Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 16:1
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luk 16:1-13. The Unjust Steward.
1. And he said also unto his disciples ] In interpreting the two following parables it is specially 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.
a certain rich man, which had a steward ] 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 (Tit 1:7) who are ‘required to be faithful,’ 1Co 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.
was accused ] In Classic Greek the word means ‘was slandered.’ Here it has the more general sense, but perhaps involves the notion of a secret accusation.
that he had wasted ] i.e., had squandered upon himself.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:31 . Rejected by the Samaritans. A lesson of Tolerance.
This section forms a great episode in St Luke, which may be called the departure for the final conflict, and is identical with the journey (probably to the Feast of the Dedication, Joh 10:22) which is partially Luk 9:51-56. And it came to pass, when the time was come that he touched upon in Mat 18:1 to Mat 20:16 and Mar 10:1-31. It contains many incidents recorded by this Evangelist alone, and though the recorded identifications of time and place are vague, yet they all point (Luk 9:51, Luk 13:22, Luk 17:11, Luk 10:38) to a slow, solemn, and public progress from Galilee to Jerusalem, of which the events themselves are often grouped by subjective considerations. So little certain is the order of the separate incidents, that one writer (Rev. W. Stewart) has made an ingenious attempt to shew that it is determined by the alphabetic arrangement of the leading Greek verbs ( , Luk 10:25-42; , Luk 11:1-5; Luk 11:8-13, &c.). Canon Westcott arranges the order thus: The Rejection of the Jews foreshewn; preparation, Luk 9:43 toLuk 11:13; Lessons of Warning, Luk 11:14 toLuk 13:9; Lessons of Progress, Luk 13:10 toLuk 14:24; Lessons of Discipleship, Luk 14:25 xvii. 10; the Coming End, Luk 17:10 toLuk 18:30.
The order of events after ‘the Galilaean spring’ of our Lord’s ministry on the plain of Gennesareth seems to have been this: After the period of flight among the heathen or in countries which were only semi-Jewish, of which almost the sole recorded incident is the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (Mat 15:21-28 ). He returned to Peraea and fed the four thousand. He then sailed back to Gennesareth, but left it in deep sorrow on being met by the Pharisees with insolent demands for a sign from heaven. Turning His back once more on Galilee, He again travelled northwards; healed a blind man at Bethsaida Julias; received St Peter’s great confession on the way to Caesarea Philippi; was transfigured; healed the demoniac boy; rebuked the ambition of the disciples by the example of the little child; returned for a brief rest in Capernaum, during which occurred the incident of the Temple Tax; then journeyed to the Feast of Tabernacles, during which occurred the incidents so fully narrated by St John (Joh 7:1 to Joh 10:21). The events and teachings in this great section of St Luke seem to belong mainly, if not entirely, to the two months between the hasty return of Jesus to Galilee and His arrival in Jerusalem, two months afterwards, at the Feast of Dedication; a period respecting which St Luke must have had access to special sources of information.
For fuller discussion of the question I must refer to my Life of Christ, ii. 89-150.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
His disciples – The word disciples, here, is not to be restricted to the twelve apostles or to the seventy. The parable appears to have been addressed to all the professed followers of the Saviour who were present when it was delivered. It is connected with that in the preceding chapter. Jesus had there been discoursing with the scribes and Pharisees, and vindicating his conduct in receiving kindly publicans and sinners. These publicans and sinners are here particularly referred to by the word disciples. It was with reference to them that the whole discourse had arisen. After Jesus had shown the Pharisees, in the preceding chapter, the propriety of his conduct, it was natural that he should turn and address his disciples. Among them there might have been some who were wealthy. The publicans were engaged in receiving taxes, in collecting money, and their chief danger arose from that quarter – from covetousness or dishonesty.
Jesus always adapted his instructions to the circumstances of his hearers, and it was proper, therefore, that he should give these disciples instructions about their special duties and dangers. He related this parable, therefore, to show them the danger of the love of money; the guilt it would lead to Luk 16:1; the perplexities and shifts to which it would drive a man when once he had been dishonest Luk 16:3-7; the necessity of using money aright, since it was their chief business Luk 16:9; and the fact that if they would serve God aright they must give up supreme attachment to money Luk 16:13; and that the first duty of religion demanded that they should resolve to serve God, and be honest in the use of the wealth intrusted to them. This parable has given great perplexity, and many ways have been devised to explain it. The above solution is the most simple of any; and if these plain principles are kept in view, it will not be difficult to give a consistent explanation of its particular parts. It should be borne in mind, however, that in this, as well as in other parables, we are not to endeavor to spiritualize every circumstance or allusion. We are to keep in view the great moral truth taught in it, that we cannot serve God and mammon, and that all attempts to do this will involve us in difficulty and sin.
A steward – One who has charge of the affairs of a family or household; whose duty it is to provide for the family, to purchase provisions, etc. This is, of course, an office of trust and confidence. It affords great opportunity for dishonesty and waste, and for embezzling property. The masters eye cannot always be on the steward, and he may, therefore, squander the property, or hoard it up for his own use. It was an office commonly conferred on a slave as a reward for fidelity, and of course was given to him that, in long service, had shown himself most trustworthy. By the rich man, here, is doubtless represented God. By the steward, those who are his professed followers, particularly the publicans who were with the Saviour, and whose chief danger arose from the temptations to the improper use of the money intrusted to them.
Was accused – Complaint was made.
Had wasted – Had squandered or scattered it; had not been prudent and saving.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Luk 16:1-8
There was a certain rich man, which had a steward
Christs servants are stewards
I.
SHOW WHAT THINGS THEY ARE ENTRUSTED WITH, THAT ARE NOT THEIR OWN.
1. All earthly good things, as riches, health, time, opportunities.
2. Also spiritual goods, viz., the gospel and its ministration, spiritual knowledge, gifts, grace, the worship of God, and His ordinances, promises, providences, and care of His holy temple or vineyard.
II. SHOW WHY WE MUST CAREFULLY IMPROVE ALL THINGS THAT ARE IN OUR HANDS.
1. Earthly things.
(1) Because, whatsoever we have put into our hands is to advance the honour of our great Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, and to refresh, comfort, and support the whole household where we are placed.
(2) Because we have nothing that is our own; it is our Lords goods.
(3) Because if we are not faithful in the least, it may stop the hand of Christ from giving the greater things to us.
(4) It will be otherwise a wrong and great injustice to the poor, or to such for the sake of whom they that are rich are entrusted with earthly wealth, in withholding that which is theirs by Christs appointment from them; and so a clear demonstration of unfaithfulness both to God and man; and it may provoke God to take away from them what they have.
(5) Because we must in a short time be called to give an account of our stewardship; we must expect to hear Christ say, What have you done with My gold and silver, My corn, My wool, and My flax? How is it that My poor have wanted bread and clothes, and My ministers have been neglected and forced to run into debt to buy necessaries to support their families?
(6) Because if these good things be not rightly and faith fully improved as Christ commands, His poor and His ministers may be exposed to great temptations, and their souls borne down and sorely discouraged; and Satan may get advantages against them, for many snares and dangers attend outward want; moreover the name of God and religion may also thereby be exposed to the contempt of the world. Who can believe we are the people of God, when they cannot see that love to one another among them which is the character of true Christians? Or how should they think that we believe the way we are in is the true way and worship of God?
2. Spiritual things.
(1) The gospel and its ministration, because it is given to the end that we may profit thereby. It is Christs chief treasure, and that which He intrusts very few with. If not improved, He may take it away from us, as He has already from others. When that goes, God, Christ, and all good goes, and all evil will come in.
(2) Spiritual gifts, knowledge, etc., because given for the use and profit of the Church; and they that have them are but stewards of them, which they are commanded to improve (1Pe 4:10). Use: Get your accounts ready; you know not but this night Christ may say, Give an account, etc. (B. Keach.)
All men are stewards of God
A friend stepping into the office of a Christian business man one day, noticed that he was standing at his desk with hit, hands full of banknotes, which he was carefully counting, as he laid them down one by one. After a brief silence the friend said: Mr. H—-, just count out ten pounds from that pile of notes and make yourself or some other person a life member of the Christian Giving Society! He finished his count, and quickly replied, Im handling trust funds now! His answer instantly flashed a light on the entire work and life of a Christian, and the friend replied to his statement with the question, Do you ever handle anything but trust funds? If Christians would only realize that all that God gives us is in trust, what a change would come over our use of money! Im handling trust funds now. Let the merchant write the motto over his desk; the farmer over the income of his farm; the labourer over his wages; the professional man over his salary; the banker over his income; the housekeeper over her house expense purse; the boy and girl over pocket money–and what a change would be made in our life. A business man who had made a donation of one thousand pounds to a Christian enterprise, once said in the hearing of the writer–I hold that a man is accountable for every sixpence he gets. There is the gospel idea of trust funds. Let parents instruct and train their children to handle trust funds as the stewards of Gods bounty, and there will be a new generation of Christians.
The proper improvement of temporal possessions
I. That the common maxims of human wisdom in the conduct of worldly affairs, and even those of carnal and unjust policy, may be usefully applied for our direction in the concerns of religion, and they reproach the folly and slothfulness of Christians in working out their salvation; the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.
II. The second observation is, that riches and other gifts of providence are but little in comparison with the greater and more substantial blessings which God is ready to bestow on His sincere and faithful servants; that these inferior things are committed to Christians as to stewards for the trial of their fidelity, and they who improve them carefully to the proper ends for which they were given, are entitled to the greater benefits which others forfeit, and render themselves unworthy of, by negligence and unfaithfulness. This is the meaning of the 10th and 11th verses–He who is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much; if, therefore, you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true richest We may further observe upon this head, that God hath wisely ordered the circumstances of this life in subordination to another. The enjoyments of our present state are the means of trying our virtue, and the occasions of exercising it, that so by a due improvement of them to that purpose, we may be prepared for the perfection of virtue, and complete happiness hereafter. This might be illustrated in a variety of particular instances–indeed, in the whole compass of our worldly affairs, which, according as they are conducted, either minister to virtue or vice. By the various uncertain events of life, as some are tempted to different distracting passions, to eager, anxious desire, to fear and sorrow, so there is to better disposed minds an opportunity of growing in self dominion, in an equal and uniform temper, and a more earnest prevalent desire of true goodness, which is immutable in all external changes; in afflictions there is a trial and an increase of patience, which is of so much moment as to be represented in Scripture as the height of religious perfection. Knowledge, likewise, is capable of being greatly improved for the service of mankind; and all our talents of this sort, which are distributed promiscuously to men, though little in themselves, and with respect to the main ends of our being, yet to the diligent and faithful servant, who useth them well and wisely for the cause of virtue, and under the direction of its principles, they bring great returns of real and solid benefit, which shall abide with him for ever. Thus it appeareth that Divine Providence hath wisely ordered the circumstances of our condition in this world, in our infancy of being, so that by the proper exercise of our own faculties, and the industrious improvement of the opportunities which are afforded us, we may be prepared for a better and happier state hereafter. But if, on the contrary, we are unjust to our great Master, and to ourselves, that is, to our highest interest, in the little, which is now committed to us, we thereby forfeit the greatest good we are capable of, and deprive ourselves of the true riches. If in the first trial which God taketh of us, as moral agents during our immature state, our state of childhood, we do not act a proper part, but are given up to indolence and sloth, and to a prodigal waste of our talents, the consequences of this folly and wickedness will naturally, and by the just judgment of God, cleave to us in every stage of our existence; of which there is a familiar instance every day before us in those unhappy persons who having from early youth obstinately resisted the best instructions, for the most part continue unreclaimed through their whole lives, and bring themselves to a miserable end. Let us, therefore, always consider ourselves as now under probation and discipline, and that eternal consequences of the greatest moment depend upon our present conduct.
III. The third observation is, THAT THE THINGS OF THIS WORLD COMMITTED TO OUR TRUST ARE NOT OUR OWN, BUT THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER; BUT THE GIFTS OF GOD, GRANTED AS THE REWARD OF OUR IMPROVING THEM FAITHFULLY, HAVE A NEARER AND MORE IMMEDIATE RELATION TO OURSELVES, AND A STRICT INSEPARABLE CONNECTION WITH OUR HAPPINESS. And if you have not been faithful in that which is anothers, who will give you that which is your own? (Luk 16:12.) The things which are said to be anothers, are, the unrighteous mammon, and others like it; God is the sovereign proprietor of them; they are foreign to the constitution of the human nature, and their usefulness to it is only accidental and temporary. But the other goods, virtuous integrity and the favour of God, enter deeper into the soul, and by its essential frame are a never-failing spring of joy and consolation to it in every state of existence.
It is very surprising that a man, who so much loveth and is devoted to himself, being naturally and necessarily so determined, should be so ignorant, as many are, what that self really is, and thereby be misled to place his affections on something else instead of it. By the least attention every man will see that what is meant by himself is the same person or intelligent agent, the thinking, conscious I, which remaineth unaltered in all changes of condition, from the remembrance of his earliest thoughts and actions to the present moment. How remote from this are riches, power, honour, health, strength, the matter ingredient in the composition of the body, and even its limbs, which may be all lost, and self still the same? These things, therefore, are not our own, meaning by that, what most properly and unalienably belongeth to ourselves; we hold them by an uncertain, precarious tenure, they come and go, while the same conscious, thinking being, which is strictly the man himself, continueth unchanged, in honour and dishonour, in riches and poverty, in sickness and health, and all the other differences of our outward state. But, on the contrary, state of religious virtue, which it is the intention of Christianity to bring us to, and which is the immediate effect of improving our talents diligently and faithfully, that kingdom of God which is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; this is of a quite different kind, it entereth into our very selves, and closely adhereth to us; it improveth our nature, refineth and enlargeth its noblest powers; it is so much our own, as to become our very temper, and the ruling bent of our minds; there is nothing we are more directly conscious of in ourselves than good dispositions and good actions proceeding from them, and the consciousness is always accompanied with delight. The good man is therefore satisfied from himself, because his satisfaction ariseth from a review of his goodness which is intimately his own. (J. Abernethy, M. A.)
Stewardship
I. THE OFFICE OF STEWARD.
1. A steward is a man who administers a property which is not his own. His relation to property is distinguished on the one hand from that of those who have nothing to do with the property, because the steward has everything to do with it that he can do for its advantage; and, on the other hand, from that of the owner of the property, because the steward is no sense the owner of it, but only the administrator. His duty towards it is dependent on the will of another, and it may terminate at any moment.
2. The office of a steward is before all things a trust. It represents in human affairs a venture which the owner of a property makes, upon the strength of his estimate of the character of the man to whom he delegates the care of the property.
3. An account must at some time be rendered to some one.
(1) We are accountable to public opinion.
(2) To our own conscience.
(3) To God. If man has no account to give, no wrong that he does has the least consequence.
If man has no account to give, no wrong that is done to him, and that is unpunished by human law, will ever be punished. If man has no account to give, life is a hideous chaos; it is a game of chance in which the horrible and the grotesque alternately; bury out of sight the very last vestiges of a moral order. If man has no account to give, the old Epicurean rule in all its profound degradation may have much to say for itself (1Co 15:32).
II. HUMAN LIFE IS A STEWARDSHIP. We are stewards, whether as men or as Christians; not less in the order of nature than in the order of grace.
1. Every owner of property is in Gods sight a steward of that property, and, sooner or later, He will demand an account. Has it, however little, been spent conscientiously; or merely as the passion or freak of the moment might suggest?
2. Or, the estate of which we are stewards is a more interesting and precious one than this. It is situated in the world of the mind, in the region where none but knowledge and speculation and imagination and taste have their place and sway. Yet all this is not ours, but Gods. He is the Author of the gifts which have laid out the weed of taste and thought and knowledge; and each contributor to that world, and each student, or even each loiterer in it, is only the steward, the trustee, of endowments, of faculties which, however intimately his own when we distinguish him from other men, are not his own when we look higher and place them in the light of the rights of God. Give an account of thy stewardship. The real Author and Owner of the gifts of mind sometimes utters this summons to His stewards before the time of death. He withdraws the mental life of man, and leaves him still with the animal life intact and vigorous. Go to a lunatic asylum, that most pitiable assortment of all the possibilities of human degradation, and mark there, at least among some of the sufferers, those who abuse the stewardship of intelligence.
3. Or, the estate of which we are stewards is something higher still. It is the creed which we believe, the hopes which we cherish, the religion in which we find our happiness and peace as Christians. With this treasure, which He has withheld from others, God has entrusted us Christians, in whatever measure, for our own good, and also for the good of our fellow-men. Religion, too, is a loan, a trust; it is not an inalienable property.
4. And then, growing out of those three estates, is the estate of influence–that subtle, inevitable effect for good or for ill which man exerts uponthe lives of those around him. The question is, what use are we making of it; how is it telling upon friends, acquaintances, servants, correspondents, those who know us only from a distance–are we helping them upwards or downwards, to heaven or to hell? Surely a momentous question for all of us, since of this stewardship events may summon us before the end comes to give account.
5. And a last estate of which we are but stewards, is health and life. This bodily frame, so fearfully and wonderfully made, of such subtle and delicate texture that the wonder is that it should bear the wear and tear of time, and last as long as for many of us it does–of this we are not owners, we are only stewards. It is most assuredly no creation of our own, this body; and He who gave it us will in any case one day withdraw His gift. And yet how many a man thinks in his secret heart that if he owns nothing else, he does at least own, as its absolute master might own, the fabric of flesh and bones, nerves and veins, in which his animal life resides: that with this, at least, he may rightfully do what he will, even abuse and ruin and irretrievably degrade, and even kill; that here no question of anothers right can possibly occur; that here he is master on his own ground, and not a steward. Oh, piteous forgetfulness in a man who believes that he has a Creator, and that that Creator has His rights! Oh, piteous ingratitude in a Christian, who should remember that he is not his own, but is bought with a price, and that therefore he should glorify God in his body no less than in his spirit, since both are Gods! Oh, piteous illusion, the solemn moment for dissipating which is ever hurrying on apace! The Author of health and life has His own time for bidding us give an account of this solemn stewardship–often, too, when it is least expected. (Canon Liddon)
Moral stewardship
I. MEN ARE STEWARDS.
1. In regard to their talents.
(1) Time.
(2) Money.
(3) Physical, mental, and moral abilities.
2. In regard to their privileges. Each privilege is a sacred talent, to be utilized for personal, spiritual end. Golden in character. Uncertain in continuance.
3. In regard to their opportunities. Men are responsible not only for what they do, but also for what they are capable of doing.
II. MEN ARE STEWARDS ONLY. Whatever we have, we have received, hold in trust, and must account for to God.
III. THE RECKONING DAY IS COMING.
1. The day of reckoning is certain.
2. Uncertain as to the time.
3. Divine in its procedure. God Himself will make the final award.
4. Solemn in its character.
5. Eternal in its issues.
Learn–
1. That moral responsibility is a solemn thing.
2. It is imposed upon us without our own consent.
3. That we cannot avert the day of reckoning.
4. That upon the proper use of our talents shall we reap the reward of life and blessedness.
5. That unfaithfulness to our solemn responsibilities will entail eternal disgrace and everlasting reprobation. (J. Tesseyman.)
The stewardship of life
I. THE TRUST REPOSED IN US–Thy stewardship. Stewardship is based upon the idea of anothers proprietorship.
1. Of the Divine Proprietorship.
2. Stewardship implies interests entrusted to human keeping and administration.
3. Stewardship implies human capability. Faithfulness cannot be compelled by an omnipotent Ruler. It is a subject of moral choice.
II. THE END OF OUR STEWARDSHIP AS HERE SUGGESTED–Give an account. Thou mayest be no longer steward. Moral responsibility is the solemn heritage of all rational intelligences.
1. The stewardship may be held to be determinable at death. Moral power continues, and moral obligations and duties rest on the spirit. So, there will be stewardship in eternity. But here the concern is with the deeds done in the body.
2. Stewardship may practically be determined before the last hour of mortal history. (The Preachers Monthly.)
The unjust steward
1. We are stewards, not proprietors.
2. Let me urge upon you to be faithful in whatsoever position in life you may be.
3. It is only as you are in Christ, and Christ in you, that you will be able to realize your true position, and act with true faithfulness. (A. F. Barfield.)
Christian prudence
I. THE OBLIGATION TO THIS.
1. Because we are dependent on God.
2. Because we are accountable to Him.
II. ITS PROPER NATURE.
1. In general.
(1) It is provident of the future.
(2) It conceals not from itself the true state of matters.
(3) It is inventive of means for its well-being.
(4) It forms its purpose with greatest determination.
(5) It discloses clearly who or what can be of service to it for the accomplishment of its purpose.
(6) It does not content itself with purposes, but goes immediately to action.
(7) It employs the time without delay.
(8) It transacts everything with careful consideration.
2. In particular.
(1) It employs temporal goods in well-doing.
(2) It is mindful of death and the day of reckoning.
(3) It has an eye to eternal bliss.
III. THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT.
1. It obtains the approval of the Lord and Judge of all.
2. It renders us capable and worthy of receiving greater, truer, abiding goods. (F. G. Lisco.)
Lessons:–
1. A regard to our own interest is a commendable principle. The great fault which men commit is, that they mistake the nature as well as the means of happiness.
2. There is another object which our Saviour has in view. It is to compare the sagacity and exertion which worldly men employ in order to attain their ends with the lukewarmness and negligence of the children of light. Do we not see with what ardour and perseverance those who place their happiness in wealth pursue their grand object?
3. We learn from parable, and the observations of our Saviour which accompany it, the manner in which riches may be applied for the advancement of happiness.
4. From this passage we may learn the benefit which good men may derive from observing the vices which prevail around them. This lesson our Saviour has taught us. By seeing vice, as it appears in the world, we may learn the nature and character, the effects and consequences of it.
5. But the principal object of this parable was evidently to teach us that the exercise of forethought is an important duty required of all Christians. Forethought, then, is necessary to reformation. It is not less necessary to improvement. For does not improvement presuppose that we seek or watch for opportunities of exercising our benevolent affections–of doing good and kind actions–and of supplying the importunate wants of the needy and the destitute? (J. Thomson, D. D.)
The unjust steward an example in one respect
If we were to wait for perfect men, men perfect in all parts and on all sides of their character, before admiring them or asking others to admire them, whom should we admire? what models or examples could we hold up before our children or our neighbours? Instead of turning so foolishly from the instruction human life offers us, we detach this quality or that from the character of men, and admire that, without for a moment meaning to set up all the man was or did as a complete model, an exact and full epitome of human excellence. We can call the attention of our children to the dexterity of a cricketer or a juggler without supposing, or being supposed, to make him the beau ideal of mental and moral character. We can admire Lord Bacon as one of the greatest and wisest of mankind, if we also admit him to have been one of the meanest. We can quote an eminent sceptic as a very model of patience and candour, yet deplore his scepticism. Both we and the Bible can detach noble qualities from the baser matter with which they are blended, and say, Imitate these men in what was noble, pure, lovely, without being supposed to add, and imitate them also in what was mean, weak, immoral. Why, then, should we deny our Lord the liberty we claim for ourselves? What should we expect of Him but the mode of teaching which pervades the Bible throughout? Above all, why should we suppose Him to approve what is evil in the men He puts before us, unless He expressly warns us against it, when we ourselves, and the inspired writers, seldom make any such provision against misconception? Read the parable honestly, and, according to all the analogies of human and inspired speech, you will expect to find some excellent quality in the steward which you will do well to imitate; but you will not for an instant suppose that it is his evil qualities which you are to approve. Do any ask, What was this excellent quality? Mark what it is, and what alone it is, that even his lord commends in the Unjust Steward. It is not his injustice, but his prudence. His lord commended him because he had done wisely–because on a critical occasion he had acted with a certain promptitude and sagacity, because he had seen his end clearly and gone straight at it. Did he not deserve the praise? (S. Cox)
Our stewardship
I. IN THE PRESENT LIFE EVERY ONE OF US HAS THE CHARACTER AND PLACE OF A STEWARD.
II. THE TIME OF OUR STEWARDSHIP WILL HAVE AN END.
1. It will end certainly at death.
2. It may end suddenly.
3. Our stewardship, once ended, shall be renewed no more. When death comes, our negligences and mismanagement are fatal.
III. ON OUR CEASING TO BE STEWARDS, AN ACCOUNT OF OUR STEWARDSHIP WILL BE REQUIRED.
1. Who must give an account? I answer, every one that lives and is here a steward.
2. To whom? And this is to God; to God by Christ, to whom all judgment is com-mitred.
3. Of what will an account be demanded? The text says, of our stewardship, i.e., how we have acted in it while it lasted.
4. When will such aa account be demanded? The Scripture tells us–
(1) Immediately upon every ones going out of his stewardship.
(2) Most solemnly at the last day.
5. what is conveyed in the expression, Give an account of thy stewardship?
(1) That God will deal with every one in particular.
(2) That notice is taken, and records kept of what every one now does, and this in order to a future judgment, when all is to be produced, and sentence publicly passed.
(3) Every ones account called for to be given, shall be according to the talents wherewith he was entrusted.
Application:
1. Is every one in the present life to be considered as a steward of all that he enjoys? How unreasonable is pride in those who have the largest share of their Lords goods; as they have nothing but what they have received, and the more their talents, the greater the trust.
2. What cause of serious concern have all that live under the gospel, left, as stewards of the manifold grace of God, they should receive it in vain, and have their future condemnation aggravated by their present advantages, as neglected or abused?
3. Will the time of our stewardship have an end? What a value should we put upon it, as a season in which we are to act for eternity.
4. The believer has no reason to faint under the difficulties of his stewardship; seeing it will have an end, a most desirable one; and neither the services nor sufferings of the present time are worthy to be compared to the glory to be revealed.
5. When our stewardship ends, must an account be given up? It is hence evident, that the soul survives the body, and is capable of acting and of being dealt with in a way of wrath or mercy, according to the state in which it goes away; and hereupon–
6. How great and important a thing is it to die; it being to go in spirit to appear before God, and give an account of all that we have done in the body, and to be dealt with accordingly? What is consequent upon it? (Daniel Wilcox.)
Faithful stewardship
In this parable the man was dispossessed from his place because he wasted goods which did not belong to him. He had been in various ways careless. The particular nature of his carelessness is not specified; but this is specified–that he was to be dispossessed because he was not faithful in the management of the property of another. Our subject, then, is: The use of funds not your own, but intrusted to your administration or keeping. Men think they have a complete case when they say, Here is a power in my hand for a definite end, and I shall use it for that end; but I find that it is a power which may accomplish more than that: it can do good for more than the owner. I can use it and derive benefit from it. I can also benefit the community by my operations. Besides, it will never be known. Therefore men who are weaker than I will not be tempted by my example to do the same thing. It will never injure the owner, it will help me, through me it will benefit many others, and no evil shall come from it. This would seem to make the thing secure; but let us examine the matter.
1. It would not be honest, and therefore it would not be wise, to use other peoples property for our own benefit, secretly, even if it were safe. If it did them no harm, if it did you good, and if nobody knew it, it would not be honest. You have no business to do it under any circumstances. And it does not make it any better that you have managerial care over property. In that event the sin is even greater; for you are bound to see to it that it is used for the purposes for which it was committed to your trust, and not for anything aside from that.
2. No man has a right to put property that is not his own to all the risks of commerce. What if a man thus employing trust funds does expect, what if he does mean, so and so? That is nothing. He might as well throw a babe out of a second-story window, and say that he hoped it would lodge in some tree and not be hurt, as to endanger the property of others held in trust by him, and say that he hopes it will not come to any harm. What has that to do with it? The chances are against its being safe.
3. No man has a right to put his own character for integrity and honesty upon a commercial venture. No man has a right to enter upon an enterprise where, if he succeeds, he may escape, but where, if he fails, he is ruined not simply in pocket, but in character; and yet this is what every man does who uses trust funds for his own purposes. He takes the risk of destroying himself in the eyes of honest men. He places his own soul in jeopardy.
4. No man has a right to put in peril the happiness, welfare, and good name of his family, of the neighbourhood, of the associates and friends with whom he has walked, of the Church with which he is connected, of his partners in business, of all that have been related to him.
5. No man has a right to undermine the security of property on which the welfare of individuals of the community depends in any degree. (H. W.Beecher.)
The Sunday-school teacher–a steward
I. First, then, THE STEWARD. WHAT IS HE?
1. In the first place the steward is a servant. He is one of the greatest of servants, but he is only a servant. No, we are nothing better than stewards, and we are to labour for our Master in heaven.
2. But still while the steward is a servant, he is an honourable one. Now, those who serve Christ in the office of teaching, are honourable men and women.
3. The steward is also a servant who has very great responsibility attached to his position. A sense of responsibility seems to a right man always a weighty thing.
II. And now, THE ACCOUNT–Give an account of thy stewardship. Let us briefly think of this giving an account of our stewardship.
1. Let us first notice that when we shall come to give an account of our stewardship before God, that account must be given in personally by every one of us. While we are here, we talk in the mass; but when we come before God, we shall have to speak as individuals.
2. And note again, that while this account must be personal it must be exact. You will not, when you present your account before God, present the gross total, but every separate item.
3. Now remember, once again, that the account must be complete. You will not be allowed to leave out something, you will not be allowed to add anything.
III. And now, though there are many other things I might say, I fear lest I might weary you, therefore let me notice some occasions when it will be WELL for you all to give an account of your stewardship; and then notice when you MUST give an account of it. You know there is a proverb that short reckonings make long friends, and a very true proverb it is. A man will always be at friendship with his conscience as long as he makes short reckonings with it. It was a good rule of the old Puritans, that of making frank and full confession of sin every night; not to leave a weeks sin to be confessed on Saturday night, or Sabbath morning, but to recall the failures, imperfections, and mistakes of the day, in order that we might learn from one day of failure how to achieve the victory on the morrow. Then, there are times which Providence puts in your way, which will be excellent seasons for reckoning. For instance, every time a boy or girl leaves the school, there is an opportunity afforded you of thinking. Then there is a peculiar time for casting up accounts when a child dies. But if you do not do it then, I will tell you when you must; that is when you come to die. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
A certain rich man had a steward
We learn here incidentally, how evenly balanced are the various conditions of life in a community, and how little of substantial advantage wealth can confer on its possessor. As your property increases, your personal control over it diminishes; the more you possess, the more you must entrust to others. Those who do their own work are not troubled with disobedient servants; those who look after their own affairs are not troubled with unfaithful overseers. (W. Arnot.)
Give an account of thy stewardship
An account demanded
1. An account of the blessings received, children of prosperity.
2. An account of the fruit of trial, members of the school of suffering!
3. An account of the time measured out to you, sons of mortality!
4. An account of the message of salvation received, ye that are shined upon by that light which is most cheering! (Van Oosterzee.)
How much owest thou unto my Lord?—
The obligations of Great Britain to the gospel
I. Our first appeal must be made to rest upon the BROAD BASIS OF OUR PRIVILEGES AS A NATION. How much, I ask, do we of this land owe to the God of all mercies, as inheritors of the noble patrimony of a constitutional government; as dwelling under the shadow of equal law; as enriched with a commerce which allies us with the most distant extremities of the earth; as honoured, in the great brotherhood of nations, for our literature, for our science, for our vanguard position in all the ennobling arts of life; as rich in agencies for promoting the physical and moral happiness of all classes of our people, providing for the young, the old, the fallen, the outcast–for the poor a shelter, and for the sick a home; as enjoying a liberty of thought and conscience, free as the winds which sweep round our shores, and yet as having a governing power over the opinions of other nations, which controls more than half the world? For how much of such blessings we are indebted to our Christianity, we may admit, it is not easy to determine. Here, then, I rest my first appeal to your gratitude as possessors of a national Christianity. Religion, says Burke, is the basis of civil society, and education in its truths is the chief defence of nations. It hallows the sanctions of law. It puts the seal of heaven on social order. It ministers to learning and the liberal arts. It strengthens the foundations of civil liberty. It refines the habits of domestic life. It makes each home that embraces it a centre of blessing to the neighbourhood, and every country that adorns and honours it a centre of light unto the world. And this is the religion which by the gospel is preached unto you. How much owest thou unto my Lord?
II. But let me urge a claim upon your gratitude, in the next place, ARISING OUT OF THAT PURE AND REFORMED FAITH, WHICH IN THIS COUNTRY IT IS OUR PRIVILEGE TO ENJOY. How much owest thou unto thy lord, for the glorious light and liberty of the Protestant faith, for the recovered independence of our ancient British Church, for the Protestantism of Ridley, and Latimer, Jewel, and other faithful men, who witnessed for the truth of God by their teaching, and some of them with their blood?
1. How much do we owe for a permanent standard of religious faith–for a form of sound words which yet bows implicitly to the decision of the sacred oracles to approve its soundness?
2. Again, how much do we owe for the clearer views–brought out anew as it were from the concealment and dust of ages–of the method of a sinners acceptance and justification, through faith in the merits of Christ to deliver, and by the influences of His Spirit to restore.
3. Again, we owe much to the men of those times for their vindication of the great principles of political and religious freedom, and the services thereby rendered to the cause of moral progress in the world.
III. I must not conclude, brethren, without urging upon you one form of gratitude, which, to those who have experience of it, will be far more constraining than any! have yet brought before you, I mean THE DEBT WHICH YOU OWE TO THE GOD OF ALL GRACE AS BEING YOURSELVES PARTAKERS OF THE SPIRIT AND HOPES OF THE GOSPEL. And I ask how much owest thou for a part in Christ, for a sense of forgiveness, for the weight lifted off the burdened conscience. (D. Moore, M. A.)
The universality of debt to God
I. I turn at first TO THE ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN and ask, How much owest thou unto my Lord?
II. Is any here A LOVER OF PLEASURE MORE THAN A LOVER OF GOD? How much owest thou unto my Lord? He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. O will ye defraud Jesus of the travail of His soul, by making an idol of the world and bowing down before it as before your God?
III. Are any among you offending God, BY DISREGARD OF HIS LAWS, OR UNBELIEF OF HIS GREAT SALVATION.
IV. There are persons who have DECLINED IN RELIGION. Ye did run well, who hath hindered you? O take with you words of penitence and sorrow, and turn to the Lord your God.
V. Once more. LET ME ADDRESS THE AFFLICTED SERVANT OF CHRIST, and say, How much owest thou unto my Lord? (R. P. Buddicom.)
Mans debt to his Maker
I. I might remind you, in the first place, of our obligations to God, AS CREATURES OF HIS HAND. He not only made us, but He preserves us; in Him we live, and move, and have our being. Are there no obligations that we have incurred, in consequence of our constant reception of these varied mercies at the hands of God?
II. But I proceed to take another view of our subject, and to remind you HOW WE ARE INDEBTED TO GOD AS SINNERS AGAINST HIS RIGHTEOUS LAW. You will remember that the blessed Saviour teaches us to look upon sins in the light of debts. Surely there is none present who would have the hardihood to say that he owes nothing (Jer 2:22-23).
III. Let me remind you next, of DUTIES THAT HAVE BEEN NEGLECTED. Alas I how long a list might here be made, in the catalogue of unworthiness, ingratitude, and guilt! To say nothing of our unprofitableness, under the public ordinances and means of grace, what says conscience as to our daily communion with God in privacy and retirement?
IV. I must remind you, further, of OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN UNIMPROVED. We have, first, the opportunities of gaining good, and then the opportunities of doing good.
V. But there is yet another view of our subject. How much do we owe unto Him, as those who have hopes of pardon through His mercy in Christ Jesus? (W. Cadman, M. A.)
Owing to God
A merchant, who was a God-fearing man, was very successful in business, but his soul did not seem to prosper accordingly; his offerings to the Lord he did not feel disposed to increase. One evening he had a remarkable dream; a visitor entered the apartment, and quietly looking round at the many elegancies and luxuries by which he was surrounded, without any comment, presented him with the receipts for his subscriptions to various societies, and urged their claims upon his enlarged sympathy. The merchant replied with various excuses, and at last grew impatient at the continued appeals. The stranger rose, and fixing his eye on his companion, said, in a voice that thrilled to his soul, One year ago tonight, you thought that your daughter lay dying; you could not rest for agony. Upon whom did you call that night? The merchant started and looked up; there seemed a change to have passed over the whole form of his visitor, whose eye was fixed upon him with a calm, penetrating look, as he continued–Five years ago, when you lay at the brink of the grave, and-thought that if you died then, you would leave a family unprovided for–do you remember how you prayed then? Who saved you then? Pausinga moment, he went on in a lower and still more impressive tone–Do you remember, fifteen years since, that time when you felt yourself so lost, so helpless, so hopeless; when you spent day and night in prayer; when you thought you would give the world for one hours assurance that your sins were forgiven–who listened to you then? It was my God and Saviour! said the merchant, with a sudden burst of remorseful feeling; oh yes, it was He! And has He ever complained of being called on too often? inquired the stranger, in a voice of reproachful sweetness. Say–are you willing to begin this night, and ask no more of Him, if He, from this time, will ask no more of you? Oh, never! never! said the merchant, throwing himself at his feet. The figure vanished, and he awoke; his whole soul stirred within him. O God and Saviour I what have I been doing! Take all–take everything I What is all that I have, to what Thou hast done for me?
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XVI.
The parable of the unjust steward, 1-8.
Christ applies this to his hearers, 9-13.
The pharisees take offence, 14.
Our Lord reproves them, and shows the immutability of the law,
15-17.
Counsels against divorce, 18.
The story of the rich man and the beggar, commonly called
Dives and Lazarus, 10-31.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVI.
Verse 1. A steward] , from , a house, or , a family, and , I administer; one who superintends domestic concerns, and ministers to the support of the family, having the products of the field, business, c., put into his hands for this very purpose. See Clarke on Lu 8:3.
There is a parable very like this in Rab. Dav. Kimchi’s comment on Isaiah, Isa 40:21: “The whole world may be considered as a house builded up: heaven is its roof the stars its lamps; and the fruits of the earth, the table spread. The owner and builder of this house is the holy blessed God; and man is the steward, into whose hands all the business of the house is committed. If he considers in his heart that the master of the house is always over him, and keeps his eye upon his work; and if, in consequence, he act wisely, he shall find favour in the eyes of the master of the house: but if the master find wickedness in him, he will remove him, min pakidato, from his STEWARDSHIP. The foolish steward doth not think of this: for as his eyes do not see the master of the house, he saith in his heart, ‘I will eat and drink what I find in this house, and will take my pleasure in it; nor shall I be careful whether there be a Lord over this house or not.’ When the Lord of the house marks this, he will come and expel him from the house, speedily and with great anger. Therefore it is written, He bringeth the princes to nothing.” As is usual, our Lord has greatly improved this parable, and made it in every circumstance more striking and impressive. Both in the Jewish and Christian edition, it has great beauties.
Wasted his goods.] Had been profuse and profligate; and had embezzled his master’s substance.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Hierom of old thought this parable was very obscure; and Julian and other apostates, together with some of the heathen philosophers, took occasion from it to reproach the doctrine of Christ, as teaching and commanding acts of unrighteousness. But there will appear no such difficulty in it, nor cause of reproach to Christ and his doctrine from it, if we consider what I have before hinted, that it is no more necessary to a parable that all the actions in it supposed be just and honest, than that all the parts of it be true in matter of fact, whether past or possible to be; for a parable is not designed to inform us in a matter of fact, but to describe to us our duty, under a fictitious representation: nor doth every part of a parable point at some correspondent duty to be done by us; but the main scope for which it is brought is principally to be attended to by us, and other pieces of duty which may be hinted to us, are to be judged of and proved not from the parable, but from other texts of holy writ where they are inculcated. The main things in which our Saviour seemeth desirous by this parable to instruct us, are,
1. That we are but stewards of the good things God lends us, and must give an account to our Master of them.
2. That being no more than stewards intrusted with some of our Masters goods for a time, it is our highest prudence, while we have them in our trust, to make such a use of them as may be for our advantage when we give up our account.
Thus we shall hear our Lord in the following verses expounding his own meaning. To this purpose he supposed a rich man to have a steward, and to have received some accusation against him, as if he embezzled his masters goods committed to his trust. Upon which he calleth him to account, and tells him that he should be his steward no longer. He supposes this steward to be one who had no other means of livelihood and subsistence than what his place afforded him, a than not used to labour, and too proud to beg. At length he fixed his resolution, to send for his masters debtors, and to abate their obligations, making them debtors to his master for much less than indeed they were; by this means he probably hoped, that when he was turned off from his master he should be received by them. He supposes his master to have heard of it, and to have commended him, not for his honesty, but for his wit in providing for the time to come. What was knavery in this steward, is honest enough in those who are the stewards of our heavenly Lords goods, suppose riches, honours, parts, health, life, or any outward accommodation, viz. to use our Lords goods for the best profit and advantage to ourselves, during such time as we are intrusted with them. For though an earthly lord and his steward have particular divided interests, and he that maketh use of his lords goods for his own best advantage cannot at the same time make use of them for the best advantage of his master, yet the case is different betwixt our heavenly Lord and us. It hath pleased God so to twist the interest of his glory with our highest good, that no man can better use his Masters goods for the advantage of his glory, than he who best useth them for the highest good, profit, and advantage to himself; nor doth any man better use them for his own interest, than he who best useth them for Gods glory. So as here the parable halteth, by reason of the disparity betwixt the things that are compared. And though the unjust steward could not be commended for the honesty, but only for the policy, of his action, yet we who are stewards of the gifts of God, in doing the like, that is, making use of our Masters goods for our own best profit and advantage, may act not only wisely, but also honestly; and indeed Christ in this parable blames men for not doing so:
The children of this world (saith he) are wiser in their generation than the children of light. By the children of this world, he meaneth such as this steward was, men who regard not eternity or the concerns of their immortal souls, but only regard the things of this life, what they shall eat, or drink, or put on. By
the children of light, he meaneth such as live under the light of the gospel, and receive the common illumination of the gospel; though if we yet understand it more strictly, of those who are
translated out of darkness into marvellous light, it is too true, they are not so wise, and politic, and industrious for heaven, as worldly men are to obtain their ends in getting the world. He saith,
the men of this world are wiser in their generation, that is, in their kind, as to those things about which they exercise their wit and policy, than the children of God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. stewardmanager of hisestate.
accusedinformed upon.
had wastedrather, “waswasting.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he said also to his disciples,…. The Syriac version adds, “a parable”, as the following is; and which is directed to the disciples, as those in the preceding chapter are to the Pharisees; and who also are designed in this; though it is particularly spoken to the disciples, because it might be of some use to them, with respect, to the stewardship they were in. The Persic and Ethiopic versions read, “Jesus”, or “the Lord Jesus said”: and which is to be understood, though not expressed; for the parable was delivered by him, and is as follows:
there was a certain rich man: by whom God is meant, who is rich in the perfections of his nature, in the works of his hands, in his government, and the administration of it, in providential goodness, and in the large revenues of glory due to him from his creatures; for all temporal riches are from him; and so are all the riches of mercy, grace, and glory:
which had a steward; by whom is designed, not all mankind; for though all men are, in a sense, stewards under God, and are entrusted with the good things of life, the gifts of nature, endowments of mind, health, strength of body, time, c. yet all cannot be meant, because some are distinguished from this steward, Lu 16:5 nor are the disciples intended, though the parable is directed to them and they were stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God; and one among them was an unfaithful one, and was turned out of his stewardship; but the character of an unjust man will not suit with them: and besides, this steward was of the children of this world,
Lu 16:8 but the Pharisees are meant: for these are taken notice of as gravelled at this parable, Lu 16:14 and to them agrees the character of the men of this world, who were worldly wise men; as also that of a steward; these are the tutors and governors mentioned in Ga 4:2 who had the care of the house of Israel, the family of God, under the legal dispensation; and to whom were committed the oracles of God, the writings of Moses, and the prophets; and whose business it was to open and explain them to the people.
And the same was accused unto him, that he had wasted his goods; put false glosses upon the Scriptures; fed the family with bad and unwholesome food, the traditions of the elders, called the leaven of the Pharisees: made havoc of the souls of men; and made the hearts of the righteous sad: and hardened sinners in their wicked ways: and fed themselves, and not the flock; and plundered persons of their temporal substance; of all which they were accused by Moses, in whom they trusted; by his law which they violated; and by their own consciences, which witnessed against them; and by the cries of those whom they abused, which came into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Unjust Steward. |
| |
1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. 2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. 5 So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6 And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. 7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. 8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. 10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? 13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
We mistake if we imagine that the design of Christ’s doctrine and holy religion was either to amuse us with notions of divine mysteries or to entertain us with notions of divine mercies. No, the divine revelation of both these in the gospel is intended to engage and quicken us to the practice of Christian duties, and, as much as any one thing, to the duty of beneficence and doing good to those who stand in need of any thing that either we have or can do for them. This our Saviour is here pressing us to, by reminding us that we are but stewards of the manifold grace of God; and since we have in divers instances been unfaithful, and have forfeited the favour of our Lord, it is our wisdom to think how we may, some other way, make what we have in the world turn to a good account. Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord, but that, in the general, we must so lay out what we have in works of piety and charity as that we may meet it again with comfort on the other side death and the grave. If we would act wisely, we must be diligent and industrious to employ our riches in the acts of piety and charity, in order to promote our future and eternal welfare, as worldly men are in laying them out to the greatest temporal profit, in making to themselves friends with them, and securing other secular interests. So Dr. Clarke. Now let us consider,
I. The parable itself, in which all the children of men are represented as stewards of what they have in this world, and we are but stewards. Whatever we have, the property of it is God’s; we have only the use of it, and that according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. Rabbi Kimchi, quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, says, “This world is a house; heaven the roof; the stars the lights; the earth, with its fruits, a table spread; the Master of the house is the holy and blessed God; man is the steward, into whose hands the goods of this house are delivered; if he behave himself well, he shall find favour in the eyes of his Lord; if not, he shall be turned out of his stewardship.” Now,
1. Here is the dishonesty of this steward. He wasted his lord’s goods, embezzled them, misapplied them, or through carelessness suffered them to be lost and damaged; and for this he was accused to his lord, v. 1. We are all liable to the same charge. We have not made a due improvement of what God has entrusted us with in this world, but have perverted his purpose; and, that we may not be for this judged of our Lord, it concerns us to judge ourselves.
2. His discharge out of his place. His lord called for him, and said, “How is it that I hear this of thee? I expected better things from thee.” He speaks as one sorry to find himself disappointed in him, and under a necessity of dismissing him from his service: it troubles him to hear it; but the steward cannot deny it, and therefore there is no remedy, he must make up his accounts; and be gone in a little time, v. 2. Now this is designed to teach us, (1.) That we must all of us shortly be discharged from our stewardship in this world; we must not always enjoy those things which we now enjoy. Death will come, and dismiss us from our stewardship, will deprive us of the abilities and opportunities we now have of doing good, and others will come in our places and have the same. (2.) That our discharge from our stewardship at death is just, and what we have deserved, for we have wasted our Lord’s goods, and thereby forfeited our trust, so that we cannot complain of any wrong done us. (3.) That when our stewardship is taken from us we must give an account of it to our Lord: After death the judgment. We are fairly warned both of our discharge and our account, and ought to be frequently thinking of them.
3. His after-wisdom. Now he began to consider, What shall I do? v. 3. He would have done well to have considered this before he had so foolishly thrown himself out of a good place by his unfaithfulness; but it is better to consider late than never. Note, Since we have all received notice that we must shortly be turned out of our stewardship, we are concerned to consider what we shall do then. He must live; which way shall he have a livelihood? (1.) He knows that he has not such a degree of industry in him as to get his living by work: “I cannot dig; I cannot earn by bread by my labour.” But why can he not dig? It does not appear that he is either old or lame; but the truth is, he is lazy. His cannot is a will not; it is not a natural but a moral disability that he labours under; if his master, when he turned him out of the stewardship, had continued him in his service as a labourer, and set a task-master over him, he would have made him dig. He cannot dig, for he was never used to it. Now this intimates that we cannot get a livelihood for our souls by any labour for this world, nor indeed do any thing to purpose for our souls by any ability of our own. (2.) He knows that he has not such a degree of humility as to get his bread by begging: To beg I am ashamed. This was the language of his pride, as the former of his slothfulness. Those whom God, in his providence, has disabled to help themselves, should not be ashamed to ask relief of others. This steward had more reason to be ashamed of cheating his master than of begging his bread. (3.) He therefore determines to make friends of his lord’s debtors, or his tenants that were behind with their rent, and had given notes under their hands for it: “I am resolved what to do, v. 4. My lord turns me out of his house. I have none of my own to go to. I am acquainted with my lord’s tenants, have done them many a good turn, and now I will do them one more, which will so oblige them that they will bid me welcome to their houses, and the best entertainment they afford; and so long as I live, at least till I can better dispose of myself, I will quarter upon them, and go from one good house to another.” Now the way he would take to make them his friends was by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord, and giving it in his accounts so much less than it was. Accordingly, he sent for one, who owed his lord a hundred measures of oil (in that commodity he paid his rent): Take thy bill, said he, here it is, and sit down quickly, and write fifty (v. 6); so he reduced his debt to the one half. Observe, he was in haste to have it done: “Sit down quickly, and do it, lest we be taken treating, and suspected.” He took another, who owed his lord a hundred measures of wheat, and from his bill he cut off a fifth part, and bade him write fourscore (v. 7); probably he did the like by others, abating more or less according as he expected kindness from them. See here what uncertain things our worldly possessions are; they are most so to those who have most of them, who devolve upon others all the care concerning them, and so put it into their power to cheat them, because they will not trouble themselves to see with their own eyes. See also what treachery is to be found even among those in whom trust is reposed. How hard is it to find one that confidence can be reposed in! Let God be true, but every man a liar. Though this steward is turned out for dealing dishonestly, yet still he does so. So rare is it for men to mend of a fault, though they smart for it.
4. The approbation of this: The lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely, v. 8. It may be meant of his lord, the lord of that servant, who, though he could not but be angry at his knavery, yet was pleased with his ingenuity and policy for himself; but, taking it so, the latter part of the verse must be the words of our Lord, and therefore I think the whole is meant of him. Christ did, as it were, say, “Now commend me to such a man as this, that knows how to do well for himself, how to improve a present opportunity, and how to provide for a future necessity.” He does not commend him because he had done falsely to his master, but because he had done wisely for himself. Yet perhaps herein he did well for his master too, and but justly with the tenants. He knew what hard bargains he had set them, so that they could not pay their rent, but, having been screwed up by his rigour, were thrown behindhand, and they and their families were likely to go to ruin; in consideration of this, he now, at going off, did as he ought to do both in justice and charity, not only easing them of part of their arrears, but abating their rent for the future. How much owest thou? may mean, “What rent dost thou sit upon? Come, I will set thee an easier bargain, and yet no easier than what thou oughtest to have.” He had been all for his lord, but now he begins to consider the tenants, that he might have their favour when he had lost his lord’s. The abating of their rent would be a lasting kindness, and more likely to engage them than abating their arrears only. Now this forecast of his, for a comfortable subsistence in this world, shames our improvidence for another world: The children of this world, who choose and have their portions in it, are wiser for their generation, act more considerately, and better consult their worldly interest and advantage, than the children of light, who enjoy the gospel, in their generation, that is, in the concerns of their souls and eternity. Note, (1.) The wisdom of worldly people in the concerns of this world is to be imitated by us in the concerns of our souls: it is their principle to improve their opportunities, to do that first which is most needful, in summer and harvest to lay up for winter, to take a good bargain when it is offered them, to trust the faithful and not the false. O that we were thus wise in our spiritual affairs! (2.) The children of light are commonly outdone by the children of this world. Not that the children of this world are truly wise; it is only in their generation. But in that they are wiser than the children of light in theirs; for, though we are told that we must shortly be turned out of our stewardship, yet we do not provide as we were to be here always and as if there were not another life after this, and are not so solicitous as this steward was to provide for hereafter. Though as children of the light, that light to which life and immortality are brought by the gospel, we cannot but see another world before us, yet we do not prepare for it, do not send our best effects and best affections thither, as we should.
II. The application of this parable, and the inferences drawn from it (v. 9): “I say unto you, you my disciples” (for to them this parable is directed, v. 1), “though you have but little in this world, consider how you may do good with that little.” Observe,
1. What it is that our Lord Jesus here exhorts us to; to provide for our comfortable reception to the happiness of another world, by making good use of our possessions and enjoyments in this world: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, as the steward with his lord’s goods made his lord’s tenants his friends.” It is the wisdom of the men of this world so to manage their money as that they may have the benefit of it hereafter, and not for the present only; therefore they put it out to interest, buy land with it, put it into this or the other fund. Now we should learn of them to make use of our money so as that we may be the better for it hereafter in another world, as they do in hopes to be the better for it hereafter in this world; so cast it upon the waters as that we may find it again after many days, Eccl. xi. 1. And in our case, though whatever we have are our Lord’s goods, yet, as long as we dispose of them among our Lord’s tenants and for their advantage, it is so far from being reckoned a wrong to our Lord, that it is a duty to him as well as policy for ourselves. Note, (1.) The things of this world are the mammon of unrighteousness, or the false mammon, not only because often got by fraud and unrighteousness, but because those who trust to it for satisfaction and happiness will certainly be deceived; for riches are perishing things, and will disappoint those that raise their expectations from them. (2.) Though this mammon of unrighteousness is not to be trusted to for a happiness, yet it may and must be made use of in subserviency to our pursuit of that which is our happiness. Though we cannot find true satisfaction in it, yet we may make to ourselves friends with it, not by way of purchase or merit, but recommendation; so we may make God and Christ our friends, the good angels and saints our friends, and the poor our friends; and it is a desirable thing to be befriended in the account and state to come. (3.) At death we must all fail, hotan eklipete—when ye suffer an eclipse. Death eclipses us. A tradesman is said to fail when he becomes a bankrupt. We must all thus fail shortly; death shuts up the shop, seals up the hand. Our comforts and enjoyments on earth will all fail us; flesh and heart fail. (4.) It ought to be our great concern to make it sure to ourselves, that when we fail at death we may be received into everlasting habitations in heaven. The habitations in heaven are everlasting, not made with hands, but eternal, 2 Cor. v. 1. Christ is gone before, to prepare a place for those that are his, and is there ready to receive them; the bosom of Abraham is ready to receive them, and, when a guard of angels carries them thither, a choir of angels is ready to receive them there. The poor saints that are gone before to glory will receive those that in this world distributed to their necessities. (5.) This is a good reason why we should use what we have in the world for the honour of God and the good of our brethren, that thus we may with them lay up in store a good bond, a good security, a good foundation for the time to come, for an eternity to come. See 1 Tim. vi. 17-19, which explains this here.
2. With what arguments he presses this exhortation to abound in works of piety and charity.
(1.) If we do not make a right use of the gifts of God’s providence, how can we expect from him those present and future comforts which are the gifts of his spiritual grace? Our Saviour here compares these, and shows that though our faithful use of the things of this world cannot be thought to merit any favour at the hand of God, yet our unfaithfulness in the use of them may be justly reckoned a forfeiture of that grace which is necessary to bring us to glory, and that is it which our Saviour here shows, v. 10-14.
[1.] The riches of this world are the less; grace and glory are the greater. Now if we be unfaithful in the less, if we use the things of this world to other purposes than those for which they were given us, it may justly be feared that we should be so in the gifts of God’s grace, that we should receive them also in vain, and therefore they will be denied us: He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. He that serves God, and does good, with his money, will serve God, and do good, with the more noble and valuable talents of wisdom and grace, and spiritual gifts, and the earnests of heaven; but he that buries the one talent of this world’s wealth will never improve the five talents of spiritual riches. God withholds his grace from covetous worldly people more than we are aware of. [2.] The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain; they are the unrighteous mammon, which is hastening from us apace, and, if we would make any advantage of it, we must bestir ourselves quickly; if we do not, how can we expect to be entrusted with spiritual riches, which are the only true riches? v. 11. Let us be convinced of this, that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich towards God, rich in Christ, in the promises, and in the earnests of heaven; and therefore let us lay up our treasure in them, expect our portion from them, and mind them in the first place, the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof, and then, if other things be added to us, use them in ordine ad spiritualia–with a spiritual reference, so that by using them well we may take the faster hold of the true riches, and may be qualified to receive yet more grace from God; for God giveth to a man that is good in his sight, that is, to a free-hearted charitable man, wisdom, and knowledge, and joy (Eccl. ii. 26); that is, to a man that is faithful in the unrighteous mammon, he gives the true riches. [3.] The riches of this world are another man’s. They are ta allotria, not our own; for they are foreign to the soul and its nature and interest. They are not our own; for they are God’s; his title to them is prior and superior to ours; the property remains in him, we are but usufructuaries. They are another man’s; we have them from others; we use them for others, and what good has the owner from his goods that increase, save the beholding of them with his eyes, while still they are increased that eat them; and we must shortly leave them to others, and we know not to whom? But spiritual and eternal riches are our own (they enter into the soul that becomes possessed of them) and inseparably; they are a good part that will never be taken away from us. If we make Christ our own, and the promises our own, and heaven our own, we have that which we may truly call our own. But how can we expect God should enrich us with these if we do not serve him with our worldly possessions, of which we are but stewards?
(2.) We have no other way to prove ourselves the servants of God than by giving up ourselves so entirely to his service as to make mammon, that is, all our worldly gain, serviceable to us in his service (v. 13): No servant can serve two masters, whose commands are so inconsistent as those of God and mammon are. If a man will love the world, and hold to that, it cannot be but he will hate God and despise him. He will make all his pretensions of religion truckle to his secular interests and designs, and the things of God shall be made to help him in serving and seeking the world. But, on the other hand, if a man will love God, and adhere to him, he will comparatively hate the world (whenever God and the world come in competition) and will despise it, and make all his business and success in the world some way or other conducive to his furtherance in the business of religion; and the things of the world shall be made to help him in serving God and working out his salvation. The matter is here laid plainly before us: Ye cannot serve God and mammon. So divided are their interests that their services can never be compounded. If therefore we be determined to serve God, we must disclaim and abjure the service of the world.
3. We are here told what entertainment this doctrine of Christ met with among the Pharisees, and what rebuke he gave them.
(1.) They wickedly ridiculed him, v. 14. The Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things, and could not contradict him, but they derided him. Let us consider this, [1.] As their sin, and the fruit of their covetousness, which was their reigning sin, their own iniquity. Note, Many that make a great profession of religion, have much knowledge, and abound in the exercise of devotion, are yet ruined by the love of the world; nor does any thing harden the heart more against the word of Christ. These covetous Pharisees could not bear to have that touched, which was their Delilah, their darling lust; for this they derided him, exemykterizon auton—they snuffled up their noses at him, or blew their noses on him. It is an expression of the utmost scorn and disdain imaginable; the word of the Lord was to them a reproach, Jer. vi. 10. They laughed at him for going so contrary to the opinion and way of the world, for endeavouring to recover them from a sin which they were resolved to hold fast. Note, It is common for those to make a jest of the word of God who are resolved that they will not be ruled by it; but they will find at last that it cannot be turned off so. [2.] As his suffering. Our Lord Jesus endured not only the contradiction of sinners, but their contempt; they had him in derision all the day. He that spoke as never man spoke was bantered and ridiculed, that his faithful ministers, whose preaching is unjustly derided, may not be disheartened at it. It is no disgrace to a man to be laughed at, but to deserve to be laughed at. Christ’s apostles were mocked, and no wonder; the disciple is not greater than his Lord.
(2.) He justly reproved them; not for deriding him (he knew how to despise the shame), but for deceiving themselves with the shows and colours of piety, when they were strangers to the power of it, v. 15. Here is,
[1.] Their specious outside; nay, it was a splendid one. First, They justified themselves before men; they denied whatever ill was laid to their charge, even by Christ himself. They claimed to be looked upon as men of singular sanctity and devotion, and justified themselves in that claim: “You are they that do that, so as none ever did, that make it your business to court the opinion of men, and, right or wrong, will justify yourselves before the world; you are notorious for this.” Secondly, They were highly esteemed among men. Men did not only acquit them from any blame they were under, but applauded them, and had them in veneration, not only as good men, but as the best of men. Their sentiments were esteemed as oracles, their directions as laws, and their practices as inviolable prescriptions.
[2.] Their odious inside, which was under the eye of God: “He knows your heart, and it is in his sight an abomination; for it is full of all manner of wickedness.” Note, First, It is folly to justify ourselves before men, and to think this enough to bear us out, and bring us off, in the judgment of the great day, that men know no ill of us; for God, who knows our hearts, knows that ill of us which no one else can know. This ought to check our value for ourselves, and our confidence in ourselves, that God knows our hearts, and how much deceit is there, for we have reason to abase and distrust ourselves. Secondly, It is folly to judge of persons and things by the opinion of men concerning them, and to go down with the stream of vulgar estimate; for that which is highly esteemed among men, who judge according to outward appearance, is perhaps an abomination in the sight of God, who sees things as they are, and whose judgment, we are sure, is according to truth. On the contrary, there are those whom men despise and condemn who yet are accepted and approved of God, 2 Cor. x. 18.
(3.) He turned from them to the publicans and sinners, as more likely to be wrought upon by his gospel than those covetous conceited Pharisees (v. 16): “The law and the prophets were indeed until John; the Old-Testament dispensation, which was confined to you Jews, continued till John Baptist appeared, and you seemed to have the monopoly of righteousness and salvation; and you are puffed up with this, and this gains you esteem among men, that you are students in the law and the prophets; but since John Baptist appeared the kingdom of God is preached, a New-Testament dispensation, which does not value men at all for their being doctors of the law, but every man presses into the gospel kingdom, Gentiles as well as Jews, and no man thinks himself bound in good manners to let his betters go before him into it, or to stay till the rulers and the Pharisees have led him that way. It is not so much a political national constitution as the Jewish economy was, when salvation was of the Jews; but it is made a particular personal concern, and therefore every man that is convinced he has a soul to save, and an eternity to provide for, thrusts to get in, lest he should come short by trifling and complimenting.” Some give this sense of it; they derided Christ or speaking in contempt of riches, for, thought they, were there not many promises of riches and other temporal good things in the law and the prophets? And were not many of the best of God’s servants very rich, as Abraham and David? “It is true,” saith Christ, “so it was, but now that the kingdom of God is begun to be preached things take a new turn; now blessed are the poor, and the mourners, and the persecuted.” The Pharisees, to requite the people for their high opinion of them, allowed them in a cheap, easy, formal religion. “But,” saith Christ, “now that the gospel is preached the eyes of the people are opened, and as they cannot now have a veneration for the Pharisees, as they have had, so they cannot content themselves with such an indifferency in religion as they have been trained up in, but they press with a holy violence into the kingdom of God.” Note, Those that would go to heaven must take pains, must strive against the stream, must press against the crowd that are going the contrary way.
