said: No, father Abraham! On the contrary, if one shall go to them from the dead, they will repent. But he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, not even if one rose up from the dead will they be persuaded.

This is the climax of the parable; for this reason the rich man and Abraham converse in the parable. Abraham knows all about Moses and the prophets who lived and labored long after Abraham was dead. Abraham is in full accord with them, for they all preached the same faith in which he lived and died. To have Moses and the prophets is to have the Old Testament Word. Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch; the prophets, in the broad sense of that term, wrote all the other books of the Old Testament. This Word is the all-sufficient means of salvation. It is more, far more, than Abraham had in his life. We have Jesus and the apostles in addition.

“Moses and the prophets” takes us back to “the law and the prophets” mentioned in v. 16, “the law” being the Torah. “Moses and the prophets” contain the divine law which convicts of sin and the heavenly gospel which provides and imparts release from sin and thus saves from hell and brings to heaven. “Let them hear them” is the effective aorist: actually hear them so as to receive in the heart what they say—not merely learning and learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. To hear effectively is to believe. This is exactly what the rich man had not done; his heartless selfishness, his whole fleshly life were evidence of that fact.

The Jews made much of Moses, do so still, and even decorated the graves of the prophets whom their fathers had killed, and are still proud of those prophets (11:47); they neglected only one thing as Jesus pointed out already in v. 16, they did not hear them effectively. The supreme proof of that was their rejection of Jesus of whom Moses and all the prophets testified (John 5:46). It was because the rich man refused to hear Moses and the prophets that he was now in hell; the same end awaited the Pharisees who now listened to Jesus unless they heeded the warnings addressed to them.

Luke 16:30

30 Οὐχί is the sharper Greek “no.” The most direct contradiction of unbelief persists even in hell: “No! father Abraham”; and the vacuous “father, father,” too, persists. Abraham is contradicted in what he says, and that is a contradiction of Moses and the prophets and of their Word as the means of salvation. Although the rich man sees Abraham in heaven, knows that Moses and the prophets are there likewise, he says “no” to all for which they stood, to all that brought them to heaven. Even the fires of hell bring no unbelievers to repentance and faith, and that is why they are in hell forever—where else could they be?

That strong “no” is re-enforced by the equally strong ἀλλά, which here, after a negative, means “on the contrary.” This adversative draws a line of cancellation through the entire Old Testament as a means of salvation and substitutes a new means, one that was invented in hell instead of in heaven. The condition is that of expectancy, and ἐκνεκρῶν, like many such phrases, is considered definite without the article (R. 791) and should be translated “from the dead.” The rich man pictures one from the dead going to his wicked brothers who would then repent. A hellish repentance that would be, scaring them by a threat of the fires of hell.

He uses the verb “repent” but has no conception of its true meaning, bowing to God in contrition and accepting his pardon by faith (see 3:3). Did the rich man think of a resurrection of Lazarus like that of the actual Lazarus in Bethany whom Jesus called out of the tomb? Or of some ghostly return of only the soul of Lazarus? Decidedly the former as Abraham’s reply shows: “even if one rose up from the dead.” The idea that Abraham’s answer overtops the rich man’s assertion, that the latter spoke only of a spirit’s appearance, Abraham of a complete resurrection, is without warrant in the words or in the thought.

Luke 16:31

31 Abraham does not reply that Lazarus cannot possibly rise from the dead, the ἐάν clause implies the contrary. But such a resurrection return and testimony would not accomplish anything in the case of men who constantly refuse to hear (οὐκἀκούουσιν, the durative present) in the sense of take to heart the divine testimony of Moses and the prophets, they would not even persuade such unbelievers. “They will not even be persuaded” (passive), i. e., persuaded that the man has really risen from the dead. Think of the answer he would get on the part of unbelievers today. A thousand proofs would be offered that he was not dead in the first place, that someone was impersonating him if he were dead, that he must a priori be a fake, etc.

Was Abraham thinking of the resurrection of Jesus himself, or did Jesus place these words in Abraham’s mouth as foretelling his own resurrection and its failure to persuade the Jews? This cannot be the intention because the risen Jesus never appeared to any but his own disciples as his chosen witnesses, and the parable speaks of Lazarus’ going πρὸςαὐτούς, “to the five brothers.” The proposition is general as it stands: “if anyone rise up from the dead,” and only so does it include Jesus, not as saying in any way that he will arise. The Word is the all-sufficient and therefore the only means of salvation. God not only furnishes no other means, he had no stronger means to furnish, or, as we may surely say, he would have furnished it. They who now resort to other means produce no saving faith, in fact, intend to reach heaven without such faith.

The parable has reached its end, for the great fact it intends to teach is presented fully. It has been allegorized in what is an astonishing way. We need waste no time in presenting this allegory and in showing the impossibility of such an interpretation. The Pharisees have their warning which is complete in every way.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.