(4.) Yet still he protests against any design to invalidate the law (v. 17): It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, parelthein—to pass by, to pass away, though the foundations of the earth and the pillars of heaven are so firmly established, than for one tittle of the law to fail. The moral law is confirmed and ratified, and not one tittle of that fails; the duties enjoined by it are duties still; the sins forbidden by it are sins still. Nay, the precepts of it are explained and enforced by the gospel, and made to appear more spiritual. The ceremonial law is perfected in the gospel colours; not one tittle of that fails, for it is found printed off in the gospel, where, though the force of it is as a law taken off, yet the figure of it as a type shines very brightly, witness the epistle to the Hebrews. There were some things which were connived at by the law, for the preventing of greater mischiefs, the permission of which the gospel has indeed taken away, but without any detriment or disparagement to the law, for it has thereby reduced them to the primitive intention of the law, as in the case of divorce (v. 18), which we had before, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9. Christ will not allow divorces, for his gospel is intended to strike at the bitter root of men’s corrupt appetites and passions, to kill them, and pluck them up; and therefore they must not be so far indulged as that permission did indulge them, for the more they are indulged the more impetuous and headstrong they grow.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Unto the disciples ( ). The three preceding parables in chapter 15 exposed the special faults of the Pharisees, “their hard exclusiveness, self-righteousness, and contempt for others” (Plummer). This parable is given by Luke alone. The (also) is not translated in the Revised Version. It seems to mean that at this same time, after speaking to the Pharisees (chapter 15), Jesus proceeds to speak a parable to the disciples (16:1-13), the parable of the Unjust Steward. It is a hard parable to explain, but Jesus opens the door by the key in verse 9.
Which had a steward ( ). Imperfect active, continued to have. Steward is house-manager or overseer of an estate as already seen in Lu 12:42.
Was accused (). First aorist indicative passive, of , an old verb, but here only in the N.T. It means to throw across or back and forth, rocks or words and so to slander by gossip. The word implies malice even if the thing said is true. The word (slanderer) is this same root and it is used even of women, she-devils (1Ti 3:11).
That he was wasting ( ). For the verb see on 15:13. The use of with the participle is a fine Greek idiom for giving the alleged ground of a charge against one.
His goods ( ). “His belongings,” a Lukan idiom.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Steward [] . From oikov, a house, and nemw, to distribute or dispense. Hence, one who assigns to the members of the household their several duties, and pays to each his wages. The paymaster. He kept the household stores under lock and seal, giving out what was required; and for this purpose received a signet – ring from his master. Wyc., fermour, or farmer. Here probably the land – steward.
Was accused [] . Only here in New Testament. From dia, over, across, and ballw, to throw. To carry across, and hence to carry reports, etc., from one to another; to carry false reports, and so to calumniate or slander. See on devil, Mt 4:1. The word implies malice, but not necessarily falsehood. Compare Latin traducere (trans, over, ducere, to lead), whence traduce.
Had wasted [ ] . Lit., as wasting. Rev., was wasting; not merely a past offense, but something going on at the time of the accusation. See ch. Luk 14:13.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
THE UNJUST STEWARD PARABLE V. 1-13
1) “And he said also unto his disciples,” (elegen de kai pros tous mathetas) “Then he said also directly to the disciples,” to His chosen followers and witnesses who had been in covenant affinity church fellowship with Him, from the beginning, Joh 15:16-17. This was spoken to warn them of two things: 1) First, the covetousness of publicans who unscrupulously sought to amass fortunes, and 2) Second, against covetousness of the Pharisees, Luk 16:14.
2) “There was a certain rich man,” (anthropos tis en plousios) “There was a certain rich (plutocratic) man,” representing perhaps in this instance, God, who owns all things, Psa 24:1; 1Co 10:26.
3) “Which had a steward;” (hos eichen oikonomon) “Who had an house-governor or steward,” Gen 24:2; Luk 12:42; 1Pe 4:10, One who had been entrusted with certain properties to manage for him, and give account, 1Co 4:2. To some extent every true church disciple is a steward, accountable for all, not just a tithe of what God puts into his hands, 1Co 3:8-9; 2Co 5:10.
4) “And the same was accused unto him,” (kai houtos dieblethe auto) “And this was charged of him,” against him, perhaps both maliciously, to hurt him, and because it was true. Perhaps it was private information, Rom 12:10.
5) “That he had wasted his goods.” (hos diaskorpizon ta huparchonta autou) “That he had wasted the man’s possessions,” squandered them and was continually wasting them, or scattering them, squandering them on every hand.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
The leading object of this parable is, to show that we ought to deal kindly and generously with our neighbors; that, when we come to the judgment seat of God, we may reap the fruit of our liberality. Though the parable appears to be harsh and far-fetched, yet the conclusion makes it evident, that the design of Christ was nothing else than what I have stated. And hence we see, that to inquire with great exactness into every minute part of a parable is an absurd mode of philosophizing. Christ does not advise us to purchase by large donations the forgiveness of fraud, and of extortion, and of wasteful expenditure, and of the other crimes associated with unfaithful administration. But as all the blessings which God confers upon us are committed by Him to our administration, our Lord now lays down a method of procedure, which will protect us against being treated with rigor, when we come to render our account.
They who imagine that alms are a sufficient compensation for sensuality and debauchery, do not sufficiently consider, that the first injunction given us is, to live in sobriety and temperance; and that the next is, that the streams which flow to us come from a pure fountain. It is certain that no man is so frugal, as not sometimes to waste the property which has been entrusted to him; and that even those who practice the most rigid economy are not entirely free from the charge of unfaithful stewardship. Add to this, that there are so many ways of abusing the gifts of God, that some incur guilt in one way, and some in another. I do not even deny, that the very consciousness of our own faulty stewardship ought to be felt by us as an additional excitement to kind actions.
But we ought to have quite another object in view, than to escape the judgment of God by paying a price for our redemption; and that object is, first, that seasonable and well-judged liberality may have the effect of restraining and moderating unnecessary expenses; and, secondly, that our kindness to our brethren may draw down upon us the mercy of God. It is very far from being the intention of Christ to point out to his disciples a way of escape, when the heavenly Judge shall require them to give their account; but he warns them to lose no time in guarding against the punishment which will await their cruelty, if they are found to have swallowed up the gifts of God, and to have paid no attention to acts of beneficence. (297) We must always attend to this maxim, that
with what measure a man measures, it shall be recompensed to him again, (Mat 7:2.)
(297) “ S’il est trouve qu’ils n’ayent en aucun soin d’exercer charite envers leurs prochains, et n’ayent pense qu’a despendre en tout exces et a leur plaisir, les biens de Dieu;” — “if it is found that they have given themselves no concern about exercising charity to their neighbors, and have thought only of spending in every excess, and at their own pleasure, the gifts of God.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
Luk. 16:1. And He said also.This implies that there is a certain, though perhaps not very close, connection between the discourse in this chapter and that which precedes it. The chapter mainly consists of two parables bearing upon the right use of riches in this world with regard to the prospect of another world. This subject was specially appropriate to the two classes of publicans and Phariseesthe one of which amassed ill-gotten gains, and the other of which was covetous (Luk. 16:14) To His disciples.The parable of the Unjust Steward, though of special bearing, perhaps, upon the publicans, was not addressed exclusively to them. A certain rich man.In the interpretation of the parable the Rich Man can only represent God, who is possessor of all things. A steward.A man of business, or agent. Such persons were often slaves, but it is evident from Luk. 16:3-4 that this man was free. By the steward we are to understand disciples, or every man in Christs Church. Accused.Probably a malicious, but certainly a true, accusation. Had wasted.Rather, was wasting (R.V.).
Luk. 16:2. How is it that I hear this of thee?Or, What is this that I hear of thee? (R.V.). Probably the A.V. is to be preferredi.e., not What is the nature of this report? but What ground is there for the report?produce books and vouchers. Thou mayest be.Rather, Thou canst be no longer steward (R.V.). The steward not denying the report, it was impossible to retain him in his office. The dismissal is to be understood of the day of death. I cannot dig.Rather, I have not strength to dig (R.V.). His strength had been enervated by his soft life.
Luk. 16:4. I am resolved.The word in the original implies a sudden planan idea that has just dawned upon him. They.I.e., the debtors. Receive me.I.e., give me shelter. This is one of the points of comparison on which stress is laid in Luk. 16:9.
Luk. 16:5. Every one.Rather, each one. Debtors.It is doubtful in what relation these debtors stood to the lord. They were either tenants who paid rent in kind, and whose rent was now lowered, or persons who had received advances of food from the Rich Mans stores, which they had not paid for, and the amounts of which were now fraudulently altered. Probably the latter explanation is the better of the two. The first.Two specimen cases are given; the varying reduction in the two implies that consideration was paid to the different circumstances of the respective debtors.
Luk. 16:6. Bill.R.V. bond; the literal term is writings. Quickly.Evidently a secret and hurried arrangement; the debtors, too, seem to have been dealt with separately and privately.
Luk. 16:8. The lord.Rather, his lord (R.V.), and not Christ. Wisely.I.e., prudently and skilfully. Both the Rich Man and the steward were children of this world, and were therefore characteristically inclined to overlook the fraudulent part of the transaction, in view of its cleverness and success. Wiser.More shrewd. In their generation.Rather, for their own generationi.e., in their lower sphere; in looking after their own interests. Children of light.Cf. Joh. 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1Th. 5:5.
Luk. 16:9. I say unto you.I, in opposition to the lord; you, in opposition to the steward. Of the mammon.I.e., by means of (R.V.). Mammon is an Aramaic word for wealthnot for god of wealth, as commonly explained. Mammon of unrighteousnessi.e., wealth which is so generally regarded as personal property, and squandered accordingly, instead of being considered as a trust committed by God to our charge; unrighteously claimed as ones own, and unrighteously employed. Make friends.The imagery is taken from the parable. As the steward procured grateful friends, who received him when dismissed from office, so may we, by charitable deeds, provide friends to welcome us into heaven (to welcome on arrival, not to open heaven to us). When ye fail.Rather, when it shall faili.e., mammon. Everlasting habitations.Rather the eternal tabernacles (R.V.)i.e., as contrasted with the temporary refuge secured by the steward for himself.
Luk. 16:10. He that is faithful, etc.In the spiritual sphere the interests of steward and lord are identical; while in the parable the steward secured his own future welfare by defrauding his master. He was guilty of unfaithfulness; but we may, by showing a foresight like his, and by using what is entrusted to us in deeds of charity, show true faithfulness to our Lord. Our characters are tested in this way, by our taking means for securing our eternal welfare or by our neglecting to do so. The contrast between the least (or a very little, R.V.) and much corresponds to that between unrighteous mammon and true riches (in Luk. 16:11), and between that which is another mans and that which is your own (in Luk. 16:12).
Luk. 16:13. No servant, etc.Mammon and serving in this verse show that it is still connected with the preceding section. We are entrusted with the unrighteous mammon, but are not to be servants to it. God requires the undivided service of our hearts (cf. Jas. 4:4; Col. 3:5).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Luk. 16:1-13
The Prudent Steward.There is at first sight a difficulty in the interpretation of this parable; apparently there is a commendation of evil by Christ. We see a bad man held up for Christian imitation. The difficulty passes away when we have learned to distinguish the essential aim of the parable from its ornament or drapery. It is not Christ, but the master, who commended the Unjust Steward. And he did so, not because he had acted honourably, faithfully, gratefully, but because he had acted wisely. He takes the single point of prudence, foresight, forecast. We constantly do this in daily life. We are, perhaps, charmed by a tale of successful robbery; we wonder at its ingenuity, feel even a kind of respect for the man who could so contrive it; but no man who thus relates it is understood to recommend felony. This steward had planned, he had seen difficulties, overcome them, marked out his path, held to it steadily, crowned himself with success. So far he is an example. The way in which he used his power of forecasting may have been bad; but forecast itself is good.
I. Wisdom of this world.There are three classes of men: those who believe that one thing is needful, and choose the better part, who believe in and live for eternitythese are not mentioned here; those who believe in the world and live for it; and those who believe in eternity, and half live for the world. What shall I do? Here is the thoughtful, contriving, sagacious man of the world. In the affairs of this world the man who does not provide for self, soon finds himself thrust aside. It becomes necessary to jostle and struggle in the great crowd if he would thrive. Note the kind of superiority in this character that is commended. There are certain qualities which really do elevate a man in the scale of being. He who pursues a plan steadily is higher than he who lives by the hour. There may be nothing very exalted in his aim, but there is something very marvellous in the enduring, steady, patient pursuit of his object. You see energies of the highest order brought into play. It is not a being of mean powers that the world has beguiled, but a mind far-reaching, vast, throwing immortal powers on things of time. Such is the wisdom of this world, wise in its contriving selfishness, wise in its masterly superiority, wise in its adaptation of means to ends, wise in its entire success. But the success is only in their generation, and their wisdom is only for their generation. If this world be all, it is wise to contrive for it and live for it. But if not, then consider the words, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee; then whose shall those things be that thou hast gotten?
II. The inconsistencies of the children of light.The children of this world are wiser, etc. This is evidently not true of all. There have been men who have given their bodies to be burned for the truths sake; men who have freely sacrificed this present world for the next. To say that the wisest of the sons of this world are half as wise as they, were an insult to the sanctifying Spirit. But children of light is a wide term. There is a difference between life and light. To have light is to perceive truth and know duty. To have life is to be able to live out truth and to perform duty. Many a man has clear light who has not taken hold of life. So far as a man believes the body nothing in comparison with the soul, the present in comparison with the future; so far as he has felt the power of sin and the sanctifying power of the death of Christ; so far as he comprehends the character of God as exhibited in Jesus Christ;he is a child of light. The accusation is that in his generation he does not walk so wisely as the child of the world does in his. The children of the world believe that this world is of vast importance. They are consistent with their belief, and live for it. Out of it they manage to extract happiness. In it they contrive to find a home. To be a child of light implies duty as well as privilege. It is not enough to have the light, if we do not walk in the light. To hold high principles and live on low ones is Christian inconsistency. If a man say that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and is for ever receiving, scarcely ever giving, he is inconsistent. If he profess that to please God is the only thing worth living for, and his plans and aims and contrivances are all to please men, he is wise for the generation of the children of the world; for the generation of the children of light he is not wise. The wisdom of the steward consisted in forecasting. He felt that his time was short, and he lost not a moment. The want of Christian wisdom consists in this, that our stewardship is drawing to a close, and no provision is made for an eternal future. Make to yourself friends. Goodness done in Christ secures blessedness. A cup of cold water given in the name of Christ shall not lose its reward. Wise acts, holy and unselfish deeds, secure rewards. Everlasting habitations. Nothing is eternal but that which is done for God and others. That which is done for self dies. Perhaps it is not wrong, but it perishes. You say it is pleasure; well, enjoy it. But joyous recollection is no longer joy. That which ends in self is mortal; that alone which goes out of self, into God, lasts for ever.Robertson.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk. 16:1-13
Luk. 16:1-9. The Unjust Steward.
I. The steward dismissed.
II. The steward providing for the future.
III. The steward commended.
IV. The lessons for disciples.
1. Every one is a steward.
2. Be like this steward in prudence, and use of opportunity.
3. Be unlike him in dishonesty. In this he is a warning.Taylor.
Christian Prudence.
I. The stewardship of the unjust steward.
1. Careless.
2. Dishonest.
3. Commended.
II. Our stewardship.
1. We are all stewards.
2. We shall have to give account. We must keep our eye on the future.Watson.
I. Wisdoms eye.
1. Looks far forward.
2. Looks also around.
II. Wisdoms hand.Is quick to do whatever needs to be done. The wisdom of the stewards plan would have been folly, if it had not been carried out at once.Wells.
Special Reference to the Publicans.Apparently, though not certainly, these parables were spoken that the publicans might distinctly understand how their ill-gotten gains were to be used. They were to be taught that, though their past is forgiven, they have a duty to do with the gains they have made. And they are addressed as men thoroughly versed in all the ways of monied men, wide awake to appreciate hard work, vigilance, enterprise, and promptitude. And the aim of this first parable is to impress on them the necessity of carrying over with them into the kingdom of God the qualities which had made them successful in the kingdom of mammon.Dods.
The Two Parables in this Chapter.Note the connection between the two parables in this chapter: the one supplements the other. The idea common to them both is the connection between employment of earthly goods and life beyond the grave. The Unjust Steward represents the man who secures his future lot by a wise use of fleeting wealth; the Rich Man is a representative of those who ruin their future by a neglect of present opportunities of preparing happiness in the world to come.
General Teaching of this Parable.The sum of this parable is that we should deal humanely and benignantly with our neighbours, that when we come to the tribunal of God the fruit of our liberality may return to us.Calvin.
The Parable Teaches Two Lessons:
I. The general one a lesson of prudence in the use of temporal possessions with a view to eternal interests.
II. The special one a lesson as to the way of using these possessions which most directly and surely tends to promote our eternal interestsviz., by the practice of kindness towards those who are destitute of this worlds goods.Bruce.
To Use the World for God.The parable teaches Christian prudence, Christ exhorting us to use the world and the worlds goods, so to speak, against the world and for God.Trench.
I. The fault and its punishment (Luk. 16:1-2).
II. The sudden resolution (Luk. 16:3-4).
III. The execution of the plan (Luk. 16:5-7).
IV. The Masters praise (Luk. 16:8).
V. The counsel to disciples as an application of the parable (Luk. 16:9).
Luk. 16:1-2.
I. Every human being is simply a trustee.
II. We shall have to answer for our trust.
Luk. 16:1. Accused.The accusation may have been prompted by malicious motives, but the sting of it lay in its truth. In like manner it is not so much the malevolence of our great spiritual adversary that we have to fear as the just grounds for accusation which our conduct may afford.
Luk. 16:2 Hear this of thee.The steward had abused the trust his master had placed in him, and is called to account. In like manner God has entrusted much to man, and will be strict in requiring from him an account of his stewardship. He is not treated as one who, from the utter corruption of his nature, must inevitably go wrong, but as one who is fully responsible for all his actions.
Luk. 16:3. What shall I do?He tacitly admits his guilt, and instantly faces the situation and endeavours to make the best of it. His self-indulgent life has incapacitated him for hard work of an honest kind; his pride forbids him to beg for alms from those who had known his former circumstances of affluence and power.
Luk. 16:4. Receive me.Here we come across the great lesson of the parable. The steward, when put out of one home, is anxious to secure another. In like manner the fact that we have to leave our home on earth, when death comes, should make us anxious to provide for ourselves an abiding home in the world to come.
Luk. 16:5-7. Beneficence a Passport to Heaven.The steward acts so as to secure benefits for the debtors, without any pecuniary benefit to himself; and this points the moral of the parablebeneficence is a passport into the eternal habitations.
Luk. 16:5. Obligations.
I. The grounds of our obligations.The gifts of God, the gift of His Son, peace of mind, the society of the good.
II. The discharge of our obligations.Cherish our blessings, live up to our privileges, scatter our blessings among others.
What we Owe to God.Man is a debtor to God. He is continually forgetting this. Our indebtedness to God need not paralyse us into a sudden despair. Christ is our ransom for the awful obligation of ten thousand talents. But His love should constrain us into His service. There are two things to consider:
1. The cause.
2. The nature of our indebtedness to God.
I. The cause.Each of us owes an infinite debt to God for creation, redemption, election, and grace. To us, especially, life should be a noble and beautiful thing. But more blessed than the first creation is the second. Another mystery of the Divine love is electiona fact which confronts us everywhere. The sovereign, righteous, loving will of God alone accounts for our privileges. Thank Him, too, for gracethe continual, overshadowing, indwelling, inexhaustible gift of the Holy Spirit.
II. The nature of this debt.We owe God worship, righteousness, trustfulness, and love. In worship we must render substance, testimony, service. The law of God is to be fulfilled by us in our sanctification. Nothing honours God like trusting Him, or wounds Him like failing to trust Him. This is a service always open to all. Best, and last, and sum of all, we owe God love. Paying this we pay everything, and yet feel that nothing is paid. It is His nature to care for our love. God is not content with loving; He desires to be loved. But it must be a complete lovelove of mind, will, and spirit.Thorold.
Luk. 16:6-7. Write fifty write fourscore.There is nothing of spiritual significance in these amounts. They represent merely the shrewdness with which the steward dealt with each debtor, with sole reference, probably, to the greater or less ability of each to render a grateful return to himself when cast upon the world.Brown.
Luk. 16:8-12. Christian Prudence.
I. Prudence.Is a shorter form of providence. It has great value in human life. It is needed in our conduct, in relation to our money, in our undertakings, and in our companionships. Christian prudence will show itself in making provision for the future world.
II. Worldly prudence and its teaching.The prudence of the worldly man is in advance of the spiritual prudence of the religious man, as the aims of the former are all directed to one single endviz., worldly prosperity. The religious mans aims are too often divided. Because worldly things are near and visible, they are apt to share the affections which should be wholly centred on the things which are unseen.
III. Christian prudence.Christ not only drew lessons from the dishonest steward, but He proceeded to give us a rule for the wise use of money. Use riches, not as our own, but as the stewards of God. Use them as He directs. We are not to make getting rich our aim. We are not to love riches. We are to use them freely for deeds of charity and mercy. Christ also gives encouragements to prudence. Faithfulness in dealing as God would have us with the unrighteous mammon is to be the means of training us for, and proving our fitness for, the true riches. Worldly riches are not true; we cannot hold them permanently; they do not satisfy the soul. The knowledge and love of God alone satisfy the soul. These, and all that follows with them, are a sure and lasting possession.Taylor.
Luk. 16:8. The Follies of the Wise.The world can teach the Church many lessons, and it would be well if the Church lived in the fashion in which men of the world do. There is eulogium here; recognition of splendid qualities, prostituted to low purposes; recognition of wisdom in the adaptation of means to end; and a limitation of the recognition, because it is only in their generation that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light.
I. Two opposed classes.Our Lord so orders His words as to suggest a double antithesis, one member of which has to be supplied in each case. He would teach us that the children of this world are children of darkness; and that the children of light are so, just because they are the children of another world than this. Thus He limits His praise, because it is the sons of darkness that, in a certain sense, are wiser than the enlightened ones. And that is what makes the wonder and the inconsistency to which our Lord is pointing. Men whose folly is so dashed and streaked with wisdom, and others whose wisdom is so blurred and spotted with folly, are the extraordinary paradoxes which experience of life presents to us.
II. The limited and relative wisdom of the fools.The steward would have been a much wiser man if he had been an honester one. But, apart from the moral quality of his action, there was in it what was wise, prudent, and worthy of praise. There was courage, fertility of resource, adaptation of means to end, promptitude in carrying out his plans. Bad the design indeed was, but clever. He was a clever cheat. The lord and the steward belong to the same level of character, and vulpine sagacity, astuteness, and qualities which ensure success in material things, seem to both of them to be of the highest value. The secret of success religiously is precisely the same as the secret of success in ordinary things. Nothing is to be got without working for it, and there is nothing to be got in the Christian life without working for it any more than in any other. The reasons for the contrast are easy to understand. This world appeals to sense, that world to faith. And so trifles crush out realities.
III. The conclusive folly of the partially wise.Christ said in their generation, and that is all that can be said. Let in the thought of the end, and the position is changed. Two questionsWhat are you doing it for? And suppose you get it, what then?reduce all the worlds wisdom to stark, staring insanity. Nothing that cannot pass the barrier of these two questions satisfactorily is other than madness, if it is taken to be the aim of a mans life. You have to look at the end before you serve out the epithets wise and foolish. The man who makes anything but God his end and aim is relatively wise and absolutely foolish. Let God be your end. And let there be a correspondence between ends and means.Maclaren.
Mismanagement of Eternal Interests.In this verse, Christ, after telling the story of the dishonest steward, speaks on His own behalf. Our Lord adds this comment of His own to the commendation pronounced by the stewards master.
I. This maxim is literally true.Worldly people are more quick-sighted than Christians as to worldly interests. The very goodness of the Christian is against him in the business of life. He is unwilling to think evil, and unready to counterwork it. So the world often has its laugh at the Christian.
II. The text is true as a serious reflection on the ordinary management of a Christian life.Those who profess to be living for eternity do not act so wisely, with a view to that high and glorious end, as those who scarcely aim at anything beyond time, act with a view to that comparatively low and poor ambition. There are only these two classes of menthe children of this age and the children of light. The former are characterised by the absence of a definite pursuit and well-grounded hope of an immortal life in heaven. But the latter do not always associate this high aim of life with true wisdom in the choice of means. Worldly men, in accuracy of eye, steadiness of hand, and strength of effort, outstrip Christian men. These latter should copy, as regards spiritual realities, the good method of worldly men whose life-aims are purely secular. It is not enough to have a higher aim than worldly men. How does the Christian live, in view of, and in pursuit of, this higher aim? Is he wise? Is he prudent? Or is he languid, indifferent, slothful? How searching such an utterance of rebuke as Christ speaks here is to all who profess to be children of light? The Christian should be inventive, resolute. Too often he is living below his privileges and opportunities. Great exertions should accompany great expectations. It is so in things earthly. Give a man hope, and you give him zeal; make success doubtful, and you destroy endeavour. Let not the hope, the zeal, the diligent endeavour of the worldling, rebuke the sloth, the aimlessness, the languor, of a child of the light!Vaughan.
Spiritual Far-Sightedness Commended.The Unjust Steward showed, even in his dishonesty, a far-sightedness of prudence which it were well if Christian people, while eschewing the dishonesty, could always exercise in reference to their own higher aims and nobler interests. The conduct of this unscrupulous agent is made to furnish a lesson, not of imitation certainly, but yet not wholly of avoidance, to the disciples of Jesus Christ.Ibid.
The Qualities Exhibited by The Steward.The steward exhibits various valuable qualities of character well worthy of imitationdecision, self-collectedness, energy, promptitude, and tact.Bruce.
Commended.Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself (Psa. 49:18).
Wisely.This quality of wisdom Christ had already commended to His disciples, in the words, be ye therefore wise as serpents (Mat. 10:16).
We May Learn from His History
I. That dismissal, death, will certainly come to us.
II. That some provision should be made for what is beyond.
The Word Reminds Us
I. How intricately mixed up with each other are virtues and vices, good and evil, in this human world.In the character of this steward the virtue of prudence lay intimately associated with gross and deliberate fraud.
II. Of the high religious value of prudence. The need and function of prudence in relation to the life and future of the soul.
Points in which Worldly Men often Surpass Christians.Worldly men prosecute their schemes
(1) with more ingenuity of contrivance;
(2) with more singleness of aim;
(3) with greater earnestness;
(4) with greater perseverance;than the children of light often display.
Luk. 16:9-10. Stewardship for the Lord.These sentences require careful pondering, in themselves and in their connection.
I. We hold all we have as the redeemed subjects and servants of Christ.The steward has nothing of his own. We are not our own. Christ, as Mediator, makes us His own property. This is the secret of Christian stewardship. You, and all you have, are restored to yourself; but you hold all for Christ henceforth. Your absolute all is His. Your possessions come under the same law. You must give all for all. He will have no divided stewardship.
II. What are the tokens of good stewardship?
1. That the entrusted property be improved to the utmost.
2. That it be administered strictly according to the owners will.
3. That where His will is not certainly known, wisdom or prudence does the very best. Our Lord says, Be wise for Me as the steward in the parable was for himself. This is of the very essence of our trust, that the Master leaves much to our own tact. He gives us the main outlines of His will, and leaves us to fill up details. In nothing is Christian wisdom more needed than in the right employment of our wealth, be it greater or less. Let the steward feeling be well educated and keen, and there will be no errorat least, no error against Christ.
III. He who habitually remembers his stewardship will be saved from the deadly evil which besets the possession of property, the making it into a god.Christ makes mammon the possible rival of the Supreme. Undue love of this worlds goods is inconsistent with the single minded fidelity of the steward sentiment. Of the love of wealth, pre-eminently, it may be said that it cannot co-exist with the worship of God. The only safeguard is the habitual remembrance that what we have is not our own. Faithful steward service will alone protect us from becoming idolaters of this worlds good. He who serves not God with His money makes money itself His only god. This warning is not addressed to the rich alone, though specially needful for them. But the warning is to all. Every one has some property, and therefore some stewardship.
IV. To all stewards there is approaching the day of reckoning.The day of judgment throws its shadow over every life. We are all hasting to the one last audit. Our salvation, indeed, will depend on the presence or absence of our faith in Christ, but the kind of salvation, the measure of it, and the degree of future reward assigned hereafter, will be regulated by the faithfulness of the life in all its boundless variety of works. If we have proved unjust to our Master in this life, He will not trust us in the next.Pope.
Luk. 16:9. Christs Teaching on Wealth.
I. Riches are not necessarily to be repudiated.Our Lord teaches that, rightly used, they may add intensity to the joy of our future condition. Out of the mammon, whose characteristic is injustice and untruth, we may form friendships which will not terminate with life. I say unto younot repudiate your riches, but make to yourselves friends out of them.
II. These friends do not purchase or gain for us an entrance.They simply receive us when we enter. Our names must be graven, not on the hearts of the poor saints, but on the hands of the Redeemer with the very nails of the crucifixion. Friends. With money alone you can buy slaves, tools, flatterers. But with money alone we cannot buy a friend. Only he who has a heart can win a heart. Only a heart-winner can be a friend-winner. Riches rightly used may therefore be profitable for our higher interests.Alexander.
Make to yourselves friends.No thought can be better fitted than that of this parable, on the one hand to overthrow the idea of any kind of merit attached to almsgiving (for what merit can there be in giving of that which is anothers?), and on the other to encourage us to the practice of that excellence which assures us of friends and protectors for so grave a crisis as that of our entrance into the world to come.
Receive you.In the journey of life, as in other journeys, it is a pleasing reflection that we have friends who are thinking of us and who will receive us with joy when our journey is at an end.
Luk. 16:10-12. How the Little may be Used to Get the Great.
I. The strange new standard of value which is set up here.Outward good and inward riches are compared
(1) as to their intrinsic magnitude;
(2) as to their quality;
(3) as to their ownership.
II. The broad principle here laid down as to the highest use of the lower good.
III. The faithfulness which utilises the lowest as a means of possessing more fully the highest.Earthly possessions administered according to the principle
(1) of stewardship;
(2) of self-sacrifice;
(3) of brotherhood.Maclaren
Luk. 16:10. He that is faithful.Which is as much as if He had said: The use which men make of the goods of this present world, which are comparatively of small value, shows the use they would make of such as are far greater, were the same committed to them, and which belong to the children of God in heaven. If they have used these aright, so would they use those; and if they have abused these, they would abuse those likewise. Faithfulness and injustice are properly applied to the use and abuse of things not our own, but committed to us for the honour and purposes of the owner. For to apply them to our own uses and purposes, and not His, would be a breach of trust, and therefore unfaithful and unjust in a very high degree.Palmer.
Least much.
I. This verse suggests that we are in this world merely on, trial, and serving our apprenticeship.
II. That it is our fidelity to the interests entrusted to us that is tried, and not so much whether we have done little or great things.
Faithful in Little, Faithful in Much.
I. True faithfulness knows no distinction between great and small duties.
II. Faithfulness in small duties is even greater than faithfulness in great.
III. Faithfulness in that which is least is the preparation for, and secures our having, a wider sphere in which to obey God.Maclaren.
Faithfulness.Put to the mind alone, as if that were all there is of us, the mind might ask doubtfully how it can be true. It looks as if one might be upright in large transactions, and yet careless in trifles; tell the truth commonly, but not always; keep the law of the school under the teachers eye, but break it out of sight; meet emergencies handsomely, but in the commonplaces of everyday affairs come short. We have seen such lives. What, then, does Christ mean? He says that faithful men and faithful women are faithful everywhere, under all conditions, in all places alike. Faithful, full of faith. This chosen word is the key to the sentence. Faithfulness is not a single virtue, or a separate trait. It runs through the whole character, as blood through the body. The root of it is faith in God, and itself is the root of all excellencies and all moralities. Faithfulness is not a thing of more or less, of seasons or opportunities, of ornament or convenience. Principles never are, and faithfulness is a principle. Duty is universal because God is universal. Duty is unchangeable because God is unchangeable. The least things in which each of us is faithful or faithless, are not only the beginnings of what seems great in the eyes of men, they are great already by what they come out of; they are discharges of a life within us; they signify a principle in the working and springs of character; they uncover and they prove the inward frame and habit of soul on which eternal life depends.Huntington.
Luk. 16:11-12. Stewardship for Self.In this whole section there is a quiet undertone of reference to the true wisdom of life in extracting as much good as possible from all the elements of this worlds evil, especially from what we call its possessions.
I. Extracting it for self, and not only for our Master.There is, indeed, a sense in which self may be entirely suppressed, self as a final end, self as the director of life. But, on the other hand, it is the will of God that the benefit of self shall, as subordinate, never be lost sight of. There is a Christian care for self which is at once the supremest wisdom and the supremest unselfishness. We must think and act in the midst of the dangers of time, and the snares of earthly wealth, for the interests of our immortal souls when time and the wealth of time are ended and gone.
II. For this is the true secret, that we have no self apart from our Master.We never reach the height of our Lords teaching, nor rise to the grandeur of our relation to Him, until we so identify ourselves with Him and His universal cause on earth that we know no difference between His and ours. This is the true evangelical glorification of the steward principle. The more we have of earthly goods the more are our graces tested, and, if we are wise enough to sustain the test, the more confirmed becomes our renunciation of this world, and our preference of heaven. The wisdom of a man who has the dangerous trust of possessions is not only to keep himself from the special peril that besets him, but to turn the danger to good account. That is the lesson of the chapter, and of our whole life.
III. After all, we must go beyond this world for the Saviours most impressive illustration of His meaning.We cannot disconnect the stewardship of time from the issues of eternity. All that we possess is ours for a season, that through our prudent use of it we may advance our own interests for ever. In two ways the Divine Teacher impresses this upon us:
1. We may make to ourselves friends by the mammon of unrighteousness, who shall welcome us to everlasting habitations.
2. By fidelity below in that which is least we may prepare ourselves for larger trusts, and for a jurisdiction hereafter for which the stewardship of time furnishes but a slight analogy. Christs emphatic preface, I say unto you, introduces the lesson that we must in our better and holier cunning create for ourselves friends by the charitable use of our substance. What the poor worldling in the parable did for the poor self of this generation, you must do for the higher and nobler self of the world to come. But that is not all. Our Lord teaches that our stewardship here may be so administered as to prepare us for larger trust hereafter. The Unjust Steward does not teach us this, save by contrast. He so failed that he could never be trusted again. We are to be trusted hereafter according to the measure of our capacity for trust acquired here. There will be stewardships in the other world, without probation, and without fear of failure, proportioned and accommodated to the character we have acquired here. The general principle of fidelity is to be trained in this life, and this prepares for independence in the coming life.Pope.
Luk. 16:11. The unrighteous mammon.Unrighteous because
(1) it is so often used and enjoyed without any thought of God;
(2) because it is so often acquired in unlawful ways;
(3) because it is the source of manifold temptations (1Ti. 6:9-10), which make it difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (chap. Luk. 18:24-25).
Luk. 16:12. Another mans.Wealth is here described as belonging to another, because it is not absolutely our own, but may at any moment be recalled, and must at the hour of death be resigned. In opposition to it are those spiritual benefits which are truly our own, because, once obtained through faith, they constitute an inalienable property.
Gods Faithful Steward.The last inference from the most difficult of all Christs parables. It is a retrospect from the other side of death, when the earthly life lies all behind, shrunk to a single point and act. If in that which was anothers ye were not faithful, who shall give youI appeal to yourselves, to your common-sense, to your first principles of reason and equitywho shall give you that which shall be your own?
I. That which is anothers is the whole of this lifes possession.Even while we have it, it is anothers. Not only a trust, a stewardship. No idea of personal ownership can for a moment enter into it. It is so precarious in its tenure that we cannot reckon on it for a day; we brought it not into the world, and we cannot take it with us when we leave the world. It is not part of usit is an adjunct, an accessory, an accident; it may go any dayit must go one day. It is anothers, even while we have it.
II. That which is your own.The sound is pleasant to the ear. The lust of possessing is an instinct of nature. It waits not for the developed covetings of manhood. Even our own souls are not yet our own. They are our own only at last, as the prize of the lifelong conflict, the stake of the game in which the man and the mans enemy are at play. This makes life so serious, so momentous. The risk of not gaining as our own, our own souls! The soul itself is not yet our own; it depends on the life, the life earthward and heavenward, the life towards man, and the life towards God. To the good steward, when all fails him, and the stewardship of the long past must be accounted for, he shall find himself for the first time as an owner, the soul, the self, the redeemed and sanctified nature, being at last given him for his own. This is the gospel for which we can never be too thankful, of the new ideal of life as Jesus Christ taught, exemplified, and inspires it in His people. Life a trust; all that life has for us, anothers; we ourselves stewards, not owners, required, aroused, and enabled to be faithful! Our Lord appeals to this very lust of possessing. We must wish to possess. Only the fool and the mammon-worshipper can be indifferent to the question, Who will give you that which is your own?Vaughan.
That which is another mans that which is your own.The parable of the Unjust Steward is admittedly hard to be understood. No other of our Lords parables has called forth so many and such a variety of comments as this. The words of Luk. 16:12 supply the key to the mystery of this parable; they are the solution of its difficulties. What are the difficulties of interpretation which the parable presents? How very harsh and unusual appear such words as And the lord commended the unjust steward. What sort of a lord could he have been, to do thus? It relieves us to find that it was not our Lord, but the lord of the steward, who commended him for acting wisely, though dishonestly. The fact that he did so simply proves that the master was as bad as the man. They are children of this world, governed by the same principles, actuated by the same motives. The lord had suffered by the roguery of his servant, but could not withhold a tribute of admiration at the display of the same qualities which he himself possessed. This explanation removes some of the difficulties, but not all. Our Lord holds up something here as an example for us. What is there shown us in this picture which we may imitate? Not the principles governing the conduct of the Unjust Steward. They were wholly detestable. But the transaction itself is to be imitated, having respect to the relationship between our Master and His stewards. Here we have a man entrusted with the goods of another so using them as to obtain an advantage for himself. Are there any conceivable circumstances in which we might use goods entrusted to us by another for personal profit? Only under one condition, and that condition exists here. If that other person entrusted us with his property, with the express purpose, intent, command, so to use it as to get increase for ourselves, then, and only then, would this be right. While there are similarities between the relations of the lord and the steward in the parable and our Lord and His stewards, there are also differences; for the parable teaches by dissimilarities as well as by similarities. The lord entrusted his goods to the steward that he might trade with them for the masters benefit, and the stewards fidelity would consist in so doing. The relation between our Lord and His stewards is the reverse of this. He entrusts us with His goods to be used, not in enriching Him; that is impossible,no conceivable trafficking of ours can increase His wealth,but the use is to be for our own profit. I say unto youI who am the Lord of all you possessmake to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations. Faithfulness in that which is least will secure for us that which is much.
I. The further exposition, therefore, of this saying of our Lords depends on the interpretation put upon two of its phrases: That which is another mans, and That which is your own. What are we to understand by these? No sooner do we begin to think about them than we find a great confusion of ideas. There is a very general reversal of the order of truth in the interpretation of these two phrases. What is your own? Most people, when they contemplate their own, fasten at once upon worldly possessionshouses, lands, businesses, accumulations, investments, worldly position, honours in society, dignities achieved. These are my own, say they, and in this territory they walk, imagining that here they are supreme. But these are the very things which are not your own. Where, say you, is the man who can successfully question the validity of my title-deeds? Who is he that will challenge my right to these things? They were bequeathed by my ancestors, or they have been gotten by my own industry, or accumulated by my thrift. Surely these are my own! And yet it is of precisely such things as these that Christ speaks when He uses the phrase that which is another mans. But whose are they? Where is the other who can claim proprietorship in them? There is One whose presence fills eternity, in whose hands our breath is, and whose are all our ways. The Lord of Life and Being has endowed us with being and with all we possess. We ourselves are His. The silver and the gold are His, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. If I tell the truth as to all the things I own, I shall say, The Lord Jehovah, all are His. But you will say, Oh yes, we admit all that. That is Theology. Yet there are very few who are influenced by the considerations arising out of this admitted truth. But there are other men in question. It is not possible to acquire any earthly things of which we can say that we have the absolute proprietorship. Other men have claims and rights in them. We are but trustees for the common good. Worldly possessions are not our own. Surely to-day men are learning that property has its responsibilities as well as its rights, its obligations as well as its privileges. No man has the right to say, This is for myself, and myself only. He holds for his brethren in general. The solution of the social problems which perplex society lies in the recognition of this great Christian doctrine of trusteeship. Because these things are not our own is no reason for seeking, by an equal division of property, to adjust the rival claims of different classes in society. Nothing could be more absurd or unfaithful. Not in absolute proprietorship, nor by arbitrary divisions, nor by attempted communism, but by the doctrine that all we have we hold as trustees for the good of those by whom we are surrounded, shall we fulfil the Divine purpose in committing to our keeping that which is another mans. I almost hear you say again, Yes, we admit all this. But how much unfaithful trusteeship there is, nevertheless! To bring the truth home to us we must reflect upon the fact that, in the most literal and absolute sense, these worldly things are not our ownthey are another mans. How soon the day will come to all of us when, willingly or reluctantly, we shall be compelled to part with earthly goods! In prospect of that hour we may already ask ourselves, in the words of the prophet, Where will ye leave your glory? It must be left. Where can it be left that we shall ever find it again? Then, when we are confronted with the death-summons, whose shall these things be which we have fondly imagined were our own? What wonderful ingenuity men display in their testamentary arrangements, in order to declare whose those things shall be. Alas! how futile their endeavours. Not for long in any caseoften not even for a short periodcan they say whose those things shall be, but into the hands of another, or of others, all must be surrendered. That inevitable other man; how he dogs our footsteps in life, ever following on our track!a few short days or years and he will overtake us. Most certainly these things are not our own. They are another mans. Ere long that other man will be examining our papers, operating upon our balance at the bank, and dividing our propertyperhaps in the manner we should least desire. What, then, is our own? Is there in this changeful world anything we can so appropriate that it shall become in very deed our own? God, in His infinite goodness and mercy through Jesus Christ our Saviour, has made it possible for us to become possessed of true riches which shall be our heavenly portion, our eternal inheritance. Nothing external is really our own. But the moral qualities we possess, as the result of dealing with earthly thingsthese are our own: love of justice, mercifulness, truthfulness, humility, benevolencethese are the patrimony of man, made after the image of God, and in His likeness. Inwoven daily into the very texture of our spiritual being are qualities which become a part of ourselves. God sees, not only what we are, but what we may become. He sees the loftiest ideal for every human being, what we might be if the utmost possibilities were reached. This He has willed shall be our own, and has bidden us reach out to and obtain as much of these highest possibilities as we choose. In the formation of character we are acquiring that which shall be ours for ever. Unhappily, many make their own what God never intended should be theirs. The contrary qualities to those I have mentionedthe carnal, the sensual, even the devilishmay become ours. It is possible for men to become untruthful, unjust, unmerciful.
II. If we thus clearly understand what is another mans and what is our own, then the teaching of the text becomes at once apparent. Only by faithfulness in the use of anothers can we become possessed of that which God intended should be ours. By our use of the things of earth we are obtaining the higher things that appertain to our character and destiny. Possessions in themselves base and carnal may be so employed that out of them we shall secure the spiritual and the heavenly. From the unrighteous mammon we may extract the true richesfrom that which is least, that which is much; from the fleeting treasures of this life, the enduring wealth of eternity; from that which is another mans, that which is our own. All the relations of our life here become thus invested with a vast importance. We cannot afford to despise the earthly: we cannot neglect its proper use, or fail in righteous dealing with it, but we beggar our real selves. Many scarcely reflect that their daily trafficking with worldly matterstheir business, their gains, their losses, their ambitions, and their plansare leaving indelible traces on their spiritual being. The material things they handle will perish in the using, but the noble qualitiesthe generosity, the unselfishness, the truthfulness, the mercifulness, the God-likenessthey have acquired in the sphere of worldly duty will abide with them for ever. The great truth thus inculcated has many applications. It is true of every temporal possession, of every earthly relationship, and of all talents, of whatsoever kind, with which we are entrusted. Its immediate and obvious application is to the use of moneyand this was the application primarily intended by our Lord. It may be supposed that such a use of this great lesson will at once lead us to a discussion of the duty of Christian giving. We may come to this ultimately, but there are several other aspects of our dealing with that which is another mans to be first considered. The mischief to some mens characters is done before they come to the claims of charity; it is done in the process of getting and accumulating. They have already acquired a nature so sordid that they are past feeling. They cannot give because they have so much, or because they have got it by means dishonourable or destructive of their nobler nature. Years ago, when they were poorer and purer, if they had been told of some of the things they now do and say, they would have been ready to cry, Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing? Nothing more surely corrodes and destroys the lofty nature that God intends should be our own than ill-gotten gain and the love of hoarding for its own sake. It cannot be too urgently impressed upon us that in our modes of getting money, and plans and purposes in accumulating it, we are moulding our characters. Men who would secure their own must sometimes be content to stand by with hands off when other people are eagerly gatheringthey must allow some things to go past them, for the price of taking them is the sacrifice of their highest, truest manhood. The truth holds good, not merely in relation to great wealth and large transactions in business; it finds its illustration in all sphereseven the lowliest. The merchant or trader who leaves his counting-house or his shop when the days work is done leaves behind that which is another mans. He leaves the interests, the claims, the rights of others which have been within his power, but inevitably he carries away something vastly more important to himself: insensibly, but continuously, he has been acquiring his own, and he goes from the manufactory or the warehouse morally a better or baser man. During every hour of the day he has been silently appropriating his own whilst handling that which is another mans. And even so the workman, in his common tasks, is fashioning his own character and moulding his inner life. He builds into the unseen parts of an edifice with honesty, with truth and fidelity, and these qualities are at the same time strengthened and built up in his own being. Let there be base and false work at the forge and the loom, and he who has done it may suppose the transaction is ended when the fraud has passed undetected. Not so; the falseness he has perpetrated has become part of himselfhe has made that his own which he supposed he had inflicted on another man. Nor is it merely in the modes of getting money, but in the purposes for which it is retained and used, that men mould their characters and destiny. For there are circumstances in which it is right, and indeed our duty, to retain wealth, that it may be wisely used as a fund for the good of others. God has given some men, not only large capital, but ability and opportunity so to lay it out that they may provide work and wages for others. In such cases the first duty of a capitalist is to take care of his capital. It is not his own; it belongs to others, and is entrusted to him that he may employ it for the common weal. We are all of us familiar with the spectacle of the miserable millionaire who has treated the great fund entrusted to him as if it were his own. He has employed it in great gambling speculations, that he might have the unhallowed excitements that have ended in a moral and, perhaps, mental and bodily paralysis. Instead of light and love and truth, he has for his own a great curse, extracted from his great capital. There is the opposite picture sometimes to be looked uponthe man who has so wisely and generously used his means that he has blessed thousands, and has himself grown more and more unselfish. He has cultivated the best things in his own spirit and character, whilst he has worked in the use of wealth for the good of others. But it is not given to all of us to find our own or lose our own in these larger spheres of duty. It is, however, certain that all of us are determining our own by the use we make of another mans in the matter of Christian giving. Whether we have less or more of this worlds goods, in our response to the calls of charity we affect for good or evil our dispositions and our characters. And as to financial arrangements, let us look at our support of missionary and kindred institutions in the light of our Lords teaching in this parable. The call for money to carry on Christs work in distant fields is one of the testsand one of the best testsof our wisdom and fidelity in the use of that which is another mans. In no other way can we more surely exchange the carnal things of earth into the currency of the heavenly world. Pounds, shillings, and pence will have no currency therethey will have lost their purchasing and commanding power; but ere we pass hence the treasures of earth may be exchanged for the true riches, the fleeting things of this world for the enduring wealth of eternity. The mammon of unrighteousness may be so used that at length they shall receive us to the everlasting habitations. Let us learn habitually to deal with the things of earth in the light of eternity.Pope.
Luk. 16:13. No servant.In this verse Christ states what the fidelity is, which in this stewardship is required; it is a choosing of God instead of mammon for our lord. For in this world we are in the condition of servants from whom two masters are claiming allegiance. One is God, mans rightful lord; the other is the unrighteous mammon, which was given to be our servant, to be wielded by us in Gods interests, and itself to be considered by us as something slight, transient, and anothersbut which has, in a sinful world, erected itself into a lord, and now demands allegiance from us, which if we yield, we can be no longer faithful servants and stewards of God. Therefore, these two lords have characters so opposite, it will be impossible to reconcile their service (Jas. 4:4): one must be despised if the other is held to; the only faithfulness to the one is to break with the other, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.Trench.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Butlers Comments
SECTION 1
Be Shrewd (Luk. 16:1-13)
16 He also said to the disciples, There was a rich man who had a steward, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. 2And he called him and said to him, What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your stewardship for you can no longer be steward. 3And the steward said to himself, What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4I have decided what to do, so that people may receive me into their houses when I am put out of the stewardship. 5So, summoning his masters debtors one by one, he said to the first, How much do you owe my master? 6He said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said to him, Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty. Then he said to another, And how much do you owe? He said, A hundred measures of wheat. He said to him, Take your bill, and write eighty. 8The master commended the dishonest steward for his shrewdness; for the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. 9And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.
10 He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. 11If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches? 12And if you have not been faithful in that which is anothers, who will give you that which is your own? 13No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Luk. 16:1-3 Wastefulness: Someone has wisely pointed out that money is merely a medium of exchange for a mans life. Man spends his time, talent and energy at a vocation and receives in exchange some mediumusually money. By spending that money a man exchanges his life for whatever he considers worthy of his life. If a man hoards his money or spends it all indulging himself it manifests a selfish, uncaring heart.
Jesus spoke the two stories of this chapter to His disciples but mainly for the benefit of the Pharisees who were lovers of money. The parables of the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and Lost Sons struck a smarting blow to their selfishness and uncaring hearts. The two stories of this chapter continue to strike at this careless attitude the Pharisees had toward their fellowmen. The scoffing reaction of the Pharisees (Luk. 16:14) shows clearly that Jesus had hit His target.
These stories were spoken in Perea, beyond the Jordan River, during the climax of Jesus last year of public ministry. He was engaged in a great evangelistic campaign teaching the nature of the kingdom of God and discipleship, calling on all who would to become citizens of Gods kingdom. It is significant that Jesus made citizenship in Gods kingdom relevant to even such an everyday affair as what a man does with his money. The first story shows how to use your money to get to heaven or to send it on ahead in a different form; the second story shows how to use your money to get to hell!
A certain rich man (Gr. plousios, plutocrat) had a steward (Gr. oikonomon, lit. house-ruler, house-manager) who had been accused of wasting (Gr. diaskorpizon, squandering, same word used for Prodigal Son) his masters possessions. He could not get away with his sinsomeone told on him. The master of the house called the accused steward before him and demanded an accounting. The steward was guilty and the master dismissed him from his job. This steward was: (a) extravagantwasteful; (b) lazyhe wouldnt dig; (c) proudhe would not beg; (d) dishonest-cheated his master when later taking only partial payment for his masters debts. Apparently, before the steward left the employ of this master he would have occasion to settle outstanding accounts owed. He devised a scheme by which he could use his stewardship to make friends! A steward was a trusted care-taker of a rich mans household (cf. Gen. 43:19; Mat. 20:8; Luk. 8:3; Luk. 12:42). He was an employee-of-sorts (sometimes a slave) who often became almost like one of the family (cf. Gen. 15:1-3). But a steward was never an ownerhe was always simply using his masters goods for the benefit of the master. He was held accountable to the master for the way he used whatever was temporarily put under his administration.
Luk. 16:4-9 Wisdom: Jesus is not condoning dishonesty! He is simply holding the stewards sagacity up for emulation. There are character traits worth imitating in the worst of men and the wise will see them and copy them. God never condoned the faults of Abraham but He holds the man up in His Word for emulation as the father of the faithful. Jesus wants His followers to be both honest and prudent. The one good thing in this stewards nature was his shrewdnessthis is the only lesson Jesus wishes to teach in this story. Jesus is not holding this man up as a believerHe is simply saying that worldly people (like this steward) are farsighted and astute in their endeavors for material ends. The Lord desires forethought, preparation and wisdom of His followers for spiritual ends. This steward was wiser than most church members (sons-of-light). There is a great lack of common sense in spiritual matters in the kingdom of God today. Some Christians do not have the courage of their convictionsthey are afraid to give the self-discipline and sacrifice necessary to attain the spiritual profits promised by Christ. This parable is like a sharp thunder-clap, rousing us from our spiritual dozing. God will not let us get by with stupidity in our stewardship. He expects us to invest everything in our charge (money, time, talents) to produce spiritual gain as intelligently as most worldly-minded people invest their holdings to make material gain.
One of the first things we notice in this parable is the sharp division of humanity. Christ divides all humanity into sons of this world and sons of light. There are only two classes of humanity in all the Biblebelievers and unbelievers, obedient and disobedient, gatherers and scatterers, saved and lost, wise and foolish. Men make multiple categories of goodness and evil, but for Jesus, when the final test comes, every man gives allegiance to either Him or the devil. If you are not a son of light, you are a son of this world. There are only two destiniesheaven or hell; only two repositories for your unrighteous mammonheaven or rust and destruction, and only two roadsthe narrow and difficult that leads to salvation, or the broad and easy that leads to death.
The sons of this world are not wiser in what they choose! They choose what is temporal. This world and all its substance is doomed to destruction. Every dollar, every monument to fame, every work of art, every thing will perish. None of this world can be transferred as it is to heavennot even the human body. Things must be exchanged for a different kind of currencythat currency is people, (1Th. 2:19-20) transformed into the image of Gods dear Son. The sons of this world choose what is vain. Things of the worldof the fleshcannot satisfy the deepest and ultimate needs of the spiritual man. Men need grace, truth, forgiveness, hope, peace, love and identity. These cannot be obtained by the accumulation of things. Spiritual satisfaction comes from self-giving. Sons of this world also choose what forever must remain the Creators. A man who is worth only the worldly goods he seems to have accumulated is poor indeed! None of these worldly goods really belong to himthey belong to God. True wealth is the spiritual investments a man has made.
What Jesus is emphasizing is that the sons of this world may be wiser than most children of the light in how they conduct their business! Notice how candid this steward was in facing the facts about his situation. He did not lie to himself or fantasizehe did not hide his head in the sand like an ostrich. Business people know they must be brutally honest with themselves about, their profit-loss ledgers. They must not lie to themselves about whether business is good or bad. They either learn to be realists or they go under. Christians are too prone to construct a fools paradise for themselves in the business of stewardship. They fantasize that their spiritual life must be good if they have an abundance of worldly possessions. They are prone to forget that not one thing in their charge belongs to them. Their worst fantasy is that as long as they dedicate ten percent to the Master, they may do as they please with the other ninety percent in their charge, This steward of the parable faced the reality that these things were not his; that he had them only for a short time to use; that he could use them to show mercy on people and make friends. He did not day-dream or procrastinate about the future and he did not pout about the pasthe made the most of the present.
This worldly-minded steward was keen in the way he planned. He did not allow his emotions to take away his reason. He did not run away with his masters money and waste it like the Prodigal did. He didnt stash it away like the foolish farmer (Luk. 12:1-59). He didnt throw up his hands in despair and mental paralysis. He logically and deliberately reasoned out a plan. He decided to invest what was in his charge in helping people in order to help himself. Shakespeare said: All life is a preparation for death. Jesus urges His followers to make all this life a preparation for the next life. Cold, lifeless money can be turned into a warm handshake, a smile of gratitude or a cheerful word from someone helped for Jesus sake. Of course, friendship cannot be bought with crass mercenarism. Money genuinely used to help others will be rewarded, if not in this life then in the next. But fair-minded people are able soon enough to discern whether an offering of help is genuine or not. If Christians only dared to believe Jesus when He says, Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me (Mat. 25:40), they might be wiser in the use of their stewardship.
The steward of this parable was shrewd in the execution of his plan. He made straight for his goal. He allowed no obstacle to hinder him. He accepted no compromise, no alternatives. He demonstrated self-control and dedication. This steward had to sacrifice time, effort, pride and money. He paid the price without hesitation. Tragically, even athletes exhibit more dedication than most Christians! This worldly-minded house-manager evaluated worldly things as supreme and let no sacrifice stand in his way. Christians say heavenly things are most importantbut too many let everything else stand in their way.
Luk. 16:10-13 Warning: It is an incontrovertible axiom of the business world that the man who can be trusted in small things can be promoted to large responsibilities. The man who will be dishonest and steals small amounts will almost inevitably embezzle large amounts. Jesus is using the parable to illustrate this startling warning: If you have not been faithful (wise and prudent) in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches? If Christians cannot use money and earthly possessions wisely (to prepare for the next life), how shall God entrust to them the true riches of the next life? In other words, what the Christian does here on earth as a steward, determines whether he shall ever get to be a steward in the next life or not!
No steward can obey two bosses. No man can live a life filled with contradictions. It is logically and psychologically impossible. It is unacceptable to the Lord and impossible for the Christian to endure such a dichotomy. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him (2Ti. 2:4). Men who do not believe God keep on trying to serve the world, the flesh and the devil while also professing to serve the Creator. That is why the Christians responsibility toward God in money matters is not completed with giving ten percent of his wages. The Christian is accountable to God for every cent. That does not mean every cent must be given into the treasury of a local congregation for disbursement. It does mean that whatever the Christian uses his money for it must in some ultimate way serve God (through providing for his family, helping those in need, assisting in personal witnessing, supporting civic governments and institutions which are promoting social order and welfare, etc.). The important point is that God must be our Master, and not Money. Our money must be used to serve God.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Appleburys Comments
The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward
Scripture
Luk. 16:1-18 And he said unto the disciples, There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. 2 And he called him, and said unto him, What is this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward. 3 And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord taketh away the stewardship from me? I have not strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into heir houses. 5 And calling to him each one of his lords debtors, he said to the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6 And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bond, and sit down quickly and write fifty. 7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. He saith unto him, Take thy bond, and write fourscore. 8 And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely: for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light. 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles. 10 He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is anothers, who will give you that which is your own? 13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14 And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him. 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall.
18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery.
Comments
And he said unto the disciples.There is an apparent connection between this chapter and the preceding one in which Jesus completely discredited the Pharisees who had complained that He was receiving sinners. He proved that He was receiving only such sinners as were willing to repent of their sins and conduct themselves in a manner that glorified the Lord. The lessons of chapter sixteen are primarily to the disciples, although He had some things to say directly to the Pharisees.
The two parables of this chapter, while dealing incidentally with the subject of riches, stress the importance of doing something about entrance into the eternal happiness of those who use the opportunities of this life to prepare for life after death. For example, in the parable of the Unjust Steward, Jesus shows that the man was commended for making preparation for the time when he would no longer have an income. But the real lesson points to the necessity of preparing for the eternal home.
In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (assuming that it is a parable) Jesus contrasts the rich man and the beggar in this life, but elaborates on their states after death. It would seem, therefore, that riches, about which Jesus said some important things, was not the primary lesson to be learned from the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Eternal life, a subject that seemed to be taken lightly by the Pharisees, was not to be taken for granted by the disciples. Joy in heaven is stressed in the parables of grace, and the thought continues in the parables of chapter sixteen. What Jesus said about riches in this chapter is not, of course, to be minimized.
There was a certain rich man.The dishonest steward is the central character in this story; he was not commended for his dishonesty, but for his wisdom in preparing for the future. Dishonesty was the occasion for his losing his position. The fact that he was about to lose his income made it necessary for him to do something about his future. Everyone faces the necessity of doing something about life after death, for it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that cometh the judgment. The vital question is: Where will you spend eternity? The second parable of the chapter indicates that there are but two places in which to spend it.
the same was accused unto him.Someone had reported to his master that he was wasting his masters goods. There must have been truth to it, for the steward immediately took steps to provide for himself when he was no longer privileged to serve his master.
render the account of thy stewardship.The master demanded a statement of his accounts. He was to turn in a report of his stewardship since he was no longer to be steward.
Since the lesson deals with eternal life, it is well to think of it as having to do with ones relationship to God. It does not suggest that all men are dishonest in lifes work; but all must render account of the things done in the body, whether they are good or bad (2Co. 5:10).
I am resolved what to do.The steward said to himself, I do not have the strength to do hard physical labor and I am ashamed to beg. What shall I do? Suddenly the idea struck him! I know, he said, Ill arrange it so they will take me in when I lose the stewardship. They were the ones who owed his master. This is the central idea of the parable: providing for the future.
And calling to him each of his lords debtors.The example of what he said to two of them is sufficient to indicate his action with reference to the rest. To the one who owed a hundred measures of oil, he said, Take your bill and write fifty. To another who owed a hundred measures of wheat, he said, Make it eighty. The debtors apparently entered into the dishonest deal without protest. We need not be concerned about the two words for measure; one of them refers to liquid and the other to dry measure. It would be difficult to determine exactlyeven if there were a point in doing sohow much they represent in our measures. Neither do we know why he discounted one 50% and the other 20%. It has nothing to do with the lesson of the parable. What the steward did was enough to gain his point, making friends who would later take him into their homes.
and his lord commended the unrighteous steward.The master of the steward who added dishonesty to his wastefulness commended the servant because he had acted intelligently in providing for the future. It was certainly not for dishonesty that he was commended, and he had already been discharged for wastefulness.
for the sons of the world are for their own generation wiser.These words are added as Jesus own comment on the situation. People of this agethis life as compared to the spiritual life that extends into heavenare wiser toward those of their generation than the sons of light. How often the sons of light act unwisely! They let the things of this material world keep them from preparing for the heavenly experience. In the parable of The Sower, Jesus spoke of those who allow the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches to choke out the implanted Word of God. The sons of light should know how to please the Heavenly Father; they should know the importance of doing His will; they should be aware of the necessity of preparing for the life after death.
Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness.Mammon refers to material riches. It is called mammon of unrighteousness because it is so often used in unrighteous ways. There is no suggestion in this expression that material wealth is in itself unrighteous. Neither is there, for that matter, any virtue in poverty in itself. It is the use to which wealth is put that determines its value.
Those women who accompanied Jesus and the apostles were, no doubt, people of some financial standing. Joseph, the man who buried the body of Our Lord, was rich. Abraham, for his day, was certainly a rich man, but he was a man of faith and looked for the city that hath foundations whose builder and maker is God.
With whom, then, are you to make friends by the proper use of wealth? Jesus indicates that it is with those who can receive you into the eternal tabernacles, heaven itself. Who are they who will receive you? The Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
How can one use wealth to gain such an end? There are several ways in which money can be used to the glory of the Lord: (1) dont worship riches; (2) use wealth to promote the welfare of the needy (Mat. 25:40); (3) use it to promote the kingdom of God on earth (Php. 4:1-6).
Of course, the Bible indicates that there is more to the matter of entering the heavenly tabernacles than the right attitude toward wealth. It is this plus complying with the terms of salvation under the New Covenant as set forth in the nine cases of conversion in the book of Acts. It is this plus a life that actually produces the fruit of repentance. See Gal. 5:16-24; Eph. 4:7-32; Col. 3:1-17; 2Pe. 1:5-11. These are but a few of the many statements of Scripture on the necessity of living the Christian life. The person who does have the Scriptural view of money will, in all probability, take the other issues into consideration also.
He that is faithful in a littleThe principle that is involved in this statement holds good whether one has little or much. If you have not been faithful in handling the wealth of this life, who will commit true riches to your trust? Jesus restated the principle in another form, If you have not been faithful in that which belongs to another, who will give you what belongs to you? This was the problem of the unrighteous steward; he was not faithful in managing his masters possession and could not expect him to give him a home after he was discharged. Is Jesus suggesting that the things of the world really do not belong to us? It seems so. Then the possession of heaven really does belong to the saints, for they are heirs of God and joint-heirs of Jesus Christ.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.This removes any doubt about what was commended in the stewards conduct. It was not dishonesty, but the wisdom of the dishonest servant who had the foresight to prepare for the day when riches would fail. The really wise person will see that this calls for preparation for life after death.
As a servant cannot serve two masters, Jesus said that you cannot serve God and mammon. Why try the impossible? Apparently Judas tried it, but he failed.
And the Pharisees.Jesus had been instructing His disciples, but the Pharisees who were lovers of money heard what He said and began to scoff at His views on wealth. Literally, they turned up their noses at the idea He presented. Their disgust must have shown in some manner on their faces.
were lovers of money.Evidently they were loving money and trying to make it appear that they also loved God at the same time. But this was impossible, for Jesus said, You cannot serve God and mammon. They were so sure that the favor of God rested on them that the words of Jesus seemed ridiculous to them.
that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.The Pharisees were exalting material riches; but this was an abomination in the sight of God who knew their hearts.
The law and the prophets.Why did Jesus mention the law and the prophets? Evidently because the Pharisees prided themselves on keeping them, but Jesus had showed how they were failing to do so. They were pretending to obey the Law of God, but, in reality, were serving material wealth.
There are several problems of interpretation in this verse. Take for example the first clause as it reads in Greek: The law and the prophets until John. There is no verb in this clause because it is implied in the verb of the main clause. We must understand it to read, The law and the prophets were preached until John; after that the gospel of the kingdom is preached. This avoids the error that assumes that the jurisdiction of the law and prophets extended only to the time of John. The facts are that it extended to Pentecost, the beginning of the jurisdiction of the New Covenant. What Jesus said, then, is that the gospel of the rule of God in the hearts of men which John preached and which He also preached held exactly the same view toward exalting material riches as the Law of Moses which forbade having any other god before the God of Israel.
What is meant by saying Every man entereth violently into it? This is to say that every man was attempting by force to enter the kingdom in his own way. In reality, it is impossible to force ones way into the kingdom. No man comes to the Father but by me, said Jesus. Were the Pharisees, by setting up their own standards, trying to take over the kingdom by force? The context seems to suggest that they were. Others were also trying it. After the feeding of the five thousand, the people came to take Jesus by force and make Him their king. He prevented it by withdrawing into the mountain to pray (Joh. 6:15). Even Peter and James and John had their own ideas of what Jesus kingdom should be, but they couldnt persuade Him to adopt them.
A similar statement is given in Mat. 11:12, From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force, that is, they were trying to do so.
But it is easier for heaven.What God had said in His law about riches stands. Jesus lived and taught under the jurisdiction of the Law, but this principle is not changed under the New Covenant. See Jas. 5:1-6.
Every one that putteth away his wife.Apparently, this is another one of those things which men were advocating that was an abomination before God. Jesus said that every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Divorce did not end the marriage contract. The Pharisees had been scoffing at Jesusand there are many who scoff at His teaching on divorce todaybut He did not hesitate to let them know exactly what the Law of God said on the matter.
What is said on the subject of divorce in Mat. 19:3-12if we are to assume that there is any difference between that account and this one in Lukedoes not affect the teaching of the New Covenant on the issue of marriage. According to Rom. 7:2 and 1Co. 7:7. A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth. Only death severs the marriage bond. Jesus made it plain that from the beginning divorce and remarriage was not a part of the plan of God. Divorce was permitted by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not so from the beginning. There is a serious question on which there is no uniform opinion as to whether or not remarriage was permitted by the regulation of Moses. See STUDIES IN FIRST CORINTHIANS, chapter seven, for further discussion of the problem.
Divorce is having a serious effect on the home in our time. Civil authorities are beginning to see the evil effect of it and are suggesting ways of coping with it. But the church has the answer in the Bible. It is the duty of Christian people to teach and practice what is written in the Word. It is the only way to restore the home to the original standard of God. The future of the nation and of the church demands a return to the divine regulation for the home where children may be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). Divorce is not the only problem, but it is a major one.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XVI.
(1) There was a certain rich man, which had a steward.There is, perhaps, no single parable that has been subjected to such various and discordant interpretations as this of the Unjust Steward. It seems best to give step by step what seems to be a true exposition of its meaning, and to reserve a survey of other expositions till they can be compared with this.
The word steward had, we must remember, been already used by our Lord in Luk. 12:42, and had there pointed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to the office of the Apostles and other ministers, as dispensers of divine truths, and perhaps also, of the means of grace. So St. Paul, whose language is, as we have seen in so many instances, always important in connection with St. Lukes vocabulary, speaks of himself and his fellow-labourers as stewards of the mysteries of God. He has learnt, may we not say, from the parable, that it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful (1Co. 4:1-2). We start, then, with this clue. The Unjust Steward represents primarily the Pharisees and scribes in their teaching and ministerial functions. But though spoken in the hearing of the Pharisees, the parable was addressed, not to them, but to the disciples. And the reason of this is obvious. They, too, were called to be stewards; they, too, collectively and individually, would have to give an account of their stewardship. But if this is what the steward represents, then the rich man, like the house-holder in other parables, can be none else than God, who both appoints the stewards and calls them to account. In the further extension of the parable it is, of course, applicable to all who have any goods entrusted to them, any gifts and opportunities, any vocation and ministry in the great kingdom of God.
The same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.(1) The Greek word for was accused commonly carries with it the idea of false, calumnious accusation. Probably, however, the idea connected with it, as seen in the word diabolos, or devil, which is derived from it, is that of malignant accusation, whether the charge were true or false. It is conceivable that it may have been purposely chosen to suggest the thought that the great Adversary was at once tempting the double-minded teachers to their life of hypocrisy, and exulting at their fall. If we ask why this was only suggested and not more directly expressed, as it would have been if some one accuser had been named, the answer is found in the fact that the one great Accuser has many mouth-pieces, diaboli acting under the diabolos (the Greek word stands for false accusers in Tit. 2:3), and that there was no lack of such comments, more or less malevolent, on the inconsistencies of the professedly religious class. (2) There is an obvious purpose in using the same word, in the hearing of the same persons, as that which, in Luk. 15:13, had described the excesses of the Prodigal Son. The Pharisees had heard that parable, and even if they had caught the bearing of the language which portrayed the character of the elder son, had flattered themselves that they were, at all events, free from the guilt of the younger. They had not wasted their substance in riotous living. Now they were taught that the goods committed to them might be wasted in other ways than by being devoured in company with harlots. They were guilty of that sin in proportion as they had failed to use what they had been entrusted with for the good of men and for Gods glory.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 16
A BAD MAN’S GOOD EXAMPLE ( Luk 16:1-13 ) 16:1-13 Jesus said to his disciples, “There was a rich man who had a steward. He received information against the steward which alleged that he was dissipating his goods. He called him, and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’ The steward said to himself, ‘What am I to do? I have not the strength to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I know what I will do, so that, when I am removed from my stewardship, they will receive me into their houses.’ So he summoned each of the people who owed debts to his master. To the first he said, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ He said, ‘Nine hundred gallons of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your account and sit down and write quickly, four hundred and fifty.’ Then he said to another ‘And you–how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A thousand bushels of corn.’ He said to him, ‘Take your accounts and write eight hundred.’ And the master praised the wicked steward because he acted shrewdly; for the sons of this world are shrewder in their own generation than the sons of light. And, I tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of your material possessions, even if they have been unjustly acquired, so that when your money has gone they will receive you into a dwelling which lasts forever. He who is trustworthy in a very little is also trustworthy in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If you have not shown yourself trustworthy in your ordinary business dealings about material things, who will trust you with the genuine wealth? If you have not shown yourselves trustworthy in what belongs to someone else, who will give you what is your own? No household slave can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot be the slave of God and of material things.”
This is a difficult parable to interpret. It is a story about as choice a set of rascals as one could meet anywhere.
The steward was a rascal. He was a slave, but he was nonetheless in charge of the running of his master’s estate. In Palestine there were many absentee landlords. The master may well have been one of these, and his business may well have been entrusted to his steward’s hands. The steward had followed a career of embezzlement.
The debtors were also rascals. No doubt what they owed was rent. Rent was often paid to a landlord, not in money, but in kind. It was often an agreed proportion of the produce of the part of the estate which had been rented. The steward knew that he had lost his job. He, therefore, had a brilliant idea. He falsified the entries in the books so that the debtors were debited with far less than they owed. This would have two effects. First, the debtors would be grateful to him; and second, and much more effective, he had involved the debtors in his own misdemeanours, and, if the worst came to the worst, he was now in a strong position to exercise a little judicious blackmail!
The master himself was something of a rascal, for, instead of being shocked at the whole proceeding, he appreciated the shrewd brain behind it and actually praised the steward for what he had done.
The difficulty of the parable is clearly seen from the fact that Luke attaches no fewer than four different lessons to it.
(i) In Luk 16:8 the lesson is that the sons of this world are wiser in their generation than the sons of light. That means that, if only the Christian was as eager and ingenious in his attempt to attain goodness as the man of the world is in his attempt to attain money and comfort, he would be a much better man. If only men would give as much attention to the things which concern their souls as they do to the things which concern their business, they would be much better men. Over and over again a man will expend twenty times the amount of time and money and effort on his pleasure, his hobby, his garden, his sport as he does on his church. Our Christianity will begin to be real and effective only when we spend as much time and effort on it as we do on our worldly activities.
(ii) In Luk 16:9 the lesson is that material possessions should be used to cement the friendships wherein the real and permanent value of life lies. That could be done in two ways.
(a) It could be done as it affects eternity. The Rabbis had a saying, “The rich help the poor in this world, but the poor help the rich in the world to come.” Ambrose, commenting on the rich fool who built bigger barns to store his goods, said, “The bosoms of the poor, the houses of widows, the mouths of children are the barns which last forever.” It was a Jewish belief that charity given to poor people would stand to a man’s credit in the world to come. A man’s true wealth would consist not in what he kept, but in what he gave away.
(b) It could be done as it affects this world. A man can use his wealth selfishly or he can use it to make life easier, not only for himself, but for his friends and his fellow-men. How many a scholar is forever grateful to a rich man who gave or left money to found bursaries and scholarships which made a university career possible! How many a man is grateful to a better-off friend who saw him through some time of need in the most practical way! Possessions are not in themselves a sin, but they are a great responsibility, and the man who uses them to help his friends has gone far to discharge that responsibility.
(iii) In Luk 16:10-11 the lesson is that a man’s way of fulfilling a small task is the best proof of his fitness or unfitness to be entrusted with a bigger task. That is clearly true of earthly things. No man will be advanced to higher office until he has given proof of his honesty and ability in a smaller position. But Jesus extends the principle to eternity. He says, “Upon earth you are in charge of things which are not really yours. You cannot take them with you when you die. They are only lent to you. You are only a steward over them. They cannot, in the nature of things, be permanently yours. On the other hand, in heaven you will get what is really and eternally yours. And what you get in heaven depends on how you use the things of earth. What you will be given as your very own will depend on how you use the things of which you are only steward.”
(iv) Luk 16:13 lays down the rule that no slave can serve two masters. The master possessed the slave, and possessed him exclusively. Nowadays, a servant or a workman can quite easily do two jobs and work for two people. He can do one job in his working time and another in his spare time. He can, for instance, be a clerk by day and a musician by night. Many a man augments his income or finds his real interest in a spare-time occupation. But a slave had no spare time; every moment of his day, and every ounce of his energy, belonged to his master. He had no time which was his own. So, serving God can never be a part-time or a spare-time job. Once a man chooses to serve God every moment of his time and every atom of his energy belongs to God. God is the most exclusive of masters. We either belong to him totally or not at all.
THE LAW WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE ( Luk 16:14-18 )
16:14-18 When the Pharisees, who were characteristically fond of money, heard these things, they derided Jesus. So he said to them, “You are those who make yourselves look righteous before men, but God knows your hearts, because that which is exalted amongst men is an abomination before God.
“The law and the prophets were until John; from then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed; and every one forces his way into it; but it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away then for one dot of the law to become invalid.
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman who has been divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
This passage falls into three sections.
(i) It begins with a rebuke to the Pharisees. It says that they derided Jesus. The word literally means that they turned up their noses at him. The Jew tended to connect earthly prosperity with goodness; wealth was a sign that a man was a good man. The Pharisees put-on a parade of goodness and they regarded material prosperity as a reward of that goodness; but the more they exalted themselves before men, the more they became an abomination to God. It is bad enough for a man to think himself a good man; it is worse when he points to material prosperity as an unanswerable proof of his goodness.
(ii) Before Jesus the law and the prophets had been the final word of God; but Jesus came preaching the kingdom. When he did, the most unlikely people, the tax-collectors and the sinners, came storming their way into the kingdom even when the scribes and Pharisees would have set up barriers to keep them out. But Jesus emphasized that the kingdom was not the end of the law. True, the little details and regulations of the ceremonial law were wiped out. No man was to think that Christianity offered an easy way in which no laws remained. The great laws stood unaltered and unalterable. Certain Hebrew letters are very like each other and are distinguished only by the serif, the little line at the top or bottom. Not even a serif of the great laws would pass away.
(iii) As an illustration of law that would never pass away Jesus took the law of chastity. This very definite statement of Jesus must be read against the contemporary background of Jewish life. The Jew glorified fidelity and chastity. The Rabbis said, “All things can God overlook except unchastity.” “Unchastity causes the glory of God to depart.” A Jew must surrender his life rather than commit idolatry, murder or adultery.
But the tragedy was that at this time the marriage bond was on the way to being destroyed. In the eyes of Jewish law a woman was a thing. She could divorce her husband only if he became a leper or an apostate or if he ravished a virgin. Otherwise a woman had no rights whatever and no redress, other than that the marriage dowry must be repaid if she was divorced. The law said, “A woman may be divorced with or without her will; a man only with his will.” The Mosaic law ( Deu 24:1) said, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house.” The bill of divorce had to be signed before two witnesses and ran, “Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt.” Divorce was as simple and easy as that.
The matter turned on the interpretation of the phrase some indecency in the Mosaic regulation. There were two schools of thought. The school of Shammai said that meant adultery and adultery alone. The school of Hillel said it could mean “if she spoiled a dish of food; if she spun in the street; if she talked to a strange man; if she was guilty of speaking disrespectfully of her husband’s relations in his hearing; if she was a brawling woman,” which was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next house. Rabbi Akiba went so far as to say that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman who was fairer than she. Human nature being what it is, it was the school of Hillel which prevailed, so that, in the time of Jesus things were so bad that women were refusing to marry at all and family life was in danger.
Jesus here lays down the sanctity of the marriage bond. The saying is repeated in Mat 5:31-32 where adultery is made the sole exception to the universal rule. We sometimes think our own generation is bad, but Jesus lived in a generation where things were every bit as bad. If we destroy family life, we destroy the very basis of the Christian life; and Jesus here lays down a law which men relax only at their peril.
THE PUNISHMENT OF THE MAN WHO NEVER NOTICED ( Luk 16:19-31 ) 16:19-31 There was a rich man who dressed habitually in purple and fine linen, and who feasted in luxury every day. A poor man, called Lazarus, was laid at his gate. He was full of ulcerated sores, and he desired to satisfy his hunger from the things which fell from the rich man’s table; more, the dogs used to come and lick his sores. The poor man died, and he was carried by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man died and was buried. And in hell, being in torture, he lifted up his eyes, and from far away he saw Abraham, and Lazarus in his bosom. He called out, “Father Abraham, have pity on me, and send Lazarus to me that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this fire.” Abraham said, “Child, remember that you received in full your good things in your life-time, just as Lazarus received evil things. Now be is comforted, and you are in anguish; and, besides all this, between you and us a great gulf is fixed, so that those who wish to pass from here to you cannot do so, nor can any cross from there to us.” He said, “Well then, I ask you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may warn them, so that they may not also come to this place of torture.” Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.” He said, “No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” He said to them, “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.”
This is a parable constructed with such masterly skill that not one phrase is wasted. Let us look at the two characters in it.
(i) First, there is the rich man, usually called Dives, which is the Latin for rich. Every phrase adds something to the luxury in which he lived. He was clothed in purple and fine linen. That is the description of the robes of the High Priests, and such robes cost anything from L 30 to L 40, an immense sum in days when a working man’s wage was about 4 p a day. He feasted in luxury every day. The word used for feasting is the word that is used for a gourmet feeding on exotic and costly dishes. He did this every day. In so doing he definitely and positively broke the fourth commandment. That commandment not only forbids work on the Sabbath; it also says six days you shall labour ( Exo 20:9).
In a country where the common people were fortunate if they ate meat once in the week and where they toiled for six days of the week, Dives is a figure of indolent self-indulgence. Lazarus was waiting for the crumbs that fell from Dives’s table. In that time there were no knives, forks or napkins. Food was eaten with the hands and, in very wealthy houses, the hands were cleansed by wiping them on hunks of bread, which were then thrown away. That was what Lazarus was waiting for.
(ii) Second, there is Lazarus. Strangely enough Lazarus is the only character in any of the parables who is given a name. The name is the Latinized form of Eleazar and means God is my help. He was a beggar; he was covered with ulcerated sores, and so helpless that he could not even ward off the street dogs, which pestered him.
Such is the scene in this world; then abruptly it changes to the next and there Lazarus is in glory and Dives is in torment. What was the sin of Dives? He had not ordered Lazarus to be removed from his gate. He had made no objections to his receiving the bread that was flung away from his table. He did not kick him in the passing. He was not deliberately cruel to him. The sin of Dives was that he never noticed Lazarus, that he accepted him as part of the landscape and simply thought it perfectly natural and inevitable that Lazarus should lie in pain and hunger while he wallowed in luxury. As someone said, “It was not what Dives did that got him into gaol; it was what he did not do that got him into hell.”
The sin of Dives was that he could look on the world’s suffering and need and feel no answering sword of grief and pity pierce his heart; he looked at a fellow-man, hungry and in pain, and did nothing about it. His was the punishment of the man who never noticed.
It seems hard that his request that his brothers should be warned was refused. But it is the plain fact that if men possess the truth of God’s word, and if, wherever they look, there is sorrow to be comforted, need to be supplied pain to be relieved, and it moves them to no feeling and to no action, nothing will change them.
It is a terrible warning that the sin of Dives was not that he did wrong things, but that he did nothing.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
93. PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD; AND OF THE RICH MAN, Luk 16:1-31 .
1. He said also In addition to what he had said to the Pharisees in the last chapter, but probably on a later occasion. The disciples here mentioned are understood by most commentators to be not so much the twelve as the received sinners alluded to in the second verse of the last chapter; namely, the publicans and (Gentile) sinners converted under Christ’s preaching in the Jordanic regions of Peraea and Judea.
A steward The steward is probationary man; the rich man whom he serves, is the God of life and providence. The removal from the stewardship is the fail or life-close at Luk 16:9.
Was accused Disease and decay in due time charge the man with unfitness for his stewardship, and the God of life calls him to answer it.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
THE PERAEAN MINISTRY, BETWEEN THE FEAST OF DEDICATION AND THE RETIREMENT TO EPHRAIM. Luk 13:22 to Luk 17:10. See Harmony, p. 101.
Jesus went to the Feast of Dedication, Joh 10:22-40. After which, according to Joh 10:40, he went to beyond Jordan, (Peraea,) where John at first baptized, and there abode. Many, as John assures us, who had the original testimony of the Baptist, were convinced of its fulfilment in him, and became believers on him. Of this PERAEN MINISTRY Luke here gives an account; covering apparently, however, but the two or three closing days. Jesus, then, as we learn from John, departed to raise Lazarus, and then retired to Ephraim.
A marked fact in this brief account of the Peraean ministry is the conversion of many Jewish publicans and [Gentile] sinners, and the Lord’s defences of them against the malignity of their Phariseean assailants. This contest draws out from Jesus a series of most striking discourses and parables. Jericho and the Jordan region probably abounded in Publicans and a Gentile population.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he said also to the disciples, “There was a certain rich man, who had a steward, and the same was accused to him that he was wasting his goods.” ’
Note that the direct recipients of the parable are the disciples. The message it contains is therefore primarily for them. The story opens with the case of an absentee landlord whose steward or estate manager has been reported for mismanagement which has been to the lord’s financial disadvantage.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Parable of The Astute Steward (16:1-13).
Jesus now tells a parable about an astute but careless estate manager who is failing to do his job properly. It is reported that he is ‘wasting’ his lord’s goods by his carelessness, not misappropriating them. When he is told that he is to be replaced, and must render up his stewardship accounts, he hits on a scheme which will put him in a good light in the eyes of others who might employ him, and at the same time will impress his lord. He will clear off some of the longstanding debts by means of what in modern times we call a Deed of Voluntary Arrangement. This will please the debtors and at the same time bring the money flowing in.
Under such a scheme both parties benefit. It is achieved by giving the equivalent of a large discount on condition of immediate payment. By giving the large discounts he will win the favour of possible future employers, and at the same time persuade them to pay up, and by clearing the debts, which might possibly never otherwise have been paid, he will at the same time please his lord, for it will reduce amounts owing to him in his balance sheet to reasonable proportions and will mean that he does actually receive some of what was due. To the debtors the manager and his lord will appear generous (although they will recognise to whom they really owe the benefit), to the lord he will appear efficient because unexpectedly the money is rolling in. It was a skilful piece of financial management, but at the same time may only have been necessary because of his previous failure to be efficient. That is partly why he is called an ‘unrighteous’ steward, not because of blatant dishonesty, but because of the margins he charges, the penalties he imposes and because of his carelessness and laziness in collecting debts. It is true that outwardly this has caused his lord ‘a loss’, that is a lower profit than he would otherwise have received. But it would ensure that the cash was rolling in and the lord would not be aware of the whole situation. Indeed he was rather impressed by his estate manager’s efficiency. (But not sufficiently to retain him in his job).
Coming to such an arrangement may well have been easier because of the margins the estate manager was making on the sale of the produce, especially if payment was being made late and large penalties were being imposed in lieu of ‘interest’. Such large penalties were a feature of ancient trade. He is thus cutting his lord’s profits, not actually making a loss. The lord may not even have been aware of this. All he would know was what was ‘in stock’, what in general had been owed last time accounts had been rendered, and how much money was rolling in. And the sudden increase in the latter had clearly impressed him. Another alternative suggested is that the estate manager had built a commission into the prices and was foregoing his commission.
One of these explanations is required because of the unlikelihood of the lord commending someone who had blatantly swindled him.
Analysis.
a He said also to the disciples, “There was a certain rich man, who had a steward, and the same was accused to him that he was wasting his goods” (Luk 16:1).
b He called him, and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Render the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward’ (Luk 16:2).
c The steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord is taking away the stewardship from me? I do not have the strength to dig, to beg I am ashamed” (Luk 16:3).
d “I am resolved what to do, so that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses” (Luk 16:4).
e Calling to him each one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first, “How much do you owe to my lord?” And he said, “A hundred measures of oil.” And he said to him, “Take your bond, and sit down quickly and write fifty” (Luk 16:5-6).
e Then he said to another, “And how much do you owe?” And he said, “A hundred measures of wheat.” He says to him, Take your bond, and write fourscore” (Luk 16:7).
d And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely, for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light (Luk 16:8).
c And I say to you, “Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings ( tabernacles)” (Luk 16:9).
b
“He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much,
And he who is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much.
If therefore you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon,
Who will commit to your trust the true riches,
And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s,
Who will give you that which is your own?”(Luk 16:10-12).
a “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Luk 16:13).
In ‘a’ the steward professed to be serving his master but was serving mammon, and in the parallel Jesus declares that it is not possible to serve two masters. In ‘b’ the steward is called to render his account, and in the parallel it is by his account that a man’s faithfulness will be tested. In ‘c’ the steward asks himself what he should do, and in the parallel a good steward should use his wealth to make friends in the right place, in the eternal dwellings/tabernacles. In ‘d’ the steward decides what course he will take and in the parallel his lord commends him for it. In ‘e’ we have the steward’s solution, get the debts in by giving big discounts which will please everyone.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Men Must Live In The Light Of The Coming Of The Son of Man In His Glory (15:1-19:28).
Having established in Section 1 that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the city of David where He was proclaimed ‘Saviour’ and ‘Lord Messiah’; and in Section 2 that as ‘the Son of God’ Jesus had faced His temptations as to what His Messiahship would involve and defeated the Tempter; and that in Section 3 He had proclaimed in parables the secrets of ‘the Kingly Rule of God’; and had in Section 4 taught His Disciples the Lord’s Prayer for the establishment of that Kingly Rule and for their deliverance from the trial to come; and having in Section 5 seen in the healing of the crooked woman on the Sabbath a picture of the deliverance of God’s people from Satan’s power; this section now centres on His coming revelation in glory as the glorious Son of Man (compare Dan 7:13-14).
(For the evidence that these points are central to the narrative see Introduction).
Section 6 follows the chiastic pattern that we have already seen abounds in Luke. It may be analysed in detail as follows:
a Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear Him (Luk 15:1).
b The parables concerning the seeking Shepherd who goes out into the wilderness, the woman with the coins, and the three, the father and the two young men, who each make their choice as to what they will do, and Heaven’s rejoicing when tax collectors and sinners repent (Luk 15:2-32).
c The steward who used his lord’s wealth wisely, and thoughts on using money wisely in preparation for the eternal future in the everlasting dwellings (Luk 16:1-13).
d The Pharisees are blind to the truth about Jesus and cavil at His teaching, but all who see the truth press into the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 16:14-18).
e The story of the rich man, and the beggar Lazarus, is a pointer to the wrong use of wealth in the light of the eternal future and to the unwillingness of many even solid Jews to truly listen to the Law of God, which will result in their being lost for ever (Luk 16:19-31).
f The danger of putting stumblingblocks in the way of others, especially of children, in the light of the eternal future (Luk 17:1-5).
g The servant who only does his duty in the expansion of the Kingly Rule of God does not expect a reward, for that is his duty (Luk 17:6-10).
h Ten lepers come seeking deliverance and are healed – but there is only one, a Samaritan, who afterwards seeks out Jesus with gratitude so as to give thanks. Among the many the one stands out. He alone finally seeks Jesus in faith and is abundantly vindicated. Jesus asks, ‘where there not ten cleansed, where are the nine?’ and stresses his faith (Luk 17:11-19).
i The Kingly Rule of God does not come with signs (Luk 17:20-21)
j After first being rejected the Son of Man, when He comes, will come in His glory (Luk 17:22-24), men must therefore beware of false Messiahs. After this we have a cluster of Son of Man sayings (Luk 17:26; Luk 17:30; Luk 18:8; Luk 18:31; Luk 19:10).
i The coming of the Son of Man will be unexpected (and thus without signs) (Luk 17:25-37).
h In parable there is an unrighteous judge, (who represents God), and he is faced by one who comes to him seeking for vindication, a picture of God’s elect seeking vindication. God’s elect must persevere in prayer and seek Him with faith that they too might find vindication. Among the many, the few stand out. Jesus asks, ‘when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?’ (Luk 18:1-8).
g The Pharisee who thinks he does his duty and expects thanks for it, is contrasted with the one who comes humbly and is justified (Luk 18:9-14).
f The Kingly Rule of God must be received as a little child (Luk 18:15-17).
e The approach of the rich young ruler and the difficulty of entering under the Kingly Rule of God, stressing the wise use of wealth for the sake of the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 18:18-30).
d While the Apostles remain partially blind to the truth about Jesus, (the fact that what is written about the Son of Man must be accomplished), the blind man at Jericho recognises Him as the Son of David and insists on being brought to Jesus and his eyes are opened, He insistently presses into the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 18:31-43).
c The chief tax collector Zacchaeus uses his wealth wisely and yields it to the Lord, demonstrating that the Son of Man has successfully come to seek and save the lost (Luk 19:1-10).
b The king goes to a far country to receive Kingly Rule, he gives coins to his servants to trade with, and his three servants have each to make their choice (Luk 19:11-27).
a ‘And when He had said thus He went on before, going up to Jerusalem’ (Luk 19:28).
Note how in ‘a’ the section opens with the tax collectors and sinners drawing near ‘to hear Him’, and ends with Him ‘concluding His words’ before moving on towards His death in Jerusalem. In ‘b’ the shepherd goes into the wilderness, the woman looks after her coins, and a father and his two sons make their choices, while in the parallel a king goes into a far country, he dispenses coins to be looked after, and three servants make their choices. In ‘c’ the steward uses money wisely and in the parallel Zacchaeus uses his money wisely. In ‘d’ The Pharisees are ‘blind’ to the truth about Jesus and cavil at His teaching, while those who see the truth press into the Kingly Rule of God, and in the parallel the disciples are ‘blind’ to Jesus’ teaching, while the blind man presses insistently into seeing Jesus. In ‘e’ we have the rich man who used his wealth wrongly and in the parallel the rich young ruler who refused to use his wealth rightly. In ‘f’ we are told of the danger of putting stumblingblocks in the way of others, especially of children, while in the parallel the Kingly Rule of God must be received as a little child. In ‘g’ the servant who only does his duty does not expect a reward, while in the parallel the Pharisee is confident that he has done his duty and boasts about it, but is seen as lacking. In ‘h’ ten men cry out for deliverance, but one man stands out as seeking Jesus and is commended and his faith alone is emphasised, in the parallel one woman seeks to a judge (God) and His elect are to seek out God for deliverance and are commended but lack of faith on earth is feared. In ‘i’ the Kingly Rule of God does not come with signs, and in the parallel His coming will be unexpected (and thus without signs). In ‘j’, and centrally, the rejected Son of Man is to come in His glory and false Messiahs are to be avoided (Luk 17:22-24).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Parable of the Unjust Steward In Luk 16:1-13 Jesus turns to His disciples and teaches them the Parable of the Unjust Steward, which addresses the dangers of covetousness. He tells the parable proper in Luk 16:1-8, then elaborates on the moral truth taught in this parable in Luk 16:9-13. Jesus concludes this parable with a moral truth in Luk 16:9. He then elaborates on this truth in Luk 16:10-13. We are taught to be wise stewards of this world’s goods so that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus contrasts faithfulness to unfaithfulness regarding this world’s goods. Jesus describes this world’s goods as least in importance, while God’s riches are described as the most important.
This world’s goods are described as (1) least [Luk 16:10 ], (2) unrighteous mammon [Luk 16:11 ], and (3) another man’s (God’s) [Luk 16:12 ]. In contrast, Heaven’s riches are (1) much [Luk 16:10 ], (2) true riches [Luk 16:11 ], and (3) that which is our own [Luk 16:12 ].
Being faithful with what God has entrusted us with on earth is small when compared to what God will entrust us with in eternity regarding spiritual riches. While the world measures success by the amount of financial gain, God measures success by a person’s degree of faithfulness.
He then rebukes the Pharisees because of their covetousness (Luk 16:14-18). Within the context of the Travel Narrative (Luk 9:51 to Luk 21:38), Jesus is teaching the disciples how to enter into the narrow gate that leads to Heaven by keeping their hearts pure.
Interpretation – In the Parable of the Unjust Steward the sins of this steward were made known to his master; in response, he takes the money due to his master and gives it to his debtors in order to be able to ask them in the future for their favor and grace when he was fired. The steward was commended by his master because he used money, unrighteous mammon, to obtain a future place to rest. Jesus then tells his audience to use money likewise in this life to help others so that they, too, will be welcomed into their eternal home in Heaven.
Luk 16:1 “And he said also unto his disciples” Comments Jesus had been addressing the Pharisees in his previous parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin and the Prodigal Son (see Luk 15:3). He now turns to His disciples and gives them a parable in order to instruct them on the Kingdom of Heaven.
Luk 16:1 “There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods” Comments The office of a steward can be seen in the Old Testament. McGee notes that Abraham had an elder servant that ruled over his entire house (Gen 24:1), and King David had a number of stewards (1Ch 28:1). [239]
[239] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the BibleCommentary, based on the Thru the Bible radio program, (electronic ed.) (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Luke 16:1.
Someone told the rich man that his steward had wasted that which had been put under his authority. He may have wasted it through stealing and embezzlement, or through simple laziness. The point is that the steward was not being a good manager of that which belonged to another man.
Luk 16:2 “And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee?” Comments Matthew Henry notes the tone of sorrow in the master’s voice. [240] Anyone who has dealt in management understands that grief that is felt when learning about an employee’s abuses of his job. The process of confronting the person and terminating him or her is not an enjoyable one.
[240] Matthew Henry, Luke, in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on Luke 16:2.
Luk 16:2 “give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward” Comments Perhaps the master asked the steward to prepare a financial statement for him as a part of the handover before termination. This allotment of time may have allowed the steward to go out and collect reduced payments from his master’s debtors. Or, the steward may have been fired prior to him visiting his master’s debtors.
Luk 16:3 “Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship” – Comments The steward has now lost his job. He begins to think of what he must do.
“I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed” Comments It is my experience in underdeveloped countries that the issue of saving one’s face is the most important concern in times of humiliating accusations of wrongdoing. This “face-saving” issue is a big issue in many cultures and hinders a person from making good decisions in humility. The main concern of the steward was to save his face while taking care of his future financial needs. He could have dug (unless he was too old), but he did not want to feel humiliated when his friends heard about his termination and humble job. Digging represents the lowliest of jobs in most any society. This steward had become an important man in society, and he was not willing to step down from this position of influence.
Luk 16:4 Comments McGee notes that there is no indication of repentance from the steward. [241] With a clever mind the steward comes up with a plan that will benefit him by saving his face, at the financial cost of his former boss. This type of planning reflects a culture in which people expected someone to return a favor when given one.
[241] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the BibleCommentary, based on the Thru the Bible radio program, (electronic ed.) (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Luke 16:4.
Illustration – I once had an accountant, who had recently been fired because I reported him to the pastor, come to me to borrow money. He did not tell me that he no longer worked for the church. He was probably visiting all of his church’s tithers before they found out that he had been fired. So, it would not be unusual for this clever steward to visit these clients after he had been fired.
Luk 16:5 “So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him” Comments The Greek phrase is best translated “each one” or “every single one”, (Nolland, Hultgren) although it is sometimes translated “one by one.” [242]
[242] John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 , in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35B (Dallas, Texas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), explanation on Luke 16:5; Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 146.
Luk 16:5 Comments The steward goes to his former boss’ clients and negotiates a quick pay-off plan for them. This steward figures out how to gain friendship from his boss’ clients so that he can find favor with them to meet his needs.
Luk 16:6 “And he said, An hundred measures of oil” Comments The Greek word “measure” is used in Luk 16:6, which is derived from the Hebrew ( ) “bath,” which is “a liquid measure of approximately ten gallons (39.384 liters).” [243] This adds up to one thousand gallons of olive oil, which would be considered a large debt.
[243] Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 150.
Luk 16:6 “And he said unto him, Take thy bill and write fifty” Comments Hultgren notes that the bill has been in the possession of the steward. These “promissory notes” are now edited by the handwriting of the two parties to reflect a reduced debt. [244]
[244] Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 150.
Luk 16:6 “and sit down quickly” Comments The unjust steward makes this transaction, and we assume the second in Luk 16:7, in haste. Perhaps the stewards feels the urgency because he has been fired, or is about to be, and does not want these creditors to find out what he is doing to his master.
Luk 16:7 Word Study on “measure” – The Greek word (G2884) (measure) is derived from the Hebrew ( ) “kor.” [245] It refers to “a dry measure of approximately 11 bushels (393 liters).” As with the oil, this would be a large debt amounting to 1,100 bushels of wheat.
[245] Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 151.
Luk 16:6-7 Comments Negotiating Debt – When we read Luk 16:6-7, we immediately pick up on the discrepancy regarding different amounts of reductions on the two debts. It would make better sense for the unjust steward to give everyone an equal discount, which is what we would do. This is because we are reading the story as born-again believers with a mindset of integrity. However, the parable is being told in a culture where cleverness, and not integrity, is more common. In such cultures where corruption is systemic, negotiations determine the rules, and not fairness. What one negotiates is what one gets, whether it is fair or not. For example, in Uganda I enter a store to buy a produce, and there are no price tags on any merchandise. Everything is negotiated. In contrast, I shop in the United States or London, and every item has a fixed price, which is generally the market price, the fair price. Thus, the unjust steward is negotiating these discounted debts in the same manner he negotiated their loan.
Luk 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Luk 16:8
The rich man’s reaction is so typical of the African society in which I live as a missionary. When I am angered by corruption, many local people just go about their way without concerning themselves with the issue, simply because they have grown up around it for so long. It no longer shocks them. In fact, cleverness is a characteristic that is highly esteemed in a society where corruption is systemic. While the Christian nations value integrity, corrupt societies value cleverness. This rich man acknowledges the steward’s cleverness as something that was commendable.
Hultgren notes that the rich man was put in a position of having to accept the situation that he had been placed by the shrewd steward. [246] He could not go to these debtors and void these revised promissory notes, since this would discredit him in society, and turn his clients into enemies. Besides, this dispute could have gone to court in favor of the debtor.
[246] Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 151.
Luk 16:8 “for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light” Comments The children of this world are not wiser in the things of God, but wiser in the sense of knowing how to use worldly riches to give them benefits during their life on earth. In a similar manner, Christians should use this world’s goods to prepare for them an everlasting habitation, that is, to please God that He might receive them into Heaven. Jesus calls those who believe in Him “children of light,” a phrase used elsewhere in the New Testament (see Joh 12:36, Eph 5:8, 1Th 5:5)
Joh 12:36, “While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”
Eph 5:8, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:”
1Th 5:5, “Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”
Luk 16:9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
Luk 16:9
[247] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 57.
Luk 16:9 “that, when ye fail” – Comments That is, “when you come to the end of your life.”
Luk 16:9 Comments Money in itself is not an evil thing. It is the love for money, or covetousness, which is an act of evil. Jesus teaches us to use material wealth in a way that honors God and blesses others. More specifically, when we use our wealth to prosper the Kingdom of Heaven, we will have an abundance of people in Heaven to receive us into our eternal home, simply because we were an instrument in their salvation.
Luk 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
Luk 16:10
[248] Andrew Wommack, “Sermon,” Andrew Wommack Bible Conference, Kampala, Uganda, 3 June 2010.
He that is faithful with that which is least (unrighteous mammon), will be faithful in much (eternal riches). Earthly possessions are “least,” while spiritual things are “much,” and called “true riches” in the following verse (Luk 16:11).
Scripture References – Just as Luk 16:10 contrasts poor stewardship against good, so does this comparison take place in Pro 12:27, “The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting: but the substance of a diligent man is precious.”
Luk 16:11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
Luk 16:11
It is also possible to interpret “true riches” as spiritual gifts, those things that God gives faithful believes on earth, such as anointings and offices of ministry. For example, Creflo Dollar refers to the phrase “the riches” in Col 1:27 and defines true riches as “Christ in us,” which he explains as the anointing that abides within us. [249] It could mean that God rewards us in this life by promoting us in the ministry and giving us greater financial responsibility as we are faithful in the beginning with little things. These spiritual gifts and anointings are determined by how we handle God’s material gifts given unto us.
[249] Creflo Dollar, “Sermon,” (Kampala, Uganda: Miracle Center Cathedral), 14 June 2007.
Col 1:27, “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:”
Luk 16:13 Comments – We gain insight into Luk 16:13 by reading a parallel passage in Matthew’s Gospel. A person cannot serve God by storing up earthly treasures (Mat 6:19-21), simply because his heart will become covetous and evil towards God. God has created our spirit to be the light by which God guides us through life (Mat 6:22). But when a heart becomes evil towards God he begins to walk in darkness (Mat 6:23). Jesus sums up Mat 6:19-23 by telling us that we cannot serve both earthly things and God. We must choose between the two where we will direct our affections. Once we make the decision to serve the Lord, we have to learn how to trust Him, which will be the theme of the next passage in Mat 6:25-34.
Mat 6:19-24, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
The next verse in Luk 16:14 tells us the reaction of the Pharisees, who were covetousness. In other words, they were serving unrighteous mammon, rather than God.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Witnesses of Jesus Justifying Him as the Saviour of the World (God the Father’s Justification of Jesus) Luk 4:31 to Luk 21:38 contains the testimony of Jesus’ public ministry, as He justifies Himself as the Saviour of the world. In this major section Jesus demonstrates His divine authority over man, over the Law, and over creation itself, until finally He reveals Himself to His three close disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration as God manifested in the flesh. Jesus is the Saviour over every area of man’s life and over creation itself, a role that can only be identified with God Himself. This was the revelation that Peter had when he said that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the Living God. Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50 begins with His rejection in His hometown of Nazareth and this section culminates in Luk 9:50 with Peter’s confession and testimony of Jesus as the Anointed One sent from God. In summary, this section of material is a collection of narratives that testifies to Jesus’ authority over every aspect of humanity to be called the Christ, or the Saviour of the world.
Luke presents Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world that was presently under the authority of Roman rule. He was writing to a Roman official who was able to exercise his authority over men. Thus, Luke was able to contrast Jesus’ divine authority and power to that of the Roman rule. Jesus rightfully held the title as the Saviour of the world because of the fact that He had authority over mankind as well as the rest of God’s creation. Someone who saves and delivers a person does it because he has the authority and power over that which oppresses the person.
In a similar way, Matthew portrays Jesus Christ as the Messiah who fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the King of the Jews supports His claim as the Messiah. John gives us the testimony of God the Father, who says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. John uses the additional testimonies of John the Baptist, of His miracles, of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and of Jesus Himself to support this claim. Mark testifies of the many miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ by emphasizing the preaching of the Gospel as the way in which these miracles take place.
This major section of the public ministry of Jesus Christ can be subdivided into His prophetic testimonies. In Luk 4:31 to Luk 6:49 Jesus testifies of true justification in the Kingdom of God. In Luk 7:1 to Luk 8:21 Jesus testifies of His doctrine. In Luk 8:22 to Luk 10:37 Jesus testifies of divine service in the Kingdom of God as He sets His face towards Jerusalem. In Luk 10:38 to Luk 17:10 Jesus testifies of perseverance in the Kingdom of God as He travels towards Jerusalem. Finally, in Luk 17:11 to Luk 21:38 Jesus teaches on glorification in the Kingdom of God.
The Two-Fold Structure in Luke of Doing/Teaching As Reflected in the Prologue to the Book of Acts – The prologue to the book of Acts serves as a brief summary and outline of the Gospel of Luke. In Act 1:1 the writer makes a clear reference to the Gospel of Luke, as a companion book to the book of Acts, by telling us that this “former treatise” was about “all that Jesus began to do and to teach.” If we examine the Gospel of Luke we can find two major divisions in the narrative material of Jesus’ earthly ministry leading up to His Passion. In Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50 we have the testimony of His Galilean Ministry in which Jesus did many wonderful miracles to reveal His divine authority as the Christ, the Son of God. This passage emphasized the works that Jesus did to testify of Himself as the Saviour of the world. The emphasis then shifts beginning in Luk 9:51 to Luk 21:38 as it focuses upon Jesus teaching and preparing His disciples to do the work of the Kingdom of God. Thus, Luk 4:14 to Luk 21:38 can be divided into this two-fold emphasis of Jesus’ works and His teachings. [186]
[186] We can also see this two-fold aspect of doing and teaching in the Gospel of Matthew, as Jesus always demonstrated the work of the ministry before teaching it in one of His five major discourses. The narrative material preceding his discourses serves as a demonstration of what He then taught. For example, in Matthew 8:1 to 9:38, Jesus performed nine miracles before teaching His disciples in Matthew 10:1-42 and sending them out to perform these same types of miracles. In Matthew 11:1 to 12:50 this Gospel records examples of how people reacted to the preaching of the Gospel before Jesus teaches on this same subject in the parables of Matthew 13:1-52. We see examples of how Jesus handled offences in Matthew 13:53 to 17:27 before He teaches on this subject in Matthew 18:1-35. Jesus also prepares for His departure in Matthew 19:1 to 25:46 before teaching on His second coming in Matthew 24-25.
Jesus’ Public Ministry One observation that can be made about Jesus’ Galilean ministry and his lengthy travel narrative to Jerusalem is that He attempts to visit every city and village in Israel that will receive Him. He even sends out His disciples in order to reach them all. But why is such an effort made to preach the Gospel to all of Israel during Jesus’ earthly ministry? Part of the answer lies in the fact that Jesus wanted everyone to have the opportunity to hear and believe. For those who rejected Him, they now will stand before God on the great Judgment Day without an excuse for their sinful lifestyles. Jesus wanted everyone to have the opportunity to believe and be saved. This seemed to be His passion throughout His Public Ministry. Another aspect of the answer is the impending outpouring of the Holy Ghost and the sending out of the Twelve to the uttermost parts of the earth. Jesus understood the necessity to first preach the Gospel to all of Israel before sending out the apostles to other cities and nations.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Perseverance: Jesus Testifies of Striving to Enter Into Heaven In Luk 10:38 to Luk 17:10 Jesus testifies of striving to enter into Heaven through perseverance.
Outline: Note the proposed outline:
1. Narrative: Jesus Demonstrates Perseverance Luk 10:38 to Luk 13:21
2. Discourse: Jesus Teaches on Perseverance: Luk 13:22 to Luk 17:10
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Discourse: Jesus Teaches on Perseverance: Persecutions (Towards Jerusalem) In Luk 13:22 to Luk 17:10 Jesus moves further towards Jerusalem as He makes His way through the villages of Samaria and Galilee. In this section, Jesus trains His disciples in the area of perseverance in the midst of persecutions. The way into the Kingdom of God is narrow (Luk 13:22-30). The decision to leave all behind and follow Jesus begins with humility (Luk 14:7-11) and benevolence (Luk 14:12-14). A disciple of Christ forsakes the cares of this world (Luk 14:15-24) as well as his family bonds (Luk 14:25-35). A disciple begins to seek and to save the lost souls (Luk 15:1-32). Good stewardship to this calling is needed (Luk 16:1-13) and managing the riches that God entrusts to us (Luk 16:14-31). Only then can a disciple begin to understand what true faith in God involves (Luk 17:5-10). This kind of faith is not a one-time decision, but a series of daily decision of being a faithful servant.
Luk 15:1 to Luk 17:10 contains a continuous discourse by the Lord Jesus on perseverance in relation to the office of the prophet. The fundamental duty of the prophet is to preach the Gospel to the lost (Luk 15:1-32), being good stewards of one’s prophetic gifts (Luk 16:1-13), not covetous (Luk 16:14-31), neither offensive (Luk 17:1-4), so that their gifts may grow and flourish (Luk 17:5-10).
Outline – Here is a proposed outline:
1. Jesus Instructs on Striving to Enter the Kingdom Luk 13:22-30
2. Corrects Pharisees on Fulfillment of His Ministry Luk 13:31-35
3. Jesus Heals & Corrects the Pharisees on the Law Luk 14:1-6
4. Jesus Teaches on Humility Luk 14:7-11
5. Jesus Teaches on Benevolence Luk 14:12-14
6. Jesus Teaches on Forsaking Cares of the World Luk 14:15-24
7. Jesus Teaches on Forsaking All Luk 14:25-35
8. Discourse: Jesus Teaches on Perseverance Luk 15:1 to Luk 17:10
a) Jesus Corrects Pharisees on Seeking the Lord Luk 15:1-32
i) Parable of Lost Sheep Luk 15:1-7
ii) Parable of Lost Coin Luk 15:8-10
iii) Parable of Lost Son Luk 15:11-32
b) Jesus Instructs Disciples on Stewardship Luk 16:1-13
c) Jesus Corrects Pharisees on Covetousness Luk 16:14-31
d) Jesus Teaches Disciples on Offences Luk 17:1-4
e) Jesus Teaches the Apostles on Faith & Duty Luk 17:5-10
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Discourse: Jesus Teaches on Perseverance In Luk 15:1 to Luk 17:10 Jesus teaches a continuous discourse that places emphasis on perseverance. He discusses our need to love the sinner (Luk 15:1-32), to be good stewards of what God has given us in this life (Luk 16:1-13), to avoid covetousness (Luk 16:14-31) and offenses (Luk 17:1-4), and to live a lifestyle of servanthood as an expression of faith in God (Luk 17:5-10).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Jesus Corrects Pharisees on Seeking the Lord Luk 15:1-32
2. Jesus Instructs Disciples on Stewardship Luk 16:1-13
3.) Jesus Rebukes Pharisees on Covetousness Luk 16:14-31
4. Jesus Teaches Disciples on Offences Luk 17:1-4
5. Jesus Teaches the Apostles on Faith & Duty Luk 17:5-10
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Parable of the Unjust Steward and Its Lessons. The accusation of unfaithfulness:
v. 1. And He said also unto His disciples, There was a certain rich man which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that lie had wasted his goods.
v. 2. And he called him and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. The three parables of the previous chapter had been addressed to the Pharisees and scribes, probably in the presence of the publicans and sinners, and surely in the presence of the disciples. The parable of the steward is spoken to the disciples, but the Pharisees were still present. Disciples includes not only the Twelve, but all the followers of Jesus. There is a hint even here. A certain man there was, and he was rich, so rich that he personally did not attend to the clerical work and to his finances, leaving all this to a steward and putting him in full charge, as trusted officer. But the steward was accused, an accusation was brought against him to the master, that he was wasting the goods entrusted to his care, that he was squandering his master’s money, either by fraud or by extravagant living. The definiteness of the accusation caused the master to assume that the charge was true, and so he summoned the steward before him. He wanted him to give an account of himself and his work: What is this that I hear of thee? He orders him to produce his books, to render an account in detail of his stewardship before his position terminates. For if the books showed a discrepancy between the rents or debts that had been due in the past and the money that should be on hand, the loss of his position would naturally follow. There was still some chance for the steward, if he could prove or furnish apparent proofs of his innocence.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Luk 16:1-31
The Lord‘s teaching on the right use of earthly possessions with regard to the prospect of another world, in the form of the two parables of the unjust steward, and Dives and Lazarus.
Luk 16:1, Luk 16:2
And he said also unto his disciples. There is no doubt that this important teaching belongs to the last portion of our Lord’s life, and it is probable that it is closely connected with the parable of the prodigal son just related. It is not likely that two such weighty sermons had been preached at the same time, but in the evening, or on the following day, or at least on the next sabbath, the same auditory that listened to the prodigal son we believe were startled and enthralled by the story of the unjust steward, and then, or very shortly after, by the awful and vivid picture of life beyond the grave in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. There is a close link of thought between the parable of the unjust steward and that of the prodigal. The heroes of both these narratives, in the first instance, had a considerable share of this world’s goods entrusted to their charge, and by both, in the early portions of the story, these goods were misused and wasted. The Greek words used of the “wasting” of the prodigal and of the steward were in both cases the same (Luk 15:13; Luk 16:1). No parable in the New Testament has been so copiously discussed or has received so many end such varying interpretations at the hands of expositors. We will at once put aside all the ingenious, but from our point of view mistaken, interpretations which see in “the steward” the Pharisees, the publicans, Judas Iscariot, or Satan. The parable has a broader, a more direct, a more universally interesting, meaning. It contains a deep and important teaching for every man or woman who would wish to rank among the followers, of Jesus Christ. Now, our Lord would have all men look forward gravely and calmly to the certain event of their death, and. in view of that event, would have them make careful and thoughtful preparation for the life which was to come after death. To press this most important lesson home, the Master, as his custom was at this late period of his ministry, conveyed his instruction in the form of a parable. The sketch of a steward about to be dismissed from his office, and who thus would be stripped of his income, was a fit emblem of a man about to be removed from this world by death. The steward in the parable-story felt that, when dismissed, he would be as it were alone, stripped of all, and destitute. The soul of such a man, when dead, would be also stripped of everything, would be alone and destitute. The question here might be askedWhy take for the principal figure of the parable so immoral a character as an unjust steward? The answer is well suggested by Professor Bruce, “For the simple reason that his misbehaviour is the natural explanation of the impending dismissal. Why should a faithful steward be removed from office? To conceive such a case were to sacrifice probability to a moral scruple.” Roughly, then, two things all-important to us are taught here:
(1) that dismissal, death, will certainly come;
(2) that some provision certainly ought to be made for the life that lies beyondthe life that comes after the dismissal, or death.
There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. The story of the parable contains little incident. There is the rich man, clearly a noble of high rank, whose residence is at a distance from his estates, the scene of the little story. Over these he has placed, as administrator or factor, the one called here a steward; the revenues of the lands this official has wasted; he appears to have been generally a careless if not a dishonest servant. The owner of the estates, when he becomes aware of the facts of the case, at once gives notice of dismissal to the steward, desiring him, however, before yielding up his office, to give in his accounts. Appalled at the sudden and utter destitution which lay before him, the steward occupies the short time of office yet remaining to him in devising a plan by which he would secure the good offices of certain persons who were in debt to his master. He (the steward) had yet a little time of power remaining before he was turned adrift; he would turn this to account, and would do a good turn to these men, poor neighbours of his, and debtors to his lord, while he was in office, and so win their friendship, and, on the principle that one good turn deserves another, would be able to reckon on their gratitude when all else had failed him. With the immorality of the act by which he won the good will of these debtors of his master we have nothing to do; it is simply a detail of the picture, which is composed of figures and imagery chosen for their fitness to impress the lesson intended to be taught. Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. This taking away the position and privileges of the man represents the act of death, in which God takes away from us all the varied gifts, the possessions, and the powers large or small with which we are eutrusted during our lifetime. Our day of dismissal will be the day of our passing away from this life.
Luk 16:3
What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship. This day of dismissal must be prepared for; very carefully, very anxiously, the man who has received the sentence of doom ponders over his future. The lesson of the Master is spoken to all; it is a solemn warning to each of us to see what we can do by way of providing for the inevitable day when we shall find ourselves alone and naked and perhaps friendless in the great, strange world to come. The hero of the parable seems suddenly, after a life of carelessness and thoughtlessness, to have awakened to a sense of his awful danger. So the voice of the real Owner of the goods, which we have so long deluded ourselves into thinking were our own, comes to us, bidding us make ready to give them back again to him, their Owner, and at the same time to render an account of our administration of them. The voice comes to us in the varied forms of conscience, sickness, misfortune, old age, sorrow, and the like; well for us if, when we hear it, we at once determine, as did the steward of the parable, to make a wise use of the goods in our power for the little time they are still left to us to dispose of as we will.
Luk 16:4
I am resolved what to do. The first part of the parable teaches, then, this great and all-important lesson to menthat they will do well to provide against the day of dismissal from life. The second part points out very vividly how kindness, charity, beneficence, towards those poorer, weaker, more helpless than ourselves is one way, and that a very sure and direct way, of. so providing against the inevitable dissmission, or death.
Luk 16:5, Luk 16:6,
and 7 simply paint in the details of the interesting picture of the parable. This singular plan of providing for himself by becoming a benefactor of the debtor, remarks Professor Bruce, was by no means the only possible one under the circumstances; but the Speaker of the pa-table made his hero make choice of it as the aim of the imaginary narrative was to teach the value of beneficence as a passport into the eternal habitations. Various explanations have been suggested to account for the difference in the gifts to the debtors. It is probable that when our Lord spoke the parable, reasons for these varied gifts were given, such as the circumstances of the debtors. It is scarcely now worth while to frame ingenious guesses respecting the details, which apparently do not affect the grand lessons which the story was intended to teach.
Luk 16:8
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely. This, again, is a detail which has little bearing on the main teaching. It is a graphic and sarcastic eulogy which a good-humoured man of the world would pronounce upon a brilliant and skilful, although unprincipled, action, and it completes the story as a story. It seems evident that the intentions of the steward in regard to the debtors were carried out, and that they were really indebted to him for the release of a part of their indebtedness, and that the owner of the property did not dispute the arrangement entered into by his steward when in office. For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. This was a melancholy and sorrowful reflection. It seems to say, “I have been painting, indeed, from the life. See, the children of this world, men and women whose ends and aims are bounded by the horizon of this world, who only live for this life, how much more painstaking and skilful are they in their working for the perishable things of this world than are the children of light in their noble toiling after the things of the life to come. The former appear even more in earnest in their search after what they desire than do the latter. There is underlying the Lord’s deep and sorrowful reflection here, a mournful regret over one feature that is, alas! characteristic of well-nigh all religious lifethe unkindness which religious professors so often show to one another. One great division of Christianity despises, almost hates, the other; sect detests sect; a very slight difference in religious opinion bars the way to all friendship, often to even kindly feeling. With truth Godet remarks here “that the children of this world use every means for their own interest to strengthen the bonds which unite them to their contemporaries of the same stamp, but, on the other hand, the children of light neglect this natural measure of prudence; they forget to use God’s goods to form bonds of love to the contemporaries who might one day give them a full recompense, when they themselves shall want everything, and these shall have abundance.”
Luk 16:9
And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness. Then, with his usual solemn formula, “I say unto you,” the Lord gave out his moral interpretation of the parable. His words were addressed to possessors of various degrees of wealth. “You will soon have to give up all your worldly goods; be prudent in time, make some real friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness; by means of that money entrusted to your care, do good to others who are in need.” The mammon of unrighteousness. This word “mammon” does not denote, as some have supposed, the name of a deity, the god of wealth or money, but it signifies “money” itself. It is a Syriac or Aramaic term. The words, “of unrighteousness,” are added because in so many eases the getting of money is tainted with unrighteousness in some form or other; and, when possessed, it so often hardens the heart, as the Lord himself said in another place (Luk 18:25), that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. “What the steward of my story,” said the Master, “did to men of his world, see that you with your money do toward those who belong to your world.” That, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. So that when you shall be dismissed from being stewards of God’s possessions, that is, when ye shall die, “when ye suffer the last eclipse and bankruptcy of life,” that then others, your friends, may receive you (welcome you) into everlasting dwellings. The majority of the older authorities here, instead of” when ye fail,” read, “when it (money) shall fail you” (by the event of your death). The sense of the passage, however, remains the same, whichever reading be adopted. But now a deeply interesting question arisesWhen the Lord speaks of friends receiving us after death into eternal homes, to what friends is he alluding? Great expositors, Ewald and Meyer, for instance, tell us that he means the angels. But the plain sense of the parable points, not to angels, but to poor, weak, suffering persons whom we have helped here; these, then, must be the friends who will receive us, or welcome us, in the world to come. A further query suggests itselfHow will these be able to receive us? To such a question no definite reply can be given. We know too little of the awful mysteries of that world to be able even to hazard a surmise as to the help or the comfort which grateful, blessed spirits will be able to show to their brethren the newly arrived, when they receive them. His word here must suffice us; well will it be for us, if one day we practically discover the holy secret for ourselves. Godet has a weighty note with which he concludes his exposition of this difficult but most instructive parable: “There is no thought more fitted than that of this parable, on the one hand to undermine the idea of merit belonging to alms-giving (what merit could be got out of that which is another’s? and is not all money, are not all goods out of which we bestow our alms, God’s?); and on the other, to encourage us in the practice of that virtue which assures us of friends and protectors for the grave moment of our passing into the world to come.” One beautiful and exquisitely comforting thought is shrined in this playful and yet intensely solemn utterance of Jesus. The eternal tents, the “many mansions,” as John calls them, will have among their occupants, it is certain, many a one whose life on earth was hard and sorrowful. These are now enjoying bliss indescribable, these poor Lazaruses, to whom this world was so sad, so dreary a habitation. And perhaps a portion of their blessedness consists in this power, to which the Lord makes allusion here, of assisting othersthe helped here becoming the helpers there. Although the teaching of Christ and his chosen servants here and elsewhere shows us distinctly that no merit can attach to almsgiving, seeing that our alms are only given out of property entrusted to us for a short time by God for this and other similar purposes, yet the same authoritative teaching informs us that God has regard to almsdeeds done in the true spirit of love, in determining our eternal destiny. Thus a message direct from heaven informs the Roman legionary Cornelius that his prayers and alms were come up for a memorial before God. Paul writes to Timothy to charge the Ephesus Christians “that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” In the parable of Lazarus and Dives we shall find this principle yet more clearly illustrated. These are only a few out of the many passages where this generosity and almsgiving is commended to the believer with peculiar earnestness.
Luk 16:10
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. This and the next three verses are closely connected with the parable of the unjust steward. Our Lord no doubt continued speaking, and these four verses contain a general resume of what may be called his reflections on the important piece of teaching he had just delivered. We have here the broad rule, upon which God will decide the soul’s future, laid down. If the man has been faithful in his administration of the comparatively unimportant goods of earth, it is clear that he can be entrusted with the far more important things which belong to the world to come. There is, too, in these words a kind of limitation and explanation of the foregoing parable of the unjust steward. The conduct of that steward, regarded in one point of view, was held to be wise, and we, though in a very different way, were advised to imitate it; yet here we are distinctly told that it is fidelity, not unfaithfulness, which will be eventually re-wardedthe just, not the unjust steward.
Luk 16:11
The unrighteous mammon. As above in the parable, “mammon” signifies money. The epithet “unrighteous” is used in the same sense as in Luk 16:9, where we read of the “mammon of unrighteousness.”
Luk 16:12
And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s. Here we have our earthly possessions plainly spoken of as the goods of another, that is, of God, and of these goods we are but the temporary stewards. Who shall give you that which is your own? We have here a very magnificent promise. Although on earth man can possess nothing of his ownhere he is but a steward for a time of property belonging to anotheryet a prospect is held out to him that, if he be found faithful in the trust while on earth, in the world to come something will be given to him really and truly his own. There will be no dismissal or death there.
Luk 16:13
No servant can serve two masters Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Very vividly is this experience brought out in the great parable which immediately follows There the rich man was evidently one who observed the sacred ritual of the Law of Moses: this we learn without doubt from his conversation after death with Abraham. Thus he tried, after his light, to serve God, but he also served mammon: this we learn, too, clearly from the description given to us of his life, from the mention of the gorgeous apparel and the sumptuous feeding. The service of the two was incompatible, and we know from the sombre sequel of the story to which master the rich man really held, and whomalas for him!in his heart he despised.
Luk 16:14
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. This shows that many of the dominant sect had been present and had listened to the parable of the unjust steward. Although scrupulous, and in a way religious men, these Pharisees were notorious for their respect and regard for riches, and all that riches purchase, and they felt, no doubt deeply, the Lord’s bitter reproach of covetousness. They, the rulers and leaders of Israel, the religious guides, were evidently attacked in such teaching as they had been lately listening to, not the common people whom they so despised. The scornful words alluded to in the expression, “they derided him,” were no doubt directed against the outward poverty of the popular Galilaean Teacher. “It is all very well,” they would say, “for one springing from the ranks of the people, landless, moneyless, to rail at wealth and the possessors of wealth; we can understand such teaching from one such as you.“
Luk 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts. The part the Pharisees played in public imposed upon the people. The great influence which they exercised was in great measure due to the respect generally felt for their strict and religious lives. The hypocrisy of this famous sectit was probably in many cases unconscious hypocrisyand the false colouring which it gave religion, contributed not a little to the state of things which led to the final disruption of the Jewish nation as a nation some forty years after these words were spoken. It is only a student of the Talmud who can form any notion of the Pharisee mind; a superficial study even of parts of this strange, mighty collection will show why our Lord was so seemingly hard in his rebukes of these often earnest and religious men; it will show, too, why the same Divine Master at times seemed to change his words of bitter wrath into accents of the tenderest sympathy and love. For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Especially alluding to that haughty pride of men in wealth and money, which, after all, is not theirs.
Luk 16:16
The Law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Some expositors discern so little connection between the sayings contained in these verses which intervene between the two great parables of the unjust steward and the rich man and Lazarus, that they consider them as a number of sayings of the Master collected by Luke and insorted here. A clear thread, however, runs through the whole piece between the two parables. Probably, however, here, as in many parts of the Gospel, we only have just a bare sketch, or precis, of what the Lord said; hence its fragmentary character. Here (in the sixteenth verse), the Master went on speaking to the Pharisees who derided him (verse 14). “Up to the period of John the Baptist,” said the Master, “the old state of things may be said to have continued in force. With him began a new era; no longer were the old privileges to be confined to Israel exclusively; gradually the kingdom of God was to be enlarged, the old wall of separation was to be taken down. See, every man is pressing into it; the new state of things has already begun; you see it in the crowds of publicans, sinners, Samaritans, and others pressing round me when I speak of the kingdom of God.”
Luk 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail. “Yet think not,” went on the Master, “that, though things are changing, the Divine Law will ever fail. The mere temporary and transitory regulations will, of course, give place to a new order, but not the smallest part of one letter of the Divine moral Law will fail.” “One tittle.” This is the rendering of a Greek word the diminutive of “horn,” which denoted the horn or extremity of a Hebrew letter, by the omission or addition of whichto give an instancethe letter d becomes the letter r; thus with the horn it is , daleth, d; without the horn , resh, r. The heresiarch Marcion (second century) here, in his recension of St. Luke, changes the text thus: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of my sayings to fail.” Marcion, who refused fallow the Divine origin of any part of the Old Testament, was afraid of the testimony which this assertion of our Lord would give to the Divine authority of the Pentateuch. In illustration of his saying that the moral Law given to the Jews was changeless, and while earth endured would never fail, the Master instances one grave chapter of the Law with which there had been much tampering-that of divorce. “See,” he said, “the new state of things which I am now teaching, instead of loosening the cords with which the old Law regulated human society, will rather tighten them. Instead of a laxer code being substituted, I am preaching a yet severer one. My law of divorce is a severer one than that written down by Moses.”
Luk 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. The teaching of the rabbis in the time of our Lord on the question of the marriage he was exceedingly lax, and tended to grave immorality in the family life. In the late unlawful marriage of Herod Antipas with Herodias, in which so many sacred and family ties were rudely torn asunder, no rabbi or doctor in Israel but one had raised his voice in indignant protest, and that one was the friend and connection of Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet John the Baptist. Divorce for the most trivial causes was sanctioned by the rabbis, and even such men as Hillel, the grandfather of that Gamaliel whom tradition speaks of as the rabbi whose lectures were listened to by the Boy Jesus, taught that a man might divorce his wife if in the cooking she burnt his dinner or even over salted his soup (see Talmud, treatise ‘Gittin,’ 9.10).
SS. Luke and Paul, different to the great masters of profane history, like Thucydides, or Livy, or Xenophon, were evidently at no pains to round off their narratives. They give us the account of the Lord’s words and works very much as they had them from the first listeners and eye-witnesses. When the notes and memories were very scant and fragmentary, as appear to have been the case in the Lord’s discourse which St. Luke interposes between the parable of the steward and that of Dives and Lazarus, the fragmentary notes are reproduced without any attempt to round off the condensed, and at first sight apparently disconnected, utterances. So here, directly after the fragmentary report of certain sayings of Jesus, the great parable of Lazarus and Dives is introduced with somewhat startling abruptness; nothing of St. Luke’s is addedsimply the original report as Luke or Paul received it is reproduced.
The following is probably the connection in which the famous parable was spoken.
When the Lord spoke the parable-story of the unjust steward, he pressed home to the listeners, as its great lesson, the necessity of providing against the day of death, and he showed how, by the practice of kindness here towards the poor, the weak, and the suffering, they would make to themselves friends who would in their turn be of use to themwho would, in their hour of sore need, when death swept them out of this life, receive them into everlasting habitations.
We believe that the Master, as he spoke these things, purposedeither on that very occasion, or very shortly after, when his listeners were again gathered togethersupplementing this important teaching by another parable, in which the good of having friends in the world to come should be clearly shown. The parable of Lazarus as Dives, then, may be regarded as a piece of teaching following on to and closely connected with the parable of the unjust steward.
Nine verses, however, as we have seen are inserted between the two parables. Of these, verses 10-13 are simply some reflections of the Master on the parable of the steward just spoken. Then comes verse 14a scornful interruption on the part of the Pharisee listeners. Our Lord replies to this (verses 15-18), and then goes on, either then or very soon after, to the same auditory, with the parable of Lazarus and Dives, which is, in fact, a direct sequel to the parable of the unjust steward, and which St. Luke proceeds to relate without any further preamble.
Luk 16:19
There was a certain rich man. He is thus introduced by the Lord without any details respecting his age or place of residencenameless, too! Seems he not to have been reading from that book where he found the name of the poor man written, but found not the name of the rich; for that book is the book of life?”. Tradition says his name was Nimeusis, but it is simply a baseless tradition. Which was clothed in purple and fine linen. The words which describe the life of Dives were chosen with rare skill; they are few, but enough to show us that the worldly hero of the story lived a life of royal magnificence and boundless luxury. His ordinary apparel seems to have been purple and fine linen. This purple, the true sea purple, was a most precious and rare dye, and the purple garment so dyed was a royal gift, and was scarcely used save by princes and nobles of very high degree. In it the idol-images were sometimes arrayed. The fine linen (byssus) was worth twice its weight in gold. It was in hue dazzlingly white. And fared sumptuously every day. With this princely rich man banquets were a matter of daily occurrence. Luther renders the Greek here, “lebte herrlich und in Freuden.” Thus with all the accompaniments of grandeur this nameless mighty one lived, his halls ever filled with noble guests, his antechambers with servants. Everything with him that could make life splendid and joyous was in profusion. Some have suspected that our Lord took, as the model for his picture here, the life of the tetrarch Herod Antipas. The court of that magnificent and luxurious prince would certainly have well served as the original of the picture; but Herod was still living, and it is more likely that Jesus was describing the earth-life of one who had already been” dismissed” from his earthly stewardship, and who, when he spoke the parable, was in the world to come.
Luk 16:20, Luk 16:21
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. In striking contrast to the life of the rich man, the Master, with a few touches, paints the life of the beggar Lazarus. This giving a name to a personage in the parable occurs nowhere else in the evangelists’ reports of our Lord’s parabolic teaching. It probably was done in this case just to give us a hint, for it is nothing more, of the personal character of the poor sufferer who in the end was so blessed. The object of the parable, as we shall see, did not include any detailed account of the beggar-man’s inner life; just this name is given him to show us why, when he died, he found himself at once in bliss. Among the Jews the name very often describes the character of him who bears it. The Greek name Lazarus is derived from two Hebrew words, El-ezer (“God-help”), shortened by the rabbis into Leazar, whence Lazarus. He was, then, one of those happy ones whose confidence, in all his grief and misery, was in God alone. Well was his trust, as we shall see, justified. The gate at which he was daily laid was a stately portal (). Lazarus is represented as utterly unable to win his bread. He was a constant sufferer, covered with sores, wasting under the dominion of a loathsome, incurable disease. This representative of human suffering has taken a strange hold on the imagination of men. In many of the languages of Europe the name of the beggar of the parable appears in the terms “lazar,” “lazar-house,” and “lazaretto,” “lazzaroni.” Unable himself to walk, some pitying friend or friends among the poorthe poor are never backward in helping others poorer than themselves, thus setting a noble example to the richbrought him and laid him daily close by the splendid gates of the palace of Dives. The crumbs signify the broken fragments which the servants of the rich man would contemptuously, perhaps pityingly, toss to the poor helpless beggar-man as he lay by the gate. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. These were the wild, homeless pariah dogs so common in all Eastern cities, who act as the street-scavengers, and are regarded as unclean. This mention of the dogs clustering round him does not suggest any contrast between the pitying animals and pitiless men, but simply adds additional colour to the picture of the utter helplessness of the diseased sufferer; there he lay, and as he lay, the rough homeless dogs would lick his unbandaged wounds as they passed on the forage.
Luk 16:22
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. At last kind death came, and relieved Lazarus of his sufferings. His dismissal, as might have been expected, preceded that of the rich man; for he was enfeebled by a deadly disease. We must not, of course, press too much the details we find in parables; still, from our Lord’s way of speaking of the great change in the cases of both Lazarus and Dives, it would seem as though there was absolutely no pause between the two lives of this world and the world to come. The rich man evidently is pictured as closing his eyes upon his gorgeous surroundings here, and opening them directly again upon his cheerless surroundings there. Lazarus is described as being borne at once into Abraham’s bosom. Indeed, some interpret the words as signifying that the body as well as the soul was carried by angels into Paradise. It is, however, better, with Calvin, to understand the expression as alluding only to Lazarus’s soul; of the body of the pauper nothing was said, as men probably contemptuously, if not carelessly, buried it with the burial rites which such homeless, friendless ones too often receive. The place whither the blest Lazarus went is termed “Abraham’s bosom.” This term was used by the Jews indifferently, with “the garden of Eden,” or “under the throne of glory,” for the home of happy but waiting souls. The rich man also died, and was buried. There is a terrible irony here in this mention of burial. This human pageantry of woe was for the rich man what the carrying by the angels into Abraham’s bosom was for Lazarusit was his equivalent; but while these empty honours were being paid to his senseless, deserted body, the rich man was already gazing on the surroundings of his new and cheerless home. After the moment’s sleep of death, what an awakening!
Luk 16:23
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments; more accurately, in Hades (the unseen world of the dead) he lift up his eyes. The idea of suffering does not lie in these first words, but in the participle “being in torments,” which immediately follows. It is noticeable that, in this Divine picture of unhappy life in the other world there is no coarse, vulgar word-painting such as we meet with so often in mediaeval human works. The very fact of the man’s being unhappy is gently represented. The graver aspect of the torments we learn from the hapless one’s own words. Still, it is all very awful, though the facts are so gently told us. “Being in torments:” How could it be otherwise for such a one as Dives? The home of the loving, where Abraham was, would be no home for that selfish man who had never really loved or cared for any one save himself. What were the torments? men with hushed voices ask. A little further on the doomed one speaks of a flame and of his tongue apparently burning, owing to the scorching heat; but it would be a mistake to think of a material flame being intended here. There is nothing in the description of the situation to suggest this; it is rather the burning never to be satisfied, longing for something utterly beyond his reach, that the unhappy man describes as an inextinguishable flame. Were it desirable to dwell on these torments, we should remind men how lustful desires change rapidly into torture for the soul when the means for gratifying them exist not. In the case of Dives, his delight on earth seems to have been society, pleasant jovial company, the being surrounded by a crowd of admiring friends, the daily banquet, the gorgeous apparel, the stately house,these details more than hint at the pleasure he found in the society of courtier-friends; but in the other world he seems to have been quite alone. Whereas among the blessed there appears to be a sweet companionship. Lazarus is in the company of Abraham, who, of course, only represents a great and goodly gathering. “Abraham’s bosom” is simply the well-known expression for that feast or banquet of the happy souls judged worthy of an entrance into Paradise. But in that place where the rich man lifted up his eyes there seems a strange and awful solitariness. A total absence of everything, even of external causes of trouble, is very noticeable. He was alone; alone with his thoughts. And seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. His intense longing seems to be for companionship. “Oh for a friend,” he seems to say, “who could speak to me, comfort me, give me the smallest alleviation of the pain I suffer!” What picture of a hell was ever painted by man comparable to this vision of eternal solitude, peopled alone by remorseful memories, described by Jesus? As the Divine Speaker advanced in his thrilling, melancholy description of the rich man’s condition in the world to come, how vividly must the listeners have recalled the Master’s earnest advice to them, in his former parable of the steward, to make to themselves while here friends who would receive them into everlasting habitations! They saw the meaning of that detail of the parable then. Were flay, in their luxurious abundance, were they making friends here who would help them there in the eternal tents? Were they not, perhaps, making the same mistake as the rich man of the story? The question might be askedWhy is Abraham, the father of the chosen race, the centre of this blessed life in Hades? In reply, firstly, it must be remembered that the whole colouring of this parable is peculiarly rabbinic, and in the schools of the rabbis the life of the blessed in Paradise is represented as a banquet, over which, until Messiah come, Abraham is represented as presiding. And, secondly, when the parable was spoken, the Saviour was actually on earth; his great redemption work had still to be accomplished. There was truth as well as error mingled in that strange rabbinical teaching. Messiah, as Messiah, when the parable was being probably acted, had not entered that realm where Abraham and many another holy and humble man of heart were in the enjoyment of exquisite bliss.
Luk 16:25
But Abraham said, Son; remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Abraham here simply bids the tortured man to call to his memory the circumstances of the life he had lived on earth, telling him that in these circumstances he would find the reason for his present woeful state. It was no startling record of vice and crime, or even of folly, that the father of the faithful calls attention to. He quietly recalls to the rich man’s memory that on earth he had lived a life of princely splendour and luxury, and that Lazarus, sick and utterly destitute, lay at his palace gate, and was allowed to lie there unpitied and unhelped. And because of the studied moderation of its language, and the everyday character of its hero Divesfor he, the rich man, not Lazarus, is the real hero, the central character of the great parable-lessonthe lesson of the parable goes home necessarily to many more hearts than it would have done had the hero been a monster of wickedness, a cold calculating or else a plausible villain, a man who shrank not from sacrificing the lives and happiness of his fellow-men if their lives or happiness stood in his way. Dives was merely a commonplace wealthy man of the world, with self-centred alms, and the sin for which he was condemned to outer darkness was only that everyday sin of neglecting out of the mammon of unrighteousnessin other words, out of his moneyto make for himself friends who should receive him into the eternal tents.
Luk 16:26
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Although the whole thought which runs through this parable is new, and peculiar to Christ, yet the colouring of the picture is nearly all borrowed from the great rabbinic schools; one of the few exceptions to this rule being this chasm or gulf which separates the two regions of Hades. The rabbis represented the division as consisting only of a wall. “What is the distance between Paradise and Gehenna? According to R. Johanan, a wall; according to other teachers, a palm-breadth, or only a finger-breadth” (‘Midrash on Koheleth’). What, asks the awestruck reader, is this dreadful chasm? why is it impassable? will it be for ever there? will no ages of sorrow, no tears, no hitter heartfelt repentance succeed in throwing a bridge across it? Many have written here, and kindly souls have tried to answer the stern question with the gentle, loving reply which their souls so longed to hear. What is impossible to the limitless love of God? Nothing, wistfully says the heart. But, when interrogated closely, the parable and, indeed, all the Master’s teaching on this point preserves a silence complete, impenetrable.
Luk 16:27, Luk 16:28
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them; lest they also come into this place of torment. The condemned acquiesces in this dread fact; convinced of the utter impossibility of any interchange of sympathy between him and the dwellers in the realms of bliss, he ceases to pray for any alleviation of his own sad and wretched state. But another wail of woe quickly rises from the awful solitude. What means this second prayer of the doomed man? Are we to read in it the first signs of a new and noble purpose in the lost soul, the first dawning of loving thoughts and tender care for others? It seems, perhaps, unkind not to recognize this; but the Divine Speaker evidently had another purpose here when he put these words into the mouth of the lost rich manhe would teach the great lesson to the living that a selfish life is inexcusable. On first thoughts, the rich man’s request to Abraham appears prompted alone by his anxiety for the future of his brothers who were still alive; but on examination it would seem, to use the striking words of Professor Bruce, that he wished rather to justify his own sad past by some such. reflection as this: “Had only some one come from the dead with the calm, clear light of eternity shining in his eyes, to inform me that this life beyond is no table, that Paradise is a place or state of unspeakable bliss, and Gehenna a place or state of unspeakable woe, I should have renounced my voluptuous, selfish ways, and entered on the path of piety and charity. If one had come to me from the dead, I had surely repented, and so should not have come to this place of torment.”
Luk 16:29
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. The reply of Abraham was especially addressed to those Jews who were standing round him and even asking for a sign. They had all read and heard again and again the Books of Moses and the records of the prophets; if these guides had failed to show them the right way, a special messenger sent to them would be quite useless.
Luk 16:30, Luk 16:31
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. The Master not only wished to drive home this momentous truth to the hearts of the group of varied ranks and orders listening to him then; his words were for a far larger auditory, so he prolongs the dialogue between Dives and Abraham. “If Lazarus from the dead would only go to them,” pleaded the lost soul. “Even if I send,” replied Abraham, “and Lazarus goes, they will not be persuaded.” They would see him, listen to him, perhaps, and then, when the first feelings of amazement and fear were dying away, would find some plausible reasons for disregarding the messenger and his message. Criticism would discuss the appearance; it would be disposed of by attributing it to an hallucination, or others would suggest that the visitant from the other world had never been really dead, and these pleas would be readily taken up by others who cared not to examine the question for themselves, and so life, careless, selfish, thoughtless, would go on as it had done aforetime. A striking example of what the Lord asserted through the medium of the shade of Abraham took place within a few days from that time. Another Lazarus did come back again from the dead into the midst of that great company of friends and mourners and jealous watchers of Jesus gathered round the sepulchral cave of Bethany, and though some true, faithful hearts welcomed the mighty sign with awful joy, still it served not to touch the cold and calculating spirit of Pharisee, scribe, and Sadducee, thirsting for the blood of the Master, whom they feared and hated, and whose word had summoned back the dead into their midst. The mighty wonder wrought no change there. One went unto them from the dead, and yet their hard hearts only took counsel together how they might put Lazarus again to death.
And so the parable and this particular course of teaching came to a close. Perhaps it is the deepest, the most soul-stirring of all the utterances of the Master. Expositors for eighteen centuries have drawn out of its clear, fathomless depths new and ever new truths. It is by no means yet exhausted. This voice from the other side of the veil charms and yet appals, it terrifies and yet enthrals all ages, every class, each rank of men and women. There are many other important items of special teaching which have been scarcely touched on in the notes above. Among the more interesting of these is the brief notice of the life which the blessed lead in Paradise. The happy dead are represented as a wide family circle. Abraham is pictured with Lazarus in his bosom. The image is taken from the way guests used to sit at a banquet. John at the Last Supper occupied a similar position with regard to the Master (Joh 13:23, Joh 13:25) to that occupied by Lazarus with regard to Abraham here. The two extremes of the social scale are thus represented as meeting in that blessed company on terms of the tenderest friendship. With these were Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets (Luk 13:28). “All the just,” as Marcion gives it in his recension of St. Luke. And while the Paradise-life for the blessed dead is described as a holy communion of saints, there is evidently no corresponding communion in the case of the unhappy dead. The selfish rich man finds himself in an awful solitude. The suffering is rather represented by the image of the void; there are no external causes of pain apparently; hence his longing to speak a word with Lazarus, to feel the touch of a friendly sympathizing hand, if only for a moment, to distract his burning remorseful thoughts. There was nothing to live for there, nothing to hope for, but he felt he must go on livinghopeless. As no special crime, no glaring sin of lust or wanton excess or selfish ambition, is laid to the rich man’s charge, and yet when dead he is represented as lifting up his eyes, being in torments, many, especially men belonging to those schools which are generally unfriendly to the religion of Jesus Christ, have endeavoured to show that the condemned was condemned on account of his riches, while the saved was saved because of his deep poverty. Nor is this error alone common to the Tubingen school, and to brilliant free-lances in religious literature like M. Renan. Some such mistaken notion doubtless materially aided the rise and the popularity of the mendicant orders, who played so important a part in the Christianity of the Middle Ages in so many lands. But the burden of our thrilling parable emphatically is not “Woe to the rich! blessed are the poor!” The crime of the life to which so awful a punishment was meted out as the guerdon, was selfish inhumanity, which Christ teaches us is the damning sin. (See his words in his great picture of the final judgment, Mat 25:41-46.) Lazarus was no solitary individual; he was one of the many suffering poor who abound in this world, and to find whom the rich need not go far from their own gates. Lazarus represents here the opportunity for the exercise of Dives’s humanity. Of this, and doubtless many like opportunities, Dives cared not to avail himself. He was apparently no ill-natured, cruel man, he was simply self-centred, delighting in soft living, generous wines, costly fare, sumptuous clothing, good society. He loved to be surrounded with applauding, pleasant guests; but the Lazaruses of the world, for him, might pine away and die in their nameless awful misery. Professor Bruce, with great force, puts the following words into the beggar Lazarus’s mouth; these words tell us with startling clearness what was the sin of Dives: “I was laid at this man’s gate; he knew me; he could net pass from his house into the street without seeing my condition, as a leprous beggar, yet as a beggar I died.” Dives here was endowed richly with all the materials of human happiness, but he kept all his happiness to himself, he took no trouble whatever to diffuse his joy and gladness, his bright and many-coloured life among that great army of weak, poor, woe-begone brothers and sisters who go far to make up the population of every great city. That riches are not in themselves a ground for exclusion from the blessed life is plainly shown by the position occupied by Abraham in that happy family circle of the blessed. For Abraham, we know, was a sheik possessed of vast wealth. Then, too, in the latter part of the parable, when the imminent danger which the five brothers of the lost Dives ran of being similarly lost, was discussed, the danger is represented as springing from their careless disregard of the Law and the prophets, and not from the fact of their being rich men. When Ezekiel sought for examples of the most righteous men that had ever lived, he chose, it must be remembered, as exemplars of mortals living the fair, noble life loved of God, three men distinguished for their rank and richesNoah, Daniel, and Job (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20).
HOMILETICS
Luk 16:1-13
The unjust steward.
Whereas the three preceding parables were spoken to the Pharisees, this is spoken to the disciples. It is not quite certain whether all the parables were uttered at or about the same time; but the use of the word “also” (Luk 16:1) suggests that they were. Anyhow, the saying before us has reference to a different kind of wasting from that of the younger sona wasting against which the followers of Jesus are solemnly warned. We are called to listen to the Master as he indicates temptations and enforces duties within the special circle of discipleship. This parable is a saying hard to be understood. Many explanations have been given. A very learned commentator, appalled by the difficulties connected with the interpretation, abandoned the attempt, declaring that the solution of the problem is impossible. And truly, if we canvassed all the schemes of exposition which have been proposed, all the inferences which have been founded on clauses, and all the speculations which have been raised, we should find “no end in wandering mazes lost.” Let our aim be less ambitious; let us try to get hold of some plain, practical instruction which shall help us to be better disciples of Jesus Christ. The outline of the story is simple. The dramatis personae are not numerous. A wealthy landowner has a steward who, in the management of his estates, possesses a large discretionary power. He is informed that this steward has, not stolen or wrongfully applied, but by neglect or want of skill has squandered, the estate entrusted to him. He is called to account and is dismissed peremptorily. Now comes into view the adroitness of the man. He wishes to have some friends who can do him a good turn when he is out of a situation; and so, before news of his dismissal reaches any, while it is supposed that he has full power, he calls together those who are in arrears of rent or are otherwise indebted to his lord. We can imagine the trembling with which they obey the summons. How bland and smiling is the factor! What kind inquiries as to wife and children and belongings! And then, “By the way, what is the amount of your obligation?” Two specimens are given. One person owes a hundred measures of oil. “Take your pen,” says the factor, “score out the hundred, and make it fifty.” Another owes a hundred measures of wheat. “Take your pen, write down eighty.” All retire charmed, loud in the steward’s praise. Had he not secured a warm place in their regard? When told of his downfall, would not they all cry, “Shame!” and speak of him as the tenants’ friend, and welcome him to their houses? The point of the lesson which Christ would teach is thisseparate the energy from the dishonesty, the foresight from the fraud, and as he, for his own wrong ends, was wise and calculating, so, for your right ends, practise a wisdom like his, though nobler than his: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye die, or fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” Now, without puzzling ourselves over the details of the parable, consider the lessons inculcated as to
(1) Christian responsibility;
(2) Christian administration; and
(3) Christian service.
I. CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY. In the relation of the steward to the rich man we have a foreshadowing of the relation in which we stand to God. “Steward” is the word which indicates this relation. To every one of us is given a charge of goods whose Owner is God. Our own constitutionphysical, mental, moralis a trust; all our endowmentstalents, powers of whatsoever kindare a property of which we are farmers; and he who thinks that he can do as he likes with these, that he can dissipate his substance by intemperance, or alienate his strength from higher ends, is false to his Maker and false to himself. So with regard to all our influencedirect and indirectit is a power delegated to us by the Almighty, and to be realized under the sense of the account to be rendered to him. Money, relationships, social positions,all are items of the estate over which we are set. Do we all realize this as we should? Do we not sadly forget this fact of stewardship? Christ speaks of “the mammon of unrighteousness.” Here is an explanation which has been given. “The ears of Jesus must have been repeatedly shocked by the kind of rashness by which men speak, without hesitation, of ‘my fortune,’ ‘my land,’ ‘my house.’ He who felt keenly the dependence of man on God perceived that there was in this feeling of property a sort of usurpation, a forgetfulness of the real owner; in hearing such language he seemed to see the tenant changing into the master.” Ah! does he not hear such language every day? Is it not in the air? Is it not in our own feeling? Are we not, in many ways, changing the tenant into the master, the steward into the owner? taking the goods, and using them without giving praise to him whose they are? Would that the answer given to the first question in an old Catechism were written into the texture of every life”Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.”
II. Connected with Christian stewardship is THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIAN ADMINISTRATION. And may it not be said that this is a truth far too little studied and practised? When we hear of depressions of trade, of hard, dull times, we may well reflect on the saying of the Prophet Haggai (Hag 1:5, Hag 1:6), “Consider your ways. Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages, earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.” In regard to Christian objects, is there not much to learn from such tact and prudence as the steward’s in the parable? Do we not need them much in the conduct of benevolent enterprises? Competition may be healthy; but a competition which, in a limited area, or on mere windmills, spends a force which should be far more diffusive, is not only not healthy, it is a loss and a scandal. Is not this the kind of competition which is too prevalent in ecclesiastical and in charitable spheres? Otherwise must we not confess that, through our want of inventiveness or wisdom in management, our want of skill to turn opportunities to the best advantage, of the sagacity which is exercised in worldly matters, we lay ourselves open to the reproach, “The children of this age are wiser in their generation than the children of light” (verse 8)? Realize that, whether there is much or little, faithfulness is demanded of the stewardsuch a disposal or investment of all wealth as that the Lord’s interests are farthered. To each of us is given the charge, “So allocate the mammon of unrighteousness, the uncertain, unstable wealth which you possess, that it shall not hinder, but help you to the everlasting habitations.” How many does that mammon hinder! How few of us so use our money as to advance not only Christ’s cause but our own holiness! But should it not be rendered a means of spiritual gain? It is concerning this fidelity to God in the laying out of the perishable riches that Christ hints that they in whom it abounds will not want the friendly welcome when the tent of this tabernacle is dissolved, and the spirit passes into the everlasting habitations.
III. A word as to CHRISTIAN SERVICE. This mammon, which was meant to be an instrument for the accomplishment of our stewardship, is apt to assume the bearing of a master. At first it is the slave, the most obedient, until, by constant trafficking with it and by taking it into the region of our affections, it becomes our love; and when it is the love of a man, the consideration which to him is first, the supreme point of his interest, then it ascends from the kitchen into the parlour, and claims the self as its own. This mammon-rule, mammon-worship, is one of the most distinct features of the day, and few of us know how deep is its mark in our souls. Here is the choicethis mammon, or Christ with the thorn-crowned brow; this mammon, or God himself. One or other we may serve; Christ insists we cannot serve both (verse 13). “That usurping lord has a will so different from God’s will, gives commands so opposite to his, that occasion must speedily arise when one or other will have to be slighted, despised, and disobeyed, if the other be regarded, honoured, and served. God, for instance, will command a scattering, when mammon will urge to a further keeping and gathering; God will require spending on others, when mammon or the world will urge a spending on one’s own lusts. Therefore, the two Lords having characters so different and giving commands so opposite, it will be impossible to reconcile their services: one must be despised if the other is held to; the only faithfulness to the one is to break with the other; ‘ye cannot serve God and mammon.'” “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. There is to be no playing at religion. A saintly voice has thus interpreted the election: may the “amen’ to his words arise from our souls! O God, thou sweetness ineffable, make bitter for me all carnal comfort which draws me away from the love of eternal things, and in evil manner allures me to itself by the view of some present delightsome good. Let me not be overcome, O Lord, by flesh and blood. Let not the world and the brief glory thereof deceive me. Let not the devil and his subtle fraud supplant me. Give me strength to resist, patience to endure, and constancy to persevere. Give me, instead of all the comforts of the world, the most sweet unction of thy Holy Spirit and the love of thy blessed Name.”
Luk 16:19-31
The rich man and Lazarus.
A parable so striking and solemn that, as has been said, “they must be fast asleep who are not startled by it.” It is in several respects unique. Figure is so blended with reality, so rapidly passes into reality, that we are doubtful where and how far to separate between the form of truth and the truth itself. Indeed, it has been questioned whether the discourse is to be regarded as a parable at all; whether it is not to be regarded as the record of facts and experiences. Alone, too, of all the pictorial sayings of Jesus, it carries thought into the region behind the veil; it gives us a glimpse into the hidden economy. He who has access to the invisible takes us whither the eye of man has never pierced. And yet it is most difficult to settle on what principle we shall interpret the mysterious conversations reported, and what signification we are to attach to the words concerning the world of the dead. Let us not strain the sentences beyond the meanings which they are fairly entitled to bear; let us aim at a calm, truthful, practical application of Christ’s teaching to heart and conscience.
I. Consider THE RELATION OF THE PARABLE TO THE WORDS WHICH PRECEDE, AND TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SURROUND, IT. The Pharisees, we are told in Luk 16:16, had derided the teaching as to “the mammon of unrighteousness,” their opposition having been intensified by the declaration, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” The reply of Christ contains an indictment with two counts, in respect of which their mammon-worship was made apparent.
1. Their self-justifying spirit before men. Their piety was so disposed as to attract the observation and win the applause of men. It was the covering of covetousness, because it indicated a dependence on men, a wish to make gain of godliness. The parable which follows illustrates the same state of mind and heart under another phase of the same world-worship. Certainly the portrait of the rich man resembles the Sadducee rather than the more severe and abstemious Pharisee. But extremes often meet. Pharisee and Sadducee have this in commonman and the present are more than God and the future: to look well, to stand well with society, is really the horizon of the aim and the prize of the ambition.
2. Their merely outward and legal righteousness. In their casuistry they tampered with the eternally right and good; and their essential unbelief was proved by the failure to see that Moses and the prophets prepared men for that kingdom of God to which John had pointed, and into which he had called every one to press. They were so imbedded in their respectabilities that they felt no need of this kingdom, and did not receive it. The parable presents a man who, having Moses and the prophets, had never awakened out of a false, carnal security, had never seen his real poverty and wretchedness. And all, in the latter part of the tale, which brings out his awakenment when too latethe torments of his conscience, his appeal, his cry, his pleading for his brethrenis intended to vivify the worthlessness and worse than worthlessness of the trust on which the Pharisee was built up, and to declare that, before the judgment-seat of the Eternal, Moses and the prophets would witness against him for his rejection of the Light that had come into the world.
II. Now, having seen its root in moral conditions which Christ intended to lay bare, REGARD THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SKETCH BEFORE US.
1. There is a rich man. No particulars as to his estate are given; no judgment is passed on his character. It is not said that he had amassed his wealth by unfair means, or that he was unjust, or that he was harsh; he is simply presented as rich, fond of show and glitter and good living. Now and again a monarch might assume his robe of costly purple, but purple and fine linen are the ordinary dress of this Dives, and the appointments of his table are always splendid. A jovial, magnificent personage, to whom menials in gorgeous array do homage, and whom all the flunkeydom of his city silently reverences. There is only one drawback. At the entrance to his palace, a beggara miserable creature, full of soresis laid; one so reduced that he is glad of the crumbs which fall from the table. Such crumbs are dainties to him. Clearly, no effort is made to relieve this beggar; none is employed to heal his diseases; his only guardians and mediciners are the curs which prowl about Eastern cities. The “inhumanity of man” is condemned by the action of these curs.
2. The rich man has no name, the beggar hasLazarus, or Eleazar, “God’s help.” Beautifully Augustine asks, “Seems not Christ to you to have been reading from that book where he found the name of the poor man written, but found not the name of the rich; for that book is the book of life?” Thus day by day, the millionaire, reclining on his couch, his table groaning with delicacies, elegantly sipping at this, and taking that, and withal complaining of indigestion, occasionally sallying forth and dazzling all by his splendour, is yet offended by the loathsome thing at the gate, from which the eye is withdrawn. Day by day the gaunt form of haggard poverty obtrudes on the rights of wealth; squalor, in all its hideousness, stares into the face of wealth. Is it not the contrast which, instead of lessening, becomes more intense as the curious complexity which we call civilization develops?civilization, with its heights separated only by hand-breadths from its depths. Day by day it is so, until
3. “Died.” Ah! a word which it is impossible to expunge, which gathers up the fears and tears, which crowns or crushes the hopes of men. First the beggar. To him death is a message of relief, bidding away from sores which dogs have licked to joys in which angels share, from the flagged pavement, hard and cold, of the palace of the rich man harder and colder still, to the embrace and warmth and fulness of Abraham’s bosom. “It is well,” says Dives, when he misses the bundle of rags and disease; “it is the best thing which could happen to that Lazarus!” But the clock moves on; the “purple and fine linen” begin to hang about the limbs; the viands come and go untasted; there is the sickness, the sick-bed, the muffled knocker, the bated breath of physicians and attendants. Oh, horror of horrors! it is death! All must be left. The hands which used to be so full are now still, starched, and empty! The poor to die,that is good; but the rich man also to die! What is the difference between the two? Of the one the burial is noted; no doubt a grand affair, for which, possibly, he had himself arranged. I have heard of a Dives, who, afraid that he might not have a sufficiently splendid coffin, procured a sarcophagus from Egypt, and lay down in it to be sure that it would fit. The burial; yes, but something more! Beggar and millionaire are in Hadesthe shell of the Old Testamentthe unknown place, the unseen region which contains the departed until the coming of the Lord. What of the beggar? While he was on earth man in pity carried him to the palace gate, and laid him there to starve and rot unless the crumb was thrown to him. When he dies angels carry him to the place of bliss, though not yet heaven, which was signified sometimes by the word “paradise,” sometimes by the phrase “under the throne,” sometimes by “Abraham‘s bosom.” For the millionaire there is only Hades; no purple robe and fine linen, no sumptuous feast; the robe and the linen are now only a garment of fire, the sumptuous feast only a reminiscence continued in torments. To him Hades is only the reservation to the judgment of the great day.
4. And there is the awakenment. The Lord describes it in sentences which it is better only to summarize. The eyes of Dives are lifted up, and lo! near, yet far off, is Abraham, andcan it be?with him Lazarus; no rags now, no sores now; his now the “purple and fine linen” and the sumptuous living, for he is in the bosom of Abraham. And through these distances there rings a cryno cry to the Father in heaven, no cry for repentance; only to “Father Abraham,” and only a respite from the pain, even a moment’s respite; a cry which is still charged with the old hauteur, “Send that beggar to serve me.“ To this he has come; there is no thought of banquet or wines; only the tip of the erstwhile beggar’s finger dipped in water and cooling the tongue. Alas! the reply sounds the knell of all hope; mild, yet awful, it is, “Son, remember!” What? The good things are exhausted. He had got all that he had lived for; he had, in the bygone existence, a choice of things, and he had made his choice. His reward was drained. Lazarus had no portion in the world which was gone from sight. His election had been outside of it. He has come to his choice; he has entered on his reward. “He is comforted, but thou art tormented.” For the rest, even supposing the will to grant the request, it cannot be. “There is a great gulf fixed” (verse 26), and no passage may be between the upper and lower sides of the Hades of the dead. “Without God, and without hope.” Is it a touch of still surviving humanity, or is it lest the misery be aggravated, that the petition of Dives proceeds, “Then send him where there is no gulf fixed; send him to my father’s house, to my five brethren” (verses 27, 28). “They have Moses and the prophets” (verse 29). “Nay, but if one went to them from the dead, they will repent” (verse 30). “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (verse 31).
CONCLUSION. What a variety of “instruction in righteousness” is suggested by this parable! It invites thought in the direction of the most awful questions which connect themselves with human destiny.
1. As to the Hadesthe condition, or place, of the dead. Dean Alford proposes a good. rule of interpretation: “Though it is unnatural to suppose that our Lord would, in such a parable, formally reveal any new truth respecting the fate of the dead, yet, in conforming himself to the ordinary language current on these subjects, it is impossible to suppose that he whose essence is truth could have assumed as existing anything which does not exist. It would destroy the truth of our Lord’s sayings ii’ we could conceive him to have used popular language which does not point at truth.” What is that, then, in the figures, in the symbols employed, as to which we can say, “Here is matter to be pondered and believed in”? Christ seems to put the stamp of his approval on these things.
(1) That there is a conscious personal life after death. If this is not true, he would have started from a falsehood.
(2) That in this future life the identity of the self is preserved. All references imply this. The rich man lifts up his eyes. He sees Lazarus. He cries, “Father Abraham!” He recalls his father’s house and his five brethren. The I who was is the essential I for ever.
(3) That in the other world, the intermediate Hades, there is a separation between the evil and the good. We should not unduly strain the meaning of “the great gulf fixed.” It is in Abraham’s reply to a soul in which there is no sign of a turning to God; which is as far from the faith of the patriarch as hell is from heaven. Between a soul thus godless, and the holy dead who are at rest in the Lord, there is a great gulf fixed. But to press this into an argument for a hell of endless torment is to overstep the limits of parabolic interpretation. Yet, undoubtedly, a most solemn warning is conveyedthe warning that, in the world to come, the distinctions of character are sharp, clear, and fixed; that then the real tendencies of mind are manifested, and find their natural affinities. As to the torment of this Dives in Hades, Luther hit on the right explanation when, in one of his sermons, he exclaims, “It is not corporeal. All is transacted in the conscience as he perceives that he has acted against the gospel. Nothing was actually spoken by him, but only internally felt.” It is in view of this that we apprehend the scope of’ the recorded conversation. That is the outward form in which the emotion, the terror, of the conscience is portrayed. For, the retribution, whose fire is not quenched, is pointed to in the saying, “Son, remember!” “It is not necessary to imagine anything beyond the stroke, stroke, stroke, ever repeating, of a scorpion-conscience,” recalling, revivifying all the past, the real character of actions being made evident, as with the force of a fire from whose heat nothing can be hidden. To perceive the awful vengeance-taking on every soul of man that doeth evil, it is not necessary to suppose more than the quickening of conscience into full energy, than the continual accusation of the soul which forgets nothing, or finds all preserved, eternized for it, “when the roaring cataract of earthly things is still.”
2. To return to the most pressing instruction of the parable; life or death is the choice before every one of us. Death; if to any one comforts are more than duties, if the plane of the existence is a merely worldly onegood things of one kind or another, and the kingdom of God left out of the reckoning. The rich man is not condemned because of his riches; the poor man is not carried into Abraham’s bosom because of his poverty. The riches were the temptation, and the soul had been mastered; but one may be rich and yet simple in heart as a child, not trusting in the riches, willing to distribute, and recognizing the stewardship to God for all. One may be poor, yet greedy, showing covetousness by the fierceness with which the sense of want is expressed, by the bitter envying of the more fortunate, by the utter absence of poverty of spirit. But,” Son, remember!” if thou livest for good things, thou mayest have them; but then, the greater the prosperity, the greater the curse, the more fatal will the possession be to the true lifethe life in God. By-and-by, for even the hardest and dullest there is an awakenmentto shame and everlasting contempt. Here, messages of love, the very pleading of the one risen from the dead may fail to reach the heart; there, where the ever-shifting scenes of this world disappear for ever, shall be heard the voice of conscience, speaking only for doom.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Luk 16:1-9
Cleverness and sagacity.
There is a wide difference between worldly cleverness and spiritual sagacity; of these two acquisitions, the former is to be questioned if not avoided, the latter to be desired and attained. Christ’s teaching here will be entirely misunderstood if we fail to discriminate between them.
I. THE EMPLOYER‘S COMMENDATION OF HIS STEWARD‘S CLEVERNESS. “His lord” (not our Lord) commended the unjust steward because he had acted “shrewdly” (not “wisely”) (Luk 16:8). What does this commendation amount to? It cannot be a justification of his action upon the whole,that idea cannot be entertained, for this action on the steward’s part was wholly adverse to the employer’s interests. It was simply a compliment paid to his keenness; it was equivalent to saying, “You are a very clever fellow, a very sharp man of the world; you know how to look after your own temporal affairs;” only that, and nothing more than that, is meant.
II. OUR LORD‘S COMMENDATION OF SPIRITUAL SAGACITY.
1. Jesus Christ could not possibly praise cleverness when devoid of honesty. He could not do that for two reasons.
(1) Because mere cleverness without honesty is a criminal and a shameful thing; no amount of imaginable “success” would compensate for the lack of principle; he who pays truthfulness for promotion, conscientiousness for comfort, purity for gratification, self-respect for honour or applause, pays much too high a price, does himself an irreparable wrong, sins against his own soul.
(2) Because mere cleverness does not succeed in the end. It did not here. The steward of the text would have been better off if he had shown less sharpness and more fidelity; if he had been faithful he would not have been reduced to a dishonourable shift to secure a roof above his head. It does not anywhere. No one is more likely to outwit himself than a very clever man of the world. Unprincipled dexterity usually finds its way to desertion and disgrace. Success begets confidence, confidence runs into rashness, and rashness ends in ruin. No wise man would bind up even his earthly fortunes with those of his clever, unscrupulous neighbour.
2. Jesus does praise sagacity in connection with integrity. He would like the “children of light” to show as much forethought, ingenuity, capacity, in their sphere as the “children of this world” show in theirs. He counsels them, for instance, to put out their money to good purpose, so as to secure much better results than it is often made to yield. Make friends with it, he suggests. What better thing can we buy than friendship? Not, indeed, that the very best fellowship is to be bought like goods over the counter or like shares in the market; but by interesting ourselves in our fellow-men, by knowing their necessities and by generously ministering to them, we can win the gratitude, the blessing, the benediction, the prayers of those we have served and succoured. And how good is this! What will personal comforts, bodily gratifications, luxuries in dress and furniture, any visible grandeurs, weigh against this? Nay, more, our Lord suggests, we may make even money go further than this; it may yield results that will pass the border. It, itself, and all the worldly advantages it secures, we know that we must leave behind: but if by its means we make friends with those who are “of the household of faith,” we relieve them in their distress, help them in their emergencies, strengthen them as they pass along the rough road of life,then even poor perishable gold and silver will be the means of helping us to a fuller, sweeter, gladder welcome when our feet touch the other shore of the river that runs between earth and heaven. This is true sagacity as compared with a shallow shrewdness. It is to make such of our possessions, and of all our resources of every kind, that they will yield us not only a passing gratification of the lower kind, but rather a real satisfaction of the nobler order, and even lay up in store for us a “treasure in the heavens,” enlarging the blessedness which is beyond the grave.
(1) Is our wisdom limited to a superficial cleverness? If so, let us “become fools that we may be wise” indeed.
(2) Are we making the best use of the various faculties and facilities God has committed to our trust? There are those who turn them to a very small account indeed, to whom they are virtually worth nothing; and there are those who are compelling them to yield a rich harvest of good which the longest human life will be too short to gather in.C.
Luk 16:5
Our indebtedness to our Lord.
“How much owest thou unto my Lord?” Taking these words quite apart from the context to which they properly belong, we may let them suggest to us the very profitable question, how much we, as individual men, owe to him who is the Lord of all.
I. WE OWE HIM FAR MORE THAN WE CAN ESTIMATE. Who shall say how much we owe our God when we consider:
1. The intrinsic value of his gifts to us. How much are we indebted to him who gave us our being itself; who gave us our physical, mental, and spiritual capacities; who has been preserving us in existence; who has been supplying all our wants?
2. The wisdom of his gifts; their moderation, not too large and liberal for our good; the conditions under which he grants themin such wise that all manner of virtues are developed in us by our necessary exertions to obtain them.
3. The love which inspires them. The value of a gift is always greatly enhanced by the good will which prompted its bestowal. God’s gifts to us his children should be very much more highly valued by us because all that he gives to us is prompted by his Fatherly interest in us; all his kindnesses are loving-kindnesses.
4. The costliness of one supreme Gift. “He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” The costliness of that surpassing Gift is such as we have no standards to compute, no language to express.
II. EACH ONE OF US HAS HIS OWN SPECIAL INDEBTEDNESS. “How much owest thou unto my Lord?”
1. One man has been long spared in sin, and has been reclaimed at last; he owes peculiar gratitude for long patience and merciful interposition at the last.
2. Another has had his rebelliousness suddenly and mightily broken down; he is under peculiar obligation for God’s redeeming and transforming grace.
3. A third has been led almost from the first by the constraining influences of the home and the Church; he owes very much for the earliness and the constancy and the gentleness of the Divine visitation. Which of these three owes most to the heavenly Father, to the Divine Saviour, to the renewing Spirit? Who shall say? But we can say this, that
III. WE ALL OWE MORE THAN WE CAN HOPE TO PAY. We are all in the position of him who “owed ten thousand talents,” and had not to pay (Mat 18:1-35.). When we consider the unmeasured and practically immeasurable amount of our indebtedness to God, and also consider the feebleness of our power to respond, we conclude that there is but one way of reconciliation, and that is a generous cancelling of our great debt. We can only cast ourselves on the abounding mercy of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, and accept his forgiving love in him. For his sake he will forgive us “all that debt,” will treat us as those who are absolutely free and pure: then will uprising and overflowing gratitude fill our hearts, and the future of our lives will be a holy and happy sacrifice, the offering of our filial love.C.
Luk 16:10
The wisdom of fidelity.
Between the text and the verse that precedes it there is some interval of thought. There may have occurred a remark made by one of our Lord’s apostles: or we may supply the words,” as to the supreme importance and obligatoriness of fidelity, there is the strongest reason for being faithful at all times and in everything;” for “he that is faithful in that which is least,” etc. This utterance of our Lord is seen to be profoundly true, if we consider
I. THE LAW OF INWARD GROWTH. The Lord of our nature knew that it was “in man” to do any act more readily and easily the second time than the first, the third than the second, and so on continually; that every disposition, faculty, principle, grows by exercise. This is true in the physical, the mental, and also in the spiritual sphere. It applies to acts of submission, of obedience, of courage, of service. One who is faithful to-day will find it a simpler and easier thing to be faithful to-morrow. The boy who faithfully studies at school, scorning to cheat either his teacher or his fellows, will be the apprentice who faithfully masters his business or his profession; and he will be the merchant on whom every one may rely in large transactions in the market; and he will be the minister of state who will be trusted with the conduct of imperial affairs. Fidelity of habit will grow into strong spiritual principle, and will form a large and valuable part of a holy and Christ-like character. “He that is faithful in that which is least will,” in the natural order of spiritual things, “be faithful also in much.” Of course, the converse of this is equally true.
II. THE PRINCIPLE OF DIVINE REWARD. God blesses uprightness in the very act, for he makes the upright man something the better and the stronger for his act of faithfulness. That is much, but that is not all. He holds out to faithfulness the promise of a reward in the future. This promise is twofold:
1. It is one of heavenly wealth, or wealth of the highest order. The proprietor of the estate (Luk 16:1) would remove the unfaithful steward altogether; but he would treat faithfulness very differentlyhe would be prepared to give him something so much better that it might even be called “true riches” (Luk 16:11); nay, he might even go so far as to give him lands, vineyards, which he should not farm for another, but for himself, which he should call “his own” (Luk 16:12). The Divine Husbandman will reward fidelity in his service by granting to his diligent servants “the true riches;” not that about which there is so much of the fictitious, the disappointing, the burdensome, as there is about all earthly good, but that which really gladdens the heart, brightens the path, ennobles the lifethat noble heritage which awaits the “faithful unto death” in the heavenly country.
2. It is inalienable wealth, that will not pass. Here a man points to his estate and says complacently, “This is mine.” But it is only his in a secondary sense. He has the legal use of it, to the exclusion of every other while he lives. But it is alienable. Disaster may come and compel him to part with it; death will come and undo the bond which binds it to him. It is only his in a certain limited sense. Of nothing visible and material can we say strictly that it is “our own.” But if we are faithful to the end, God will one day endow us with wealth with which we shall not be called to part; of which no revolution will rob us, of which death will not deprive usthe inalienable estate of heavenly honour and blessedness; that will be “our own” for ever.
III. THE GROUND FOR PRAISE AND PATIENCE.
1. Bless God that he is now righteously endowing and enlarging his faithful ones.
2. Live in the well-assured hope that the future will disclose a much larger sphere for spiritual integrity.C.
Luk 16:11
The true riches.
We must gain our idea of the sense in which the word “true” is to be taken by our knowledge of Christ’s use of it. And we know that he used it as distinguishing, not the correct from the incorrect, or the existing from the imaginary, but the valuable from the comparatively unimportant, the substantial from the shadowy, the essential from the accidental, the abiding from the transitory. It is in this sense that he says of himself, “I am the true Light;” i.e. “I am not that which renders the smaller service of revealing outward objects and the outward path, but that which renders the supreme service of making clear Divine and heavenly truth, and the way that leads home to God himself.” Thus he speaks also of himself as “the true Bread;” i.e. not the food which sustains for a few hours, but that inward and spiritual nourishment which satisfies the soul and makes it strong for ever. Similarly he declares that he is “the true Vine;” i.e. the Divine Author of the soul’s refreshment, strength, and joy. We shall, therefore, find in “the true riches” those treasures which are truly valuable, which permanently endow their possessor, in opposition to those other treasures which are of inferior worth. We glance at
I. THE INFERIOR CHARACTER OF EARTHLY TREASURE. NO doubt these riches, which are not entitled to be called the “true riches,” have a worth of their own which is far from contemptible. Indeed, they render us services which we cannot help calling valuable; they provide us with shelter, with food, with raiment, with instruction, and even (in the sense of Luk 16:9) with friendship. But they neither supply to us nor secure for us lasting satisfaction.
1. They do not supply it in themselves. The possession of wealth may give, at first, considerable pleasure to the owner of it; but it may be doubted whether there is not more pleasure found in the pursuit than in the possession of it. And it cannot be doubted that the mere fact of ownership soon ceases to give more than a languid satisfaction, often balanced, often indeed quite outweighed, by the burdensome anxiety of disposing of it.
2. They do not ensure it. They can command a large number of pleasant things; but these are not happiness, much less are they well-being. That life must have been short or that experience narrow which has not supplied many instances in which the riches of this world have been held by those whose homes have been wretched, and whose hearts have been aching with unrest or even bleeding with sorrow.
II. THE SUPREME VALUE OF SPIRITUAL GOOD.
1. There are true riches in reverence. To be living in the fear of God; to be worshipping the Holy One; to be walking daily, hourly, continually, with the Divine Father; to have the whole of our life hallowed by sacred intercourse with heaven;this is to be enriched and ennobled indeed.
2. There is real wealth in love. Our best possession at home is not to be found in any furniture; it is in the love we receive, and in the love we have in our own hearts: “The kind heart is more than all our store.” And to be receiving the constant loving favour of a Divine Friend, and to be returning his affection; to be also loving with a true and lasting love those for whom he died;this is to be really rich.
3. There are true riches in the peace, the joy, the hope, of the gospel of Christ. The peace that passes understanding; the joy that does not pall, and which no man taketh from usjoy in God and in his sacred service; the hope that maketh not ashamed, that is full of immortality;these are the true riches. To be without them is to be destitute indeed; to hold them is to be rich in the sight of God, in the estimate of heavenly wisdom.C.
Luk 16:13
The dividing-line.
Ingenuity is an excellent thing in its way; it counts for much in the conduct of life; it renders valuable aid in our “taking possession of the earth and subduing it;” it has its place and function in the spiritual sphere, A holy love will press it into its service and make it further its benign and noble aims. But there is a dividing-line, which is such that no ingenuity will enable us to stand on both sides of it. We must elect whether we will take our place on this side or on the other of it. That line is found in the service of Jesus Christ. To be his servant is to have withdrawn from the service of the world; to remain in the latter is to decline “to serve the Lord.” We may be loyal enough to this present world, may be animated by its spirit, governed by its principles, numbered amongst its friends, and
I. YET MAKE A LOUD PROFESSION OF PIETY; or
II. YET ENJOY A GOOD REPUTATION FOR RELIGION,witness the Pharisees of our Lord’s time and the false prophets of an earlier age; or
III. STILL COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE PEOPLE OF GOD; for many of those whom God “knoweth afar off” are persuaded of themselves that they are quite near and very dear to him. In nothing do men make greater mistakes than in the estimation that they form of their own moral and spiritual worth. But no man can live under the dominion of any one sin or with his heart yielded to the objects and interests of time, and
IV. YET BE A TRUE SERVANT OF CHRIST. For to be the servant and follower of Christ is:
1. To have surrendered self to him, and the spirit of selfishness is the essential spirit of worldliness.
2. To have sworn undying enmity to all the false doctrines and pernicious habits which abound in “the world,” and which both characterize and constitute it.
3. Not to be living for time, but to be building for eternity.C.
Luk 16:14
The explanation of false judgment.
“Herein is a marvellous thing,” that the men who were reputed to be the best and wisest among the people of God went so far astray in their judgment and their behaviour that they treated with positive contempt the Good and the Wise One when he lived before their eyes and spoke in their hearing. It demands explanation.
I. AN APPARENTLY UNACCOUNTABLE FACT. Here we have:
1. Heavenly wisdom derided by those who were divinely instructed. The Pharisees had the Law of God in their hands. Moreover, they had it in their minds and memories; they were perfectly familiar with it; they knew it well to the last letter. They had the great advantage of the devotional Scriptures following the legal, and the didactic and the illuminating prophetic Scriptures added to both. Then, to crown all, came the enlightening truths of the great Teacher himself; yet they failed to appreciate and even to understand him. Nor did they simply turn from him without response; they took up the position of acute and active opposition”they derided him;” they sought to bring his doctrine into popular contempt.
2. Divine goodness derided by those who were exceptionally devout. No man could impeach the devoutness of the Pharisees, that is to say, so far as manner and habit were concerned. Their outward behaviour was reverent in the extreme; their habit of life was regulated by rules that brought them into frequent formal connection with God and with his Word. Yet with all their exterior piety they saw the Holy One of God living his transcendently beautiful his positively perfect life before them, and, instead of worshipping him as the Son of God, instead of honouring him as one of the worthiest of the sons of men, they actually judged him to be unholy and unworthy, and they endeavoured to bring him under the contempt of all good men! Such was their moral perversity, their spiritual contradictoriness.
II. THE TRUE EXPLANATION OF IT. That which accounts for this radical and criminal mistake of theirs was spiritual unsoundness. They were all wrong at heart; they loved the wrong thing, and a false affection led them, as it will lead all men, very far astray. Everything is explained in the parenthetical clause, “who were covetous.” For covetousness is an unholy selfishness. It is a mean and a degrading carefulness about a man’s own circumstances, a small and a withering desire for an enrichment at other men’s expense; it is an affection which lowers and which enslaves the soul, ever dragging downwards and deathwards. And it is also a guilty worldliness. It is not that ambition to make the most and best of the present, which may be a very honourable aspiration; for “all things are ours [as Christian men], things present” as well as things to come (1Co 3:22); it is rather the moral weakness which allows itself to be lost and buried in the pursuits and pleasures of earth and time; it is the narrowing of the range of human attachment and endeavour to that which is sensuous and temporal, excluding the nobler longings after the spiritual and the eternal. This worldliness is not only a guilty thing, condemned of God; but it is a disastrous thing, working most serious evils to mankind.
1. It distorts the judgment.
2. It leads men into wrong and mischievous courses of action; it led the Pharisees to take such an attitude and to initiate such proceedings against Christ as culminated in his murder.
3. It ends in condemnationsuch severe judgment as the Lord passed on these blind guides (see Mat 23:1-39.). If we would be right at heart and in the sight of God, it is clear that “our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.”
(1) Multiplied ceremonialism will not suffice.
(2) Perfected proprieties will not avail.
(3) Only a humble, trustful, loving heart will make us right.
A true affection, the love of Christ, will lead us into truth and wisdom, will commend us to God, will land us in heaven.C.
Luk 16:15
Divine and human judgment.
This declaration of Christ was a judgment in a double sense. It was drawn down upon themselves by the Pharisees, who had been doing their worst to bring into derision he doctrine and the character of our Lord. This reply was not indeed a retort, but it was of the nature of a judgment. It declared the mind of Christ, and it declared it in strong disapproval of evil-doing and strong condemnation of an evil spirit. It brings before us three subjects of thought.
I. OUR DESIRE TO STAND WELL WITH OUR BRETHREN. “Ye justify yourselves before men.” The desire to be justified of man is almost universal.
1. It may be a right and worthy sentiment. When the approval of man is regarded in the light of a confirmation of God’s acceptance of us or of the commendation of our own conscience, then is it right and honourable.
2. But it may be of very little value indeed; it is so when it is sought merely as a matter of gratification, irrespective of the consideration of its true moral worth. For the approval of man is often a very hollow and always a transient thing; change the company, and you change the verdict; wait until a later day, and you have a contrary decision. The hero of the past generation is the criminal of the present time. And it may be that the man or the action the multitude are praising is the one that God is most seriously condemning. Of what value, then, is “the honour that cometh from man”?
(1) Care nothing for the opinion of the selfish and the vicious.
(2) Care little for the judgment of those whose character you do not know.
(3) Be desirous of living in the esteem of the good and wise.
II. GOD‘S SEARCHING GLANCE. “God knoweth your hearts.” Men do not see us as we are; we do not know ourselves with any thoroughness of knowledge; the power we have and use to impose on others reaches its climax when we impose on ourselves, and persuade ourselves that those things are true of us which are essentially false. Only God “knows us altogether;“ for it is he alone that “looketh upon the heart,” that is “a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” His glance penetrates to the innermost chambers of our soul. He sees:
1. The motives by which we are actuated in our deeds; seeing often that apparently good deeds are inspired by low or even bad motives, and that deeds which society condemns are relieved by unselfish promptings.
2. The feeling that accompanies our expression; whether it is slight or whether it is deep; often perceiving that it is more or that it is less than we imagine it to be.
3. The purpose of our heart toward himself; determining whether, in the presence of much profession, there is genuine devotedness; whether, in the absence of profession and even of assurance, there is not true godliness in the soul.
III. THE DIVINE REVERSAL. “That which is highly esteemed,” etc. Of those things concerning which these strong words are true, there are:
1. Assumed and also unpractical piety. The hypocrite is hateful in the sight of Absolute Purity; we know what Christ thought of him. Less guilty and yet guilty is the mere ceremonialisthe who has no more piety than is found in a multitude of sacred ceremonies, who has not learned to regulate his life or to regard the claims of others. To frequent the sanctuary on one day, and the next to take a mean advantage of some weak brother, is odious in the sight of the common Father.
2. Self-seeking philanthropythe show of doing good to others which is nothing more than a profitable pretence, a course of conduct which has a benevolent aspect but which is secretly aiming at its own enrichment.
3. Irreverent activity. Men often yield great admiration to those whose lives are full of successful labour, who build up large fortunes or rise to great eminence and power by much energy and unremitting toil. But if those men are living godless lives, are excluding from the sphere of their thought and effort that Divine One, “with whom they have [everything] to do,” and whose creative, preserving, and providing love has everything to do with their capacity, must we not say that the lives of these men are so seriously defective as to be even “abomination in the sight of God”?C.
Luk 16:19-26
The sin and doom of selfish worldliness.
This parable, taken (as I think it should be), not in connection with the immediately preceding verses (16-18), but with those that come before these (with Luk 16:1-15), is a very striking confirmation of the doctrine delivered by Christ concerning selfishness and worldliness. He brings its sinfulness and its doom into bold relief.
I. WHERE THE RICH MAN WAS WRONG.
1. Not in being rich. He is not brought forward as the type of those whose very possession of wealthbecause ill-gottenis itself a crime and a sin. He may be supposed to have entered on his large estate quite honourably.
2. Not in being vicious. There is no trace of drunkenness or debauchery here.
3. Not in being scandalously cruel. It is not a monster that is here depicted; not one that took a savage and shameful pleasure in witnessing the sufferings of others. He was so far from this that he consented to the beggar being placed at his gate, and that he allowed his servants to give the suppliant broken pieces from his table; he was not at all unwilling that the poor wretch outside should have for his dire necessity what he himself would never miss. This is where he was wrong.
4. He was living an essentially selfish and worldly life. God gave him his powers and his possessions in order that with them he might glorify his Maker and serve his brethren. But he was expending them wholly upon himself, or rather upon his present personal enjoyment. If he parted with a few crumbs which he could not feel the loss of, that was an exception so pitifully small as to serve no other purpose than that of “proving the rule.” It went for nothing at all. His spirit was radically and utterly selfish; his principles were essentially worldly. It was nothing to him that outside his gates was a world of poverty, of which poor Lazarus was only one painful illustration; that sad fact did not disturb his appetite or make his wines lose anything of their relish. It was nothing to him that there were treasures of a better kind than those of house and lands, of gold and silver; that there was an inheritance to be gained in the unseen world; enough for him that his palace was his own, that his income was secure, that his pleasures there was no one to interrupt. Selfishness and worldliness characterized his spirit; they darkened and degraded his life, and they sealed his doom.
II. THE SEVERITY OF HIS DOOM. “In hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments;” “There is a great gulf fixed.” Jesus Christ was not now unveiling the future world for curious eyes; he was simply using current language and familiar imagery to intimate to us that the man who has lived a selfish and worldly life will meet with severe condemnation and grievous penalty in the next world; a penalty in regard to which he has no right to expect either mitigation or release.
1. Are our lives governed by the spirit of active benevolence? To throw the crumbs to Lazarus is far from “fulfilling the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). We must go a very long way beyond that infinitesimal kindness. We must have a heart to pity the poor and needy; a soul to sympathize with them and share their burdens (Mat 8:17); a generous hand to help them (Luk 10:33-37). The sorrow and the sin of the world must be upon our heart as a serious and heavy weight, and we must be ready to make an earnest effort to soothe the one and to subdue the other.
2. Have we regard to the day of trial and the future of retribution (see Mat 25:41-46)?C.
Luk 16:19, Luk 16:20
Poverty at the gate of wealth.
Here is a picture which we recognize in England in this nineteenth century quite as readily as it would be recognized in Judaea in the days of our Lord; it is that of poverty and wealth in very close association. It is not only a picture to look upon but a problem to solve, and one of much urgency as well as great difficulty.
I. POVERTY AND WEALTH IN CLOSE JUXTAPOSITION. As the rich man of the parable could not enter his house without seeing Lazarus lying in rags and sores at his gate, so are we unable to pass our days without being impressed with the fact that “the poor [even the very poor] we have with us,” and indeed all around us. Lazarus lies at our gate. Not only have we the professional beggar, who has adopted “begging” as his means of livelihood, but we have the whole army of the unfortunate, who have been incapacitated by some means, and who cannot “work that they may eat;” and we have also another large and equally pitiable multitude of the ill-paid, who cannot earn enough by the honest industry in which they are employed to sustain themselves and their families. And so it comes to pass that in England to-day, side by side with competence, with wealth, with inestimable affluence, is poverty walking in rags, lying in loneliness, shivering with cold and hunger, working without reward that is worthy of the name. It is a sad sight in a Christian land; and it is not sad alone, it is alarming; for such extremes are full of evil and of peril.
II. THE PAINFUL ASPECT OF THIS FEATURE OF OUR MODERN LIFE. For who can doubt:
1. The dangers attending great wealth? It leads to luxury, and luxury favours sloth, indulgence, a false standard of the worth and purpose of life, a proud heart, and a haughty bearing. In circumstances where there is no necessity for energetic and patient labour, and where there is every opportunity of enjoyment, many evil weeds grow fast, and there the best flowers that grow in the garden of the Lord too often languish. Or who can doubt:
2. The perils of extreme poverty? These lead down by a straight and steep path to servility, to craftiness and cunning, to falsehood, to dishonesty, to envy and hatred. And who can fail to see:
3. The evil influence on the State of these two extremes? Here there can be no true brotherhood, no proper association and co-operation; here is separation from one another, a division as great as that which is interposed by the high mountain range or the broad sea; nay, greater than that! Many English people see more and know more of the inhabitants of Switzerland than they see and know of the denizens of the streets of another part of their own parish. It is the uninteresting and objectionable poor at their gate who are the “strangers.”
III. ONE MITIGATING FEATURE. This juxtaposition of poverty and wealth provides an opportunity for the exercise of sincere benevolence and of the highest Christian wisdom. To the Christian heart there is a plaintive plea which cannot be unheard or disregarded, even though Lazarus be kept out of sight and hearing by judicious arrangements. And to the honest patriot there is an inviting and urgent problem to which, far more than to the questions of fortifications and armaments, he will give earnest heed, viz. how to bring about an approachment, an intermingling, of all classes and conditions of men, a better distribution of the great resources of the land.
IV. THE TRUE HOPE OF ADJUSTMENT. Whither shall we look for a better distribution of the riches of the land?
1. Almsgiving can only touch the fringe of the difficulty.
2. Economic changes may have a valuable part to play in the matter; but we are not yet agreed as to the best course to take.
3. Beneficent legislation will certainly bring its large contribution; it can do two things: it can
(1) educate the whole nation, and so provide every citizen with necessary weapons for the battle of life; and it can
(2) do much to remove temptation from the path of the weak. But it is:
4. Spiritual renewal which must prove the main source of social reconstruction. Change the character, and you will change the condition of men. And the one force which will effect this is the redeeming and regenerating truth of God, made known by the holy lives and in the loving words of the disciples of Jesus Christ.C.
Luk 16:27-31
A dangerous delusion.
The rich man found himself undergoing the penalty of a selfish and worldly life, and, bethinking himself of his five brethren, he desired for them the advantage which he himself had not possessed; he prayed that a visitant from the unseen world might appear to them and warn them of the danger in which they stood. He thought this extraordinary privilege would accomplish for them what the ordinary influences around them had not wrought. He was assured that in this notion he was mistaken; if they were not hearing “Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.”
I. THE ONE HOPE FOR ERRING AND SINFUL MENthat they may be persuaded. They are living in sin; for selfishness and worldliness are such in the sight of God that they may be said to be sin itself; they are the soul turning from the living God to find its centre, its sphere, its satisfaction, in its own poor self, in the material and transitory good of this present world. And living in sin, men are living under God’s high displeasure, under his solemn and awful condemnation, in peril of final banishment and penalty in the future. The one hope for them is that they will be persuaded:
1. To consider. To consider whence they came, whose they are, unto whom they owe their powers and their possessions, what is the true end and aim of human life, their accountableness to the God whom they have neglected and displeased, the nearness of death, the greatness of eternity.
2. To repent. That is, not to be convulsed with a strong and passing agony of soul, nor to use the current and approved language of contrition, but to change their minds, their views, their feelings; to have in their hearts a deep sense of shame and of regret that they should have so sadly misspent their powers and. lost their opportunities.
3. To resolve. To come to a deliberate and fixed resolution to live henceforth unto God their Saviour.
II. THE REFUGE OF THE DISOBEDIENT, There are many who, when they thus recognize their duty, are “not disobedient to the heavenly vision;” they say, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” and proceed without delay to do his holy will. But there are others who weakly and wrongly postpone the hour of decision and of return. They think that the time will come for them to enter the kingdom of God, but it has not yet arrived. There has not happened to them any great visitation. God has not appeared in any striking and overwhelming form. There will come an hour when it will be made manifest to them that they must no longer delay; when they will be mightily constrained to yield themselves to the service of the Supreme; then they will freely and gladly respond; meantime they will pursue the old path of selfishness and worldly pleasure.
III. THE VANITY AND THE FOLLY OF THIS RESORT,
1. The vanity of it. Jesus Christ taught that men, if they were unmoved by the sacred truths they learned in Deuteronomy and Isaiah, would not be stirred to newness of life even by an apparition flora the unseen world; that it was not by the extraordinary and the startling, but by the divinely true, that souls were to be saved. And this doctrine is in conformity with the known facts of our human experience. Men that know their Lord’s will but delay to do it will find some excuse for disobedience when the unusual or even when the supernatural is before them. The disobedient heart goes on in sinful procrastination, with a vague and feeble hope that this hour will come; but it does not arrive. He has a vision of sudden death, but he rises from the sick-bed to pursue the old path; he loses some companion and is powerfully admonished of his own mortality, but he returns from his friend’s grave the same man that he was before; he goes to hear the wonderful preacher and listens with admiration not unmixed with fear or even trembling, but he awakes on the morrow with a closed mind, with an unbroken heart. Some great trouble overtakes and overthrows him, but his soul is hardened, and the “sorrow of the world worketh death” and not life in his case. His hope is a vain one.
2. The folly of it. Why should he wait for the extraordinary, the supernatural? Has he not at hand everything he needs to convince him and to induce him to take the step of spiritual decision? Why want some one from heaven to bring down the word of truth or the Saviour himself (Rom 10:6)? All that we want we have.
(1) Our conscience is urging us to a life of holy service.
(2) Our reason tells us that our present and eternal welfare is bound up with the forgiveness and the favour of the living God, in whose power we stand and who holds all our future in his sovereign hand.
(3) Our Divine Father is summoning us to his side, to his hearth, to his table, and is waiting to welcome us.
(4) Our gracious Saviour is inviting us to an immediate and to an absolute trust in himself.
(5) The Holy Spirit of God is pleading and striving with us. There is no reason, there is no excuse, for a single day’s delay. Every one to whom it is right to listen, everything to which it is wise to yield attention, says, “Come.” It is only the evil voices around us and from below that say, “Wait.” Delay means the doom of Dives; immediate obedience leads along the paths of heavenly wisdom and holy service to the home of the blessed.C.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Luk 16:1-13
Money as a means of grace.
The previous chapter was spoken against the pride of the Pharisaic party, who were too exclusive to welcome publicans and sinners to the same feast of privilege as themselves. The parable now before us was spoken against their covetousness. It will be found that, as the graces are to be found and grow together, so do the vices of mankind. The idolatry of wealth goes hand-in-hand with pride. In warning his disciples, however, against the vice, our Lord inculcates positive truth, and brings out in his parables the important fact that money may either be a means of grace to men, or a temptation and a snare. The first parable, about the unjust steward, shows us one who was wise in time in the use of money; the second parable, about the rich man and Lazarus, shows us one who became wise when it was too late and his doom was sealed. The story need be no moral difficulty to us. The all-important point is the deprivation of his stewardship. It was taken from him on the ground of injustice of some kind. In view of his exodus from the stewardship, he prudently makes his lord’s debtors his debtors too, by largely reducing their liabilities. Having thus made friends with them all, he awaits his dismissal with confidence, and expects befriendment when out of his situation. It is his prudence, not his motives, that our Lord commends. Now, to our Lord’s spiritual eye, this was a beautiful representation of what a soul may do in prospect of dismissal from his earthly stewardship at death. He may take the money he happens to possess, and, feeling that it is not his own absolutely, but God’s, and that he is only a steward of it, he can use it liberally, making the troubles of his brethren lighter, so that, having laid them under obligations to him, he can calculate with certainty upon their cordial sympathy in the world beyond the grave. A prudent outlay may make hosts of friends among the immortals beyond; in a word, money may be utilized as a very important means of grace.
I. MAMMON IS A BAD MASTER. (Luk 16:13.) We start with this thought as a kind of background to the more comforting teaching which our Lord here emphasizes. The soul that is enslaved by mammon becomes miserable. Is not this implied in the term “miser,” which designates the slave of money? The poor slave is kept grinding away, amassing more and more, and yet never getting any benefit from all the lust of gold. Nothing seems more foolish and insane than the race for riches; nothing more ruinous than the snares into which the runners fall. When life’s end comes and the accumulated hoard has to be left behind, the condition of the soul is pitiful indeed.
II. ON THE OTHER HAND, MONEY MAY BE MADE A VERY USEFUL SERVANT. (Luk 16:1-9.) For nothing is gained by denying that money is a great power. How much it can accomplish! Every department of enterprise regards money as the “one thing needful.” So powerful is it, that people by the use of it may become thoroughly hated, as many selfish speculators and covetous people are every day. On the other hand, it may be so wisely laid out as to increase our friends to troops. A judicious use of money can gather friends around us by the thousand. It may serve us by increasing our list of friends.
III. MONEY CAN BE USED BY US TO SERVE GOD. (Luk 16:10-12.) This is the gist of Christ’s teaching in the parable before us; and we never use money aright until we have got this idea driven home of serving God by it. And to emphasize this, let us notice:
1. Money is God‘s, and we are never more than stewards of it. This truth underlies the whole parable. The very rich man who has the steward is God. We are all his stewards, faithful or unfaithful, as the case may be, in our use of his money. It is never ours apart from God; it is ours only as his stewards. Other things are held far more surelyfor example, education, thoughts, culture. They enter our being and become ours, we have reason to believe, for evermore. But money is only ours for a timea loan from God to be put out to a proper use.
2. We are faithful in our stewardship when we give ungrudingly to those who are in real need. God gives us “enough and to spare“ for the purpose of laying the needy under obligation. In this way we transmute our money into gratitude. The gratitude of the assisted is better than the money, for it abides and can be enjoyed when money cannot.
3. God guarantees the gratitude and the reward. Some of the recipients may turn out to be ungrateful, but “he that giveth unto the poor lendeth unto the Lord,” and “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” We are, therefore, sure of the highest recognition when for the Lord’s sake we help our fellows.
IV. THE TRULY GENEROUS AND LIBERAL SOUL HAS A WELCOME AWAITING HIM IN THE ETERNAL TABERNACLES. (Luk 16:9.) The expression, “eternal tabernacles,” to adopt the Revised Version, seems to indicate everlasting progress to be realized in the next life. We shall be moving onwards even there to higher and higher attainment. Those we have befriended here will receive us into their eternal tents. There will be recognition and fellowship and its accompanying progress. What a judicious outlay to have all this awaiting us in the world to come! What a means of grace money may thus become] and what a help to glory] Let the so-called unjust steward, then, admonish us to make the most of our capital on earth, that we may have the best heavenly return from it when we have left the money behind us for ever.R.M.E.
Luk 16:14-31
The misuse of money.
The possibility of making “friends of the mammon of unrighteousness” has been clearly set before us by our Lord in the preceding parable. The “eternal tents” may afford us warmest welcome if we have conscientiously used our money. But the Pharisees who needed the warning against covetousness only derided him for his pains. It is supposed that it was his poverty which they thought took away his right to speak as he did of riches. He is consequently compelled to turn upon them a severer rebuke, and he does so in the sentences preceding, as well as in the substance of, the next parable. The intermediate sentences need not long detain us. Christ charges the Pharisees with self-justification. Now, this can only take place “before men.” It is an appeal to a mere human tribunalto those who can only judge by the appearance, but cannot search the heart. God, he tells them plainly, will not endorse this justification. He will reverse the sentence of self-complacency. He follows up this by stating the permanence of the Law. The reputation of the Pharisees may wither and decay, but not one tittle of the Law shall fail. And in present circumstances he declares that the Divine kingdom is being stormed by anxious men who have learned to humble themselves in penitence and pass into exaltation through pardon. They ought to see to it that they are not induced by lust to play fast and loose with the unchanging Law, and to imagine that they can divorce their wives on the usual pretexts, and be guiltless. Bat now we must proceed to the striking parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Upon the details of the story we do not tarry. It is an exquisitely powerful picture. The artist is here at his best. The rich man in his “purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day;” the poor man “laid at his gate, full of sores,” and thankful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table and for the attention of the dogs; then two deaths, when lo! the positions are reversed, and the poor man finds himself in the bosom of Abraham and with his good things all about him, while the rich man finds himself in utter poverty, in need of everything and sure of nothing. The picture closes, too, all hope for such a selfish soul as the rich man proved himself to be. The following lessons are here taught us.
I. EVERY ONE WITH MEANS HAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS LIFE OF BEING GENEROUS. (Luk 16:20.) The friends of the poor man laid him, or, as the word () may mean, “threw him down” at the rich man’s gate. There could be no doubt about the rich man’s opportunity; it was pressed upon his notice. And amid all the artificial separations which civilization makes between rich and poor, there is always some friendly hand to force opportunity upon us. “The poor we have with us always.” They appear, do what we may, at the feast of life, and we cannot exclude them from our considerations. It requires an effort to be utterly ungenerous. Now, we ought to bless God that he has not left us with any excuse for hard-heartedness. He brings the world’s needs to our very gates. He emphasizes opportunity. He gives us outflow for our generosities, He will not leave us in our hard-heartedness, but calls us evermore to nobler things.
II. SELF–INDULGENCE MAKES PEOPLE ABSOLUTELY PITILESS. (Luk 16:21.) Mosheim, in a suggestive discourse from this parable, reminds us at the outset of the words of Peter about “fleshly lusts warring against the soul.” It is wonderful how hardhearted luxurious living can make people. The rich man in the parable can find in his heart to pass out and in and never once to relieve his poor brother. The latter may have got crumbs from the rich man’s table, but if he did, it was more likely by the servants’ charity than by the master’s orders. From the self-indulgent worldling he got no consideration. He is ignored, for the selfish soul has become pitiless. When self is supreme, it can shut out all consideration of others from one’s thoughts. When they obtrude themselves or are obtruded upon our attention, we say, alas! that they have no claim upon us, forgetting that they are our brothers. Against such hardheartedness we should all be upon our guard.
III. DEATH, IN DEPRIVING THE SELFISH SOUL OF HIS GOOD THINGS, LEAVES HIM NECESSARILY IN TORMENT. (Luk 16:22, Luk 16:23.) Good living is a most dangerous habit when it constitutes any man’s all. A soul, to be confined to this tariff, is in danger of dying into utter want. The round of sensual indulgence goes on day after day, the appetites are gorged, and man sinks down into the animal pure and simple. Now, if the world beyond makes no provision for such gross indulgences; if it has no venison and champagne; if the appetites are left without a larder and the famine of the senses has come;what kind of life must the poor soul have? It needs no furnace of actual fire to secure his torment. The burning desire, within which nothing can quench, leaves him of necessity in torment. If God has made no provision for the intemperate, for the gourmand, for the dissolute, in their environment beyond the grave, must not their lusts, denied satisfaction, be perpetual torment? The torment of unsatisfied desire, the hunger of a self-centred spirit, must be terrible!
IV. UNBELIEF IS INEXCUSABLE, AND MAY BE INVINCIBLE. (Luk 16:27-31.) The selfish worldling had evidently been living without regard to a future life. In his torment he realizes that his five brethren are living the same heedless life. Lest, therefore, they should come and increase his torment, he asks that Lazarus be sent on a special mission to warn them about their doom. Now, it is plain that, with Moses and the prophets in their hands, they were without excuse. What, then, did Moses and the prophets teach? They do not teach with great distinctness the doctrine of a future life. They undoubtedly imply that doctrine. But the question isDid the rich man or his brethren need that doctrine to guard them against inhumanity of life? Must I tremble before prospective torment ere I am convinced that I ought to be generous and considerate? Nay, do I not know by the law of conscience that such conduct as is inhuman must incur the curse of God? Even the pagans are inexcusable when they live inhuman lives. Besides, we must not, with the rich man, imagine that a prescribed miracle may overbear all unbelief. Unbelief may be invincible. No miracle may be strong enough to defeat self-will. May we all be kept from such a hardened state!
V. ABRAHAM, AS HE CHERISHES LAZARUS IN THE OTHER LIFE, SHOWS US HOW A RICH MAN MAY PERPETUATE HIS KINDLY OFFICES AND INFLUENCE. (Luk 16:23-25.) It has been very properly observed that in Abraham we have a rich man in blessedness, as a set-off to the other rich man in torment. Abraham was very probably the richer of the two while in life, but he had used his wealth for the good of his fellows. He had cherished the poor and needy. And so it is to good-hearted, faithful Abraham that the consolation of Lazarus is committed. Here the habits of helpfulness which the patriarch had cultivated upon earth find exercise in the better world. What a prospect is thus opened up to the large-hearted! Heaven will be full of opportunity for ministration. Those whose lot has been a hard one in this world will be taken to the bosom of the patriarchs of Godthose who have become “seniors” in his house of many mansionsand receive from them the compensation which God has in store for all who have learned to love him.R.M.E.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Luk 16:1. And he said also unto his disciples, The maliciousness of the Pharisees, and the obstinacy with which they opposed every thing that was good, led our Saviour to expose their evil hearts and vile practices to public view. Wherefore, he did not content himself barely with justifying his receiving sinners, in order to convert them; but, while the scribes and Pharisees were present, he turned to his disciples, and spake the parable of the crafty steward, whom he proposed as an example of the dextrous improvement which worldly men make of such opportunities and advantages as fall in their way for advancing their interest. By this parable Jesus designed to excite his disciples to improve in like manner the advantages which they might enjoy, for advancing their own spiritual welfare; and particularly, to spend both their time and their money in promoting the conversion of sinners; which, of all the offices in their power, was the most acceptable to God, and the most beneficial to mankind.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 16:1 . After Jesus has given, as far as Luk 15:32 , the needful explanation to the Pharisees and scribes in reference to their murmuring at His associating Himself with the publicans and sinners, He now turns also ( ) to His disciples with the parabolic discussion of the doctrine how they were to use earthly possessions in order to come into the Messiah’s kingdom . For according to Luk 16:9 nothing else is the teaching of the following parable, which consequently is, even in its vocabulary (Kstlin, p. 274), similar to the parable at Luk 12:16 ff. Every other doctrine that has been found therein has first been put there. The is Mammon , comp. Luk 16:13 ; the represents the . Just as (1) the steward was denounced for squandering the property of his lord, so also the , maintaining in Christ an entirely different interest and a different purpose of life from that of collecting earthly wealth (Mat 6:19 f.; Luk 12:33 ; Luk 18:22 ), must needs appear to the enemies, the rather that these were themselves covetous (Luk 16:14 ), as wasteful managers of the riches of Mammon (Mat 6:24 ), and as such must be decried by them, Luk 16:1 . As, further, (2) the steward came into the position of having his dismissal from his service announced to him by the rich man, so also it would come upon the that Mammon would withdraw from them the stewardship of his goods, i.e. that they would come into poverty, Luk 16:2 f. As, however, (3) the steward was prudent enough before his dismissal, while he still had the disposal of his lord’s wealth, to make use of the latter for his subsequent provision by making for himself friends therewith who would receive him into their houses, which prudence the rich man praised in spite of the dishonesty of the measure; so also should the by liberal expenditure of the goods of Mammon, which were still at their disposal, provide for themselves friends, so as subsequently to attain in their impoverishment provision for eternity, the reception into the Messiah’s kingdom. The more detailed explanation will be found on the special passages. The text in itself does not indicate any definite connection with what has preceded , but is only linked on externally, without any mention of an internal progress in the discussion: but He said also as the foregoing to the Pharisees, so that which now follows to His disciples . [178] But Jesus very naturally comes direct to the treatment of this theme, because just at that time there were very many publicans among His (Luk 15:1 ) on whom, after their decision in His favour, devolved as their first duty the application of the goods of Mammon in the way mentioned (Luk 12:33 ). It is just as natural that, at the same time, the contrast with the Pharisees, just before so humiliatingly rebuked, those covetous ones (Luk 16:14 ) to whom the . . was so extremely foreign (Luk 11:41 , Luk 20:47 ), helped to urge to this theme. Other attempts to make out the connection are arbitrary, as, for instance, that of Schleiermacher (besides that it depends on an erroneous interpretation of the parable itself), that Jesus is passing over to a vindication of the publicans , so far as they showed themselves gentle and beneficent towards their people; or that of Olshausen, that He wishes to represent the compassion that in ch. 15. He has exhibited in God , now also in ch. 16 as the duty of men . But there is no reason for denying the existence of any connection, as de Wette does.
. . ] not merely the Twelve, but the disciples in the more extended sense, in contrast with the opposition which was likewise present. Comp. Mat 8:21 ; Luk 6:13 ; Luk 7:11 ; Luk 19:37 , and elsewhere. The parable had the first reference to the publicans that happened to be among them (Luk 15:1 ), but it concerned also, so far as there were generally still wealthy people among them, the disciples in general. See above.
] not to be defined more particularly than these words themselves and Luk 16:5-7 indicate. To think of the Romans (Schleiermacher), or the Roman Emperor (Grossmann [179] ), in the interpretation, is quite foreign to the subject. Moreover, it is not, as is usually explained, God [180] that is to be understood; with which notion Luk 16:8 would conflict, as well as the circumstance that actually the dismissal from the service of the rich man brings with it the same shelter to which, in the application, Luk 16:9 corresponds, [181] the reception into the everlasting habitations. But neither is it the devil , as , as Olshausen [182] would have it, that is meant, since in the connection of the parable the relation to the [183] in general, and its representatives, is not spoken of, but specially the relation to temporal wealth . [184] Hence its representative, i.e. Mammon, is to be understood; but we must not, with de Wette, give the matter up in despair, and say that the rich man has no significance, or (Ebrard) that he serves only as filling up (comp. also Lahmeyer); he has the significance of a definite person feigned , who, however, as such, was well known to the hearers (Mat 6:24 ), and also at Luk 16:13 is expressly named . The concluding words of Luk 16:13 are the key of the parable; hence, also, it is not to be maintained, with Kster, that a rich man is only conceived of with reference to the steward.
] a house steward , , who had to take the supervision of the domestics, the stewardship of the household, the rental of the property, etc. Comp. Luk 12:42 , and see Heppe, p. 9 ff.; Ahrens, Amt d. Schlssel , p. 12 ff. Such were usually slaves ; but it is implied in Luk 16:3-4 that the case of a free man is contemplated in this passage. To conceive of the as a farmer of portion of the property , is neither permitted by the word nor by the context (in opposition to Hlbe). In the interpretation of the parable the neither represents men in general, nor specially the wealthy (thus most interpreters, following the Fathers), nor yet the Israelitish people and their leaders (Meuss), nor sinners (Maldonatus and others), not even Judas Iscariot (Bertholdt), also neither the Pharisees (Vitringa, Zyro, Baumgarten-Crusius [185] ), nor the publicans (Schleiermacher, Hlbe), but the , as is plain from Luk 16:9 , where the conduct analogous to the behaviour of the is enjoined upon them. The , especially those who were publicans before they passed over to Christ, were concerned with temporal wealth, and were therefore stewards, not of God, but of Mammon.
] he was denounced to him (on the dative, com p. Herod. v. 35, viii. 22; Plat. Polit . viii. p. 566 B; Soph. Phil. 578; Eur. Hec . 863, and thereon, Pflugk; elsewhere also with or with accusative). Although the word, which occurs only in this place in the New Testament, is not always used of groundless, false accusations, though this is mostly the case (see Schweighuser, Lex. Herod . I. p. 154), yet it is still no vox media , but expresses, even where a corresponding matter of fact lies at the foundation (as Num 22:22 ; Dan 3:8 ; Dan 6:25 ; 2Ma 3:11 ; Mal 4:1Mal 4:1 , and in the passages in Kypke, I. p. 296), hostile denunciation, accusation , Niedner, p. 32 ff. Comp. the passages from Xenophon in Sturz , I. p. 673. See also Dem. 155. 7, where the and the are contrasted. So also here; Luther aptly says: “he was ill spoken of .” Vulg.: “diffamatus est.” There was some foundation in fact (hence, moreover, the steward does not defend himself), but the manner in which he was denounced manifested a hostile purpose. Thus, moreover, in the relation portrayed in that of the to temporal riches, as the unfaithful stewards of which they manifested themselves to the covetous Pharisees by their entrance into the Christian conversion, there lay at the foundation the fact that they had no further interest in Mammon, and were no longer . Compare the instance of Zacchaeus. Kster says wrongly that the hitherto faithful steward had only been slandered , and had only allowed himself to be betrayed into a knavish trick for the first time by the necessity arising from the dismissal. No; this knavish trick was only the path of unfaithfulness on which he had hitherto walked, and on which he took a new start to get out of his difficulty. Against the supposition of the faithfulness of the steward, see on Luk 16:3 .
] as squandering (Luk 15:13 ), i.e. so he was represented . [186] Comp. Xen. Hell . ii. 3. 23 : , and thus frequently; Jas 2:9 . It might also have been with the optative ; Herod. viii. 90, and elsewhere. Erroneously, moreover, in view of the present, the Vulg. reads (comp. Luther): quasi dissipasset .
] therefore the possessions, the means and property (Luk 11:21 , Luk 12:15 ; Luk 12:33 , Luk 19:8 ), of his lord . [187]
[178] Not as Wieseler will have it, beside the Pharisees, to His disciples also .
[179] He finds in the a Roman provincial governor , who, towards the end of his oppressive government, has adopted indulgent measures, in order to earn for himself the favour of the inhabitants of the province. He says that thence Jesus, ver. 9, draws the doctrine that as such a one in worldly things behaved himself wisely for an earthly end, so in divine things prudence should be manifested, in order to attain eternal life. Schleiermacher thinks that the rich man represents the Romans, the steward the publicans, the debtors the Jewish people, and that Christ intends to say, that if the publicans in their calling show themselves gentle and beneficent, the Romans, the enemies of the people, will themselves praise them in their hearts; and thus also have ye every cause to concede to them, even in anticipation of the time when this relation ceases (according to the reading , ver. 9), the citizenship in the . .
[180] Observe that this interpretation proceeds on an a priori basis, and is therefore improbable; because in both the other passages, where in Luke is the subject of a parable (Luk 12:16 , Luk 16:19 ), the rich man represents a very unholy personality, in which is typified the service of Mammon and of luxury.
[181] The usual interpretation (substantially followed also by Wieseler, Bleek, Kster) is in its leading features that of Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus: that the possessor of earthly wealth is not the actual proprietor, that being God, but only the steward. If he has not used the wealth according to God’s will, he is accused, but dismissed by death. Hence he should be prudent enough, while there is still time, to apply the wealth entrusted to him charitably according to God’s will, in order to get into heaven. Comp. Ewald, p. 299: “Every rich man, since he must again surrender all earthly riches at least at death, is yet only placed over them as a steward by God, as by a lord who is far removed, but who one day will claim a reckoning; and he is certainly wise and prudent not to allow the riches to lie useless, but rather, by his effectual application of them, to make to himself friends for the right time; but one ought only to gain for himself friends with his riches for the purpose that in the moment when he must, at least as constrained by death, give them up, he should be received by them into the everlasting tabernacles of heaven.” Baur, Evang . p. 450 ff., proceeding from the fundamentally Ebionitic view, says that the rich man is God in His absolute dominion over all; that in the steward is represented the , whose doings, however, are determined by the adequate relation of the means to the end; that this prudence is a quality which even the children of light need, since they must know how to set the in the right relation to the , and hence to be willing to renounce all that pertains to the former in order to attain the latter; that ver. 9 means that he is not at all to trouble himself with Mammon, but entirely to rid himself of wealth, and hence to use it for an object of beneficence, because the and the reciprocally exclude one another. To this Ebionitic view of wealth, as of a benefit in itself unlawful and foreign to the kingdom of God, Hilgenfeld also recurs.
[182] His view is that the publicans may be conceived of as being, by their external relations, in the service of the . According to ver. 13, God was to be regarded as the other true Lord who stood opposed (as the representative of the , ver. 9) to this . It was just the prudent , who in a right manner serves this true Lord; he despises the one in order wholly to belong to the other; he labours with the possessions of the one for the purpose of the other. But in opposition to his true advantage, therefore not prudently, does he act who, like the Pharisees, seeks to place the service of the one on an equality with that of the other. See, in opposition to Olshausen, Schneckenburger, l.c.
[183]
[184] This also in opposition to H. Bauer, l.c. p. 529 ff., who finds in the rich man the theocratic chiefs of the people , whose chief wealth was the theocracy itself. The must have been the Jewish Christians; the debtors , the and , to whom the primitive community more and more conceded a share in the Messianic blessings. The dismissal of the was the excommunication of the primitive church; the friends were the Gentiles , to whom a portion of the legal claims had been remitted by the Christians. The digging and begging must be a new subjection under the chiefs of Israel, with which the primitive church will no longer exchange their free position! The probably points to the necessity of restoring a perfect living intercourse with the converted Gentiles! An arbitrary exercise of ingenuity, making an of the parables of Jesus, by which they are wrenched away from the living present and changed into enigmatical predictions. According to the Schs. Anonymus , the steward is even held to be Paul, who disposed of the wealth of salvation for the benefit of the Gentiles.
[185] According to Zyro , the meaning of the parable is: Ye Pharisees are stewards of a heavenly treasure the law; but ye are unfaithful stewards, indulgent towards yourselves, strict towards others; nevertheless, even ye are already accused, as was he in the parable; and even your power and your dignity will soon disappear. Therefore, as ye are like to him in your , be ye also like to him in your , strict towards yourselves, benevolent towards others, and that at once. According to Baumgarten-Crusius, Christ desires disapproving of the disposition and conduct of the Pharisees in respect of the works of love to direct the disciples to appropriate to themselves something thereof in a better manner. That, namely, which the Pharisees did as sinners in order to cover their sins, and in so-called good works, the disciples were to do, not as sinners, but in order to smooth by sympathetic beneficence the inequality of the relations of life. Bornemann also explains the of the Pharisees. See on ver. 9. Weizscker similarly distinguishes, as in the parable of the prodigal son (see on Luk 15:11 ), the primitive meaning (according to which the steward was a heathen functionary who oppressed the Jews, but afterwards took their part) from the meaning attached to it by the compiler , according to which the steward was a type of the unbelieving rich Jews , who might receive a reversion of the kingdom of heaven if they took up the cause of their fellow-believers who had become Christians. This is a sort of double meaning, which neither in itself nor in its twofold contents has any foundation in the text.
[186] To gather from that the indebtedness was unfounded (Hlbe) is unjustifiable. might also be used in the case of a well-founded , and hence in itself decides nothing at all. Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr . p. 263 [E. T. 307].
[187] Therefore not the possessions of the debtors , to which result van Oosterzee comes, assuming that the steward had made the debtors (who were tenants) pay more than he had given up and paid over to his lord; in the alteration of the leases he had only the right sums introduced which he had hitherto brought into account.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4. The Parable of the Unjust Steward and its Application (Luk 16:1-13)
1And he said also unto his [the1] disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had [of having] wasted his goods. 2And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. 5So he called every one of his lords debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. 7Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. And2 he said 8unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the [his3] lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in [in reference to, ] their generation wiser than the children of light. 9And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail [it fails, V. O.4], they may receive you into [the] everlasting habitations [lit., tabernacles, ].
10He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another mans, who shall give you that which is your own? 13No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the [om., the] one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Luk 16:1. And He said also.The opinion that the Saviour uttered this parable on another occasion, and not in connection with the three former parables, is without any ground.On the other hand, the well-known crux interpretum, the parable of the Unjust Steward, has the right light thrown upon it only when we assume that it was uttered before the same mixed audience of publicans and Pharisees, for whom also the parables of the Lost Sheep, of the Lost Coin, and of the Prodigal Son, were intended. A tolerably full catalogue of the latest theological literature upon Luk 16:1-9, is found in Meyer, ad loc., to which we add the Interprtation de la parabole de lconome infidle, par M. Ensfelder, in the Revue Theol. de Colani, 1852, iii. and Stlbe, Versuch einer Erklrung der Parabel vom ungerechten Haushalter, Stud. und Krit. 1858, iii., and among the Dutch exegetes, an important dissertation by the late Dr. B. Van Willes, 1842.Here, also, in particular, we prefer to give, instead of a criticism of the various and exceedingly divergent views, a simple statement of our own opinion.
To the disciples.Not to be understood of the apostolic circle, although this is by no means to be excluded, but of the followers and hearers of the Saviour, in a wider sense of the word. See Luk 14:26-27; Luk 14:33; Joh 6:66, and other passages, and comp. also Luk 17:1 with Luk 17:5. We have, therefore, to conceive the Saviour as surrounded by publicans, whom He had just been comforting, and by Pharisees, whom He had just put to shame. The former He wishes to remind of their high duty now, as His disciples, to make good as much as possible the guilt which they had formerly incurred by extortion and dishonesty; the others He wishes to bring back from their love to earthly good, by drawing their attention to the truth that they are only stewards, for whom a day of reckoning will come. Both, therefore, He desires to lead to that prudent foresight, the image of which He depicts in the narrative of the Unjust Steward.
A certain rich man.Neither the Romans (Schleiermacher), nor the Roman Emperor (Grossmann), and as little the devil (Olshausen), and, on the other hand, not Mammon (Meyer)the . is, on the other hand, equivalent to the of the rich man, Luk 16:1but God, who here is represented as the paramount owner of all which has been given to man only as a fief, and for use. By the we have to understand not exclusively the of the Saviour, but every man to whom the paramount owner has entrusted part of His goods.
A steward.The wealth of the lord in the parable is visible from the circumstance that he needs an .The property which this steward managed consists, however, not in ready money, but in allotments of land, which he has farmed out for such a price as he has thought fit, without every particular in the farm-contracts having been necessarily known to his lord. For we have here to represent to ourselves no modern steward, who every time gives a complete account, and has to decide nothing by his own full powers: on the other hand, it appears that his lord, who bestowed on him his full confidence, had not previously required any reckoning of him at all, until he, persuaded of the mans dishonesty, had resolved to displace him. If the was clothed with so extensive powers, it is then also unnecessary to assume that he falsified the farm-contracts; in earlier times it was probably not at all necessary to lay these before the lord of the manor. But how had he squandered the ? He had made the farmers pay more than he had stated and paid in to his lord as the rent: he demanded of them an excessive, and paid to him only the fair, amount, so that the difference between what he received and what he rendered constituted a clear gain to himself. He had, however, not enriched himself; for, with his deposition from his post, he sees himself brought at once to the beggars staffhe had lived sumptuously and wantonly on that which he had from time to time gained in this way, until his lord, we know not how, came on the track of his villainous transactions. His lord now summons him to the rendering of the definite account, to which he, as well known to him, is obliged ( ), and speaks at once of displacement. In the giving of this account, therefore, the papers, the farm-contracts, must for the first time be produced, and the displacement must naturally follow if the comparison of the rent with the sum accounted for reveals the cheat; it will, on the other hand, not be necessary, if from a thoroughly consistent account it appears that the suspicion conceived has been an ungrounded one. This must be kept distinctly in mind: the displacement is not yet irrevocably uttered, but only threatened; it does not precede the account, however this may turn out, but will only follow if the steward cannot justify himself. This appears, first, from the nature of the case, since his lord, by such a condemnation, without hearing him, and on a loose report, would have dealt quite as unjustly as the steward, which undoubtedly Jesus did not mean to represent; and, secondly, from the expression of the steward himself, who sought a secure maintenance only in case () he should lose his post, and who, it is true, foresees a displacement as being as good as certain, but yet ventures one more attempt to smooth over his accounts a little.
Luk 16:3. What shall I do?Striking is the monologue in which the Saviour depicts to us the perplexity of the steward, especially striking, if we conceive these words as spoken in broken sentencesWhat shall I do? for my lord takes away my stewardship from me:I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.I knowI have discovered () what I will do. And what now does one expect of a man who is proposed for imitation with very particular reference to his prudence? he will seek a means either, if possible, to avert even yet the dreaded blow and to keep his place, or, in case he should not succeed in this, to provide for himself a comfortable old age.
Luk 16:4. They may receive me into their houses.Not precisely into their families (Schultz), but yet , regarded as the seat of the family-life into which he, out of thankfulness, hoped to be received. The whole monologue shows us the steward as a man of mature reflection. For explanation these reflections are not intended, but for portrayal of the crisis.
Luk 16:5. So he called.Not (Brauns, a. o.) in the presence, but, of course, in the absence, of his exasperated lord; for the steward must certainly, if he were to give the required account, have time for it, and his lord has, therefore, gone away again. Neither can the speaking , Luk 16:3, be easily explained otherwise than as taking place in solitude, and the phrase, Luk 16:5, , is plainly the language of a man who wishes to dispose of something quickly before his lord observes it. The opinion also that the steward makes up the fifty measures of oil and the twenty measures of wheat from his own means, is incompatible with his own assertion, Luk 16:3, that he must beg if he did not find a remedy. If the Saviour had here intended to depict a repentant Zaccheus, who with his dishonestly acquired treasures will even yet do some good (D. Schultz), he would without doubt have put in some way into the stewards mouth an acknowledgment of his guilt.
How much owest thou?We must conceive the matter thus: that he has all the farmers come at the same time to him, but that he talks with every one of them apart. His dealing with two of them is communicated, as an example, from which one can easily conclude how he dealt with the others also. He does not, as is commonly believed, have the farmers write a new bond with a smaller amount; this would have cost too long a detention, but simply set a smaller number instead of the former, either by the altering of a single letter in the old agreement, which the Hebrew numerals easily admit, or by the mere filling up of a new agreement already prepared. The numbers fifty and eighty, which he causes to be set down instead of the previous hundred, express the just amount which he had already given account of to his lord, and he gains by this alteration the advantage that the leases agree with the sums previously stated to his lord, who had never yet had a sight of the authentic papers. But the farmers, who, as they suppose, had been required to pay an exorbitant sum to the lord, can by this moderating of the price only feel themselves personally obliged to the steward, from whose hands this deduction is made to them, and who has perhaps represented this unexpected favor as a consequence of his intercession and of his influence with the lord of the manor.One hundred baths.The Hebrew is equivalent to the old , the tenth part of a Homer; therefore for liquids, the same as the Ephah for dry substances.A hundred Kor, the Hebrew , according to Josephus, A. I. 15. 9, 2 =10 , about =15/16 of the Berlin bushel [11 1/9 English bush.]. See Winer, ad loc.
Luk 16:7. Write fourscore.By the just-mentioned measure the steward has actually done all which in so critical a case could have been expected from a prudent man: for in the first place he makes good his former dishonesty, although only out of selfishness; in the second place, he makes it possible to give a correct account, so far as the leases are laid before the lord and compared with his ledger, and finally, in case the dreaded dismissal follows, nevertheless, he, by his kindness shown to the farmers, purchases for himself a comfortable maintenance for his old age. That he, after he had protected himself in this way, really remained in his office (Baumgarten-Crusius), the Saviour, it is true, does not say, but He is as far from saying also that he was actually removed (common view). This point, on the other hand, remains entirely conjectural, since it does not lie in the purpose of the Saviour to bring the narrative in and of itself to an end, but only to commend a very judicious course of reflection and mode of dealing, in a critical moment, for imitation in a certain respect.
Luk 16:8. And the lord commended the unjust steward.It is, of course, understood that this lord was not the Lord Jesus (Erasmus), but the rich lord in the parable, who had soon learned in what way the had helped himself out of the trouble. We have here to place ourselves entirely on the stand-point of worldly wisdom, and conceive the matter thus: that his lord does not commend the motive or the act of the steward in itself, but commends the cleverness of his Way of dealing, with which he had, while there was yet time, diverted from himself the threatening storm.The unjust steward.That this designation does not need absolutely to be brought into connection with his last-mentioned conduct, but may be referred as well to his earlier and now abandoned dishonesty, appears from similar usage. Mat 26:6; comp. Luk 7:37.
For the children of this world.There is as little room to doubt that the Saviour designs to have represented the as a child of the world, as that He means him for imitation merely and solely in respect of his prudence. The grounds of the here-mentioned phenomenon are plain enough to be seen, because the means which prudence manages are worldly, and are, therefore, foreign to the aims of the children of light, and because prudence belongs to the understanding and the experience of the world, while the children of light live in the Spirit. De Wette. . .that is, when they come into contact with such as, like themselves, are children of the present world. The children of the world are, therefore, happily designated as a family of similar characters. In their mutual intercourse these are wont to go to work with as well-considered plans as the Unjust Steward, and in this respect commonly far surpass the children of light when these have intercourse with one another or with others. Children of light the disciples of the Saviour are named, being those that are enlightened with the light of truth, and are accustomed to walk therein. See Joh 12:35; 1Th 5:5; Eph 5:8. As to the rest, the expression is not to be referred to both-named classes of men (each in its own sphere), but exclusively to the , in contrast with whom the Saviour, Luk 16:9, addresses His disciples.
Luk 16:9. And I say unto you.It is well known into what perplexity this precept has brought early and later expositors,a perplexity which went so far that some have ventured the bold critical conjecture of causing the Saviour, by the insertion of a single little word, , to say exactly the opposite. What, however, He means by the phrase: Make to yourselves friends, is, if we only recollect the conduct of the steward, intelligible enough. The steward had made the farmers subordinated to him, his friends; even so, the Saviour means, should one make those who need help his friends, by bestowing on them benefits with and out of the same money which is so often acquired in an unrighteous manner and applied to shameful purposes. It is entirely arbitrary and against the spirit of the parable to understand here (Ambrosius, Ewald, Meyer) angels, who receive the pious man into heaven. The Saviour, on the other hand, represents the matter thus: that those to whom benefits have been shown, precede their benefactors to heaven, welcome them there, and thus exalt their joy. That the form of this promise is borrowed from the expression of the steward, Luk 16:4, is, of course, obvious. By the everlasting tabernacles, we may understand either heaven, or also (Meyer), according to the analogy, 1Es 2:11, the future Messianic kingdom, in which, however, we meet with the difficulty that then all the whom one has gained with the mammon of unrighteousness are represented eo ipso as citizens of the Messianic kingdom. [Doubtless our Lord does not mean that any but such friends as do belong to His kingdom are to receive us into the eternal abodes.C. C. S.] It is safest to understand, in general, a blessed locality where one can abide, in opposition to an earthly locality which one soon leaves.
Of the mammon of unrighteousness, . ., the means by which one procures himself friends. Comp. Act 1:18. The application of the Mammon must have the consequence indicated by Jesus. Respecting the Mammon, see Lange on Mat 6:24.. .Not because it is commonly acquired in an unlawful manner (Euthym. Zigab.), or because it is itself perishable and delusive (Kuinoel, Wieseler), or because the disciples of the Saviour were in an unrighteous degree very parsimonious therewith (Paulus); but in the same sense in which before an . . Luk 16:8, was spoken of. The is the inherent character of the Mammon, which is here represented as a personal being, and called unrighteous because money, as with the Steward, commonly becomes the occasion and the means of an unrighteous course of conduct; the ethical character of its use is represented as cleaving to itself. Meyer.
When it fails. , so we believe that we must read with Tischendorf, on the authority of A., B., X. The Recepta has probably arisen from the fact that by the mention of the Everlasting Tabernacles it seemed almost a matter of course to take the verb in the plural and to understand it of departure from this earthly place of abode. Therefore, also, the translation: cum defeceritis, with the accompanying thought of dying. With the reading defended by us, the sense becomes much simpler, as the Saviour now speaks of the Mammon : cum Mammon defecerit, when the Mammon is exhausted. So did it fare with the Steward; so might it fare sooner or later with every one who places his confidence in his goods. We have, therefore, not to understand exactly the moment when Mammon leaves us in the lurch in death (Wieseler), but the day when it comes to an end, as with the Steward, Luk 16:4.
They may receive you, .Not to be taken impersonally (Starke), or to be referred exclusively to God and Jesus (Schultz, Olshausen), and quite as little (Grotius) to be understood as if the recipientes were here the means of effecting the reception into the (efficiant, ut recipiamini), which would necessarily lead either to the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works or of the intercession of the saints; but it is to be understood of a reception on the part of the friends acquired with our money, as joyful as that upon which the Unjust Steward in the parable had supposed himself entitled to reckon. These friends are conceived as already present in the everlasting , and as there coming to meet their benefactors, as it were, at the entrance, with the purpose of admitting them into their future abode (). , sic appellantur propter securitatem, amnitatem et contubernii tanquam hospitii communicati commoditatem. Non additur: s u a, ut, Luk 16:4, domus suas, quia tabernacula sunt Dei. Bengel. Comp. Joh 14:2.
The expressions thus explained must, in conclusion, be briefly vindicated from two perverted interpretations. The first is the Pelagian, as if the Saviour had meant to say that one might by beneficence, from whatever motives, buy himself a place in heaven, and that, therefore, those on whom benefits had been bestowed opened to their benefactors the everlasting tabernacles. For with the unrighteous mammon one may indeed make himself friends, yet these friends only receive their benefactors; they can assure them no place in the everlasting abodes, and to give even this reception they have no right in themselves, but only according to Gods will, if their benefactors have entered the way of faith and conversion, and this faith has borne fruits of love. [If Christ Himself could give no place of honor in His kingdom, except according to His Fathers will, much less may the saints assign any place whatever therein, except as God may will. Nevertheless, the truly beneficent use of wealth is a powerful means of grace, and so of salvation; and this our Saviour doubtless means to teach.C. C. S.] We find thus no other moral here than Mat 25:34-40. And as respects the other interpretation, the Ebionitic coloring which has been found in this parable, the Tbingen school has, it is true, imagined itself to find in the a new proof for its darling theme, that the Gospel of Luke vindicates an Ebionitic contempt of riches and favoring of poverty (see Schwegler, l. c. ii. p. 59); but it strikes the eye at once that the Saviour so designates not the use and possession of earthly good in itself, as the source of unrighteousness, but only its prevalent misuse. If an Ebionitic spirit had here prevailed, we doubt very much whether Luke would have put in the Saviours mouth an admonition also to faithful administration of earthly treasures, and the assurance that this stands in connection with the eternal destiny of men. Had the Saviour really thought that earthly good, in and of itself, is something to be reprobated, He would at all events have withheld the admonition, Luk 16:9. Among the weapons which an impartial criticism has to avail itself of for the controverting of the Ebionitic interpretation of Luk 16:19-31, Luk 16:1-9 certainly do not occupy the least important place.
As respects, moreover, our interpretation of the parable itself, it offers, as we think, undeniable advantages;it removes many otherwise obvious difficulties. In the first place, it sees in the Steward even greater prudence than those who assume that he sought nothing more than to secure betimes a good support; according to us, his piece hit the mark on two sides. Secondly, on this interpretation, the Saviours address is far more adapted for the two classes of His hearers; for the publicans now hear the making good of previous dishonesty commended as a work of true wisdom and prudence, while the avaricious Pharisees are shamed by the portraiture of a man who, although in no respect holy, yet stands far above them. In the third place, the objection is thus immediately set aside, which even the emperor Julian and others afterwards have, on the strength of this teaching, brought up against the character of our Lord, as if Christ had, at least to a certain extent, advocated the Jesuitical principle, that the end sanctifies the means. For although it is a thousand times repeated, that it is not the measure taken by the Steward in itself, but only his prudence in laying hold of a measure (in itself evil), which is proposed to the children of light for imitation, yet even in this there will something offensive remain as long as (common view) it is asserted that the Steward made good his former dishonesty by a new trick, and not (as we believe) by the compensation of the damage. How would it then be explicable, that even the Pharisees find in this no occasion for a new imputation? But if we assume, on the other hand, that the Steward out of self-interest abandoned his former crooked ways, we must, it is true, suppose that he acted only as a genuine child of the world (for of self-humiliation or confession of sin we read nothing); but then we can at all events comprehend that not only from his craftiness, but also from his mode of dealing itself, a weighty lesson was to be deduced for the publicans; for in how many respects could the Steward thus serve them as an example, by that which he had done from a purely worldly point of view! Finally, we learn on only this interpretation to understand the full force of the declarations, Luk 16:10-13.
Luk 16:10. He that is faithful in the least.It is as if the Saviour foresaw the objection, that He put too high a value on the faithful application and administration of so worthless and superficial a good as earthly good. To cut off this objection, He adduces a general principle, which He in the following verse immediately applies. It is impossible at the same time to be really faithful in the greater things, and to be unfaithful in the lesser things. For true faithfulness has its ground not in the greatness of the matter in which it is displayed, but in the conscientious feeling of duty of him that exercises it. He therefore that lacks it in the lesser, will not show it even in weightier relations; he to whom it is really a pleasure to be faithful, such an one will account nothing, whether great or small, trifling or unworthy of his attention. Comp. Sirach 5:18. All faithfulness in great things, without being accompanied with faithfulness in lesser things, is only a semblance; all micrology, which in straining at gnats can swallow camels; such is indeed no true heart-faithfulness. Consequently also the reverse: whoever will abide or become faithful in that which is great, let him be so principally and continually in the little circumstances which continually come up in the details that are everywhere occurrent; here is an indissoluble connection. Stier.
Luk 16:11. If therefore ye.What the faithfulness is which the Saviour in the application of the requires (see Luk 16:9), has appeared from the parable itself. It is exhibited when one, obedient to the precept of our Lord, makes friends with it, who receive us into the everlasting tabernacles. If His disciples were wanting in this faithfulness, if they were, in other words, like the Unjust Steward in his former dishonest course, but not in the prudence with which he, while there was yet time, made good again the evil he had committed, who should entrust to them the higher good, the true good? is here a general designation of the benefits of the Spirit of truth and light, which in the Messianic kingdom are attainable for every one; benefits whose administration was first of all entrusted to the apostles, but then also to every believer in his sphere. They are called here by antithesis the true, because they are not, like the Unrighteous Mammon, untrustworthy and deceitful, but fully deserve the name of genuine and true good, whereby the highest ideal is realized. Comp. Joh 1:9; Heb 9:24.
Luk 16:12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another mans.A repetition of the same thought, only in another form. The Mammon is here called the , since it is not the property of man, who can only be the of earthly treasures, but belongs to the paramount owner, who can at any moment demand it back. Money, as such, has then only a relative worth, and the is entirely equivalent to the , Luk 16:11. In opposition to this stand the spiritual benefits which the Saviour, with reference to His disciples, calls , because they, once attained through faith, are destined in time and eternity to constitute their inalienable property. That which belongs to your true nature, which was your own originally (in the Creators purpose), and shall in the redemption again become yours. Von Meyer. In this sense, the Mammon can never be called our property, because it with every generation changes owners, and often unexpectedly takes to itself wings.
Luk 16:13. No servant.Comp. Mat 6:24 and Lange, ad loc. A proverbial expression like this the Saviour could properly use repeatedly; and here also there is a psychological connection plain between this utterance and what precedes. Whoever was not faithful in the least, and did not apply the to the purpose stated in Luk 16:9, showed thereby that he was yet a wretched slave of Mammon, and by that very fact could not possibly be a servant of God, who will have us use money in His service, and thereby promote our reception into the everlasting tabernacles. It is precisely this service of Mammon which stands most in the way of its true use, that use which redounds to the glory of God. If perchance one of the Saviours hearers had inwardly thought that it was, for all this, possible to be in truth His disciple, even though one did not so literally follow His doctrine given in the foregoing parable, He here declares the union of that which is essentially incompatible to be impossible. It is obvious that the faithfulness praised in Luk 16:10-13, is at once the best manifestation of the prudence to which He, Luk 16:1-9, has admonished His hearers, and that therefore the whole instruction deserves the name of a well rounded whole.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. If the parable of the Unjust Steward, considered entirely by itself, has been a for many interpreters, it is rightly considered, taken in its true historical connection, as one of the most striking examples of the elevated didactic wisdom of our Lord. This appears particularly if we consider that this instruction also was given in the presence of Judas, who carried the purse, and for whom in particular the admonition was of high importance. Indirect, yet intelligible enough, are the threatening and warning which he here hears, that persistence in the way of dishonesty must end with the utter loss of the apostleship, nay of his own soul. At the same time it deserves consideration, how remarkably adapted this whole delineation was for the case of the publicans and sinners, whom the Saviour had by the three previous parables been encouraging, and whom He now by this wished to lead to sanctification. Where He takes them under His protection, He is gentle in His consolations, but where He admonishes them, strict in His requirements. He shows, as it were, to the lost but now recovered sons of the house, how the father, it is true, at their return gives a feast, but how they now also, after having been refreshed and strengthened at the table, must return to an immediate and faithful fulfilment of the obligations imposed upon them. If they formerly had been only hirelings of the Romans, the Saviour will now have them consider themselves as stewards of God, to administer faithfully in their earthly treasure, His property. That He places before them an unrighteous steward as a model for imitation, can, after all that we have said, appear a matter of offence only if we, in opposition to the Saviours intention, press the comparison beyond the tertium comparationis. The parable is in this respect entirely equivalent to that of the Importunate Friend, Luk 11:5, and that of the Unjust Judge, Luk 18:1, and this also belongs to the Singularia Luc, that with Him alone a triad of parables appears, in which the cum grano salis more than elsewhere must be kept in mind, if one will not fall into absurdity.
2. The penetrating light which illumines the darkness of the whole parable, is to be found in the remark, Luk 16:8 : The children of this world, &c. It is visibly the Saviours intention that His disciples shall learn something of the children of the world, which for the most part is altogether too much lacking to them; and in fact this parable affords rich matter for antitheses which are very shaming for the children of light. The Steward, type of a genuine child of the world, does not for an instant conceal from himself the greatness of the danger threatening him. Without delay he thinks upon means and ways to assure to himself his future lot. The means that appear unsuitable he rejects, in order at once to consider better ones. He is inventive, and knows with great distinctness what he desires, namely, to gain his daily support in an easy and secure way. He does not stop with projects and plans, but all that he has resolved he carries out upon the spot, and chooses, in speaking and dealing, the form which promises the richest fruits for his own advantage. He so disposes himself that he in any case will be protected, whether he remain yet longer steward or not. What a distinction between the sluggishness, irresolution, want of tact, &c., shown by so many better-minded persons, who have infinitely higher interests to lay to heart! However, it scarcely needs an explanation that the Saviour here speaks of children of light, not in the ideal but in the empirical sense, and that the censure herein indirectly expressed, is applicable, as a rule, more to His incipient, than to His established, disciples.
3. It is a striking proof of the practical tendency of the Evangelical morality, that the Saviour has regarded the use and possession of earthly riches as a subject of sufficient weight to be particularly handled by Him in a triad of parables (Luk 12:15-21; Luk 16:1-9; Luk 16:19-31), not to reckon in a number of hints upon this, occurring here and there in His discourses. So much immediately appears from the comparison of the different passages: the Saviour does not disapprove the possession of wealth in itself, and is far from the one-sided spiritualism which denies the temporal, as such, almost any worth. But earnestly does He warn, and repeatedly does He draw attention to the truth, how greatly covetousness, no less than ambition and sensuality, renders difficult and hinders entrance into the kingdom of God. He does not repel the rich from Him, any more than He pronounces the poor blessed for the sake of their poverty, but only insists that earthly good, in comparison with something higher and better, should be viewed as the and . Compare the beautiful homily of Basil, contra ditescentes. As to the rest, it is not capable of proof that in the apostolic writings, e.g. 1 Timothy 6., James 5., and elsewhere, we find a view of earthly riches different from that in the teachings of the Saviour Himself.
4. The purity of the faithfulness which the Saviour demands of His disciples is not in the least injured by the fact that He points them to the reward which is connected with the exercise of general philanthropy. The gospel is as far from favoring an impure craving for reward, as from the perhaps very philosophical, but certainly very unpsychological, hypothesis, that man must practise virtue purely for virtues sake. Only as a stimulus, not as a motive of action, does He propose that which love may hope as a gracious recompense in the future life, and thus the prospect which He here opens to the penitent publicans, is essentially no other than that which He, e.g., Mat 10:41-42, held up before His faithful apostles. Besides this, there exists also a natural connection between love and blessedness in the future world, which must by no means be overlooked. The thought of the eternal love of heavenly spirits, into whose fellowship we hope to enter, has also more attractions for the loving than for the selfish heart; and whoever really makes himself friends of the Unrighteous Mammon, shows thereby that he finds his highest joy, not in the attainment of selfish purposes, but in the happiness of others. Taking all this together, we should hardly be able to contradict Luther when he says on the following parable: It is not works that win to us Heaven, but Christ bestows eternal blessedness out of grace, on those who believe and have proved their faith in works of love and right use of earthly good; since now all this is not the case with the rich man, faith was lacking to him, and the whole parable, Luk 16:19-31, is therefore directed against unbelief, in order to warn against it by its terrible consequences. Here also the saying of the old father holds good: Amic sunt scripturarum lites, and the evangelical doctrines of grace and of reward contradict one another in no respect. It was, therefore, a miserable error, when they would in any way draw from this parable the conclusion, that one need only apply property gained in an unrighteous manner to beneficent and pious purposes, in order thereby to see ones guilt removed, and that one, by a pious foundation at the approach of death, could buy his salvation. Upon this error, which crept very early into the Christian Church, there deserves to be compared August. Hom. 113, Opera v. pp. 396398.
5. Upon nothing does the Saviour insist with more right, than unity and harmony in the inner life of His people. True prudence is inconceivable, if genuine faithfulness is lacking, but on the other hand genuine faithfulness is also inconceivable, if inward discord and division yet dwell in the soul. If the will of two masters is hostile to one another, obedience to one must necessarily lead to unfaithfulness towards the other. To Mammon also the admonition of the Apostle is especially applicable, 1Jn 5:21. When he who should serve rules, he who should command soon becomes a slave. There is scarcely a sin which so shrewdly and obstinately disputes with God the first place in the heart, as love to temporal good. Comp. the admirable discourse of Adolph Monod, Lami de largent, found in the second part of his Sermons.
6. Whoever has comprehended in its whole depth the requirement of faithfulness in that which is least, which the Saviour places first with so much emphasis, has at the same time comprehended the hard and easy side of the Christian life, the simplicity and the infiniteness of the requirement of Christian perfection. The requirement of faithfulness in that which is least, is essentially no other than the requirement to be perfect with the Lord our God. Deu 18:13; Psa 51:6.
7. The right use of earthly treasures, as it is here commanded, leads of itself to the Christian communism, whose ideal we see realized most beautifully in the first Christian church, Act 4:32; Act 5:4. The distinction between this free manifestation of benevolence and the communistic fantasies of our century, is as great as that between selfishness and love.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
God, the Paramount Owner even of earthly treasure.Man is called on earth to be the steward of God. As such he is: 1. Placed in a dependent position; 2. pledged to conscientious faithfulness; 3. to the rendering of a complete account.Give account of thy stewardship (very excellent text for a sermon at the close of the year): 1. Account of the blessings received, children of prosperity! 2. account of the fruit of trial, members of the school of suffering ! 3. account of the time measured out to you, sons of mortality! 4. account of the message of salvation received, ye that are shined upon by that light which is most cheering!Against Gods stewards on earth there are severe accusations preferred, and He who hears them all, will examine them all carefully to the very last one.Life, a time of grace which precedes the day of reckoning: it Isaiah , 1. Short; 2. uncertain; 3. decisive.What shall I do? the question: 1. Of painful uncertainty; 2. of well-considered reflection.He who cannot dig, must not be ashamed to appear as a beggar before God.How much owest thou to my lord? a fitting question also for the minister of the word to address to every member of his congregation individually.If the falsifying of human bonds is evil, how much more the presumptuous falsifying of Gods written word!Not all have an equally great debt to account for to the heavenly Owner.Prudent people are praised by their like.Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.The phenomenon that the children of the world not seldom excel the children of light in prudence: 1. A continually recurring; 2. a seemingly surprising; 3. a fully explicable; 4. a justly shaming; 5. a powerfully awakening, phenomenon.What the Christian can learn from the child of the world; compare: 1. The carefulness of the child of the world over against the carelessness of the children of light: What shall I do? 2. the clear recognizing of danger by the one, over against the self-deceiving of the others: My lord taketh away the stewardship from me; 3. the inventiveness in the choice of remedies with the one over against the spiritual sluggishness of the others; 4. the resoluteness and versatility of the Steward over against the continual loitering and procrastination of so many Christians.The children of this world are wiser, &c.: 1. This is Song of Solomon 2. but it must be made different.Earthly treasure, well applied, is a means to heighten the joy of heaven.With gold we can buy no place in heaven, but we may prepare ourselves a good reception in the heaven already open to faith.Even when earthly treasure fails, the rents of it may be saved.Faithfulness in that which is great and in that which is small inseparably coupled.The infinite excellence of heavenly treasure above earthly: 1. The earthly small, the heavenly great; 2. the earthly illusive, the heavenly genuine; 3. the earthly another mans capital, the heavenly an inalienable property of the disciples of the Lord.Faithfulness in the earthly and zeal for the heavenly calling most intimately united in the Christian.The indispensable necessity of unity in principle and action.How long halt ye between two opinions? 1Ki 18:21.The intimate connection of the various requirements of the Lord: 1. No true prudence without faithfulness; 2. no faithfulness without steadfastness in resolve; 3. no steadfastness in resolve without sacrifice; 4. no sacrifice without rich compensation.
Starke:Quesnel:If we do not apply the gifts of God to His honor, to our neighbors good, and to our own necessity, this is the same as to destroy and dissipate them.Brentius:The heathen held it unjust to condemn any one when his cause was unheard; much less should that be done in Christendom.J. Hall:Let no one deal with entrusted goods as his own property.The great day of reckoning and examination impends over every one, 2Co 5:10.Nova Bibl. Tub.:Upon unfaith fulness there follows inevitable punishment, deposition, and condemnation.Laziness and pride are the two evil sources of the so-common craftiness.One is oft ashamed when he should not be ashamed and on the other hand, he is often not ashamed, when he ought to be ashamed before God.There is a sad fact even in the Christian world,the most of worldly people are wise enough to do evil, but how to do good they will not learn.For ungodly men it is not enough that they sin for themselves, but they draw others also into their sinful net.What one owes the lord belongs not to the servant.Canstein:It would not be easy for one child of the world to ask any evil of another, that the latter would not be ready to do.One may praise even in a bad man what is good in him.Brentius:A broad fertile intelligence is a precious gift of God, and so far laudable.Zeisius;Be wise to that which is good, and simple concerning evil, Rom 16:19; 1Co 14:20.The children of light have indeed the light in them, but they have also their natural darkness, which makes them slothful.J. Hall:Whoever does good soweth to the Spirit, Gal 6:8.Canstein:Whoever will do good, must do it especially to those who will come into the eternal tabernacles, and are therefore true members of Christ.Let no one say: I can do with mine what I will, 1Co 4:7God all or nothing.
Heubner:The man who does wrong has always his accuser before God.Without religion, riches are a very ruinous instrument.Three things make death frightful to the earthly-minded: their evil conscience, the Divine judgment, and the loss of everything earthly.Earnest consideration always finds a way.Heavenly blessedness is the true, the eternal property.
The Pericope.Heubner:The Christian order of salvation: 1. Repentance for our stewardship (Luk 16:1-3); 2. belief in Gods judgment (Luk 16:3-4); 3. sanctificationholy use of all (Luk 16:5-9).The earnest reminders which Christianity gives the rich man.The threefold prudence: 1. Of the lord of the manor; 2. of the steward; 3. of the Christian.The obscurities or apparent difficulties in the parable of the Unjust Steward.Lisco:Of the prudence of the citizens of the kingdom.Arndt:Wisdom unto the kingdom of God.Zimmermann:The children of the world, our teachers in this, that they: 1. Consider the future; 2. use the past; 3. control the present.The Christian a servant of God, a lord over Mammon.F. W. Krummacher:A sermon in the Sabbath-Glocke, 1. pp. 140151.Ahlfeld:1. What in the Unjust Steward have we to shun? 2. what to learn from him?Couard:What belongs to Christian prudence, in the care for our everlasting salvation?Rautenberg:How do we secure to ourselves a reception into the everlasting tabernacles?Tholuck:What is true of a faithful steward?Wolf:The Unjust Steward about to pass the border of his earthly fortune.Our refuge when we fail.Steinhofer:The connection of prudence and faithfulness In a steward of God; there is a character: 1. Where there is neither prudence nor faithfulness; 2. where there is prudence without faithfulness; 3. where there is faithfulness without prudence; 4. where prudence and faithfulness are united.Burk:The great faithfulness of God, even with mans great unfaithfulness.Florey:The prudence of the steward in the kingdom of God, Luk 16:8.
Footnotes:
[1]Luk 16:1.On the authority of B., D., [CoThis is sod. Sin.,] L., should be expunged.
[2]Luk 16:7.The of the Recepta should be omitted, as by Tischendorf.
[3][Luk 16:8.The article before having its continually recurring possessive sense.C. C. S.]
[4]Luk 16:9.See Exegetical and Critical remarks.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We have in this Chapter our Lord’s account of an unjust Steward; and Christ’s Observation upon the History. The Relation, also, of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him, that he had wasted his goods. (2) And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. (3) Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig, to beg I am ashamed. (4) I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. (5) So he called everyone of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? (6) And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. (7) Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? and he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. (8) And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. (9) And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. (10) He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much. (11) If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? (12) And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? (13) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other; ye cannot serve God and mammon.
I differ from all writers who class this account here given, of an unjust steward, among the parables of Christ. To me, I confess, it differs altogether from the plan and design of all our Lord’s parables, and cannot, I think, be explained upon any principles whatever in relation to God, as the certain rich man here spoken of, or any of the Lord’s stewards. I am led to conclude, that it is a real history, which Jesus knew, and from which the Lord took occasion to raise instructions of profit to his people.
The certain rich man cannot mean God, for though he, and he only is rich; and all mankind are, in a certain sense his stewards; yet his servants, who are the stewards of the mysteries, are anointed with the Holy Ghost, and as such, are faithful. 1Co 4:1-2 . And although it may be said that Judas is an exception, yet none of the characters given in the history of this unjust steward, answer to him. But it is highly probable, that both the rich man and this unjust steward, were men of this world; for the servant, acting with the worldly policy he did, and the master commending that policy, very strongly prove that they were both under the sole influence of worldly motives; but Christ’s stewards are not of this world. Joh 17:16 .
The mistake in supposing that God is the rich man intended to be set forth, perhaps arose from the general scope of our Lord’s parables on this ground; and also from supposing, that when Jesus said the Lord commended the unjust steward, he meant God the Father, or himself the Lord Jesus Christ. But not to observe how impossible this could be, from causes too plain to insist upon, if the Reader will read the whole attentively, he will find that it is the steward’s Lord which commended him for his worldly wisdom, in providing an home to go to, when he was turned out of his, and not the Lord Jesus. What shall I do? (said the steward,) for my Lord taketh away from me the stewardship. It is the same Lord Which is said to commend him, and that for his policy.
And that this is the case, is still farther evident from our Lord’s words which follow, where Jesus speaks to his disciples by way of making improvement from this history. He speaks in the first person when speaking of himself; but when speaking of the Lord of this steward, he speaks of him in the third person. I say unto you (saith Christ) make to yourself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, etc. Whereas, when Jesus summed up the close of this man’s history, he said of him: And the Lord (that is the Lord of this unworthy servant) commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely. And here ends the relation of the history; for the next words are Christ’s first observation upon it: For the children of this world are, in their generation, wiser than the children of light. A strong, but melancholy truth: and the children of light, to their sorrow, but too fully know it; for while men of the world are up and alive to every worldly artifice and contrivance, like this unjust steward, the children of God are cold, and lifeless, and barren in their grand concerns. And the reason is plain. Instead of walking by faith, we are too much engaged by sight. We are more flesh than spirit; have more of nature than grace. Lord, increase our faith!
But the most difficult part of this subject remains yet to be considered; for when our Lord adds, And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations. Certainly it requires much wisdom from the Lord, and much attention to Christ’s expressions, to have a clear apprehension of his meaning. Some have supposed our Lord recommends, that by being generous to the poor, in the wise use of riches, which is the mammon of this world, that we should make to ourselves friends from those acts of mercy. But this would be like the Pharisees indeed, to seek God’s favor by good deeds, and to bolster up the mind with pride, instead of lowering the soul in humility. Christ never preached a doctrine of this kind, but the reverse. Neither are the friends which Jesus exhorts his disciples to make, the poor whom they relieved by their bounty; for their good wishes go but a little way towards the soul’s salvation; and they have no habitations, much less everlasting habitations, to receive their benefactors into, when they need them. I am free to confess, that no small difficulty lies in our way to enter into the full sense of our Lord’s meaning; while I venture to believe, that the friends the Lord Jesus recommends his disciples to make, in order that they may be received, when they themselves fail, into everlasting habitations, cannot possibly mean that their wise use of riches will procure them. But amidst all the difficulty in explaining this passage, I conceive some light may be thrown upon it, from considering the drift of our Lord in the whole discourse.
It should be considered, that our Lord had been shewing how an unjust man, by worldly policy, contrived to get some men like himself to take him into their houses, when his Lord turned him out of his. Now (saith Jesus) as this man made himself friends of a worldly nature, do you seek to make to yourselves friends in grace. And as none but God can provide you with a perfect security of this kind, seek the Lord’s friendship, detached from (for so the word may be rendered), that is, while you are in the midst of the mammon of un righteousness; and from the body of sin and death you carry about with you, and from the remains of indwelling sin which is in you, and in all the world around you, that when ye fail, as that all things out of Christ must shortly fail, they may receive you; that is, God, in covenant in Christ, may receive you into everlasting habitations. If this sense be admitted, the doctrine is agreeable to the whole tenor of the Gospel. And then, from the same kind of reasoning, the proverbial expressions which follow in the succeeding verses, may be explained on the same principles.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Unjust Steward
Luk 16:2
We call this parable the Parable of the Unjust Steward i.e. a fraudulent, dishonest steward and such undoubtedly he did become; but not deliberately dishonest up to the time when his lord called him suddenly to account. He was accused to his lord that he had wasted his goods; not a purposed and continued fraud, but a long-continued faithlessness to his trust. He had forgotten that he was the trustee for his lord’s possessions, and he had lived on neglecting plain duties, until at last the goods began to perish.
The man, then, was guilty of being unfaithful to his trust. And it is this that gives the parable its terrible significance for us.
There are not many, it is to be hoped, who, looking back upon their lives, can charge themselves with long-continued and deliberate sin against light and knowledge; but how many may there be who, looking back upon some critical moment in the past, are driven to confess: ‘I have not been faithful to my Lord, or to my trust. My Lord’s goods have not waxed, but waned, in my trusteeship. I have been negligent and unfaithful, and so far, therefore, a dishonest steward.’
I. This, then, is the question which each of us has to ask of himself and of his own life: ‘What manner of steward have I been of those things that my Lord has entrusted to me?’
God has given each one of us something to do in His household. Every one of us is, in a larger or smaller degree, a steward of the Lord.
Two great gifts of God, at least, are given to every one Time and Opportunity. Time that fleets so swiftly, and so often unheeded, passing by moments and days, and running up to years, bringing life to a close, is God’s great trust to every one of us. And Opportunity those moments fraught with blessings and help, or hindrance and evil, to one’s fellow-men, and which may become the means of increasing the Master’s goods or of diminishing them; those opportunities in life that come so often unrecognised, or that are allowed to pass unheeded; this time which we waste and kill, these opportunities that we disregard and lose, are the goods of our Lord: every man has more or less of them, and will have to account for them. Time that fleets and opportunity that passes never to return these are the gifts and the stewardship of every man.
II. We have to give an account, sooner or later, to our Lord and Master of how we have used these great gifts, and many another besides; but of these two surely every one of us has to give an account. Think for a moment of the many stewardships we all have from time to time given us; and how these stewardships are terminated now, at one time, one stewardship, and now, at another time, another.
If a man has not kept his Lord’s trust, and has to answer to Him for wasted time and wholly neglected opportunities, how awful must be his account! The best of men has some such moments in his life, when he looks back on his past life, and is forced to the question: What account can I render to my Lord of my stewardship? Thank God that our merciful Lord, more merciful than man, is the Master to judge us, not by what we have done, but by what we have striven to do.
Archbishop Magee.
References. XVI. 2. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, vol. ii. p. 98. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv. No. 192, and vol. xli. No. 2445.
Our Work
Luk 16:4
I want to put before you a few thoughts not unfamiliar in one of the most familiar departments of our life our work. We are constantly face to face with the contrast which comes before us when we leave the house of God and go back to mix with the world, and to do our work; and we immediately feel its pressure. The spirit of the world makes it very difficult for us to hold that true proportion which should exist between the things which are seen and the things which are unseen.
I. Saviours of Society. Now the words of my text were put by our Blessed Lord into the lips of a thoroughly worldly man, with whom we come in contact in that well-known parable the Parable of the Unjust Steward. We want to remember, do we not, that our Lord’s advice to us is just this as you mingle with the world, as you come in contact with men who are living for the world, who have as their aim securing all that the world can give, caring little or nothing what may happen so long as they secure that, then He would seem to say to us, Do not judge them, do not say hard things, do not forget that they, too, have been redeemed by the Saviour of the world, but try to learn from them a lesson which will help you in your struggle for your Christian freedom, and remember that if you are as true to your aims as they are to theirs, then you will go amongst your fellow-men as saviours of society.
II. An Account asked for. You and I must give an account of our stewardship; we must give an account of the way in which we have lived our life, and used our time, and our money, and our talents. Get time to think. Anticipate the account which you must give of your stewardship. I do not doubt for one moment that our hearts are stirred by the tender appeal of the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; but have you let Him enter the great citadel of your will?
III. Endurance to the End. We may go forth and redeem the time, we may rejoice in being able to meet these temptations which conquered us of old, and saying ‘No’ where we once said ‘Yes’. Rise, for the day is passing. Yes; and a place in the ranks awaits us. Each has his part to play, and the past and the future are nothing in the stern face of today. And the man that endureth to the end the same shall be saved, and the great Captain of our salvation will also have His word of commendation to those who endure to the end. ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.’
Reference. XVI. 4. S. Gregory, How to Steer a Ship, p. 141.
The Sense of Obligation
Luk 16:5
This is a question which occurs, as is well known, in the Parable of the Unjust Steward.
The one characteristic, then, which the master signals out for appreciation in the steward is his shrewdness, his foresight, his prudence. ‘The lord,’ i.e. the master, ‘commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely’ not rightly, or honourably, but prudently.
I. That is the feature of his conduct, the one feature, which Jesus Christ holds up to the admiration and imitation of Christians. He says, in effect, ‘Why will not My disciples learn from men of the world the everyday lesson of common sense; why will they not follow the same business-like principle in the spiritual life as in commercial life’; why should it be true now, and is it to be true for ever, that ‘the children of this world are in’ or, ‘as regards’ ‘their generation wiser than the children of light?’
God says to every man: ‘You have only one earthly life to live. If you waste the golden days of youth, if you dissipate them in indolence or frivolity, they will never come back to you; and all that you might have been and ought to have been, you will never be.’ Yet how pitiful is the thousand times repeated tale of misspent years and squandered opportunities, and hopes as disappointing as the bitter apples of the Dead Sea!
II. ‘The children of this world,’ ‘the children of light’ how strange and sad is the contrast which the Lord in the parable points between them! It is as though He said: ‘Look at yon man of business; his heart is set upon making a fortune; see how careful he is, how sedulous, how thrifty; he rises so early, he goes to bed so late, he eats the bread of carefulness; many a time all through the day he sits at his desk, he is the creature of industrious habit, he denies himself, it may be for many years, every needless pleasure, indulgence, or extravagance; and he gains his reward. He began life as a clerk at 1 a week, and he ends it as head of a great commercial house. But now look at the man who aspires to win heaven how easily he takes things, how little trouble he gives himself about them! The time that he spends in prayer, in the study of God’s Word, in public worship what a poor fraction it is of all his life! He seems to think it is possible to saunter into heaven. But why should it be reasonable to assume that the pearl of great price is the only treasure which can be had for the mere asking, without the necessity of working for it?’
III. Our Lord speaks especially of riches. Among all His words in the Gospel none perhaps are more intuitively wise than the words which He used about riches.
Riches are not wrong, but they are spiritually perilous. Our Lord says in the parable, Use them well, not foolishly or selfishly, but so as to make friends by your wise generosity friends among the poor, the hungry, the necessitous, the suffering, ‘that when ye fail,’ i.e. when ye die, ‘they may receive you into the everlasting habitations’.
This is the law of the future life; but it is the law of the present life as well.
IV. I cannot read the Parable of the Unjust Steward without feeling that underlying it all is the threefold relation which characterises the Church of Jesus Christ.
There is the great Master, the Lord of All, who will one day summon all His servants to render their account. There are the stewards, whoever they may be, the ministers of the great Master, the intermediaries between Him and His tenants at will; it is expressly stated that the parable was addressed to the disciples. There are the tenants themselves, whose life is so uncertain, so precarious; and they are all indebted in a larger or less degree to the same great Master.
To them all comes the question of my test ‘How much owest thou unto my Lord?’
Bishop Welldon, The Gospel in a Great City, p. 99.
References. XVI. 5. E. A. Stuart, His Dear Son and other Sermons, vol. v. p. 65. XVI. 5-7. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in a Religious House, vol. i. p. 231.
Spiritual Wisdom
Luk 16:8
You remember the story, and how the lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely. He could not help admiring him because he was a good business man of the day, who had done the wisest and best thing for himself.
Let us apply this thought to our spiritual life.
I. Our Personal Salvation. Are we sure that we are in a state of salvation? Surely we should be. If not, it is true of us that ‘the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light’.
II. Likeness to Christ. How far have we attained to Christ’s likeness? Daily we must be getting more and more like Him, and must be opening our souls more and more to the Holy Spirit and losing our hold on the things of earth. Remember it is true that ‘without holiness no man shall see the Lord,’ and if we are not cultivating it, do we not incur the reproach that ‘the children of this world are in their generation’ wiser than we?
III. Use of Talents. Are we using our talents properly, or are we intending to steal all the Gospel privileges without making any return to God?
(a) Money. The time will come when God will say, ‘What about your money’? That is a talent which He has given to us.
(b) Influence. What a tremendous talent! Parents, are you pointing your children heavenwards? Men and women in business or in society, are you witnessing? Think of the way political parties take trouble to get others to believe with them, and then take shame for the graceless way in which we go through life and never seek to win a soul for God.
If, instead of working for God, we only work for self; and if, instead of striving after holiness, if, instead of giving something to God, we keep it all for self, then remember we are living examples of the truth of these words: ‘The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light’.
Luk 16:8
In Essay xvi. of The Friend, Coleridge, writing in 1809, declares that the maxims of genuine expedience are little regarded by the very people who profess to obey nothing higher than expedience so much so, ‘that I dare hazard the assertion that in the whole chapter of contents of European ruin, every article might be unanswerably deduced from the neglect of some maxim that had been repeatedly laid down, demonstrated, and enforced with a host of illustrations in some one or other of the works of Machiavelli, Bacon, or Harrington. It would be a melancholy but very profitable employment,’ he continues, ‘for some vigorous mind, intimately acquainted with the recent history of Europe, to collect the weightiest aphorisms of Machiavelli alone, and illustrate by appropriate facts the breach or observation of each, to render less mysterious the present triumph of lawless violence. The apt motto to such a work would be: The children of darkness are wiser in their generation than the children of light.’
References. XVI. 8. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. p. 97. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 205. R. W. Church, Village Sermons, p. 259. H. Allen, Penny Pulpit, No. 1660, p. 319. H. P. Liddon, Sermons on Some Words of Christ, p. 191. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 274. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 75.
The Eternal Tents
Luk 16:9
‘The Eternal Tents:’ This is our Lord’s description of heaven; and if we would feel the force of it and catch its true interpretation, we must remember the history of ancient Israel. That history, so long, so troublous, began far back with the call of Abraham to leave his pleasant home in the land of Haran. Linked with the call was a promise, which came to him we know not how, that of his descendants God would make a great nation and give them a goodly land for their heritage.
That was the beginning of Israel’s national history the call of Abraham and the promise to his seed after him. And you remember how nobly he made the heroic venture of faith and, at the call of God, abandoned all that he had all that, in the worldly judgment, was worth having and set out in pursuit of a far-off hope and a transcendent ideal. He went forth with his tent and his family and his flocks and herds, and journeyed to and fro; and through the discipline of his homeless life the revelation grew ever clearer and the hope more sure. He died ere the promise was fulfilled, but he left his children a heritage of tents and flocks and herds, and a heritage more precious still a faith and an example.
I. Such was the ancient history of Israel, and it was never forgotten. The Jews in after generations looked back to it with wonder and pride, and it served them as an emblem of human life. They recognised in that long and weary wandering a parable of the hungry-hearted life of the children of men. ‘We are strangers before Thee,’ they said, ‘and sojourners, as were all our fathers’; ‘Here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come’. And the entrance into the Promised Land and the winning of the Holy City that prefigured to them the glad consummation when they should be gathered home to the City of God and the Father’s house.
And this, you observe, is the thought which underlies the curious phrase of our text ‘the Eternal Tents’. Its peculiarity is that it is what is called a contradiction in terms; for, if there be one thing which less than any other can be predicated of a tent, it is that it is eternal. This is precisely what a tent is not. It is a frail and fleeting thing, pitched today and struck tomorrow, a fitting image of life’s transience: ‘Mine age is departed, and is removed from me as a shepherd’s tent’. Yet Jesus says ‘the Eternal Tents’. Had He followed the line of thought familiar to the Jewish imagination, He would have said: ‘Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the Eternal City, the City which hath the foundations’. But no, He gives the phrase this odd turn and says ‘into the Eternal Tents,’ combining two contradictory ideas on the one hand, stability, endurance, and, on the other, un-settlement, uncertainty.
II. What would He teach us by this description of heaven. I think He means, in the first place, to disabuse our minds of an idea to which they are prone. He would have us understand that, while there will be rest in heaven, it will not be the rest of inactivity.
And there is another lesson in our text It was not for nothing that the Israelites endured that long ordeal of homeless wandering ere they reached their ‘city of habitation’. It was their discipline in faith and courage, their preparation for the heritage which God had appointed for them. And so our earthly life, with all its unrest and weariness and disappointment, is our discipline for the service which awaits us in the City of God.
David Smith, Man’s Need of God, p. 165.
References. XVI. 9. W. M. Sinclair, Christ and Our Times, p. 279. T. C. Fry, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvi. p. 390. E. W. Attwood. Sermons for Clergy and Laity, p. 327. F. B. Woodward, Sermons (1st Series), p. 268. W. C. Wheeler, Sermons and Addresses (2nd Series), p. 134. C. Moinet, The Great Alternative and other Sermons, p. 215. R. F. Horton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liv. p. 289. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 34; ibid. vol. ix. p. 165. XVI. 10. J. Keble. Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, pt. i. p. 283. W. Scott Page, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. p. 46. XVI. 10-12. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 83. XVI. 11, 12. J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, pt. i. p. 274. XVI. 11-32. Expository Sermons on the New Testament, p. 105. XVI. 12. H. J. Pope, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 281. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. ii. p. 45. Expositor (4th Series), vol. vii. p. 28. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 91. XVI. 13. C. Parsons Reichel, Sermons, p. 341.
Luk 16:13
One inevitable characteristic of modern war is, that it is associated throughout, in all particulars, with a vast and most irregular formation of commercial enterprise. There is no incentive to Mammon-worship so remarkable as that which it affords. The political economy of war is now one of its most commanding aspects…. Even apart from the fact that war suspends, ipso facto, every rule of public thrift, and tends to sap honesty itself in the use of the public treasure for which it makes such unbounded calls, it therefore is the greatest feeder of that lust of gold which we are told is the essence of commerce, though we had hoped it was only its occasional besetting sin.
W. E. Gladstone.
Why, Mammon sits before a million hearths,
Where God is bolted out from every house.
Bailey’s Festus.
A young lady, sitting next Tennyson one evening at a dinner-party, spoke contemptuously of a certain marriage as a very penniless one. The poet rummaged in his pocket till he managed to extract a penny, which he slapped down loudly on the table at her side, crying, ‘There, I give you that That is the God you worship!’
Commerce has set the mark of selfishness,
The signet of its all-enslaving power
Upon a shining ore, and called it gold.
Before whose image bow the vulgar great,
The vainly rich, the miserable proud,
The mob of peasants, nobles, priests, and kings,
And with blind feelings reverence the power
That grinds them to the dust of misery.
But in the temple of their hireling hearts
Gold is the living god, and rules in scorn
All earthly things but virtue.
Shelley’s Queen Mab.
Men must be the slaves either of duty or of force.
Joubert.
Luk 16:14
There was a laughing Devil in his sneer,
That raised emotions both of rage and fear,
And where his frown of hatred darkly fell,
Hope withering fled, and mercy sigh’d farewell.
Byron, The Corsair.
‘I do not recollect,’ says Washington Irving, after a visit to Sir Walter Scott, ‘a sneer throughout his conversation, any more than there is throughout his works.’
Reference. XVI. 14-18. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 183.
Luk 16:15
‘I often have a kind of waking dream,’ Dean Church once wrote to a friend. ‘Up one road the image of a man decked and adorned as if for a triumph, carried up by rejoicing and exulting friends, who praise his goodness and achievements; on the other road, turned back to back to it, there is the very same man himself, in sordid and squalid apparel, surrounded not by friends but by ministers of justice, and going on, while his friends are exulting, to his certain and perhaps awful judgment. The vision rises when I hear, not just and conscientious endeavours to make out a man’s character, but when I hear the loose things that are said often in kindness and love of those beyond the grave.’
References. XVI. 16. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lv. p. 156. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 31; ibid. vol. x. p. 8; ibid. (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 379. XVI. 16-24. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 100. XVI. 17. Expositor (7th Series), vol. v. p. 371. XVI. 17-19. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. iv. p. 79. XVI. 18. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 70; ibid. (5th Series), vol. viii. p. 103. XVI. 19. C. Perren, Revival Sermons in Outline, p. 333. Expositor (6th Series), vol. i. p. 175. XVI. 19, 20. J. H. Jowett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. p. 97. H. M. Butler, Harrow School Sermons (2nd Series), p. 224. R. W. Hiley, A Year’s Sermons, vol. i. p. 291.
Luk 16:20
After describing the profligate luxury of the Court of Louis the Great, Thackeray (in The Four Georges, 1.) adds: ‘A grander monarch, or a more miserable starved wretch than the peasant his subject, you cannot look on. Let us bear both these types in mind, if we wish to estimate the old society properly. Remember the glory and the chivalry? Yes!… But round all that royal splendour lies a nation enslaved and ruined; there are people robbed of their rights communities laid waste faith, justice, commerce, trampled on, and wellnigh destroyed.’
Compare Professor Villari’s account of the castle of Ferrara: ‘That grim, quadrangular building,’ with ‘subterranean dungeons guarded by seven gratings from the light of day. They were full of immured victims, and the clanking of chains and groans of human beings in pain could be heard from their depths, mingling with the strains of music and ceaseless revelry going on above, the ringing of silver plate, the clatter of majolica dishes, and clinking of Venetian glass.’
There is a greater army
That besets us round with strife,
A starving, numberless army,
At all the gates of life.
The poverty-stricken millions
Who challenge our wine and bread,
And impeach us all as traitors,
Both the living and the dead.
And whenever I sit at the banquet,
Where the feast and song are high,
Amid the mirth and the music
I can hear that fearful cry.
And hollow and haggard faces
Look into the lighted hall,
And wasted hands are extended
To catch the crumbs that fall.
Longfellow.
Very sensitive people, who cannot overcome their sensibility, are perforce selfish in this world of pain. They must forget that there is suffering. Their pity makes them cruel. They cannot bear the sight of suffering; they must shut the door upon it. If he is a Dives, such a man must first of all insist that the police shall prevent people like Lazarus, covered with sores, from lying in plain sight at the gate. Such men must treat pain as, in these days of plumbing, we treat filth. We get the plumber and the carpenter to hide it so well that even our civilised nostrils shall not be offended. That we call modern improvement in house-building. Even so we get the police to hide suffering from us; and, when that help fails, or is inapplicable, we appeal to the natural sense of decency in the sufferers, and demand, on the ground of common courtesy, that they shall not intrude their miseries upon us.
Prof. Royce, The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, pp. 99, 100.
References. XVI. 19-21. A. P. Stanley, Sermons on Special Occasions, p. 127. XVI. 19-31. Expositor (6th Series), vol. i. p. 465; ibid. vol. viii. p. 121. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 101. XVI. 22. S. H. Fleming, Fifteen Minute Sermons for the People, p. 57. W. Robertson Nicoll, Ten Minute Sermons, p. 123.
The Fatal Power of Inattention
Luk 16:23
There is a well-known picture by Gustave Dor, which portrays this parable of the rich man and the beggar. We are shown the rich man in the midst of Oriental luxury, and at the foot of the marble steps the diseased Lazarus. So far the picture is worthy of the genius; but Dor has introduced one other feature which shows that he has misread the Saviour’s story. Over the beggar an Eastern slave is bending with a scourge of twigs in his uplifted hand. He has been bidden drive Lazarus away, for his misery is as a death’s head at the feast. And Dor is wrong in introducing that, for our Lord does not hint that Dives was disturbed he was not consciously and deliberately cruel; he was only totally and hopelessly indifferent. What wrought the ruin of that pleasure-lover was not inhumanity so much as inattention. The attitude of innumerable people toward the great questions of the religious life is just the inattentive attitude of the rich man to Lazarus at his gate.
I. How perilous the inattentive spirit is we have only to open our eyes to see. (1) It is one of the lessons that reach us every day as we walk through the crowded streets of a great city. Readers of Marcus Aurelius will remember how he bases the art of life upon attention. (2) Again we might throw light upon the matter by considering the common laws of health. You never meet a man who hates these laws, or breaks them in a spirit of rebellion. But you meet many who are inattentive, and who constantly and recklessly neglect them. Whatever other functions pain may have, one is that it serves to fix attention.
II. I wish now to say a word or two on some of the causes of this inattention. (1) Perhaps the commonest cause of all is custom. ‘One good custom doth corrupt the world,’ and it does so, because it lulls to sleep. It is a bad thing to grow accustomed to the wrong. (2) Another cause of inattention is a lowered vitality. When we are weary, and the flame of life is low, somehow we can neither grasp nor grip. ‘I am come to give abundant life,’ says Christ, and to give it here and now, and not tomorrow. Do you not see, then, how fellowship with Christ wakens a man’s attention to the highest? (3) But the deepest cause of inattention is still to seek. The deepest cause of it is lack of love. Love is quick to see the need of others, and to read what is hidden from a thousand eyes, and to discern beyond the veil the things that matter; for only he who loveth, knoweth God.
G. H. Morrison, The Wings of the Morning, p. 174.
References. XVI. 23. S. H. Fleming, Fifteen Minute Sermons for the People, p. 61. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 239. XVI. 23-25. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. iii. p. 132.
Retribution
Luk 16:24
I. The parable teaches, first, that if we dedicate our lives to the good things of this world, we shall forfeit the good things of the next. This is written in broad and deep lines throughout the picture, and if this is not intended as a serious truth, then the whole parable is a mischief and a snare. Earthly greatness gives no warrant of heavenly greatness. We may most truly possess the present life by living for the next, but we cannot gain a drop of cold water in the next by living for this. If we store up our good things in this life, death will make us bankrupt. This is the first solemn lesson of the parable, this is the unchanging law of righteousness.
II. The lesson goes still further, and teaches that self-gratification in this life will be followed by the retribution of anguish in the next. The subtle explanation of future pain as being nothing more than the gnawings of the sinner’s conscience an evasion intended to deny the direct infliction of retribution by the hand of God will certainly not satisfy the picture given in this parable. The rich man has entered into a state and into circumstances in which pain is inflicted upon him. The retribution of our sin is not left to our own conscience in this life. Why, then, should we imagine that it will receive no direct punishment in the life to come? What, then, will be the form which such retribution will take? Thank God, I do not know. It is enough to know that the God of love is a consuming fire to the ungodly. Terrible is He in righteousness. Let us, therefore, fear Him.
III. The parable further teaches that the most un-honoured condition of earthly life cannot exclude from the most honourable status in the heavenly life. Poverty and affliction on earth are not a sign of God’s displeasure.
IV. The parable, further, emphasises the genuine continuity of this life with the next. The life beyond death will be related to the life here with as perfect continuity as our life today is related to that of yesterday. Continuity is also taught here in the form of immediateness. Jesus teaches in this parable that judgment and reward begin immediately after death. It is true that the consummation of penalty and reward cannot come till the completion of His kingdom, but the beginnings do not tarry.
John Thomas, Concerning the King, p. 154.
Luk 16:24
About eleven I preached at Elsham. The two persons who are the most zealous and active here are the steward and the gardener of a gentleman, whom the minister persuaded to turn them off unless they would leave ‘this way’. He gave them a week to consider of it; at the end of which they calmly answered, ‘Sir, we choose rather to want bread here, than to want “a drop of water” for ever’.
Wesley’s Journal for April, 1764.
References. XVI. 24. W. J. Hills, Sermons and Addresses, p. 72. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year (2nd Series), vol. ii. p. 9. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 340.
Memory
Luk 16:25
You recollect, of course, that these words are put into the mouth of Father Abraham in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. I need hardly do more than recall the barest outlines of that story of a rich man, who was evidently a selfish man, certainly an unobservant man in the most charitable judgment, and obviously lived for himself and ‘did’ himself, as we should say today, well, and the story of a beggar who lay at his gate. Not only does it give us at least a picture of a day in their common lives, but it lifts the veil and gives a picture of the future of the two men in the eternal world the one comforted the other tormented. The one tormented, and rightly so, proffers a request to Abraham for a slight alleviation of his pains, and this is part of the answer, ‘Son, remember’.
I. The Sin of Inattention, not merely inattention with regard to the cry of Lazarus at the gate, but inattention to the real facts of life, the great facts of salvation, of Christ’s life and death, the great fact of His Gospel call with which we have been familiar all our days, is the crying, the universal sin of today. And I deduce this, I think quite rightly, from what the Saviour said here and the confirmation of daily observation. For a man’s quality is wholly determined by the things he takes notice of.
‘Son, remember’ that the things with which thou art most commonly familiar will be thy condemnation if they are unacted on. It may have been that there were other things which claimed this man’s attention so much business to be ordered, so many reins and strings to be held in steady command that he had no surplus mind to give to that poor man’s need. It certainly is so with regard to the things of Christ. There is so much competition, there is so much of the battle and of the element of warfare in business and in professional life. There is so much to do in making ends meet that actually we have no time seriously to set our hearts on to the things that belong unto our peace. But in the name of God, I pray you, ‘Son, remember’.
II. What a Wonderful Power Memory is! I suppose it is the strongest power and the most inexplicable of any of which you or I are either master or servant, for it is very doubtful if a man is ever master of his own memory, if he is anything but a slave to his memory memory with its subtle power of destroying time and space in a lightning flash, memory with its power of recollecting things long ago dead and buried, memory with its total disregard of the conventions, and which intrudes upon our holiest moments thoughts of sins. It is a wonderful power, the power of memory; but wonderful as it is, the Word of God leaves me in no doubt as to this that death will intensify it, that death will increase its strength. Death intensifies the power of memory, the consciousness of those things of which it is conscious now, though it would fain forget the fact. The only thing that death does is to bring out the things we try to hide, and the colours we try to paint out. This is the import of the Saviour’s words in this parable, ‘Son, remember’; you will never be able to do other than remember. This is what the eternal world will mean to thee. All that dreadful power of memory will increase in strength and possibility, and the eternal memory of a lifelong forgetfulness will be the worm that dies not and the fire that is not quenched. ‘Son, remember.’ And the Word of God makes it plain to me that memory will be the foundation of heaven’s joy. For hearken, hearken to the song of the redeemed, hearken to those whose joy is made perfect in His presence. What inspires their song? Memory. ‘Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood… unto Him be glory.’ ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain.’ Yes, memory is the foundation of heaven’s blessedness, and memory is the foundation of the eternal remorse of those who, like the rich man, are to reap the harvest of a life of heedless, careless, indifferent inattention. ‘Son, remember.’
References. XVI. 25. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. 1. p. 376. F. St. John Corbett, The Preacher’s Year, p. 109. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, vol. ii. p. 19. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 107. XVI. 26. S. Cox, Expositions, p. 155. J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, pt. i. p. 20. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ix. No. 518. XVI. 27-28. T. H. Ball, Persuasions, p. 249. S. H. Fleming, Fifteen Minute Sermons for the People, p. 65. XVI. 29-31. W. E. Barton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. p. 179. XVI. 30. H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1496, p. 105. XVI. 30-31. J. C. M. Bellew, Christ in Life: Life in Christ, p. 134. Expositor (7th Series), vol. v. p. 507.
Contrasted Destinies
Luk 16:31
I. Our Lord seeks to paint in this parable a series of solemn, dramatic contrasts that shall startle, if it may be, these Pharisees out of their complacent selfishness. (1) He first sketches the contrast between Dives and Lazarus in life, a contrast the more impressive because the painter does not bring his two figures together from the opposite ends of the earth, or even from east and west of the same city only. Lazarus gasping in the shadow of the gateway, and the purple drapery of Dives moving behind the blossom and leafage of the courtyard in the hall beyond, might have been seen by the passer-by from the same point of view; so it is no outburst of eccentric idealism that leads the painter to put two such figures on one canvas. (2) Christ now paints another contrast, a contrast dealing not with the things that are seen and temporal, but with the things that are unseen and eternal. The contrast is resumed beyond the grave, but the figures are transposed. The next world has its contrasts as well as this. (3) A contrast of character underlies this picture. Little is told us of the beggar beyond the contrast in character implied in the name chosen to describe him; Lazarus or ‘God my helper’. The rich man’s life was turned away from God, and turned towards himself; the beggar’s was turned away from himself and turned towards God.
II. The parable or allegory passes from the dramatic into the didactic stage. (1) It teaches that in vain are the destinies of a lost soul appealed to the court of natural affection. Those destinies cannot be reversed or modified by mere relationship to Abraham. The rich man, with the true instinct of a Pharisee, turns for help in Hades to his great ancestor Abraham. The vain confidence of the Pharisee is abroad in our own day. The creed of Universalism, which makes God a mere synthesis of our flesh and blood relations, and affirms that His infinite Fatherhood will never suffer a single human soul to finally perish, is but a modernised Pharisaism set free from tribal limitations. (2) The parable asserts that the contrasts of the hereafter are maintained by the inexorable necessities of the Divine government. ‘Beside all this, there is a great gulf fixed.’ The chasm that formed itself in life has been made impassable by a Divine decree. (3) The parable intimates that the permanence of the contrasted destinies in the life beyond the grave is certified by the permanence of human character. If Christ had meant to hold out the faintest hope of final restoration, He would have so turned and shaped the dialogue that it would have exhibited progress rather than retrogression in the temper of this lost spirit. (4) This parable teaches that these final contrasts in the destinies of the future life rest upon a common probation in this. It is a part of the Pharisaism of human nature to claim, as the rich man claimed, that the probation is very imperfect. But God has His answer ready in every history. God will have His method of dealing with men who have had an imperfect probation. That method is no concern of yours. You cannot claim to enter that category. At the very least, you have sufficient light for your repentance.
Yet Not Persuaded
Luk 16:31
I. God has done all that can be done.
II. The reason for men’s rejection is wholly in themselves. Faith is an act of the will, not of the understanding. Hence the sole cause of unbelief lies in the man himself. ‘Ye will not come unto Me that ye might have life.’
III. God will do no more.
A. Maclaren.
References. XVI. 31. Bishop Boyd-Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lx. p. 66. R. W. Hiley, A Year’s Sermons, vol. iii. p. 224. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lv. p. 232. H. Windross, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. v. p. 32. Archbishop Temple, Christian World Pulpit, vol. 1. p. 401. G. Bellett, Parochial Sermons, p. 228. H. Howard, The Raiment of the Soul, p. 177. H. S. Holland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 344. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii. No. 143. J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son, pp. 15 and 30. K. C. Anderson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. 1. p. 332. XVII. Expositor (4th Series), vol. vi. p. 114. XVII. 1. F. J. A. Hort, Village Sermons (2nd Series), p. 177. XVII. 1, 2. H. H. Almond, Sermons by a Lay Head Master, p. 193. XVII. 2. Expositor (4th Series), vol. iii. p. 289; ibid. (5th Series), vol. iii. p. 210.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
X
FIVE PARABLES: THE LOST SHEEP; THE LOST COIN; THE LOST BOY; THE UNJUST STEWARD; DIVES AND LAZARUS
Harmony, pages 123-125 and Luk 15:1-17:10
We are now in the section treating generally of the closing ministry of our Lord in all parts of the Holy Land, but particularly of his Perean ministry. We have already (in The Four Gospels, Volume I of this INTERPRETATION) learned what is a parable, etymologically and by usage; we have stated clearly the distinctions in the meaning between the word “parable” and such other words as proverb, allegory, illustration, fable, myth, and legend; we have given the principles of interpreting parables, particularly noting the discrimination between what is important and what is the mere drapery of the illustration, and we have noted the wisdom of our Lord in grouping parables so that the many sides of a great truth or of a complex subject may be shown.
It has been my custom, hitherto, particularly when considering our Lord as the great Teacher, to lay special stress on his method of teaching by parables. And to this end I have prepared a large chart showing, in the order of their occurrence and in the setting of their occasion, all of his parables, citing for each the page of the Harmony, the chapter and verse, and the leading thought, or principal lesson. Every Bible student, every Sunday school teacher should have such a chart. (For this chart see The Four Gospels, Volume I of this INTERPRETATION.)
Since there has been so much injudicious and even wild interpretation of the parables, I warn the reader against certain books purporting to expound them, and especially commend certain other books which treat generally of the whole subject in a masterly way and expound each particular parable on sane and profitable lines. And even now I delay the present discussion long enough to urge the reader to put into his library and to master by close study, the books of both Taylor and Trench on the parables. I do not endorse every particular statement, or detail, in either of the books, but on the whole I can commend them most heartily. To those who are more advanced in scholarship and general information, I commend in the same general way Edersheim’s discussion of the parables in his really great work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. What a pity that many young preachers, following the promptings of an unripe judgment, waste their scanty means for purchasing good books, and fill up their few shelves with not only profitless, but poisonous literature. But now to our subject.
It would not be difficult to show some connection between these parables and the others closely following in Luke’s Gospel, but it is more important just now to note the close connection between the two last parables of this group and the three parables immediately preceding, namely, the lost sheep, or one of a hundred; the lost coin, or one of ten; the lost boy, or one of two.
There five parables arise from one occasion, to wit, the censure of the Pharisees on our Lord’s receiving sinners, and make an incomparable group, surpassing in value all of the uninspired wisdom of the ancients and the philosophies of all heathen sages since the world began.
The first exhibits the attitude of mind toward sinners and his special work in their behalf, of God the Son, who, like a good shepherd, seeks and saves the lost. The second illustrates the part of God the Holy Spirit in the same salvation as a shining light which discovers the lost coin. The third discloses the heart of God, the Father, in receiving the penitent prodigal. The third also exhibits, in an inimitable way, the experience of the sinner himself in passing from death unto life, and all three vividly exhibit heaven’s joy at the salvation of the lost, in sharp contrast with earth’s scorn and censure. (For detailed explanation of the parable of the prodigal son see author’s sermon in Evangelistic Sermons .)
It is the purpose of the fourth, that is, the unjust steward, to teach a forward lesson to these saved publicans, viz., as God the ‘Son had come down from heaven to seek out and save them; as God the Spirit had shined into their hearts the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of his Son; as God the Father had embraced them coming in their penitence, and, as all the bells of heaven ring out their welcome, so, after salvation, they should offer their service and, the particular lesson is that the wisdom which prompted them as publicans to make provision for the future in time must now be applied to making provision for the future in eternity, else the “children of this world in their generation will be wiser than the children of light in their generation.”
The reader must not fail to note the mixed audience listening to these parables. The lesson of the unjust steward is indeed addressed primarily to his disciples, that is, mainly to the recently disciplined publicans, but yet in the hearing of the Pharisees, while the warning lesson of Dives and Lazarus is addressed primarily to the Pharisees, but yet in the hearing of the others. It is important to note that both parables have one theme, namely: “How the use or misuse of money in this world affects our status in the world to come, whether in heaven or hell.” But we must bear in mind that, while the parables in Luk 16 discuss-service and rewards, we must carefully hedge against the idea of any power in money to purchase heaven or evade hell. I repeat that the three preceding parables in Luk 15 teach us the way of salvation; the parable of the unjust steward, on the other hand, is addressed to saved men to show how their lives as Christians may yet affect their status in heaven. It is a matter of rewards, not salvation. Just so, the parable of Dives and Lazarus does not teach that the rich man was lost because of the wrong use of money, but that being already lost, his misuse of money in time aggravates his status in hell. Apart from salvation and damnation is the question of awards when saved or of aggravated suffering when lost. And as both parables have one theme, so one moral links them together indissolubly. That moral is, “And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they [the friends made by it] may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.”
In the case of both parables the leading thought is that a reasonable mind should provide for the future, and that the use or abuse of what we have in time, whether opportunities, or talents, or money, does in some way affect our status in eternity. Other important things may be taught incidentally; and in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, particularly, other quite important things are certainly so taught but sound principles of interpretation require that first of all there should be due stress on the main point. With these premises in mind we now consider
THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD
As has been said, it is addressed primarily to “his disciples,” that is, particularly to the publicans recently discipled; that its purpose is to show that after their salvation comes service, with its appointed rewards in glory; that since the publicans, before their conversion, had endeavored to provide for their future on earth, so now as disciples they must with the same foresight, only better directed, provide for an eternal future; that for only a little while on earth they are blessed with opportunities and means of usefulness, and that these are held in trust. How then shall they be transmuted into eternal exchange? This grave question is answered by this illustrative parable. The substance of the story is this: A rich lord, on learning that his steward was wasting the substance entrusted to him, notifies him that he may no longer be steward, and orders him to give an account of his stewardship. This dishonest servant had no illusions, attempted no self-deceptions, but in a candid, practical way, looked the facts and the logic of the situation squarely in the face. He knew that his own books would confirm the accusation against him; that his office was inevitably lost; that there was no defense possible; and that there was no hope of future employment from his lord. He must, therefore, rely wholly on himself. He saw clearly and rejected both of the ordinary alternatives, hard manual labor or beggary. He felt himself unable to dig and was ashamed to beg. What remained then? In some way he must provide for his future. He was as quick to decide what to do as he was clear in his apprehension of the facts. Being only a child of this world, no moral scruples hampered his decision. Moreover, as the time was short he must be as prompt in action as in decision. Having yet the power of attorney that accompanies stewardship, his disposition of his employer’s interests would be legal. That point he must safeguard. So he proceeded at once to make friends in another direction by further misuse of his employer’s means, according to the saying, “In for a penny, in for a pound,” or “One may as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb.” Rapidly and separately he approached his lord’s debtors and by sharp reduction of the amount due in each case he succeeded in securing the good will and gratitude of each debtor. By that creative faculty, the imagination, he could vividly see each relieved debtor going home, and hear him tell the delighted family all about the kind offers of the friendly steward who sympathized with labor against capital; with the oppressed tenant against the bloated landlord. He argued: “Now, when I am cast out of this office these grateful debtors will receive me into their homes with welcome and hospitality, and so I shall be provided for the rest of my days with shelter and food without the necessity of digging or begging.” It is also true that he could hold in terror over these tenants the fact that they had knowingly conspired with him to defraud the landlord, but there is no hint in the parable that he relied upon exciting fear in the tenants, but friendship only. When his lord (not our Lord) heard of this new exploit of rascality, he could not but admire the sagacity and shrewdness with which the cornered steward had escaped from his dilemma and caught upon his feet with catlike dexterity. We must not for a moment suppose that in relating this story our Lord approves either the rascality of the steward or shares the employer’s commendation of his shrewdness. He is merely showing how children of this world, without thought of heaven or hell, do from their worldly viewpoint, make shrewd provision for the future in this life and how they apply a shrewdness that wins by any means without technically breaking any human law. He is showing how with practical business sense they are clear in their apprehensions of the facts of a case, quick to decide on a course, prompt to act on their decision, and ready to use all available means to attain their object.
The application is that “the children of light” from a higher viewpoint of the future, extending into an eternity of heaven and with higher moral standards, should so wisely use their fleeting wealth as to make it a friend, not an enemy; to make friends by it, who passing ahead into eternal habitations await to greet and welcome them when they arrive.
There is a difference between a mere entrance and an abundant entrance. Two ships sail from one harbor and are bound for the same port. Much depends upon skillful seamanship and the prompt use of all available means. Both reach the port of destination. One of them by bad seamanship arrives at last, a battered hulk, masts broken, shrouds riven, cargo damaged, and is towed by a tug into safe anchorage. It is much to get there at all. But the other arrives with every mast standing, every sail filed, freighted to the water’s edge with precious cargo, and flags flying. How joyous her welcome! Friends crowd the wharf to greet her coming. Salvos of artillery salute her. So, while salvation is one definite thing for all, the heavenly status of the saved is not one uniform, fixed quantity. In my Nashville, Tennessee address on the death of Spurgeon I gave an illustration of the meaning of the scripture, “Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the everlasting tabernacles.” Spurgeon was saved by grace, not money; but he made wise use of his money in building orphanages, almshouses for widows, and his pastoral college. Orphans, widows, preachers were not only beneficiaries of his bounty, but many of them had been led to Christ by him, and others comforted and strengthened by his ministrations. Many of these died before he died, and waiting up there, welcomed him when the Master called him home.
THE PARABLE OF DIVES AND LAZARUS The parable of Dives and Lazarus shows another side of the same picture. It is addressed to the scornful Pharisees who were lovers of money and callous to human suffering, who lived with reference to this world and not at all with reference to the world to come. Keeping in mind first the main thought, that the misuse, or ill use, of money on earth will affect the final status in eternity, we may by a diagram make visible this leading thought, as the words make it audible (diagram on next page). From the upper left hand corner (marked A) is a line to the lower right hand corner (marked C). So from the lower left hand corner (marked B) is a line to the upper right hand corner (marked D). Then two perpendicular lines in the center, inclosing the crossing point of the diagonal lines. The perpendicular space is death; all to the left in this world; all to the right, the eternal world. In this world Dives has the upper place at A, faring sumptuously every day, while Lazarus has the lower place at B) starving with hunger for even the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. In the other world the position of the two is reversed: Lazarus has the upper place (marked D) reclining at the heavenly banquet with Abraham, while the rich man has the lower place (marked C) starving with hunger and burning with thirst. It will be observed that death does not break the continuity of being in either case, nor interrupt the exercise of the senses of the disembodied soul. Both are alive, conscious, sensible (the one to enjoyment, the other to pain), seeing, speaking, hearing, feeling, remembering. It will further be observed that there is no midway stopping place for either after death, but both pass at once to a final place and state; to the one, a place and state of happiness; to the other, a place and state of wretchedness. It will be noted that in this world Lazarus may pass to the rich man and the rich man to Lazarus; not so after death; neither can pass to the other. Here wealth may help poverty and poverty may serve wealth. The rich man may send crumbs to hungry Lazarus. Yonder the opportunity is dead; Lazarus may not bring water to thirsty Dives. It will be more particularly observed that neither Dives nor Lazarus may return to this world for any service to the living; that opportunity is dead. The rich man, conscious that hell’s restrictions prevent his own return, pleads that one from heaven may return and bear a message for him. But the one from heaven is not permitted to return. Each has gone to a bourne from which no traveler, except One, has ever returned. If, therefore, we desire to make friends with our money or our service, we must do it in this world or never. If we desire to keep the lost from hell and lead them to salvation we must do it while we are living in the body and they are living in the body. If they die first, from earth we cannot help them by prayer, money, or service. If we die first, we cannot return to help them from either heaven or hell. In either case, so far as we are concerned, “their redemption must be let alone forever.”
The main thought is that while Dives and Lazarus were both living the rich man had an opportunity by means of the wealth entrusted to his stewardship to make a friend of Lazarus. But failing to use the means, when, at death his wealth failed, he, in his eternal habitation of woe could not have the friendly service of Lazarus. The parable implies that Lazarus was a Christian and the rich man an unconverted Jew, relying upon fleshly descent from Abraham. It does not teach that Lazarus went to heaven because he was poor in this world, but because in this world he prized future good above present good. Nor that Dives went to hell because he was rich in this world, but that he prized present good above future good. This is implied in the words of Abraham: “Son remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things: but now here he is comforted, and thou art in anguish.” Each man made deliberate choice. The rich man, according to the saying, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” preferred his good in time and despised eternity; the poor man elected eternal good instead of temporal good, and each reaped according to his sowing.
But let us consider more particularly the details of the story. Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate. This fact stops Dives from pleading ignorance of the special case. The opportunity to do good with his wealth was brought home to him who would not seek it. The destitution was real and great. The poverty, hunger, rags, and sores advertised themselves and all pleaded for help, though Lazarus, in the parable, utters no word. It is related that a traveler in Ireland coming upon a diseased, emaciated wretch, ill-clad in dirty rags, silently standing by the wayside, said, “Why are you dumb? Why don’t you ask for help?” “Can my mouth,” replied the miserable one, “speak louder than my rags and sores and skeleton bones?” Dives was abundantly able to help without impoverishing himself, as even crumbs falling from his table were desired. But he so fully trusted in his wealth he could not conceive that he ever might, himself, be in want. He had no realization that death would strip him of all he possessed and send him bankrupt into eternity. He could not conceive that he ever would be in a situation to desire the help of Lazarus. We can almost hear him saying, “What impertinent busy-body thrust this disgusting nuisance upon my attention? Let every man take care of himself. When I put money out it is to make more money. It is absurd to think that I should ever need, in return, anything that this diseased and helpless beggar could do. I do not care for his friendship or good will. And so let him die the sooner the better.” And the beggar died; the rich man never expected to see or hear of him again. He could not see the angels bearing the disembodied soul to heaven. He could not see heaven’s banquet table awaiting the starved pauper. He could not see his place of honor, resting his head on Abraham’s bosom as he reclined at the table, even as the head of the beloved John rested on the bosom of his Lord at the Last Supper. “The rich man also died,” and, what a revelation! All his wealth gone! Gone all his purple and fine linen, all his obsequious servants! And, oh, this burning thirst, this eternal hunger! With uplifting eyes seeking help he sees the sore-smitten, rag-covered, starving Lazarus of earth, now healed, now in shining apparel whose sheen out-glistens all his fine linen in time, now feasting at a banquet whose viands far surpass his own sumptuous, everyday fare on earth, now resting his head on the heart of glorified Abraham.
What a revelation! What a reversal of earth’s conditions! What an overthrow of his time confidence that he was a true child of Abraham! But shall he not still think to himself that Abraham is his father? Is he not a Jew and shall not a Jew claim relationship with the father of the Jews? In his torment may he not appeal to his father?
HE PRAYS Mark where he prays. In hell.
Mark to whom he prays. To one of the heavenly saints, Abraham.
Mark for what he prays. One drop of water.
Mark for whose service he prays. “Send Lazarus.”
Mark how small a part of Lazarus. “The tip of his finger.”
These questions thunder:
May prayers in hell avail?
May prayers to saints avail?
Can the thirst of hell be quenched?
May the saved in heaven minister to the lost in hell?
THE ANSWER “Son” The fleshly relation acknowledged.
“Remember” So memory survives death.
Remember what? The supreme choice of time. “In yonder world you preferred your good things and Lazarus had his evil things.”
The appeal to reason: “Now here he is comforted and thou there art in anguish.” So reason survives death. So time fruits in eternity. So is the law of cause and effect inexorable: “What a man sows that shall he also reap.”
The answer reveals another law, viz.: One may not invoke the service of friendship where no friend was made. The rich man, wretched in eternity, had no title to the services of Lazarus, whose wretchedness he had ignored in time.
The answer reveals a far greater law: Between the saved in heaven and the lost in hell yawns a fixed and impassable gulf. No saint in heaven may pass to hell on a mission of mercy. No lost soul may after death enter heaven.
HE PRAYS AGAIN
Mark what he accepts that his own case is without remedy. “I pray thee therefore Father” i.e., since no help can come to me.
Mark what he remembers: “I have five brothers in yonder world,” not yet forever lost.
Mark what he implies: It is as if he said, “I am now at last concerned for their future. I am now troubled at the thought of my influence over them. They looked to me as the head of the family. They imbibed my spirit. They endorsed my business maxims. They are following in my footsteps. I hear them coming! They are under my delusions. They are nearing the boundary line of death. I am in great anguish already, but if they come here my anguish will be greater, my hell enlarged. Then, must I eternally remember that my influence dragged them here. Oh, my brothers! My brothers! I cannot myself return to warn them. Hell’s restrictions forbid. I am in prison, in everlasting chains.”
Mark what he prays for: “Send Lazarus to my father’s house.” Ah! He needs again the friendship and service of Lazarus. Send him for what? “That he may testify unto them; lest they also come into this place of torment.” Let us suppose that the testimony was permitted. He comes to the house he so well remembers, the house whose portals were shut against him in time when he was in need. He obtains an audience. “I am Lazarus, who died unpitied and unhelped at your gate. From that very gate angels carried my soul to recline at the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while you were carting off my body and rattling my bones in a pauper’s grave. In that glorious place and company we heard a voice from hell, the voice of your brother in torment. That voice said, ‘Send Lazarus to my father’s house to testify to the reality, certainty, and eternity of the heaven and hell in which they do not believe, and to tell my brothers not to come to this place of torment.’ So here I am, risen from the dead, with testimony and message from the eternal world. I testify that I saw your brother lost forever, and bring you his very words.” But be was not permitted.
The answer: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” That is, they have light enough. God’s written inspired Word is sufficient. Or, as teaches Paul: Every one of these holy writings is God-inspired and is profitable for teaching what one should believe or do, and for convicting one of any error in belief or deed, and for correcting the error of belief or deed, and for training one into right belief or deed that one should be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. What more light is needed?
THE DESPERATE PERSISTENCE of A LOST SOUL
“Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent.” Ah! The incorrigible blindness and delusions of the lost! They keep on affirming that they need more light, when what they need is an eye to see the light and a heart to walk in the light. If our God’s light be hid, it is hid to them whom the god of this world has blinded. Their condemnation is, that light has come into the world, but they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. All whose deeds are evil hate the light and shun it.
The final answer: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.” This very Moses suffered not a wizard, witch, necromancer, or soothsayer to live, because they taught the people that messages from the dead could be obtained throwing more light on the other world than shines in God’s revelation. Isaiah, the most evangelical of the prophets taught: “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? On behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead? To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them” (Isa 8:19-20 ).
Now let us impress our minds with a brief restatement of some of its great doctrines, expressed or implied:
1. At death probation ends, character crystallizes, the constant tendency to fixedness of type reaches its consummation. This is evident because in all the Scriptures there is no hint that any man is brought into judgment for speech, thought, or conduct after death. The final judgment is only on “deeds done in the body.” But if there were probation after death there must needs be judgment for deeds done out of the body. As the tree falls, so it lies. He that dies just remains just, and he that dies unjust is raised unjust.
2. There is no half-way stopping place between death and the final place of happiness or woe. The banquet feast at which Lazarus reclined, leaning his head on Abraham’s bosom, is in “the kingdom of heaven.”
The tormenting flame into which the rich man was cast was the real and only hell for the soul. The body after the resurrection will go to the same place. It is true that the word in this parable is Hades, not Gehenna. But Hades means only the invisible world where disembodied spirits go, whether good or bad. The idea of hell is not in the word Hades, but in the torment and flame into which the rich man enters, its irretrievable nature and its eternal fixedness. There is no purgatory from which souls may ascend after purification unto heaven, or becoming confirmed in wickedness, pass on to hell. Therefore, all prayers for the dead are without scriptural warrant. Lazarus and Dives each passed at once without a pause to his final home.
3. No saint or sinner after death can return to earth in behalf of or against the living. Going from this world to the next, death is passable; returning from the other world, it is impassable.
All attempts through mediums, necromancers, wizards, and witches or spirit-rapping is expressly contrary to God’s law and does despite to the sufficiency of God’s revelation.
4. We should not pray to the saints, but unto God only. Jesus Christ is the one Mediator between God and man, and we need no human mediator between ourselves and Jesus. He is more approachable, more willing to hear than Mary or Peter or Paul. They are but sinners themselves saved by grace.
The stupendous system of Mariolatry is one of the most blasphemous heresies ever propagated by priestcraft. The only prayer to a saint in heaven recorded in the Bible is the prayer of Dives in hell to Abraham, and every request was denied.
5. We should stand upon the impregnable rock of the Holy Scriptures as the sufficient means of light in defining creed and deed.
6. Between the saved and lost, from death to eternity, there is a fixed and impassable gulf. On earth the saved may go to the lost in order to seek their salvation or the lost may hopefully appeal to the saved for help, but after death no saved man can pass over to the lost in any kind of helpful ministration, not even to carry on the tip of one finger a single drop of water to cool the tongue.
The parable, as a whole, and in all its parts, stresses the thought: Now, not hereafter, is the day of salvation.
QUESTIONS
1. Where are we in the discussion of the life of our Lord, generally and particularly?
2. What instruction on parables precedes the discussion at this point?
3. What books are commended on the parables?
4. What parables constitute the group which are discussed in this chapter, what was their occasion, and what is the direct connection of the two last with the preceding ones of the group?
5. What is the purpose of the parable of the unjust steward?
6. To whom was the parable of the unjust steward addressed, to whom the parable of Dives and Lazarus, and what is their common theme?
7. In interpreting these parables what teaching must be hedged against; and what is the moral of both?
8. What question is answered by the parable of the unjust steward?
9. What is the substance of the story?
10. What are the points illustrated by our Lord in this parable as it relates to the children of this world and what is the application?
11. Illustrate the difference between mere entrance and an abundant entrance into heaven.
12. How is this truth illustrated in the life of Spurgeon?
13. Give the diagram showing bow the misuse of money on earth affects the final status in eternity, as illustrated by the parable of Dives and Lazarus.
14. What three observations worthy of note relative to the change wrought by their exit from this world?
15. What changes have been wrought as to possibilities & opportunities each?
16. What does the parable imply, what does it not teach and what the basis of the implication?
17. Show how the opportunity came to Dives in this world, illustrate how he disposed of his responsibility and the reversed state of Dives and Lazarus in eternity.
18. Dives prays, where, to whom, for what, whose service asked, how much, and what four questions arise from this prayer?
19. What is the answer to this prayer and what three laws revealed?
20. What was his second prayer, what does he accept, what does he remember, and what does he imply?
21. What was the answer, what the meaning and application?
22. Show the desperate persistence of a lost soul and what the final answer.
23. What was the teaching of Moses and Isaiah on this very point?
24. What are the great doctrines of this parable expressed or implied?
QUESTIONS ON Luk 17:1-10
1. Why is it “impossible but that occasions of stumbling should come”? Answer: This arises from the sin of man and the domination of the devil.
2. What is the meaning of “stumbling”? Answer: Sin.
3. What is meant by “little ones” in Luk 17:2 ? Answer: Young converts.
4. What law of forgiveness is ‘here stated? Answer: That we must forgive those who repent of their sins against us. (See author’s discussion of this subject in The Four Gospels, Volume I of this INTERPRETATION.
5. What kind of faith is referred to in Luk 17:6 and what its nature? Answer: Miracle-working faith, which was temporary & passed away with apostolic age.
6. What is the lesson of the parable on unprofitable servants, and what of the Romanist doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding? Answer: The lesson here is that we cannot go beyond God’s law in works, and is a strong teaching against the Romanist doctrine of supererogation.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Ver. 1. A certain rich man which had a steward ] Masters had need look well, 1. To the choosing of their servants. Solomon saw Jeroboam, that he was industrious, and therefore, without any respect at all to his religion, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, but to his singular disadvantage. 1Ki 11:28 ; cf. Luk 12:3 ; Luk 2:1-52 . To the using of them; most men make no other use of their servants than they do of their beasts; while they may have their bodies to do their service, they care not if their souls serve the devil. Hence they so often prove false and perfidious.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 8. ] PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD. Peculiar to Luke . No parable in the Gospels has been the subject of so much controversy as this: while, at the same time, the general stream of interpretation is well defined, and, in the main, satisfactory. It would be quite beyond the limits of a note to give any thing like a recension of the views respecting it: the principal ones which differ from that which I have adopted, will appear in the course of my remarks.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1. ] a continuation, I believe, of the foregoing: certainly closely connected in subject with it, as is the second parable in this chapter also: see below.
. ., not to the Twelve only , but to the multitude of the disciples; and more immediately perhaps to the Publicans , whose reception by Him had been the occasion of this discourse. I say this because I believe them to hold a place, though not a principal or an exclusive one, in the application of the parable which follows.
. . . ] The history in this parable is, in itself, purely worldly . The master is a , as well as his steward: bear this in mind: the whole parabolic machinery is from the standing-point of the children of this world .
In the interpretation, this rich man is the Almighty Possessor of all things . This is the only tenable view . Meyer, who supposes him to be Mammon (defending it by the consideration that dismissal from his service = being received into everlasting habitations , which it does not , see below), is involved in inextricable difficulties further on. Olshausen’s view, that he = the Devil , the , will be found equally untenable. Schleiermacher’s, that the Romans are intended, whose stewards the Publicans were, and that the debtors = the Jews, hardly needs refuting; certainly not more refuting, than any consistent exposition will of itself furnish.
, a general overlooker very much what we understand by an agent , or ‘a man of business,’ or, in the larger sense, a steward. They were generally of old, slaves: but this man is a freeman , from Luk 16:3-4 . This steward = especially the Publicans , but also all the disciples , i.e. every man in Christ’s Church . We are all God’s stewards, who commits to our trust His property: each one’s office is of larger or smaller trust and responsibility, according to the measure entrusted to him. I say, especially the Publicans , because the Twelve, and probably others, had relinquished all and followed Christ , and therefore the application of the parable to them would not be so direct: and also because I cannot but put together with this parable, and consider as perhaps prompted by it or the report of it, the profession of Zacchus, ch. Luk 19:8 . Other interpretations have been the Pharisees (Vitringa, and more recently Zyro, Theol. Stud. und Krit. for 1831) but then the parable should have been addressed to them , which it was not, and this view entirely fails in the application: Judas Iscariot (Bertholdt), of the vindication of which view I am not in possession, and therefore can only generally say, that it is perfectly preposterous: Pontius Pilate &c. &c.
not wrongfully , which the word does not imply necessarily but maliciously , which it does imply: see Dan 6:24 . The reason why it has come so generally to signify ‘ wrongful accusation,’ is, that malicious charges are so frequently slanderous. The steward himself does not deny it.
Meyer (see above) in carrying out his view, would interpret this charge as an accusation by the Pharisees against the disciples that they wasted the goods of Mammon by entering the service of Christ: but then (1) this other service never once appears on the face of the parable; and (2) surely it would hardly be within the bounds of decorum that this should = the entering Christ’s service; this would bring a train of false interpretations with it, and even hold up the of the steward, as such , for imitation.
not that he had wasted (E. V.), but was wasting, his goods, = . So , Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 23. In this charge (spiritually) we may see the real guilt of every man who is entrusted with the goods of our heavenly Father. We are all ‘scattering His goods.’ If some one is to be found to answer to , the analogy of , ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ is too striking to escape us.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 16:1-7 . The parable of the unjust steward .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Luk 16:1 . : the same formula of transition as in Luk 14:12 . The connects with , not with . , and points not to change of audience (disciples now, Pharisees before) but to continued parabolic discourse. , disciples, quite general; might mean the Twelve, or the larger crowd of followers (Luk 14:25 ), or the publicans and sinners who came to Him (Luk 15:1 , so Schleiermacher, etc.). , was accused, here only in N.T., often in classics and Sept [133] ; construed with dative here; also with or , with accusative. The verb implies always a hostile animus , often the accompaniment of false accusation, but not necessarily. Here the charge is assumed to be true. , as squandering, that the charge; how, by fraud or by extravagant living, not indicated; the one apt to lead to the other.
[133] Septuagint.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Luke Chapter 16
LUKE 16: 1-13 tid=61#bkm398-
The Lord here addresses His disciples.tid=61#bkm399-
The last chapter consisted of parables spoken to the publicans and sinners that drew near to hear Him in the presence of the murmuring Pharisees and scribes. They had for their object to show how the sovereign grace of God makes the lost to be saved, and in this the mind and temper of Heaven in contrast with the self-righteous of the earth.
Now we have a weighty instruction for disciples. It is no longer sinners shown the way to God, but disciples taught the ways which become them before God, and this in view of the judgment of the world, more particularly of the elect nation. The Jews were now losing their special place. The peculiar privileges of Israel had wrought no deliverance for themselves or for the earth. Contrariwise they had caused the name of God to be blasphemed among the nations. They had been untrue to God; they had been ungracious and even unrighteous to man. The Lord accordingly sets forth in a parable the only wisdom which suits and adorns those who understand the present critical condition of the world.
“There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and he was accused unto him as wasting his possessions.” This had been done by man, of course, in general, but by the Jew especially, as being the most favoured and therefore under a more stringent responsibility. He was not only a man, but a steward. There was a trust reposed in the Jew beyond all others; and most justly was he accused of wasting his master’s goods. What had he done for God? He ought to have been a light in the earth; he ought to have been a guide of the blind; he ought to have been a witness of the true God. But he fell into idolatry when God was displaying Himself in the temple in the Shekinah; and now he was about to reject God Himself in the person of the Messiah,. His Son – a still more profound and gracious display of God. Thus he had altogether lost his opportunities, and wasted the goods of his Master. He had brought shame on the law of God, and the living oracles into contempt through his own vanity and pride.
Hence, in the parable, the master called the steward, and said to him, “What [is] this thattid=61#bkm400- I hear of thee? Give the reckoning of thy stewardship, for thou canst be no longer steward.” The Jew was about to sink down into the level of all other nations, just as in the Old Testament times we hear that God had pronounced him Lo-ammi as set forth in Hosea. Then the last hope was gone, when not only Israel was swept away, but Judah became faithless to the true God. This was confirmed when the returned remnant in the days of Christ proved no better – rather worse. There was a feeble body which represented the Jews who returned from Babylon, and, it might have been a nucleus for the nation; but, instead of this, they were more and more hardened against God, till all ended in their rejecting the Messiah and the Holy Ghost sent. down from heaven.
“And the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord is taking the stewardship from me; I am not able to dig; I am ashamed to beg.” He had no power; for the law rather provokes evil ways than gives good. “But what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” (Rom 8:3 f.) On the other hand, the Jew was ashamed to beg. He was unwilling to take the place of a lost, good-for-nothing sinner, entirely dependent on God, looking up that God might do and give what he could not. Alas! the indomitable pride of the Jew rose up in rebellion against God’s sentence of his impotence.
“I know tid=61#bkm401- What I will do, that when I shall have been removed from the stewardship I maybe received tid=61#bkm401a- into their houses.” This was prudent, and the precise point of earthly wisdom in the parable which the Lord commends for our admonition. Well for the Jew had he adopted it! “He called each of his own lord’s debtors, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord! And he said, A hundred measures [baths] of oil.tid=61#bkm402- And he said unto him, Take thy bill and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then he said to another, And thou, how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures (cors)tid=61#bkm403- of wheat. And * he said unto him, Take thy bill and write eighty.”
*Before “he says,” ADP and some versions have “and.” Edd. omit, after BLR, 13, 69, Amiat., Memph.
Thus plainly the steward assumes the title to sacrifice the present in view of the future. He acts with the utmost liberality with his master’s goods. No doubt it cost him little or nothing. Nor is it the honesty of the step but its prudence which his master commends. He reduced the debt of the first one half, of the second considerably. He thus bound by his favour and leniency these debtors to himself; that, when he was turned out of his place, they might receive him into their houses. There is no ground to suppose that the parable makes light of his dishonesty. He is especially branded as the “unjust steward.” Such really was the position and character of the Jew; they were all unrighteous in the sight of God. But had they done what the steward does when about to be discharged? No! He looked forward to the future, and acted at once upon the conviction. Were they not, on the contrary, absorbed in the present? Is not this the great snare of men, and of the Jew as much as others, to sacrifice the future for the present, not the present for the future?
“And the lordtid=61#bkm404- praised the unrighteous steward, because he had done prudently. For the sons of this agetid=61#bkm404a- are in respect of their own generationtid=61#bkm404b- more prudent than the sons of light.” They look onward, though it be only on the earth, for they have a keen sense of their best earthly interests; but for the soul, for heaven, for Christ’s love, for God’s nature and will, men are apt to allow the smallest of present advantages to blot out all just thought of the future. This is an important consideration for our hearts as disciples. What the Lord is insisting upon is that the present – so fugitive and fallacious – is not the real prize for us; that the future – the eternal future – is the thing to consider, and that it should govern the present. For we cannot walk rightly as disciples unless filled with the sense of what is to be, not carried away by what is. What is it that spoils the testimony of disciples now? That they are living chiefly for the present moment. If circumstances guide, what can such be but as governed only by what is wished? This ruins, not merely the sinner as such, but the disciple, because he is only living for himself and the circumstances of this life. It is impossible to glorify the Lord thus. Let us hear His will and wisdom in this parable.
The unjust steward, as here portrayed, though bad in other respects, was wise in this, that he looked out steadily for the future; so that, when he lost his stewardship, he might be received kindly by the men whom he had befriended. For this it matters not that the goods were his master’s rather than his own; indeed, we may see the deepest wisdom in the parable as it is, when we come to the application to our own practical conduct. For the only means whereby we can thus look out for the future is by reckoning what people – what self – would call ours, the resources of our master. We have nothing whereby to secure the future, except we use all as belonging to God. But this is the victory of faith, that instead of looking with a natural eye at the present moment, we resolutely contemplate the future, and act accordingly. Then, instead of seeking to hold fast what we have for ourselves, we learn to use all freely as in truth belonging to God. So assuredly those do who gain that which is future and eternal. Hence we find the Lord applies the illustration thus: “And I say unto you,tid=61#bkm405- make to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness,tid=61#bkm405a- that, when it fails,* ye may be received into everlasting habitations.”tid=61#bkm405b- Are you thus making to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness? Instead of keeping money as something precious, treat it as what it really is.
*”It fails”: so Edd. after pm ABpm DL, etc., Syrrsin pesch Memph. Arm. Aeth. Cyr. Alex. It has beyond doubt preponderant authority over “ye fail” [T.R. after corr EP, etc., Vulg. Clem. Alex.]; but it is difficult to see its superior force or even propriety (B.T.).
Observe that the Lord gives here an ignominious name to the objects man covets – money, property, and everything of the kind. He calls it, not only mammon, in itself a word of ill omen, but “the mammon of unrighteousness.” He heaps plentiful disdain upon it; just as the apostle Paul counts all that man values most, even religiously as the vilest refuse which should be kept or thrust out of doors. This is a great point; for Saul of Tarsus had not always been disposed thus to sacrifice the present in view of the future. His place as a Jew, his tribe, his family, his earthly thoughts and feelings, his personal advantages, he once estimated as much every way to cherish. But when he viewed them in the light of Christ and of that glory to which he was hastening, he counted them but dung. (Phi 3:8 .) Who would ever think the earth at its best an object to look back on, when they have the glory before their eyes? Who would talk of getting rid of dung as a great sacrifice? Certainly everything, yet in religion too, of which men are apt most to boast, Paul calls dung; such he counted it, and sob to the last, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord. Was not this really to act in the wisdom of the steward, not in his injustice, but in his looking out and onward? In Paul’s case it was heavenly wisdom; and the love of Christ was its source and spring.
The meaning of the words “that they may receive you” is simply “that ye may be received into everlasting habitations.” Just so the apostle says: “That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection from the dead.” (Ibid., verse 10f.) This answers to being received into everlasting habitations when all that is of earth fails. To be received there is what should be of concern to the heart that loves the Lord and His will. There is no stress to be laid on the form of the phrase “they may receive you.” This has misled not a few. Literally this might hold good on earth, as we see in verse 4, but spiritually it simply means “that ye may be received.” Compare Luk 6:38 , Luk 12:20 ; the first wrongly rendered in the Authorised Version, the last rightly. God alone receives into heaven: no one else has a title to receive there. The expression alludes to the parable, but is used with the utmost vagueness. It is a virtual impersonal – “that reception may be given you into the everlasting tabernacles.”
Let us not over-estimate these sacrifices of the present, but imitate the apostle who shows how little he values the best things that earth honours. So our Lord Jesus here says, “He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much.”tid=61#bkm405c- (Cf. Mat 25:21 , Mat 25:23 .) The smallest thing affords a sphere in which one can glorify God; but there must be the disregard of the present in the light of the future. It is something to be generous in money matters; it is very much more to love the Church, and be devoted to the Master, suffering with Him and for Him. But there are countless ways in which He may be magnified. “He that is unrighteous in the least is unrighteous also in much.” Yet, as all know, little things constantly test our reality. Many a man might not be dishonest about a thing of great value, but he might make too free in what is petty. There cannot be a greater fallacy than decrying a severe judgment formed about moral failure in matters of little pecuniary value, as it were making much ado about nothing, whereas it is in small things often that a man’s true character is best known.
“If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who shall entrust to you the true?” The true riches cannot be entrusted where the heart has been false in that which is so trifling in the Lord’s eyes as “the unrighteous mammon.” tid=61#bkm406- Nor is it only that present honour and riches are not “the true,” but the mere counters of the hour. There is the further consideration: “If ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who shall give unto you your*tid=61#bkm407- own?” Present property is not strictly one’s own. The whole course of the Christian here is really that of one acting for another, even Christ. We are servants in trust for the Lord. The Christian ought to regard his time, his money, his abilities, his property, as the goods of his Master; and his business is to serve his Master, faithfully carrying out His will. This is of immense importance; because covetousness consists in endeavouring to make earthly things which God has not given your own. The wisdom of the disciple is to count what appears to belong to him as really his Master’s.
*”Your own”: so Blass, with AD, etc., all cursives, the Latt. Syrrpesch hcl hier Memph. Goth. Arm. Aeth. Hort, followed by Weiss, favours “our own,” the reading of B and L. See, further, note tid=61#bkm407- in Appendix.
Now, it is easy to be generous with another’s money. Count your riches another’s and act with all possible liberality in faith of the future. We should thus judge by faith what we have to be Christ’s, and then be as free with it as the unjust steward was with his master’s goods. Those who enter heaven are not men hard and grasping, as if by possessing more than is needed, a man’s life consists of his substance. No doubt the natural spirit of man cleaves to what it counts its own (and perhaps particularly of the Jew), as if the present moment were of all importance. But the true wisdom is to be like the steward in his steady resolve to secure the future by acting freely with what belonged to his lord. When the glory comes, we shall have what is our own. What a wonderful truth, that the wide scene of Christ’s glory in which we shall reign with Him will be ours! Then we shall bear power and glory without abusing it; now we can only safely use what we have by counting it Christ’s and using it according to His will.
“No servant can serve two masters.” If I have not Christ for my Master, I shall make myself so; and the moment we set up our own will, we find ourselves in Satan’s service, for the fallen will is Satan’s slave. “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and will love the other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other.” In the first we find the stronger case. With a man warm in his feelings everything is apt to be extreme. The other case supposes a person of feeble character. But in one way or another, whatever the character, to attempt this double service is fatal. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mat 6:24 .) Alas! mammon is the real ecumenical idol; it is the object of widest homage – not only in the world, but, grievous to add, in Christendom. By its own confession (witness the popular prize of that title) mammon now reigns supreme in the hearts of men generally throughout these lands professing the name of the Crucified, who most of all despised and denounced it.tid=61#bkm408-
Luk 16:14-18 .
Next the Pharisees, not the disciples, come before us. They are characterised here as covetous.tid=61#bkm409- It is not their forms or their legalism but their love of money which was touched by the doctrine of the Lord to the disciples; for after they had “heard all these things,” they “sneered at him.” The evil against which the disciples were warned was at work in the Pharisees without a check. This state was not less corrupt than haughty.
“And he said unto them, Ye are they who justify themselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which amongst men is highly thought oftid=61#bkm410- is an abomination before God.” Not so those who are justified before God by faith. Such do not justify themselves before men any more than before God, unless so far as they allow nature, and slip from their own ground of faith. Nevertheless, they are not free from the snare of covetousness; so far as they are influenced by the thoughts of men, they are exposed. “Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself.” (Psa 49:18 .) The intense selfishness of the heart naturally prefers its own care to that of God: thence is a link of worldly sympathy with the men of this age. Let us therefore beware, for “that which among men is highly thought of, is an abomination before God.” No evil more common in the religious world of our own day as truly as in our Lord’s. Ease, honour, influence, and position are as highly valued as ever, to the infinite disparagement of the truth. Any one can see how strongly the word of God rejects all these conditions of fallen Adam, and how incongruous they are with the cross of Christ. And they are only a worse abomination where men essay to join such worldliness with heavenly truth.
The Lord next insists upon the crisis that was come. For this, too, adds its emphasis to His rebuke. What is morally true may become more urgently a duty, and such is the fact in the case before us. The religion of the world always takes the ground of Pharisaism; it assumes more or less the present favour of God, and that worldly rank and prosperity are to be taken as a sign of it. Faith looks away from present things since sin came into the world, and each successive step in God’s ways is but afresh confirmation of faith. “The law and the prophets [were] until John: from that time the glad tidings of the kingdom of God are preached,”‘ and every one forceth his way into it.” It was in vain, therefore, to rest all upon the law and its rewards to faithfulness. In fact, they had broken the law; and because of this, indeed, were given the prophets, who reproved their iniquities, laid bare the actual state of ruin, and bore witness of a wholly new condition, which would end the present by judgment and introduce a new state, never to pass away. John Baptist, as the immediate herald of the Messiah, insisted on repentance in view of the immediate advent of Christ. This sweeps away all the self-righteousness of man. It is not that the law is not good; the defect lay not there, but in those who, being sinful, felt it not, but assumed to make out a righteousness of their own under law. “Since John’s time,” says our Lord, “the glad tidings of the kingdom of God are preached.” It is not here as in Mat 11:12 : “The kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence and the violent seize on it.” There it is a question of the true hope of Israel, and the necessity of breaking through all that opposes faith. But here it is much more ground opened to man if he believed. “The kingdom of God is preached, and every one forceth his way into it.” “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through their faith. Do we then make law void through faith? Far be it. Yea, we establish law.” (Rom 3:29 f.) Thus the great apostle. So here the Lord says, “And it is easier that the heaven and the earth should pass away than that one tittle of the law should fail.” (Mat 5:18 .) Neither the truth nor faith enfeebles the law; rather do they maintain its authority over all that are under it as well as its intrinsic righteousness. Certainly our Lord not only honoured it to the highest degree, but gave it the weightiest sanction; tid=61#bkm412- for He obeyed it perfectly in His life and was made a curse according to it in His death.
But those who while under it hope to stand on that ground before God do really destroy its authority, without intending or even knowing it. For they hope to be saved under law, though they know they have broken it and that it calls for their condemnation. And even those who, “being justified by faith,” take the law as their rule of life at the least impair its authority and so put dishonour upon it. For what does the law denounce on those who fail to do the things that it demands? Does it not threaten death on God’s part? And have they not failed to keep it? It is in vain therefore to plead that they are’ justified persons: the law knows no such distinction. Justified or not, if they fail, do they not enfeeble its solemn threats?
How, then, does the truth set forth the deliverance and maintain the holy walk of the believer? Not by the notion most erroneously taught in the common text of Rom 7:6 : “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held.” For the law is not dead. if so, the words of our Lord would be falsified; and not only one tittle of the law but the whole of it would have failed before heaven and earth pass away. But this is notoriously inexact, not only in the Authorised Version, but in the received Greek text, where one letter makes the difference between truth and error. The English margin is right. It is we who are dead to the law, not the law to any. The believer is shown to be dead with Christ, in Rom 6 , to sin, and in Rom 7 , to the law, “that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter.” “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” The truth, therefore, is that, even had we been Jews, we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, instead of living under it as our rule. And the very argument of the apostle is founded upon, or at least illustrated by, the principle that one cannot belong to two husbands at the same time without adultery. “If, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man she shall be called an adulteress”; if death come in, she is no adulteress though she belong to another man. And so it is with the Christian, for we now belong to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Deliverance from law is essential to true Christian holiness. Excellent as the law is, its rule is to curse the lawless and disobedient; it “is not made for the righteous man” (1Ti 1:9 ) which every believer is; it is a rule of death for the bad, not of life for the good. Christ only is Life and the Light of life for the believer.
And does it not seem most striking that in the very next verse our Lord uses the same allusion on which the apostle reasons in the beginning of Rom 7 ? “Every one who putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and every one that marrieth one put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Mat 5:32 ; Mat 19:9 Mar 10:11 f.) Undoubtedly both principles apply to the literal fact most truly and in the letter. But can one doubt the connection with the verse before and the context? If so connected, it is a striking instance of the one Spirit throughout Scripture; if not so, it is exceedingly hard to understand why such a statement should close the Lord’s words on this subject.tid=61#bkm413- No doubt the Jews allowed divorce for frivolous causes and marriage after such a divorce, and in both encouraged adultery.tid=61#bkm414- I cannot but think there is more in the connection here.
Luke 16: 19-31.tid=61#bkm415-
We have seen the conclusion of the earthly state of things; the Jew, who had wasted his master’s goods, losing his stewardship; the character of those who receive heavenly things; the close of all the earthly testimony and the necessity of a new one; the kingdom of God preached, which alone was gain (that or nothing); the attempt to keep the old thing being exposed as altogether evil in the sight of God.
This is followed up by the rich man and Lazarus – I was going to say by the parable, but the Lord does not so say, though it has this character, as it seems to me. It puts in a most vivid manner the condition of the soul viewed in the light of the future, not yet of Gehenna, but of torment in Hades. The light, therefore, of the future even before the judgment is let fall upon present things to judge them. “There was a rich man and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, making good cheer in splendour every day.” According to a Jew’s notion a good fortune, as men say, was happiness. The Jews regarded such prosperity as a mark of God’s favour. His name was not to the Lord’s mind worth recording, the beggar’s was. The rich man had all that heart, or, rather, really flesh, could desire; and he gratified it. But it was all selfish enjoyment: God was not in it, nor was there even care for man. All centred in self. This was put to the proof and made evident by “a poor man named Lazarus,tid=61#bkm416- [who] lay at his gateway full of sores, and desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell * from the table of the rich man.”tid=61#bkm416a- For him it was little more than desire. The rich man cared not for him, but for himself; the dogs were more considerate, and rendered him better favour than their master. They came and licked his sores.
Such was man, such the Jew in present life, according to his thoughts of earthly good; but when death comes, when that stands revealed which was beyond the grave, the difference at once appears in all its solemnity. Then we have things in their true light. “And it came to pass that the poor man died.” And how different! There is not a word of his burial: perhaps, indeed, he was not buried; but he “was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom,”tid=61#bkm417- the place of especial blessedness according to a Jew, in the unseen world, with the most honourable of God’s servants waiting on him.
*”With the crumbs which fell”: so corr APX, etc., nearly all cursives (1, 33, 69), Syrr. Amiat., Memph. Goth. Aeth. Edd. follow pm BL, Sah.: “with what fell.”
“The rich man also died, and was buried.” Here there might be splendour of retinue and ample show of grief in the eyes of men. But “in Hadestid=61#bkm418- lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” This is not a picture of the final state of judgment, but of a certain condition after death. This is of great importance. Luke gives us both, confirming what is seen in the Old Testament* and even adding to it. He gives its full prominence to the resurrection elsewhere; but here it was of consequence to know what would be even now for man’s profit here below. In Hades, then, “lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he seeth Abraham afar off.” We are not judges, save so far as Scripture speaks and we are subject to it, of what is entirely outside our experience. How far those who are lost can have the knowledge of the condition of those who are saved, it is not for as to pronounce on. Scripture is plain as to the distance between them. There is no mingling of the two together. But what would be incredibly distant to man living on the earth may be simply far off to those in the separate state, and the difference between them mutually known. Lazarus, then, according to the Word, was seen in Abraham’s bosom by him who was in torment. “And he, crying out, said, Father Abraham, have compassion on me: and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame.”
*I lay no stress on the bare fact or statement that man became “a living soul,” but on the momentous difference of the way in which man alone, according to the Scripture, became such. What purpose had Jehovah Elohim in breathing into the nostrils the breath of life? To say that the fallen child of Adam derives the immortality of his soul. from Christ as distinct from this, or in any way but this, does not to me seem sound doctrine; it rather approaches the crochet of the learned but eccentric H. Dodwell. (B.T.)
Thus we have clear proof that, even before the judgment, the wicked man is in torment.tid=61#bkm419- Figures no doubt are employed, but these founded on that which would be most intelligible to us. It is through the body that we feel the world. From this the Lord takes figures in order to be understood by those whom He addresses in presenting according to His own wisdom the case of the unseen world. There at least the departed rich man has the sense of the need of mercy. It is well to see that this man does not in any way take the place of an infidel. There is no faith in him assuredly, but still he talks of “Father Abraham”; and though he has never looked to God for mercy, he sees that there at any rate the richest mercy was enjoyed in Abraham’s bosom. He asks him, therefore, to send Lazarus that he might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue. What a very small favour this had been once! utterly despicable – a drop of water, and above all, sent by such as Lazarus! it would have been detestable to him on earth. But the truth appears when man has left this life. Do we, then, hear while on the earth what the Lord says?
“I am suffering in this flame.” He who tells us this is Jesus; and we know that He is truth, and that these are true sayings of God. Abraham’s answer, too, is most noteworthy. “Child” (says he, for he does not repudiate the connection after the flesh), “remember that thou* hast fully received thy good things in thy lifetime, likewise Lazarus evil things; but now here he is comforted, and thou art in suffering.” He who was of Satan had good things on earth; he who was born of God received evil things here. The earth as it is gives no measure for the judgments of God: when Jesus comes, and the Kingdom is set up, it will be different. But the Jew and men in general have to learn that it is not so now, and that, before He comes, there is still the solemn truth that men show by their ways here how little they believe such words of God as these. But when they die, they will surely prove the truth of what they refused to hear in this world. “Now he is comforted here, and thou art in suffering.”
*”Thou”: so EX, etc., 1, 33, have the emphatic , which Edd. omit, after BDL, etc.
“Here”: so Edd., following ABD, etc., Syrr. Memph. Sah. Arm. Aeth. The omission in T. R. is supported by a few minuscules (1) only.
It is not the day of Messiah’s public Kingdom. Luke lets us see what is deeper even than it, both in good and ill, the unseen portion of the righteous, as well as that of the unjust.tid=61#bkm420- “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm is fixed, so that those who desire to pass hence to you cannot, nor do they [who desire to cross] from there pass over unto us.” The severance between the good and evil in the intermediate state is incalculably great and fixed. There is no passing from one to the other. The notion of possible mercy in the separate condition is absolutely excluded by Scripture. It is the mere dream of men who wish to cling to evil as long as they can, or at least to enjoy themselves in this world, who therefore despise the warnings of God, being bent on holding fast or acquiring good things here, and utterly careless of the solemn lesson furnished by the rich man and Lazarus. “Between us and you a great chasm is fixed,” says Abraham – between the departed righteous and those who die in their sins the separation is complete – “so that* they who desire to pass hence to you cannot.” Still less can any pass to Abraham that would come from beyond the gulf. In every way such change is impassible.tid=61#bkm421-
*Dean Alford here as elsewhere renders as if it were exactly like in order that.” I believe this to be a mistake in fact; and philologically it is a false principle that two words radically distinct in the same tongue ever mean precisely the same thing. (B.T.)
Thus, as no possibility of change remains for himself, he turns his attention to his family – “And he said, I beseech thee then, father, that thou wouldst send him to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, so that he may earnestly testify unto them, that they also may not come to this place of torment.”tid=61#bkm422- But the answer of Abraham brings out another grand truth from the Lord’s mind – the all-importance of the Word of God, and this, too, even in its lower forms. The New Testament undoubtedly has fuller and perfect light; but the Old is no less inspired. “But* Abraham saith to him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” Still he pleads: “Nay,tid=61#bkm423- father Abraham, but if one from the dead should go unto them they will repent.” The answer of Abraham is decisive: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, not even if one rise from among [the] dead will they be persuaded.”
*”But”: so Edd., after ABDF, etc., Amiat. Memph. It is omitted – by E and 69.
“To him”: so Blass, with AD, Latt. Syrr. Memph. Other Edd. reject, as BL.
There is no proof that can succeed for eternity where the Word of God is rejected. Such is the testimony from the unseen world. I do not deny that, for this world, there may be conviction pressed by crushing judgments of God; but the tale before us is in view of present things before the Kingdom comes, and during this state of things there is no conviction so profound, no proof so deep, as that which is rendered by the Word of God. In fact also our Lord’s own resurrection seals the truth of His words. For what so evident proof of the total failure of any other means to arouse man? Though He rose from the dead, out of the midst of a band of armed men set to watch as we know, men were not persuaded, least of all the Jewish priests and elders, who only hardened themselves more completely. As one portion of the people set themselves against the Lord during His life, the rest were equally chagrined by the truth of His resurrection. Thus all the people manifested their unbelief. It was bad to prove their want of sympathy with the only righteous One here below; it was, if possible, worse to refuse the testimony of grace which had raised Him from the dead and sent the message of salvation in His name. This Israel did.
But there was even more than this, and sooner. A Lazarus did proceed from the dead not long after at the call of Jesus, and many of the rich man’s brethren came to see him when so raised. But, far from repenting, the chiefs at least, yea the chief priests, consulted together that they might put Lazarus also to death, as well as Him whose resurrection power only provoked their deadly hatred, instead of persuading them to hear Moses and the prophets.tid=61#bkm424-
Hence the rich man who had departed, careless of the truth before man during his life, had no doubt received the due reward of his deeds; but those who rejected the testimony of Christ risen from the dead fall into a still greater gulf. Thus all the people are judged. The only light for the benighted soul, the only testimony that brings eternal life to the dead sinner, is the Word of God, received by faith.
NOTES ON THE SIXTEENTH CHAPTER.
398 Luk 16:1-13 . – The Expositor’s treatment of this parable ranges itself with the general view taken by Athanasius and Augustine, Luther and Calvin. Cf. that by Maclaren, vol. ii., pp. 75-101.
399 Luk 16:1 . – It is important to note, for the lesson conveyed by the parable, whom the Lord has in view.
400 Luk 16:2 . – “What is this?” : cf. LXX. of Gen 42:28 . So English Revv., with Schanz, H. Holtzmann, and B. Weiss. For the A.V. “How,” cf. Act 14:15 (“why?”): so Luther, De Wette, Meyer, Weizscker, and Plummer here. See Spurgeon’s Sermon. 192.
401 Luk 16:4 . – “I know,” , “I am resolved”: a dramatic aorist (Burton, 45).
401a “I may be received”: the passive again, to represent the active form with an indefinite subject, as often in Luke. So in verse 9.
402 Luk 16:6 . – “Baths,” a liquid measure. Ten of these went to the cor (Eze 45:14 ). See next note.
403 Luk 16:7 . – “Cors”: a dry measure. It was the Hebrew homer, standard measure of capacity (Eze 45:11 ), made up of ten ephahs: about eight English bushels.
404 Luk 16:8 . – “The lord,” i.e., the steward’s master; not (as Wellhausen) JESUS. As Montefiore remarks, 18: 6 is not an adequate parallel (Syn. Gospels, ii. 993).
“Unjust steward” expresses Christ’s judgment of the man. Not only the words of the second part of the verse, but all of it is a comment of our Lord Himself: the whole of it proceeded from Him.
This verse has formed the text of sermons by Dr. Arnold and A. Hare.
404a “Sons of this age.” The same phrase occurs in Luk 20:34 , with which cf. the verse there following, “that aeon.” It expresses adherents of the system that now goes by the name of “Secularism,” of which Nietzsche constituted himself apostle.
“Sons of light”: cf. Joh 12:36 . “Children of light” occurs in 1Th 5:5 .
404b We have here a very noticeable instance of used morally. See note on 21: 32.
405 Luk 16:9 . – Jlicher, through rejection of its lesson as to wealth, has not caught the meaning of the parable.
There is a sermon from this verse by Augustine.
405a The “mammon of unrighteousness” has reference to material resources used as one’s own, whereas they belong to GOD. That which is unfaithfulness in the one relation becomes fidelity in the other.
405b “Everlasting habitations (tabernacles).” Cf. “everlasting gospel” in the Apocalypse, which does not mean that the Gospel is to be preached endlessly. And so here we have a millennial connection, – Messianic blessing, as in Luk 19:9 .
The indefinite subject of the verb “receive” (see note on verse 4) is only indirectly the “friends”; Mat 25:40 helps to show that the subject is Christ Himself. Cf. Tennyson’s “God accept him, Christ receive him.”
The Catholic doctrine of almsgiving in the name of Christ is true when not applied to the life strictly endless.
405c Luk 16:10 . – See Maclaren’s sermon in Series 1. “Faithful in Little,” etc.; also one of Henry Melvill, “Equity of Future Retribution.”
406 Luk 16:11 . – “Unrighteous mammon.” Here it is , i.e., false in contrast with genuine riches. For the , cf. Joh 1:9 , Joh 17:3 ; and see Mat 13:22 , etc., “deceitfulness of riches.”
407 “Your.” The reading of “B” (“our “) is discredited by Wellhausen. It was a stupid blunder of a scribe who missed the point. Hort’s adoption of it illustrates his partiality for that MS. Blass takes the reading , “mine,” in cursive 151, to be equivalent to , “yours.”
Dean Vaughan explained “your own” as meaning “your soul” (sermon on the passage, p. 72), which is forced. Adeney has a good note ad loc., connecting the parable with the Kingdom of Heaven.
408 Luk 16:13 . – “God,” without the article, showing that and may be equivalent.
“Mammon.” Ibn Ezra considered this was a variation of the word hamon (abundance) in Psa 37:16 . There does not seem to be any proof for its being the name of any deity.
The parable is divisible into seven parts thus: verses 1, 2, 3-4, 5-7, 8-9, 10-12, 13.
A recent helpful book on the main subject is that of S. D. Gordon, entitled “Money: the Golden Channel of Service.”
409 Luk 16:14 . – “Who were covetous,” , i.e., essentially. Cf. Psa 10:3 , and Luk 20:47 below. “Their theory and practice (were) different” (Edersheim, “Sketches,” etc., p. 126).
410 Luk 16:15 . – “Highly thought of” or, “lofty” ().
“Abomination.” Elsewhere, idolatry (Mat 24:15 ; Rev 17:4 f., etc.).
411 Luk 16:16 . – “Is preached,” ; the Gospel, as the A B C of the Kingdom; because “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Cf. 11: 2 with Heb 11:6 ).
“Forces his way,” i.e., through struggle of soul overcomes his self-love and resistance of the Holy Spirit: such must be the meaning of the words in Mat 11:12 .
412 Luk 16:17 . – “The law”: Marcion converted this into “My words.”
413 Luk 16:18 . – See, in illustration of the Expositor’s remarks, Carpenter, p. 236, resorting to the conventional stalking-horse of “different sources.” In verses 14-18 J. Weiss finds three (L, Q, M).
Wellhausen characterizes verse 18 as “the quintessence of Mar 10:1 ff ” The example, he remarks, used by our Lord was well adapted to show that His drastic treatment of the law was its veritable fulfilment. Cf. 1Co 7:10 .
414 Hillel, for example, taught (“Gittin,” ix. 10) that a man might divorce his wife for burning his dinner or oversalting his soup.
415 Luk 16:19 ff. – Colin Campbell: “In this parable is concentrated the whole Ebionite doctrine of the Gospel” (p. 274); but see note 149a. Moreover, our Lord does not describe this story as a “parable.”
Tennyson has turned this passage to account in “In Memoriam,” xxxi.
416 “Lazarus.” This is the only parable – if indeed it be rightly so called (cf. Exposition) – in which a personal name is introduced.
416a Luk 16:21 . – “Napkins were not used for the hands. The guests wiped their hands on bits of bread and then threw the pieces under the table” (Montefiore).
417 Luk 16:22 . – Garvie: “The rich man’s funeral was the last of his good things; the first of Lazarus’ good things was his happy death.”
Adeney: “Lazarus is supposed to be seated next to Abraham in the banquet of the blessed.” Cf. Joh 1:18 . Our Lord here seems to recognize certain truth in the representation of the “separate state” contained in the uncanonical writings called Pseudepigrapha, which were familiar to His hearers. See convenient manual by W. J. Deane.
Dr. J. Lightfoot was of opinion that Paradise is the scene. Cf. “the Paradise” of Luk 23:43 , of which the pseudepigraphical writings had already spoken. The view of the Westminster Confession (xxxii.), as briefly stated in the,”Minor Catechism” (ans. to Q. 37), is that, “the souls of believers at death. . . . do immediately pass into glory.” So Weymouth, in note to his version of the New Testament at Mat 16:18 , denying that believers at death enter Hades. The Expositor has expressed himself similarly in his remarks on 23: 43. Dalman considers that Lazarus here is conceived of as in heaven. See, further, note 585.
418 Luk 16:23 . – “Hades.” Wellhausen would identify this with “Gehenna” (Luk 12:5 ), the place of retribution (Tobit xiii. 2). Should we not rather say Tartarus? (2Pe 2:4 ). Cf. Enoch xx. 2, where “Uriel” is represented as its ruler. Sheol is likewise spoken of in connection with a flame in Song of Son 8:6 . For the Biblical representation of Sheol (Hades) the article by Dalman in Hauck’s Encyclopaedia (the American “Schaff-Herzog”) should be consulted.
419 The “torment” () of verses 23 and 28 has already set in, with doom to follow: cf. 2Pe 2:9 , where is rendered in R.V. by “under punishment.” Similar must be the self-accusing thoughts of guilty persons during confinement preliminary to their appearance before a tribunal.
According to the old Greeks, judgment was to be at death; the belief of the Jews was that it is to be at the end of things.
The “Catholic” theory is that everyone is judged at death, for which Heb 9:27 is assigned, as well as at the Last Day. According to the Catechism, No. 76, the so-called general judgment “will be held in the valley of Jehoshaphat,” which is a curious confusion of Joe 3:12 (living) with Rev 20:11 (dead).
420 Luk 16:25 . – Schmiedel (“Jesus in Modern Criticism,” p. 72) and others object that the rich man is not said to be godless. Not much insight, however, is required for apprehending the sense of his impenitence: this comes out in his own words. The Bedfordshire tinker, by the word about Dives put into the mouth of the “Interpreter” in “Pilgrim’s Progress,” entered into this narrative better than the smart professor at Zrich; as Spurgeon also in his sermons, 243, 518. We are actually invited by Schmiedel to believe that “the unrighteous steward is admitted into the everlasting habitations” (ibid.). The same writer naively adds, “Jesus cannot have said such things.” The canons of “modern criticism” surely need looking after.
Bishop Andrewes and Charles Simeon have preached on the verse.
421 Luk 16:26 . – B. Weiss compares Heb 11:29 . As he says, the real lesson of the “parable,” so-called, begins here.
Observe how the words of this verse exclude all thought of “Purgatory” (Neil).
See sermons on Eternal Punishment by Archer Butler and Dr. George Salmon.
422 Luk 16:27 . – For the Jewish doctrine of Purgatory, underlying the Kaddish, prayer for a departed father, see Abrahams, p. 86 f. In LUKE it is the deceased person who is the petitioner.
423 Luk 16:30 . – “Nay,” or “No, no” ().
424 Luk 16:31 . – Cf. Joh 12:9-11 . In the last of his useful notes on this chapter, Wellhausen remarks that “the motive of repentance here is not the Kingdom of God, but Heaven and Hell. The thought behind the story is that the Jews do not believe in the Risen Christ, from unbelief in the Law and the Prophets.”
As to the critics’ romance that we have here the germ of John’s account of the raising from the dead of his “Lazarus,” which is regarded as a development of this “parable,” see note 205 in Exposition of the Fourth Gospel.
The whole of this passage of Luke is of importance in connection with what Delitzsch has described as the “False Doctrine” of “Soul Sleep”: see his “Biblical Psychology,” p. 490 ff., where he shows the misuse that has been made of Jer 51:39 .
Henry Martyn has a sermon from verse 31 on “Scripture more persuasive than Miraculous Appearances.”
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 16:1-9
1Now He was also saying to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and this manager was reported to him as squandering his possessions. 2And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an accounting of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ 3The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.’ 5And he summoned each one of his master’s debtors, and he began saying to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ And he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. 9And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.”
Luk 16:1 “disciples” The term mathts meant “learners.” The NT does not focus on decisions, but on disciples (cf. Mat 28:19). Christianity is an initial decision of faith and repentance (cf. Mar 1:15; Act 3:16; Act 3:19; Act 20:21) followed by a lifestyle of faith and repentance.
Jesus is warning the disciples about the attitudes and actions (i.e., “Leaven of the Pharisees,” cf. Luk 12:1) of the religious leaders.
NASB, NRSV,
NJB”There was a”
NKJV”There was a certain”
TEV”There was once a”
The Greek term tis or ti often introduces parables in Luke (cf. Luk 7:41; Luk 10:30; Luk 14:16; Luk 15:11; Luk 16:1; Luk 16:19; Luk 19:12; Luk 20:9 [MS A]). Notice that in this series of five parables in Luke 15-16, tis introduces three of them.
NASB, NRSV,
NJB”manager”
NKJV”steward”
TEV”a servant who managed”
The Greek term oikonomos could refer to
1. a person hired to manage an estate (cf. Luk 12:42; Luk 16:1; Luk 16:3; Luk 16:8)
2. an administrator or steward (cf. 1Co 4:1-2; Tit 1:7; 1Pe 4:10)
3. a city treasurer (cf. Rom 16:23)
This may have been an educated slave or a hired freed person.
NASB”reported”
NKJV”an accusation”
NRSV”charges”
TEV”was told”
NJB”was denounced”
This term is from the same root as “devil” [diabolos, dia plus bollos], which literally meant “to throw across” or metaphorically “to accuse.”
“squandering” This same word (diaskorpiz) was used of the Prodigal Son (cf. Luk 15:13).
“possessions” This same word is used in Luk 14:33.
Luk 16:2 “Give an account of your stewardship” This is an aorist active imperative. From the context the steward was possibly guilty of loaning money or property (usury, cf. Exo 22:25; Lev 25:36; Deu 23:19). The Talmud assigned an amount to be legally charged by a loaner in Baba Bathra Luk 10:4. This steward exceeded this amount, possibly even by the amount to which he later reduced the bill.
“you are no longer a steward” Notice that the man was not jailed or whipped, but dismissed! This would have been surprising to the original hearers. It would have said something significant about the merciful character of the landlord.
Luk 16:3-4 The man reviewed his employment options to himself.
Luk 16:4
NASB, TEV”I know what I shall do”
NKJV”I have resolved what to do”
NRSV”I have decided what to do”
NJB”Ah, I know what I will do”
This phrase was an idiom for sudden insight! He, like the prodigal son (cf. Luk 15:17), came to himself and chose to act decisively.
“they” This refers to the master’s debtors (cf. Luk 16:4), for whom he has reduced their contractual obligations to the landlord.
Luk 16:6
NASB, NKJV,
NJB”a hundred measures of oil”
NRSV”a hundred jugs of olive oil”
TEV”a thousand barrels of olive oil”
This was literally “100 bath,” which was a Hebrew liquid measure. The amount is uncertain but one bath equaled approximately 8 to 9 gallons. Apparently there were differing standards of the measure in Palestine in Jesus’ day. Besides, Jesus often used exaggerated numbers (hyperbole) in His parables for emphasis or shock value.
SPECIAL TOPIC: Ancient near Eastern Weights and Volumes (Metrology)
Luk 16:7
NASB, NKJV,
NJB”a hundred measures of wheat”
NRSV”a hundred containers of wheat”
TEV”a thousand bushels of wheat”
This was literally “100 kor,” which was a Hebrew dry measure. The amount is uncertain but one kor equaled approximately ten to twelve bushels.
Luk 16:8
NASB, NRSV”his master”
NKJV, TEV,
NJB”the master”
The Greek text does not have “his,” but “the.” The antecedent of this title has caused great discussion among commentators. It is either (1) Jesus referred to as “Lord” or (2) the landowner of the parable referred to as “lord.” In context it is the landowner (cf. Luk 16:3; Luk 16:5). It depends on where the parable stops.
“He had acted shrewdly” This phrase is the interpretive crux of the parable. The man’s decisive action in the face of impending crisis is extolled, not the manner of his actions.
The same landowner who dismissed the steward in Luk 16:2 praised him in Luk 16:8. This is the twist (main point) of the parable. Presumably the village tenant farmers were praising the landowner for his generosity and he, in turn, commented about the actions of the steward.
The steward was praised because he recognized the coming disaster and his guiltiness. He acted swiftly, gambling on the mercy of (1) the debtors (cf. Luk 16:4-5) or (2) the landlord. This reflects sinners who recognize their guilt and coming judgment and quickly respond to Jesus’ offer of forgiveness and mercy (cf. Luk 16:16).
“The sons of this age. . .the sons of light” This was a Hebrew idiom. Hebrew, being an ancient language, had few adjectives and, therefore, used “son of. . .” as an adjectival idiom.
The Jews saw two ages (cf. Mat 12:32; Mar 10:30; Luk 20:34-35), the current evil age (cf. Gal 1:4; 2Co 4:4; Eph 2:2) and the age to come (cf. Mat 28:20; Heb 1:3; 1Jn 2:15-17). See SPECIAL TOPIC: THIS AGE AND THE AGE TO COME at Luk 9:2. Believers live in the tension-filled time in which these ages have been overlapped (the two comings of Christ). Believers live in the “already and not yet” tension of the Kingdom of God and often they do not handle it well.
NASB”more shrewd in relation to their own kind”
NKJV”more shrewd in their generation”
NRSV”more shrewd in dealing with their own generation”
TEV”much more shrewd in handling their affairs”
NJB”more astute in dealing with their own kind”
PESHITTA”wiser in their generation”
This verse is contrasting how unbelievers act in a crisis situation and how believers should act (cf. Luk 16:1). However, the interpretive issue is how does this relate to Luk 16:9? What exactly is Jesus saying? See comments at Luk 16:9.
Luk 16:8 Jesus wants His followers to live wisely (cf. Mat 10:16), but often they are foolish!
Luk 16:9 This verse is ironic sarcasm.
1. make friends by means of the wealth of unrighteousness
2. when it fails (Vulgate and NKJV have “when you fail”)
3. they (cf. Luk 16:4) will receive you into the eternal dwellings
a. temporal setting people of this world, “their homes” (cf. Luk 16:4)
b. eschatological setting, (1) people of God; (2) angels; or (3) God Himself, “eternal dwelling”
The point is, “Act now”!
NASB”make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness,”
NKJV”make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon”
NRSV”make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth”
TEV”make friends for yourselves with worldly wealth”
NJB”use money, tainted as it is, to win friends”
This is an aorist active imperative, which denotes urgency. “Mammon” was an Aramaic word for “riches,” which was personified as a god in the Babylonian Talmud and in the nation of Syria. The word originally meant “to entrust something to someone.” This is a summary of what the unjust steward did.
This may be sarcastic because of Luk 16:13. The contrast was between evil stewards who prepared for a physical future and kingdom people who did not prepare for the spiritual future.
“they will receive you into the eternal dwellings” The Jews (Pharisees) believed in an afterlife of physical bliss (cf. Job 14:14-15; Job 19:25-27; Psa 11:7; Psa 16:11; Psa 17:15; Psa 140:13; Isa 25:8; Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
also unto His disciples = unto His disciples also. Note the Structure R and R, p. 1479, which gives the scope of the two chapters: both peculiar to this gospel.
unto. Greek. pros. App-104.
a certain rich man. Compare Luk 16:19.
man. Greek. anthropos. App-123.
steward. A house manager, or agent, managing the house and servants, assigning the tasks, &c., of the latter. Compare Eliezer (Gen 15:2; Gen 24:2), Joseph (Gen 39:4).
was accused. Greek. diaballomai. Occurs only here = to be struck through, implying malice, but not necessarily falsehood.
that he had wasted = as wasting.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
1-8.] PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD. Peculiar to Luke. No parable in the Gospels has been the subject of so much controversy as this: while, at the same time, the general stream of interpretation is well defined, and, in the main, satisfactory. It would be quite beyond the limits of a note to give any thing like a recension of the views respecting it: the principal ones which differ from that which I have adopted, will appear in the course of my remarks.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Jesus speaks on two unpleasant subjects, to a lot of people. Not unpleasant to me, but to a lot of people. Talks about hell. That’s not unpleasant to me, not worried about it at all.
Now Jesus is at a supper with the Pharisees; it’s on the Sabbath day. And this particular section that we are now in is still in that supper that Jesus was invited to, beginning the fourteenth chapter, where the Pharisees invited Him to the house, set Him up with fellow with dropsy, and so this whole interchange of thought and all is going on there. At times He is addressing the Pharisees, at times He is addressing His disciples. And at this point, beginning of the sixteenth chapter, He is now addressing His disciples.
And so he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he wasted his goods. And he called them, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? giving account of thy stewardship; for you may no longer be steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord is taking away from me the stewardship: and I cannot dig; and I ashamed to beg. I know what I’ll do, so that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they will receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much do you owe my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, sit down quickly and write fifty. He said to another, And how much do you owe? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take your bill, and write eighty. Now the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world or in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends by the use of the unrighteousness of mammon; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations ( Luk 16:1-9 ).
So Jesus here gives a parable, it’s to His disciples, and it’s a parable of stewardship.
Now, the thing to notice, first of all, about his steward was that everything he possessed belonged to his master. And in his waste he was actually wasting his master’s goods. In the application of this, of course, God has made us stewards and everything that we have really belongs to God. Bible says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” It all belongs to Him. Now God allows me that privilege and opportunity of overseeing that which belongs to Him. But God also holds me responsible as to what I do with it when it is under my care. So, as a disciple of Jesus Christ, everything we have is our Lord’s. But I am responsible to Him.
There is another parable of the steward, and in the other parable the lord went away to a far country and left his goods in the hands of his servants. And one he gave five talents, to another four, to another one. But the same ideas, the lord came and they had to give an accounting of what they had done with what was the lord’s. When you see yourself as a servant of Jesus Christ, then it naturally follows that as His bond slave everything you possess actually belongs to Him. I own nothing of my own; it all is the Lord’s. And this particular steward was accused of wasting his goods. And so he was called to give an account. The Bible tells us that one day every one of us are going to stand before the Lord to give an account of the things that we have done while we were in these bodies, whether good or evil.
II Corinthians, chapter 5, Paul said that we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. We are also told that we are going to be judged according to our works and many of the works will be burned by fire, but those that remained we will be rewarded for. So we will all one day give an account to the Lord of our stewardship, how I managed the Lord’s properties. How I managed the Lord’s resources that He placed at my disposal. I have that responsibility, then, of proper management whenever God places anything in my power. And so he was called to give an account.
Now this particular steward knew that he was in trouble. When the audit was made, the accounting was to made, he knew that he was guilty of wasting his master’s goods. He knew that he was going to lose his job. And so he was concerned because he felt that he was just too frail to dig ditches and he was ashamed to beg. And then he hit upon an idea, very dishonest. In which he began to call in his master’s debtors. And he began summarily to discount their obligations to his master. Now the master, in this case, was probably a landlord. And so often the landlord in renting out his property would take instead of rent some of the produce from the land. It was very common for the people to pay their rent in wheat that had been produced on the land. Or in the oil that have been produced on the land or in some of the products of the land itself. And this was a very common thing. And so the first one, he brought him in, and he said, “How much do you have to pay?” And he says, “Well, I pay a hundred measures of oil,” and he says, “Here, take down, write fifty.” And to the one who owed . . . paid a hundred measures of wheat, he said, “Write eighty.”
Now, what he was seeking to do is to make these people obligated to him. So that when he was fired from his job, he would be able to come back to them and sponge off of them for a while because of the favors that he had granted to them in discounting their bills. As he was the steward managing his owner’s affairs, he was setting himself up using this position of authority. Using this opportunity that he had to set himself up for the future. Which he knew was going to be very grim once he was fired, because he wasn’t a ditch digger and he was ashamed to beg.
Up to this point, we can follow the story rather clearly. But at the next scripture, when the lord commended the unjust steward, that’s where the problem arises. Why would he commend the unjust steward? Why would the lord commend him? Now I can understand if the lord said, “Cast that unjust steward out. Put him in the debtors’ prison until his obligations have all been taken care of.” But the lord commended him. For what? Not for his actions, not for his honesty, but for his wisdom. The wisdom of using his present position to set himself up for that uncertain future that he knew was coming for him. That’s what the lord was commending.
Now as we go to the proverbs, Solomon said, “Go to the ant, thou slugger, to you lazy bum. Learn of his ways and be wise” ( Pro 6:6 ). Again, he said, “There are four things upon the earth that are exceedingly small, but exceedingly wise. And among these four things the ant, is but a feeble folk. Know that was a conies is a feeble folk. The ant lays up its meat in the summer” ( Pro 30:25-26 ). The wisdom of the ant laying up its food supplies during the summer. The ant somehow knows that the weather isn’t always going to be this nice. Somehow there’s recorded information in that little brain of the ant, that the winter is coming it’s gonna to get cold, it’s gonna get rainy, and he won’t be able to get out and forage for food. Therefore, it is necessary while it is still summer, while he can get out, to get out and to gather together all of the food that he’ll need to survive during the winter season. In other words, take advantage of the present situation to prepare yourself for what you know is coming in the future.
Now, this is the wisdom that was manifested by this steward. And that’s why he was commended. Because he took advantage of his present situation to help set himself up for what he knew was coming in the future. That is always very wise, but it isn’t wisdom that we always follow. We know that one day we are going to die. We know that when we die we can take nothing with us. We know that any treasure that we lay up in heaven we have to lay up now. We’ve got to take advantage of our opportunities now to lay up heavenly treasure. We know that we came into the world naked we’re going out of the world naked. We brought nothing into the world and it is certain we are going to take nothing out. So if I’m going to set my self up in the heavenly kingdom, I must do it now and I must take advantage of the opportunities that I have now in order set myself up for the heavenly kingdom. And this is exactly what Jesus is saying. Make use of the unrighteousness of mammon. Make use of this filthy luker. This money that God places at your disposal, make use of it in such a way that you will be reaping eternal benefits from it. Invest it in the things of the kingdom in such a way that when you failed, when you come to the end of the road, you might be received into the everlasting habitations.
God, I am certain, keeps a very interesting set of books. Paul the apostle, when he was writing to the Philippians, thanked them for the gift that they sent to him. He said, “Not that I particularly needed it, but I desire that fruit might abound to your account” ( Php 4:17 ). Thank you for what you sent to me. I wasn’t particularly in need, but I’m grateful for it because the fruit of my labor. Those people that I won to Christ will abound to your account because of the fact that you supported my ministry there. So money is a tremendous outlet of spiritual power if we use it right. Money can be a blessing; it can be curse. It all depends on how a person uses it. It can be the closest thing to omnipotence that man possesses but so often creates impotence. Jesus is warning here against that impotence that money often creates with a person. Make use of the unrighteousness of mammon, so that when you fail they might receive you under the everlasting kingdoms.
There is, to me, one interesting aspect of arriving in heaven. Something that you don’t hear of much, but I expect to meet a lot of people that I have never seen before. Who, though I have never seen them, I am responsible for their being there in the heavenly kingdom. Maybe some native from Africa when he gets to heaven will say, “Now how is it that I heard the gospel?” and God will go through the books and say, “Well, actually, that missionary that was out there was supported by Chuck Smith. So when he arrives that’s the one you one to look for.” And so this fellow come up to me and say, “Hey, I want to thank you, brother. Oh I so appreciate what you did.” “Well, who are you?” “Oh man, I was a Ubangky. But you brought me the gospel.” “What do you mean I brought you the gospel? I’ve never been in Africa.” “Oh, well, I checked the records up here and you where the one that was supporting that missionary over there that brought me to Jesus Christ.”
How can they believe unless they hear, how they can hear except there be a preacher? How they can preach except they’d be sent? As it is written, “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those that carry the gospel of peace.” But that part of being sent, and that’s where we can come in. Make use of the unrighteousness of mammon. So that when you fail they might receive you into the everlasting kingdoms.
And now the Lord goes on in verse Luk 16:10 to make the application of the parable, as He relates it now to your place in the kingdom of God, when you come in to the kingdom of God.
If you have been faithful in least, [in these little things that God has placed at your disposal,] then you will also be faithful in much [in those great things of His kingdom]: but if you have been unjust in the least then you’ll be unjust in the greater things ( Luk 16:10 ).
Man if you’re embezzling dollars now, you’ll be seeking to embezzle more later, you see. If you’re unjust in the little things, if you have a bigger opportunity you’re gonna be that much more unjust.
If therefore you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, then who is going to commit to your trust the true riches? ( Luk 16:11 )
Now this unrighteous mammon is not true riches. Moth and rust can corrupt it. The banks can fail. There’s just many ways that this unrighteous mammon can suddenly disappear. It’s not true riches. The true riches are the things in the kingdom of God. They’re the eternal riches. Yet, if you’ve not been faithful in this unrighteous mammon, then who is gonna commit to your trust the true riches?
If you have not been faithful in that in which is another man’s ( Luk 16:12 ),
You see, I’m a steward; whatever I have belongs to God. It’s not mine. And if I’m not faithful in taking care of what belongs to God,
then who is going to give that which is my own? No servant can serve two masters: he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon ( Luk 16:12-13 ).
You can’t serve them both. Divide in loyalty, it just won’t work. You cannot have God as your god and money as your god at the same time. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money ( Luk 16:14 ),
They were covetous, they loved the money.
They heard all of these things that he was saying to his disciples: and they began to deride him ( Luk 16:14 ).
And so He turned on them. Now He’s talking to the Pharisees,
And he said unto them, You are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knows your hearts ( Luk 16:15 ):
There are so many times when a person comes up and tries to justify before me something that they have done. I say, “Hey, man, it’s cool; doesn’t make any difference. I’m not the one who is going to be your judge. You don’t have to justify your case before me; I’m not your judge. God is the one. He knows your heart. He knows what the motive was.” And the Pharisees were those who love to justify themselves before men, but God knows their hearts.
for that which is highly esteemed among men ( Luk 16:15 ),
Talking of the Pharisees who were highly esteemed by men, He says,
is an abomination in the sight of God ( Luk 16:15 ).
Men may highly esteem you, but as far as God is concerned you’re an abomination.
The law and the prophets were until John: and since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it ( Luk 16:16 ).
So up until the time of John you were under the law you were under the prophets. Now the kingdom of God, John came preaching what? The kingdom of God. Saying, “The kingdom of God is at hand.” And Jesus preached of the kingdom of God, and so, since the coming of John, the kingdom of God has been preached. And every man must press into it. The word press is a intense word in the Greek. It’s agonizo, must agonize into it.
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail ( Luk 16:17 ).
Now, He said, you know, the law was until John. Now the kingdom of God is being preached, but heaven and earth will pass but not one little part of the law is going to fail.
Now evidently there was a running battle between the Pharisees and Jesus over the issue of divorce. For there was a school of thought followed, following Rabbi Hillel, which was the popular school of thought, who interpreted the law of divorce. If a man finds an uncleanness in his wife, let him give her a writing of bill of divorcement. He interpreted that uncleanness to, if she put too much salt in his soup, grounds for divorce, salty soup again. And so they had liberalized the law of divorce. A man can put away his wife for just about any cause in which he just was displeased with her. It was almost as bad as it is today. Look how we liberalized, you know, you don’t need any excuse now, just go to court and say we’re incompatible.
So it was much that way in the day of Christ by the liberal interpreting of the law by the rabbis who followed the school of Hillel. And so Jesus, taking a more literal view of that law, and no doubt it was a running battle with Him, so He says, “Hey, not one little tittle of the law is going to fail, you know, easier for heaven and earth to pass than one of this little marks in the Hebrew to fail.” And then He sticks the knife in, this particular issue that they were asking Him about and, no doubt, arguing with Him about, He said,
Whosoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery: and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery ( Luk 16:18 ).
I mean, He lays it out straight, hard, and just nails them. And then He goes right on and He said,
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar name Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores ( Luk 16:19-21 ).
So we have a very vast contrast of lifestyles. A rich man fairing sumptuously everyday, and there at his gate a poor beggar covered with sores, begging and seeking to eat the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table and dogs coming and licking his sores. Some have said that this is a parable. Jesus didn’t say it was a parable. I do not think it was a parable. For in all of the parables never was a person named. In this story the person is named, Lazarus, the poor man. The rich man isn’t named. Someone called him Divvies, but we don’t know that.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angel into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried ( Luk 16:22 );
Notice it didn’t say the poor man was buried. In those days when the poor people died, they just throw them into the Valley of Tophet, into Gehenna. Into the valley just outside of Mount Zion, Valley of Hinnom, where they put the refuse from this city. And there was constant fires burning there in the Valley of Hinnom, and they would just cremate the bodies, throw them in the fires in the trash heap. They wouldn’t bury the poor people. So the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried and in hell, Hades.
He lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeing Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. He cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his fingers in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received the good things, and likewise Lazarus the evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf that is fixed: so that they which would pass over from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house: for I have five brothers; that he may testify to them, less they also come to this place of torment ( Luk 16:23-28 ).
Now Jesus is teaching here concerning Hades, which is translated for the most part in the New Testament hell. A place that is located in the center of the earth. When they asked Jesus for a sign, He said, “A wicked and an adulteress generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” So Jesus located it in the heart of the earth, because we are told that Jesus descended into hell when He died. But God had given Him the promise, “Thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither will you allow the Holy One to see corruption, and Peter said God fulfilled the promise and He did not leave His soul in hell, neither did He allow the Holy One to see corruption, but this same Jesus hath God raised from the dead. And Peter, in Acts chapter two, bear witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in his message to the throne.
Later, Paul the apostle tells us in Eph 4:1-32 , “He who has ascended into heaven is the same One who first of all descended into the lower parts of the earth, and when He ascended He led the captives from their captivity.” Peter tells us that He went down and preached to those souls that were in prison, who in one time were disobedient. So according to the scriptures and according to the teaching of Jesus here, prior to the death and burial of Jesus Christ and subsequent resurrection, Hades or hell, a place in the center of the earth, was divided into two compartments. In one compartment Abraham had charge of comforting those who came into that particular compartment, as the poor man was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. What a fitting person to be comforting them. The father of those who believe. What was he comforting them with? The promise of God to send the Messiah to deliver them.
In Hebrews chapter 11, as it talks about the faith of Abraham, it said these all died in faith. Abraham and Enoch and all of the rest of these all died in faith not having received the promise but seeing it afar off they embraced it, they held to it, and they claimed that they were just strangers and pilgrims here; they were looking for a city which have foundation who’s maker and builder is God.
So Abraham was saying, “Hey, look, God is true to His word. He’ll keep His promise. You’re not gonna have to stay here forever or not, just don’t worry about it. Just, you know, Lord is gonna do it. The Messiah is gonna come; He’s gonna deliver us out of this place.” And one day into hell there came a burst of glory as Jesus came in and said, “Hey, I did it. It’s finished; the price has been paid. You’ve been redeemed from your sinful state.” And He broke the bars of hell, and when He ascended, He led the captives from their captivity. Part of the prophecy of Jesus Christ in Isa 61:1-11 is He would open the prison doors and set at liberty those who are bound. That’s exactly what He did. And He led the captives from their captivity. That’s why Matthew’s gospel records that after the resurrection of the dead, after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, many of the bodies of the saints where seen walking around the streets of Jerusalem. “Hey, what’s Moses doing walking over there?” You know. “David, oh.” Then Jesus ascended and He led the captives from their captivity as He ascended into heaven. So that the one compartment of hell at that point was emptied.
Now the other compartment in hell will also one day be emptied. It, as is described here by Jesus and who would know better than He, was a place where the rich man was in torment. He asked that Lazarus be sent to dip his finger in water and cool his tongue. He was tormented in the flame. One day at the end of the thousand-year reign of Christ, death and Hades will give up the dead which are in them, and they will stand before the Great White Throne judgment of God, Revelation chapter 20. And whosoever’s names are not found written in the Book of Life will be cast into Gehenna, this is the second death. So hell . . . someone says, “Well, hell isn’t eternal.” That’s true; it will disgorge itself of its inhabitants at the end of the thousand-year reign of Christ. It is Gehenna, which Jesus described as being a place of outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Where there worm dieth not, neither is the fire quenched. And in Revelation concerning Gehenna it says, “And the smoke of their torment ascends from the ages throughout the ages” ( Rev 14:11 ). Now you interpret that however you want, but don’t ask me to modify it. Because God says if any man takes away from the words of this book, that is modifies them, his name will be taken out of the Book of Life. You do with it what you want. I’m not gonna to modify it; I’m just gonna leave it be. Let the Word of God speak and let it be. You say, “Oh, that’s horrible.” I agree. That’s why I have no intention of going there.
Common fallacy is often expressed in the question, “How can a God of love consign a man to eternal punishment, send a man to hell?” The question is a fallacy because, first of all, the God of love that we serve has never sent one man to hell nor will he ever send one man to hell. In fact, the God of love that we serve has done everything short of violating man’s free will to keep him out of hell. The God of love that we serve sent His Son to die on the cross so men wouldn’t have to go to hell. Jesus came to seek and to save those which are lost and God has done everything short of violating man’s free moral agency. So man, by his own choice, goes to hell. Never sent there by God. So rather than saying, “How can a God of love send a man to hell?” just say, “How can a man be so stupid as to chose to go to hell when God has made all of the provisions to keep him from it?” Because that’s what the truth actually is.
Now, couple of more things that we notice about Hades: there’s no transferring from one side to the other. Those that are on this side, if they want cannot come over there, Abraham said to him. Neither can those that are over there come over here. The boundaries are set; there’s no transferring back and forth. There is consciousness. There is remembrance. “Son, remember you in your lifetime lived in luxury. You had the good thing, Lazarus the evil.” Remember, he could remember, he remembered his brothers. “If he can’t come and comfort me a bit, please send him back to my house, my five brothers I don’t want them to come to this place.”
Abraham said, They have the law and the prophets; let them hear them. He said, No: they don’t listen to that but they will listen if someone comes back from the dead. Abraham said, If they won’t listen to that, they won’t listen even if someone comes back from the dead ( Luk 16:29-31 ).
Now to me it is very interesting. Jesus is talking, remember, to the Pharisees, and there was a man named Lazarus who lived in the city of Bethany. And he was very sick. And his sisters sent an urgent message to Jesus who was at the Jordan River and it said, “Come quickly. The one you love is sick.” And Jesus remained at the Jordan River with his disciples for two days, and then He said, “Come, let us journey to visit Lazarus.” And as they were journeying they were talking about Lazarus’ illness, and Jesus said, “Well, he’s sleeping.” And the disciples said, “Oh, that’s a good sign, if he can sleep he’s probably getting better.” And Jesus said, “No, you don’t understand me, he’s dead.” And so they said, “Well, let’s go, you know, so we can die with him.”
Well, as He was coming into town, Martha heard that Jesus was finally arriving at the village. She ran out and said, “Lord, if You’d only been here my brother wouldn’t have died. Where were you? What took you so long? Why weren’t you around when we needed you?” Jesus said, “Martha, your brother is going to live again.” “Oh yes, Lord, I know the last day the great resurrection.” Jesus said, “No, Martha, I’m the resurrection and the life. And he that believeth on Me though he were dead yet shall he live and he live and believeth in Me, he will never die. Don’t you believe this Martha?” Heavy, isn’t it? Pretty radical. But you see what He did, as He always does, divides men into two categories, those who believe and those who don’t. I mean, He makes a radical claim and then He divides you. He says, “Psst . . . ” sets the knife right down and you’re in one side or the other; you either believe or don’t. You either have hope of eternal life or you have no hope of life. She said, “Lord, I believe that You are the promised Messiah of God.” And so then they came to the house where they were all weeping, and Mary said, “Lord, if You’d only been here my brother would have not had died.” Jesus said, “Where did you bury him?” “Come, we’ll show you the place,” and they got to the place the tomb and Jesus said, “Roll the stone back.” And they said, “Oh Lord, can’t do that; he’s smells by now. He’s been in there for four days, the body is decaying.” He said, “Roll the stone back.” And then He cried, “Lazarus, come forth.” He didn’t just say, “Come forth,” or the whole graveyard would have emptied. You’ve got to be careful when you got that kind of power. And Lazarus came hopping out. All bound in his grave clothes. And Jesus said, “Loose him and let him go.” And they went back home and they prepared a dinner and Jesus was sitting at dinner. And the Pharisees said, “We better kill him.” Maybe they were some of this rich man’s brothers.
Abraham was right. They will not believe even if they see one who has come back from the dead. Lazarus came back from the dead. It did not make believers out of the Pharisees. Oh, there were many who, when they saw him, believed. But if you are predisposed to unbelief, all of the proof in the world isn’t going to change you. You see, believing in Jesus is a matter of choice. And if you’ve chosen not to believe, I don’t care how much proof or evidence is offered to you, you’ve chosen not to believe and you won’t believe. Believing is matter of choice, I choose to believe in Jesus Christ. I choose to believe that He is the resurrection and the life, and by believing in Him I expect never to die. “Oh, oh,” you say, “I knew you were weird.” Never to die from a scriptural definition. I’m gonna to move out of this old tent into a beautiful new house that the Lord has been preparing for me. He said, “In My Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. And I’m going to prepare one for you. And if I go and prepare one for you, I’m going to come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” ( Joh 14:2-3 ). “For we know when this earthly tent, our body, is dissolved, but we have a building of God not made with hands that is eternal in the heavens. So then we who are in these bodies do often groan, earnestly desiring to move out, not to be an unembodied spirit, but to be clothed upon with a body which is from heaven. For we know that as long as we are at home and living in these bodies we are absent from the Lord, but I would rather be absent from this body and to be present with the Lord” ( 2Co 5:1-8 ). So some day if you read in the paper, “Chuck Smith died,” don’t believe it. Poor reporting. If they’re gonna to be accurate they’re gonna to have to write, “Chuck Smith moved out of an old worn-out holy tent into a beautiful new mansion. A building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
So here Jesus is telling them a little bit about what’s going on. And this is interesting to me as Abraham responds, if they will not believe, if they chose not to believe the law and the prophets, they have predisposition themselves not to believe, they won’t believe even if they see a miracle of someone coming back from the dead. They’ll say, “Oh well, he must have swoon, he really wasn’t dead, and isn’t it fortunate that he revived.”
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Luk 16:1. , disciples) These disciples here are not inclusive of those Twelve who had left their all, and were rather to be accounted among those who were to be made friends of [with the mammon of unrighteousness, Luk 16:9]: but are those who had been publicans [ch. Luk 15:1]. And accordingly the Lord now speaks more weightily and sternly with the disciples, who had been publicans, than He had spoken for them (in their behalf) to others. The (prodigal) son, who has been recovered with joy, is not to have daily music [in celebration of his recovery, ch. Luk 15:25, ], but is here taught to return to duty.-) The verb has a middle force.[164] Information was given against the steward, and that on true grounds, whatever may have been the spirit that influenced the informer.-, [wasting] squandering) The Present, but including also the past. The same verb occurs, ch. Luk 15:13 [said of the prodigal, who squandered [wasted] his substance with riotous living]. The parable does not refer to all stewards: inasmuch as they rather, throughout the whole time of their stewardship, are bound to show fidelity, 1Co 4:2; but to those stewards who, in a long period of their stewardship, have mismanaged their business (abused their trust). The whole system of the worlds conduct, in the case of their external goods, is a squandering or waste, since their goods are not laid out (bestowed and deposited) in their proper places; although very many of the unjust [worldly stewards of Gods goods] seem to gather together [rather than to squander or scatter]. [For, indeed, whoever evinces alacrity in scattering abroad (in charity), he gathers together treasure in heaven.[165]-V. g.]
[164] Sometimes said of a true, sometimes of a false accusation. Unless Beng. means the sense of the Middle Voice, he got himself accused; i.e. by his bad conduct he brought himself into being accused before his master.-E. and T.
[165] Luk 12:33; Pro 11:24; Psa 112:9.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Luk 16:1-13
21. THE UNRIGHTEOUS STEWARD
Luk 16:1-13
1 And he said also unto the disciples,-This parable has been called the “Parable of the Unjust Steward”; it is here called the “Parable of the Unrighteous Steward.” This parable is peculiar to Luke. Jesus had put to silence the murmuring Pharisees by the three foregoing parables; he now continues his discourse to his disciples, in the presence of the publicans and sinners, Pharisees and scribes. He introduces the parable with “a certain rich man” who had an unfaithful steward. “Steward,” in the original, means one who distributes or dispenses affairs of a house; he is one who is a house manager or overseer of an estate (Luk 12:42); the steward kept the household stores under lock and seal, giving out what was required; he was usually given a signet ring from his master to show his authority; he could execute bonds and notes in the name of his master by using the signet ring.
and the same was accused unto him-This servant was “accused,” which, in the original, meant “to throw across,” or “to carry across”; hence to carry reports from one to another; to carry false reports, and to culminate or slander. The word implies “malice,” but not necessarily falsehood. The accusation against him was that he “was wasting his goods.” He was wasting that which belonged to his master. “Wasting” is from the same root word as “wasted” in Luk 15:13, as used of the prodigal son, in wasting his substance in riotous living. The accusation against him may have come from jealous tenants and other servants in the house. The steward is not represented as denying the accusation or attempting to prove it to be false.
2 And he called him, and said unto him,-The day of reckoning had come; the steward was to be discharged. He was asked: “What is this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship.” These words in the original imply anger. “Render the account of thy stewardship” literally means “give back” that which you have fraudulently taken; there is also implied “and now give back my signet; for thou shalt no longer be my steward.” The proprietor must dismiss him from his service because he has proved himself to be unfaithful. Some think that there is implied that if the steward should successfully prove his innocence he might be retained in his position.
3, 4 And the steward said within himself,-It seems that the steward was conscious of his guilt and began to reflect as to “what” he should do; as a shrewd and prudent man he will strive either to hold his place or he will seek to provide for himself a comfortable living. It seems that he chose the latter alternative. He began to make preparation for a comfortable living. He was not yet dismissed and he had opportunity to further his unrighteous practices. In reasoning with himself he said: “I have not strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed.” He either had to go to work or beg; he felt that he did not have strength to work; that is, he was not able to engage in manual labor which in agricultural pursuits consisted largely in upturning the earth by digging. He may have been strong enough to do that kind of work, but he was not inclined to do so, and thus persuaded himself that he was not able “to dig.” The other alternative was that of begging, but he was “ashamed” or had a sense of pride, and did not wish to put himself in the class of mendicants. It was better to beg than to practice dishonesty, but he had nursed his pride and did not wish to beg. He was not “ashamed” to cheat or lie, but he was “ashamed” to beg.
I am resolved what to do,-He had fully made up his mind, and continues to soliloquize and expresses himself in a positive way as to what he will do, he had just thought of a plan that he could execute, and he is determined to do it. His plan was that when he was dismissed from his stewardship he would be received into the houses of those whom he had befriended. He planned to make friends so that they would receive him into their hospitality, out of gratitude for what he had done for them; he still hoped to enjoy life in the homes of those whom he had laid under obligation to him by an unrighteous use of his master’s affairs. His plans as they are now revealed confirm the report that he was dealing falsely with his master’s goods.
5-7 And calling to him each one of his lord’s debtors,-He began speedily to execute his plan; he did not know just when he would be dismissed, so he must act in haste while he had the authority as a steward. He called each one of his “lord’s debtors”; that is, he called them one by one. It is not known whether one debtor knew what he had done for the other debtor; his plans are to deal with each one separately. The first debtor was asked how much he owed his lord. He answered: “A hundred measures of oil.” Literally, a “measure” means a “bath.” The “bath” was a Hebrew measure, but the amount is uncertain, as there were three kinds of measurements in use in Palestine. The original Mosaic measure corresponded with the Roman; that of Jerusalem was a fifth larger, and the common Galilean measurement was about a fifth larger than the Jerusalem. The first standard made the bath consist of about fifty-six pints, or about seven gallons. Some make the bath to contain between eight and nine gallons. This is supposed to be olive oil, as it was used for various purposes-food, cosmetics, embalming, light, surgery, etc. It was a great article of trade. (Rev 18:13.) The steward said to the debtor to sit down and write quickly “fifty.” He reduced the debt one-half. He called another and asked the same question. This one said that his debt was “a hundred measures of wheat.” He was told to “write fourscore” instead of the one hundred. The original for “measure” here is different from that in verse 6; a measure here means a “cor” or “homer,” and was the largest Hebrew dry measure, equal to ten “baths” or about eleven bushels. (Eze 45:14.)
8 And his lord commended the unrighteous steward-The lord admired the shrewdness of his steward, though he himself was defrauded; he commended, or praised, not the injustice or dishonesty of the steward, but his prudence and practical shrewdness. (Psa 49:18.) He had shown worldly foresight and had acted upon it. The unrighteous steward had been cunning in dishonesty; he had been prudent, though selfishly, and wrongly so. It should be kept clear that Jesus does not commend the dishonesty and trickery of this unrighteous steward; he does not commend the steward for his injustice or wrongdoing. “For the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.” The lord of the steward does not excuse him from guilt, and he was apparently dismissed from his service; his shrewdness consisted in finding a place to go after he was dismissed; he was still an unrighteous steward even though his shrewdness was commended. “The sons of this world” are those who are studious and plan for the greatest possessions and pleasures of this world; they are opposed to “the sons of the light,” who are those who are walking in the light. Men of the world act with better judgment oftentimes with respect to worldly affairs than do the disciples of Jesus with respect to spiritual affairs. This parable is spoken “unto the disciples.” (Verse 1.)
9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends-Jesus makes his own application of the parable. We should be satisfied with his explanation sometimes the thought is lost amidst the drapery of the parable. The master of the unrighteous steward commended him for his prudent foresight, and Jesus, speaking to his disciples, said to them that they should use a like forethought in regard to their spiritual and eternal interests. Surely Christians should show better judgment in their relations with one another than “crooks” do in their dealings with one another; the devotees of material goods often use more sense in handling them than do Christians as custodians of eternal things.
by means of the mammon of unrighteousness;-“Mammon” is a word applied to wealth or riches; its probable derivation means trust; so the description of wealth, not merely as a possession, but also as something which is so generally made a ground of confidence. “Riches” is here personified as the “mammon of unrighteousness,” which is about equivalent to unrighteous mammon. There is a contrast between the “mammon of unrighteousness” and “true riches.” “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1Ti 6:10) because it leads into every form of sin. Achan was tempted to his destruction by the “wedge of gold” and the goodly Babylonish garment. (Jos 7:21.) Judas betrayed the Savior for thirty pieces of silver. (Mat 26:15.) Ananias and Sapphira “lied to the Holy Spirit” and perished for the love of money. (Act 5:3.) Demas, the companion of apostles, forsook them, “having loved this present world.” (2Ti 4:10.) There is a right use of money and a wrong use; Jesus teaches the right use of money. He here teaches that his disciples should make such a use of their possessions as to secure heavenly treasures and gain friends, who, having gone before, would welcome them in the world to come to everlasting habitations.
10 He that is faithful in a very little-Jesus further instructs his disciples in lessons of faithfulness as stewards. The right use of money, which is seeking the welfare of others with it, applies not only to the rich, but also to the poor; the one who is faithful in a very little may be faithful in much; but if one is not faithful with little things, one will not be with larger things. The one who is unfaithful in the use of money here will not be faithful in dealing with spiritual and eternal things. One’s conduct in little things is a sure test of what he is likely to do with greater things; we do not expect one to be faithful in important things, if he has not been faithful in little things.
11 If therefore ye have not been faithful-If the disciples of Jesus have not been faithful “in the unrighteous mammon” then who will want to trust them with “true riches”? Here “unrighteous mammon” is put in contrast with “true riches.” Riches are deceitful, fleeting, and uncertain; while “true riches” are real, substantial, spiritual, and eternal. If the disciples of Jesus are not faithful in a righteous use of money, the Lord could not trust them with the eternal verities of his gospel. The one who is dishonest and unfaithful in the discharge of duties with respect to earthly possessions must not expect to have heavenly treasures entrusted to him. One must prove oneself to be faithful with the proper use of material things before one can be trusted with spiritual things. Anyone who will not handle material things honestly will not handle the truth honestly.
12, 13 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s,-This argument is further expanded and enforced by Jesus. Here reference is again had to the mammon of unrighteousness; our faithfulness in that which God will make our own may be judged by our care of the things of others. Jesus repeats a self-evident truth when he says, “No servant can serve two masters.” These masters have different wills and purposes; they contradict each other in their demands; hence, it is impossible for one servant to serve two such masters. It is like attempting to travel in two directions at the same time, or attempting to love two entirely contradictory characters. A servant is supposed to obey his master; this obedience is called love. If one attempts to serve two masters, he will hate one and love the other; or he will honor one and dishonor the other.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The Master had a lesson to teach His disciples on the subject of earthly wealth, and He made use of this unjust steward for purposes of illustration only. The element in the action of the steward which our Lord commended was of foresight and singleness of aim. It was in this connection that He uttered the memorable words, “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” The whole force, of course, is on the word “serve.” When God is served, Mammon is used beneficently. When Mammon is served, the claims of God are ignored.
In this same connection our Lord gave the account of the life and death of two men, throwing clear light on the life beyond. That is seen as connected with, and growing out of, the life here. It is of great importance that it follows closely the teaching concerning Mammon. One of the most radiant of its lessons is that if a man have wealth it is a positive sin for him to use it for his own luxury and ease and remain unmindful of the want and needs that lie at his very gate. Money possessing a man is the direst curse, for it hardens his heart and paralyzes his noblest powers. The money of a God-possessed man is a blessing, for it becomes the means of expressing his sympathy with his fellows.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
16:1-31. On the Use of Wealth. This is taught in two parables, the Unrighteous Steward (1-8) and the Rich Man and Lazarus (19-31). The intermediate portion is partly supplementary to the first parable (9-13), partly introductory to the second (14-18). The first is addressed to the disciples (ver. 1), but is felt by the Pharisees who heard it to apply to them (ver. 14). The second appears to be addressed directly to the Pharisees. Both of them teach that riches involve, not sin, but responsibility and peril. They are a trust rather than a possession; and the use made of wealth in this world has great influence upon ones condition in the great Hereafter. The steward seems to illustrate the case of one who by a wise use of present opportunities secures a good condition in the future; while the rich man exhibits that of one who by misuse of his advantages here ruins his happiness hereafter.
Attempts have been made to connect these two parables with the three which precede, and also with the three which follow. A connexion in fact with what precedes cannot be established. There is no clear intimation of a break, but there is intimation of a fresh start, which may or may not be upon the same occasion. But in thought a connexion may be admitted. These two parables, like the previous three, are directed against special faults of the Pharisees. The former three combated their hard exclusiveness, self-righteousness, and contempt for others. These two combat their self-indulgence. It is still harder to establish a connexion in fact between these two and the three which follow; but Edersheim thinks that the thought which binds all five together is righteousness. The five run thus: the Unrighteous Steward, the Unrighteous Owner (Dives), and the Unrighteous Judge; the Self-righteous Pharisee and the Self-righteous Servant (L. & T. 2. p. 264). Milligan gives a somewhat similar grouping (Expositor, August, 1892, p. 114).
1-8. The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward. The difficulty of this parable is well known, and the variety of interpretations is very great. A catalogue of even the chief suggestions would serve no useful purpose: it is sufficient to state that the steward has been supposed to mean the Jewish hierarchy, the tax-collectors, Pilate, Judas, Satan, penitents, S. Paul, Christ. Here again, therefore, we have absolutely contradictory interpretations (see on 14:33). But the difficulty and consequent diversity of interpretation are for the most part the result of mistaken attempts to make the details of the parable mean something definite. Our Lord Himself gives the key to the meaning (ver. 9), and we need, not go beyond the point to which His words plainly carry us. The steward, however wanting in fidelity and care, showed great prudence in the use which he made of present opportunities as a means of providing for the future. The believer ought to exhibit similar prudence in using material advantages in this life as a means of providing for the life to come. If Christians were as sagacious and persevering in using wealth to promote their welfare in the next world, as worldly men are in using it to promote their interests here, the Kingdom of God would be more flourishing than it is. We may put aside all the details of the parable as mere setting. Every parable contains details which are not intended to convey any lesson, although necessary to complete the picture, or to impress it upon the memory. In this parable the proportion of such details is larger than in others. It should, however, be noticed that the steward provides for his future by means of goods which are not his own, but are merely entrusted to his care. The wealth out of which the Christian lays up treasure in heaven is in like manner not his own, but is held in trust. The method of the parable is very similar to that in the parable of the Unrighteous Judge (18:2). In both we have an argument fortiori. In that case the argument is, If an unrighteous judge will yield to the importunity of a stranger, how much more will a righteous and loving Father listen to the earnest prayers of His own children? Here the argument is, If an unrighteous steward was commended by his earthly master for his prudence in providing for his future by a fraudulent use of what had been committed to him, how much more will a righteous servant be commended by his heavenly Master for providing for eternity by a good use of what has been committed to him? But see the explanation given by Latham in Pastor Pastorum, pp. 386-398. The literature on the subject is voluminous and unrepaying. For all that is earlier than 1800 see Schreiber, Historico-critica explanationum parabol de improbo con. descriptio, Lips, 1803. For 1800-1879 see Meyer-Weiss, p. 515, or Meyer, Eng. tr. p. 209.
1. . For of a new start in the narrative see 18:1. The meaning of the is that at this time He also said what follows, and it was addressed to the disciples. The latter would include many more than the Twelve. Note both (15:28, 32) and .
. The rich owner is almost as variously interpreted as the steward. The commonest explanation is God; but the Romans, Mammon, and Satan have also been suggested. Grave objections may be urged against all of these interpretations. It is more likely that the owner has no special meaning. We are probably to understand that he lived in the town while the steward managed the estate. Note the .
. Here he is a superior person to the one mentioned 11:42. There the steward is a slave or freedman, left in charge of other slaves, corresponding on the whole to the Roman dispensator or villicus. Here be is a freeman, having the entire management of the estate, a procurator. Comp. Si mandandum aliquid procuratori de agricultur aut imperandum villico est (Cic. De Orat. i. 58, 249). But the Procurator was often a slave, and perhaps in some cases was not superior to the dispensator or the villicus. See D. of Ant.3 pp. 496, 957. Vulg. has villicus here and dispensator 12:42 (where see note) and arcarius Rom 16:23.
. This use of of hostile information presumably true is not common in class. Grk. It probably implies accusing behind a persons back (Dan 3:8, Dan 6:24 (Theod.); 2 Mal 3:11; Mal_4 Mal 4:1; Hdt. 8:110.; Thuc. iii. 4. 4); but is used Num 22:22 of mere hostility. Eusebius (perhaps quoting Papias) says of the woman, who may be identical with the woman taken in adultery, (H. E. iii 39, 16). Vulg. here has diffamatus est; Beza, delatus est; Luther, der ward berchtiget. The by no means implies that the charge was false (Jam 2:9), but is in accordance with the best authors, who use it after as well as after . The steward does not deny the charge.
. Not quasi dissipasset (Vulg.), that he had wasted (AV.); but as wasting or as a waster of For see on 8:3. The epithet (ver. 8) does not refer to this culpable neglect and extravagance, but to the fraudulent arrangement with the creditors. Nevertheless there is no hint that his fraud was a new departure.
2. . For of summoning by a message comp. 19:15; Joh 9:18, Joh 9:24, Joh 9:11:28.
; No emphasis on , as if it meant of thee among all people. The question is taken in three ways. What? do I hear this of thee? 2. What is this that I hear of thee? (RV.) 3. Why do I hear this of thee? Act 14:15, where ; means, Why do ye these things? is in favour of the last. See Blass on Act 14:15.
. Render the (necessary) account. This is commonly understood of the final account, to prepare for the surrender of the stewardship. But it might mean the account to
see whether the charge was true; and the use elsewhere in N.T. rather points to this (Mat 12:36; Act 19:40; Rom 14:12; Heb 13:17; 1Pe 4:5). In that case the thought to be supplied is, a steward who cannot disprove charges of this kind is an impossibility. The steward, knowing that he cannot disprove the charges, regards this demand for a reckoning as equivalent to dismissal.
With the originally Ionic form ( B D P) contrast and (17:8).
3. . Not then and there, but when he thought the matter over afterwards. Comp: 7:39, 18:4; Mat 9:3 Note the pres. , is taking away, i.e. what he is doing amounts to that. He does not say, has taken away.
. I have not strength to dig. Comp. (Aristoph. Aves, 1432). Only here and 18:35 does occur in N.T. Comp. Psa 108:10; Ecclus. 40:28. It means to ask again and again, ask importunately, and so to beg for alms. Soph. O.C. 1364. Comp. , Joh 9:8.
4. . The asyndeton and the aor. express the suddenness of the idea: subito consilium cepit (Beng.). This aor. is sometimes called aoristus tragicus. Burton., 45. The subject of is the debtors mentioned afterwards. See Blass on Act 13:22.
5. . Comp. 7:41; Pro 29:13; Job 31:37. They paid in kind, and the steward had sometimes received more from them than he had put down in the accounts. This time he makes the amount paid agree with the amount entered by reducing the amount paid. He thus curries favour with the debtors, and to some extent lessens the number of his manifest defalcations. The covenants were kept by the steward; and he now hands to each debtor his written agreement,- ,-in order that the debtor may reduce the amount which he covenanted to pay. The debtor gained on this last payment. The steward gained on the previous payments.
6. . Here only in N.T. Comp. Aq. Sym. Theod. Is. v. 10 (where LXX has ), and Jos. Ant. Viii. 2, 9. The bath was for liquids what the ephah was for solids. It equalled about 83/4 gallons, being the of Joh 2:6; and 100 bath of oil would probably be worth about 10. See Edersh. Hist. of J. N. p. 283, ed. 1896. For see on 14:28.
7. . Here only in N. T. Comp. Lev 27:16; Num 11:32; Eze 45:13: Jos. Ant. XV. 9, 2. The cor or homer = 10 ephahs = 30 seahs or (13:21; Mat 13:33). It equalled about 10 bushels, and 100 cor of wheat would be worth 100 to 120. But there is very great uncertainty about the Hebrew measures, for data are vague and not always consistent. We are to understand that there were other debtors with whom the steward dealt in a similar manner; but these suffice as examples. The steward suits his terms to the individual in each case, and thus his arbitrary and unscrupulous dealing with his masters property is exhibited. See Schanz, ad loc. Syr-Sin. omits Take thy bill.
Both and are instances of Hebrew words which have, assumed regular Greek terminations. See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 44.
8. . These words are to be taken together, as shows. In both cases we have a characterizing genitive. Comp. (18:6). Win. 30:9. b, p. 254, 34:3. b, p. 297; Green, p. 90.
It is grammatically possible to take after (4 Mal 1:10, Mal 4:4); but in that case would be very in congruous.
. Prudently, intelligently, with a shrewd adjustment of means to ends. It is the mans prompt savoir faire that is praised. Wic. has prudently from prudenter (Vulg.); but all other English Versions have wisely. Some have erroneously concluded from this that the scrutiny of the accounts ended favourably for the steward; others that, although he did not escape detection, yet he was allowed to remain steward for his shrewdness. The original charge was not disproved, and the steward was dismissed. His master saw that in spite of this he had found friends and a home, and for this commended him. Comp. Syr. Eho, quso, laudas qui heros fallunt? Chr. In locoego vero laudo. Recte sane. Ter. Heaut. iii. 2, 26. The adv. occurs here, only in N.T., but is common (12:42; Mat 7:24, Mat 10:16, Mat 24:45, etc.).
. He was justified in praising his shrewdness, because; or, I cite this example of shrewdness, because. This is the moral of the whole parable. Men of the world in their dealings with men like themselves are more prudent than the children of light are in their intercourse with one another. Worldly people are very farsighted and ready in their transactions with one another for temporal objects. The spiritually minded ought to be equally ready in making one another promote heavenly objects. The sons of this world occurs only here and 20:34; but comp. Act 4:36; Mar 2:19.
. For this use of comp. Heb 4:12; Jdg 11:25; 1Ki 19:4; Ecclus. 30:17; also , 3:13.
. We have , Joh 12:36; 1Th 5:5; and , Eph 5:8; comp. 2Th 2:3. Is the expression found earlier than N.T.? Comp. 1:78, 2:32; and see Lft. Epp. p. 74. Comp. also Enoch cviii. 11; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 163.
. Not, in their generation, but, towards their own generation; erga idem sentientes; im Verkehr mit thres Gleichen. The clause belongs to both of . and ., not to the former only. The steward knew the men with whom he had to deal: they would see that it was to their own interest to serve him. The sons of light ought to be equally on the alert to make use of opportunities.
Vulg. has in generatione sua; but Cod. Palat. reads in sculum istut, which respects the , while it misrepresents .
9-14. Comments respecting the Parable and its Application, which are still addressed to the disciples. To prevent possible misunderstanding owing to the commendation of a dishonest servant, Christ here insists upon the necessity of fidelity in dealing with worldly possessions. He shows clearly that it is not the dishonesty of the steward which is commended as an example, but his prudence in using present opportunities as a means of providing for the future.
9. . And I say to you, or I also say to you; balancing what the master said to the steward. The disciples ought to earn similar commendation in spiritual matters.
Here, as in 2:48 and Act 10:26, the correct reading seems to be ; but almost everywhere else is right (11:9, 19:23, 20:3, 22:29, etc.). So also and rather than and . Greg. Proleg. p. 96.
. The pronoun stands first with emphasis. In your own interest make friends. The friends are those in need, who are succoured by the benevolent use of wealth, and show their gratitude by blessing their benefactors and praying for them. The poor are the representatives of Christ (Mat 25:40), and it is well worth while having them as friends. Comp. 1Ti 6:10. Mammon is not personified here as it is in ver. 13, Comp. (Ecclus. 5:8).
The word appears to mean that which is trusted in. Lucrum Punice mammon dicitur (Aug. De Serm. Dom. in Monte, ii. 14. 47). But although found in Punic it is of Syrian origin and was in use in the Targums. The expression occurs in the Book of Enoch: Our souls are satisfied with the mammon of unrighteousness, but this does not prevent us from descending into the flame of the pain of Sheol (lxiii. 10). There are rabbinical sayings which are akin to what Jesus here says: e.g. that alms are the salt of riches, and that the rich help the poor in this world, but the poor help the rich in the world to come. See Schttg. 1. p. 299; Herzog, Pro_2 art. Mammon. The spelling , with double , is not correct.
. Here, as in 14:10, the , if it expresses purpose and not result, refers to Christs purpose in giving this advice rather than to that of the disciples in following it. When it shall fail means when the wealth shall have come to an end. The subject of is . The reading or would mean when ye die (Gen 15:8, 49:33; Psa 104:29; Jer_42.(49.) 17, 22; Tobit 14:11; Wisd. 5:13). In either case the verb is intrans. No acc. is to be understood. Comp. Ps. Sol. 3:16, 17:5.
The evidence although somewhat confused, is quite decisive for the sing, or ( A B * D L R etc., Syr. Boh. Arm. Aeth.) as against the plur. or (F R U G ; etc. etc., Vulg. Goth.) Wordsw. is almost alone in defending . Sadler represents the choice on between Ye fail and they fail.
. This may be impersonal, like in 12:20. But possibly the are to be understood as procuring the reception qui eos introducant in tabernacula terna, qui necessitatibus suis terrena bona communicaverint (Aug. Qust. Evang. ii. 34); or again, as giving them a welcome when they enter. Comp. the use of 9:5, 48; Joh 4:45.
. The emphasis is on , into the eternal tabernacles, in contrast to the uncertain and transitory houses of the debtors (ver. 4). The steward secured a home for a time; but a wise use of opportunities may secure a home for eternity. In 5 Ezr 2:11 God is represented as promising to Israel, dabo eis tabernacula terna, qu prparaveram illis (Fritzsche, p. 643). Some such idea Peter seems to have had in his mind at the Transfiguration (9:33). The combination of eternal with tabernacles is remarkable, because is commonly used of dwellings which are very temporary.
10. We have here a general principle which is capable of application in a variety of spheres. The reference to the parable is less direct than in ver. 9.
. In very little rather than in that which is least. Comp. 19:17. We find in Irenus, Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit vobis (2:34, 3), which is probably a loose quotation of Lk. made from memory. In the so-called 2 Ep. Clem Rom we have a similarly fused citation: , ; (8.), which some suppose to have come from an apocryphal gospel, and others to be the source used by Irenus. Comp. Hippol. Hr. 10:29, . All three are probably reminiscences of Lk. Comp. Mat 25:21, Mat 25:23.
11. . Obviously this means the same as the , i.e. the wealth which is commonly a snare and tends to promote unrighteousness. Some, however, make balance , and force to mean deceitful. and so false wealth, which is impossible.
. That which is a real possession, genuine wealth. We are not to supply , which is masc. Heavenly riches would not be called mammon. It is clear that this is parallel to in ver. 10, as to , and that this genuine wealth means much the same as the ten cities (19:17). The connexion between and , trusty and is entrust, is perhaps not accidental. Neither Latin nor English Versions preserve it. Cran. has the impossible rendering, who wyll beleve you in that whych is true.
12. . Earthly wealth is not only trivial and unreal; it does not belong to us. It is ours only as a loan and a trust, which may be withdrawn at any moment, Heavenly possessions are immense, real, and eternally secure. With , ye did not prove to be, comp. (10:36).
; Who will give you (in the world to come) that which is entirely your own, your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world(Mat 15:34). The case sketched in these three verses (10-12) is that of a wealthy owner who educates his son for managing the estate to which he is heir, and proves his fitness for it by allowing him to have control of something that is of little value except as an instrument for forming and discerning character. If the son proves faithless in this insignificant charge, he is disinherited. Il y a l une admirable conception du but la vie terrestre et mme de lexistence de la matie (Godet).
It seems to be impossible to make satisfactory sense of the notable reading , attested by B L and Origen, and to some extent by Tertullian, who has meum (Adv. Marc. iv 33): e i l also have meum, and 157 has . Almost all other witnesses ( A D P R etc., Versions, Cypr. Cyr-Alex. etc.) have , which, however, would be an inevitable correction, if were genuine.
13. This verse forms a natural conclusion to the comments on the parable; and, if it was uttered only once, we may believe that this is its original position, rather than in the Sermon on the Mount where it is placed by Mt. (6:24). So Schanz, Weiss.
. No domestic can be a slave to two masters: comp. Jam 4:4. To be a servant to two masters is possible, and is often done. But to be at the absolute disposal of two masters is not possible. The force of must be preserved, and the special meaning of is also worth noting.
. The omission of the article makes very little, difference: one or other of the two. As the second clause is less strong than the first, the may be understood in the sense of or at least he will hold on to-so as to stand by and support.
. It is morally impossible, for each claims undivided service. Mammon is here personified as a deity, devotion to whom is shown in covetousness which is idolatry (Col 3:5). No vice is more exacting than avarice. D.C.G. art. Covetousness.
14-18. Introduction to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
14. . This shows that the occasion is the same; but the scoffs of the Pharisees diverted Christs words from the disciples (ver. 1) to themselves. Note the .
Avarice was their constant characteristic: for the verb see on 8:41 and 23:50. The adj. occurs 2Ti 3:2 and nowhere else in bibl. Grk., but is quite classical., 2 Mac 10:20 we have . The covetousness of the Pharisees is independently attested, and they regarded their wealth as a special blessing for their carefulness in observing the Law. Hence their contempt for teaching which declared that there is danger in wealth, and that as a rule it promotes unrighteousness. They considered themselves an abiding proof of the connexion between riches and righteousness: moreover, they had their own explanation of the reason why a Rabbi who was poor declaimed against riches. Comp. 20:47.
. Turned up the nose () at: 23:35; Psa 2:4, Psa 34:16. Here deridebant (f), inridebant (a), subsannabant (d). In class. Grk. is more usual: Gal 6:7; 2Ki 19:21; Pro 1:30; Isa 37:22; Jer 20:7. In medical writers it means bleed at the nose.
15. . This is the emphatic part of the statement. The Pharisees succeeded in exhibiting themselves as righteous persons in the judgment of men; but Gods judgment was very different. Comp. Mat 6:2, Mat 6:5, Mat 6:16, Mat 6:23:5, Mat 6:6, Mat 6:7, Mat 6:25.
. The use of , which commonly implies the acquisition of knowledge, rather than , is remarkable. We find the same word used of Christ,even where the knowledge must have been supernatural (Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25, Joh 2:10:14, 27, Joh 2:17:25). The exact antithesis would have been, but before God ye cannot justify yourselves. This, however, would have implied that there were no Pharisees who were not hypocrites: that God reads their hearts is true in all cases. Comp. (1Sa 16:7), and again, (1Ch 28:9).
. We must understand something before : But God knoweth your hearts [and He seeth not as man seeth], because that which is exalted in the eyes of men, etc. For this use of comp. 1Co 14:11, and perhaps Jud 1:1: it is clear that = above. Comp. Job 10:4; 1Sa 16:7.
. Here only in N.T. in the general sense of an abomination: comp. Gen 43:31, Gen 44:34. Elsewhere (Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14; Rev 17:4, Rev 17:5, 21:27) of the special abominations of idolatry: comp. 1Ki 11:5, 1Ki 11:33, 1Ki 11:20:26; 2Ki 16:3, 2Ki 21:2. The word belongs to Hellenistic Greek, and is very freq. in LXX. It meant originally that which greatly offends the nostrils, and it is very much in excess of the usual antithesis to , viz. . See Suicer, s.v.; D.C. G. Abomination.
16-18.The discourse has been so greatly condensed that the connecting links have been lost. It is possible that the connexion is something of this kind. To be justified before God is all the more necessary now when the Kingdom of God among men is being founded. The Law has been superseded. Its types have been fulfilled, and its exclusiveness is abolished: everyone now can force his way to salvation. But the moral principles of the Law are imperishable: you cannot abolish them. And thus your frequent divorces violate the spirit of the Law. Others regard ver. 18 as symbolical. You and those whom you instruct are wedded to the Divine revelation, and if you desert it for anything else you are guilty of spiritual adultery. But in that case what meaning can the second clause have? How can anyone commit spiritual adultery by accepting the revelation which the Jews rejected? See on ver. 18 for another attempt at a parabolic interpretation.
16. . A common expression for the O. T. Dispensation. It may point to a time when the Hebrew Canon consisted only of the Law and the Prophets (Mat 5:17, Mat 5:7:12, Mat 5:12:40; Act 13:15, Act 28:23). See Ryle, Canon of O.T. p. 118.
. We supply : they existed and had authority until John.
This is the only passage in which is found preceding a vowel; else where , is used (Mar 13:30; Heb 12:4). See on , 1:20.
. Every one forces his way into it,-perhaps not always in the right spirit. See Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 26. The is to be noticed: the Jew has no longer any exclusive rights. Here is mid. according to class. usage: in Mat 11:12 it is pass.-the Kingdom of God is forced, taken by storm. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 258.
17. . See on 5:23. The which follows it is But (RV.), not And (AV.). Many English Versions omit the conjunction. Facilius est autem (Vulg.).
. Minim liter minius apex, i.e. one of the little horns () or minute projections which distinguish Hebrew letters, otherwise similar, from one another. There are several Jewish sayings which declare that anyone who is guilty of interchanging any of these similar letters in certain passages in O.T. will destroy the whole world. Wetst. on Mat 5:18; Schoettg. 1. p. 29; Edersh. L. & T. 1. pp. 537, 538.
For the form = comp. 2:13, and see WH. ii. App. p. 151. Marcion read , or , instead of . The reading has no support; and is more applicable to the written law than to the as yet unwritten words of Christ. See Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 33, and contrast Luk 21:33.
. To fall to the ground as devoid of authority: comp. Rom 9:6?; 1Co 13:8. The moral elements in the Law are indestructible, and the Gospel confirms them by giving them a new sanction.
18. Perhaps this introduces an example of the durability of the moral law in spite of human evasions. Adultery remains adultery even when it has been legalized, and legalized by men who jealously guarded every fraction of the letter, while they flagrantly violated the spirit of the Law. Because he hath found some unseemly thing in her (Deu 24:1), was interpreted with such frivolity, that Hillel is said to have taught that a man might divorce his wife for spoiling the dinner. Comp. Mar 10:11, Mar 10:12 and Mat 5:32 for other statements of Christs doctrine. Mat 5:32 states the one exception.
It is very forced to take the whole utterance as a parable. It is spiritual adultery to cast off all the obligations of the Law; and it is also spiritual adultery to maintain all those obligations which have been rescinded by the Gospel. But this does not fit the wording; and, if it did, would it have been intelligible to those who heard it? According to this explanation the wife unlawfully put away = those elements in the Law which are eternal; and the divorced wife unlawfully married to another man = those elements of the Law which are obsolete. But in the parable (if it be a parable) we have not two women but one. It is better to take the words literally, and leave me connexion with what precedes undetermined.
19-31. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus; in two scenes, one on earth (19-22) and the other in Hades (23-31). It continues the lesson respecting the right employment of earthly possessions. The unjust steward showed what good results may follow from a wise use of present advantages. The rich man shows how disastrous are the consequences of omitting to make a wise use of such things. This second parable illustrates in a marked way some of the utterances which precede it. That which is exalted among men describes the rich man in his luxury on earth. An abomination in the sight of God describes him in his misery in Hades. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail, shows that Moses and the Prophets still avail as the teachers of conduct that will lead a man to Abrahams bosom rather than to the place of torment. There is no taint of Ebionitic heresy in the narrative. It emphasizes the dangers of wealth; but it nowhere implies the unlawfulness of wealth. (See Milligan, A Group of Parables, in the Expositor for September 1892, p. 186.) It is not suggested that the rich man ought to have renounced his riches, but that he ought not to have found in riches his highest good. He ought to have made his earthly possessions a means of obtaining something much higher and more abiding. Out of this mammon, which in his case was unrighteous mammon, he might have made Lazarus and others his friends, and have secured through them eternal tabernacles. His riches were his good things, the only good things that he knew; and when he lost them he lost everything. What doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? There is no reason for supposing that the second half of the parable is a later addition, or that it is the only part which has a meaning. It is when both are combined that we get the main lesson,-that to possess great wealth and use it solely for oneself, without laying up treasure in heaven, is fatal.
The parable is sometimes understood quite otherwise. Lazarus is the Jewish people, ill-treated by earthly powers, such the Romans and their underlings; and Dives and his five brothers are the Herods: (1) Herod the Great, (2) Archelaus, (3) Philip, (4) Antipas, (5) Agrippa 1., (6) Agrippa 2. Father, sons, and grandsons are thus all put together as brothers for simplification. It is a natural consequence of such an interpretation as this that the parable is assumed to be the invention of a later age, and to have been wrongly attributed to Christ. It is difficult to believe that He could have wished to suggest any such meaning.1 Moreover, this interpretation destroys the connexion with the context.
19. . Now a certain man was rich is less probable than Now, there was a certain rich man: comp. ver. 1, 13:11. Note the .
. The former for the upper garment, the latter for the under. Both were very costly. The former means first the murex, secondly the dye made from it (1 Mac. 4:23), and then the fabric dyed with it (Mar 15:17, Mar 15:20). Similarly, is first Egyptian flax, and then the fine linen made from it (Exo 26:1, Exo 26:31, Exo 26:36; Eze 16:10, Eze 27:7). The two words are combined Pro 31:22: comp. Rev 18:12, Rev 18:16. For comp. 12:19, 15:23, 29: occurs nowhere else in bibl. Grk.
20. . For see on 5:27: the expression is freq. in Lk. Nowhere else does Christ give a name to any character in a parable. That this signifies that the name was written in heaven, while that of the rich man was not, is farfetched. Tertullian urges the name as proof that the narrative is not a parable but history, and that the scene in Hades involves his doctrine that the soul is corporeal (De Anim, 7.).2 It is possible that the name is a later addition to the parable, to connect it with Lazarus of Bethany. He was one who went to them from the dead, and still they did not repent. As he was raised from the dead just about this time, so far as we can determine the chronology, there may be a reference to him. But it is more probable that the name suggests the helplessness of the beggar; and some name was needed (ver. 24). Tradition has given the name Nineuis to the rich man. The theory that the story of the raising of Lazarus has grown out of this parable is altogether arbitrary.
. Not had been flung at his gate, as if contemptuous roughness were implied. In late Greek often loses the notion of violence, and means simply lay, place: 5:37; Joh 5:7, Joh 5:7:6, Joh 5:18:11, Joh 5:20:25, Joh 5:27, Joh 5:21:6; Jam 3:3; Num 22:38. By is meant a large gateway or portico, whether part of the house or not (Act 10:17, Act 10:12:14; Mat 26:71; 2Ch 3:7; Zep 2:14). It indicates the grandeur of the house.
. The verb occurs here only in bibl. Grk., but is common in medical writers, especially in the pass., be ulcerated.
The irregular augment, instead of the usual , is well attested here, and perhaps arose from analogy with . Comp. (Rom 15:18). WH. ii. App. p. 161; Greg. Proleg. p. 121. Syr-Sin. omits.
21. . This does not imply (Iren. ii. 34, 1) that his desire was not gratified. His being allowed to remain there daily, and his caring to remain there daily, rather indicates that he did get the broken meat. He shared with the dogs (Mar 7:28). But perhaps it does imply that what was given to him did not satisfy his hunger. Some authorities insert from 15:16 et nemo illi dabat, which even as a gloss seems to be false.
The silence of Lazarus throughout the parable is very im pressive. He never murmurs against Gods distribution of wealth, nor against the rich mans abuse of it, in this world. And in Hades he neither exults over the change of relations between himself and Dives, nor protests against being asked to wait upon him in the place of torment, or to go errands for him to the visible world.
. Nay, even the dogs. This shows his want and his helplessness. Not only was his hunger unsatisfied, but even the dogs came and increased his misery. He was scantily clad, and his sores were not bound up; and he was unable to drive away the unclean dogs when they came to lick them. The suggestion that the dogs were kinder to him than the rich man was, is probably not intended; although the main point of vv. 20, 21 is to continue the description of Dives rather than to make a contrast to him. Here was a constant opportunity of making a good use of his wealth, and he did not avail himself of it.
. Licked the surface of. Here only in bibl. Greek. The reading has very little authority. For comp. 12:7, 24:22.
22. This verse serves to connect the two scenes of the parable. The reversal of the positions of the two men is perhaps intimated in the fact that Lazarus dies first. The opportunity of doing good to him was lost before the rich man died, but the loss was not noticed.
. . His soul was carried, a loco alieno in patriam. Clearly we are not to understand that what never happened to anyone before happened to him, and that body and soul were both translated to Hades. In saying that he died () the severance of soul and body is implied. And the fact that his burial is not mentioned is no proof that it is not to be understood Jesus would scarcely have shocked Jewish feeling by the revolting idea that close to human habitations a corpse was left unburied, In each case the feature which specially characterized the death is mentioned. See Aug. De Civ. Dei, xxi. 10, 2.
. The transition was painless and happy. A Targum on Cantic. iv. 12 says that the souls of the righteous are carried to paradise by Angels. Comp. the of Heb 1:14 and the of Philo. But it is no purpose of the parable to give information about the unseen world. The general principle is maintained that bliss and misery after death are determined by conduct previous to death; but the details of the picture are taken from Jewish beliefs as to the condition of souls in Sheol, and must not be understood as confirming those beliefs. The properties of bodies are attributed to souls in order to enable us to realize the picture.
. This is not the objective genitive, the bosom which contained Abraham, but the subjective, that in which Abraham received Lazarus. Comp. Mat 8:11. Lazarus in Sheol reposes with his head on Abrahams breast, as a child in his fathers lap, and shares his happiness. Comp. Joh 1:18. The expression is not common in Jewish writings; but Abraham is sometimes represented as welcoming the penitent into paradise. Edersh. L. & T. 2. p. 280. Comp. (v.l. ) (4 Mac 13:17). Such expressions as go to ones fathers (Gen 15:15), lie with ones fathers (Gen 47:30), be gathered to ones fathers (Jdg 2:10), and sleep with ones fathers (1Ki 1:21), apply to death only, and contain no clue as to the bliss or misery of the departed. Abrahams bosom does contain this. It is not a synonym for paradise; but to repose on Abrahams bosom is to be in paradise, for Abraham is there (Joh 8:56: Diptychs of the Dead in the Liturgy of S. James).
. It is not the contrast between the magnificence of his funeral (of which nothing is stated) and the lack of funeral for Lazarus (of which nothing is stated) that is to be marked, but the contrast between mere burial in the one case and the ministration of Angels in the other.
Some authorities seem to have omitted the before and to have joined these words with . Vulg. has et sepultus est in inferno: elevans autem oculos suos. Aug. has both arrangements. Comp. Joh 13:30, Joh 13:31 for a similar improbable shifting of a full stop in some texts. Other examples Greg. Proleg. p. 181.
23. . In Hades, the receptacle of all the departed until the time of final judgment, and including both paradise and Gehenna. That Hades does not mean hell as a place of punishment is manifest from Act 2:27, Act 2:31; Gen 37:35, 42:38, 44:29; Job 14:13, Job 17:13, etc. That Hades includes a place of punishment is equally clear from this passage. In the Psalms of Solomon Hades is mentioned only in connexion with the idea of punishment (14:6, 15:11, 16:2). See Suicer, s.v. The distinction between Hades and Gehenna is one of the many great advantages of RV. Dives lifts up his eyes, not to look for help, but to learn the nature of his changed condition.
. Torment is now his habitual condition: not , but . That he is punished for his heartless neglect of great opportunities of benevolence, and not simply for being rich, is clear from the position of Abraham, who was rich. Comp. (4 Mac. 13:15); and contrast , (Wisd. 3:1). Luxurioso carere deliciis poena est (Ambr).
. The Jews believed that Gehenna and paradise are close to one another: Edersh. Hist. of Jewish Nation, p. 432 ed. 1896. We need not suppose that the parable teaches us to believe this. The details of the picture cannot be insisted upon.
. The is pleonastic, and marks a, late use, when the force of the adverbial termination has become weakened: Mat 27:51; Mar 5:6, Mar 14:54, Mar 15:40, etc. In LXX we have (freq. in 1 and 2 Sam.), , : and in Aq. and .
With comp. of a single garment (Act 18:6; Joh 13:4, Joh 19:23) and of a single wedding (12:36). We have similar plurals in late class. Grk.
24. . He appeals to their relationship, and to his fatherly compassion. Will not Abraham take pity on one of his own sons? Comp. Joh 8:53. Note the characteristic (see on 1:17, 5:14). The implies raising his voice, in harmony with .
. Not that he assumes that Lazarus is at his beck and call, although Lange thinks that this is the finest masterstroke of the parable that Dives unconsciously retains his arrogant attitude towards Lazarus. See also his strange explanation of the finger-drop of water (L of C. i. p. 507). On earth Dives was not arrogant; he did not drive Lazarue from his gate; but neglectful. In Hades he is so humbled by his pain that he is willing to receive alleviation from anyone, even Lazarus.
. The smallest alleviation will be welcome. On earth no enjoyment was too extravagant: now the most trifling is worth imploring.
With the part. gen. comp. (Lev 14:16). To understand and make nom. to is an improbable constr. See win. xxx. 8. c, p. 252.
. I am in anguish in this flame of insatiable desires and of remorse: a prelude to the (Mat 5:22). For see on 2:48.
25. . He does not resent the appeal to relationship: the refusal is as gentle as it is decided. The rich man cannot fail to see the reasonableness of what he experiences.
. Thou didst receive in full. This seems to be the meaning of the -. Nothing was stored up for the future: Comp. , 6:24; Mat 6:2, Mat 6:5, Mat 6:16. Note the . It is only in the mythological Hades that there is a river of Lethe, drowning the memory of the past. See second small print, p. 425.
. Herein also was fatal error. He had no idea of any other good things, and he kept these to himself.
. There is no . His evil things were not his own, but he accepted them as from God, while the rich man took his good things as possessions for which he had no account to render. Comp. vv. 11, 12.
. Contrast of time and place: But now here. The of TR. has scarcely any authority. The same corruption is found 1Co 4:2. Comp. (Ecclus. 14:16). There is, however, no hint that during their lives Dives had been sufficiently rewarded for any good that he had done, and Lazarus sufficiently punished for any evil that he had done. And there is also no justification of the doctrine that to each man is allotted so much pleasure and so much pain; and that those who have their full allowance of pleasure in this world cannot have any in the world to come. Abrahams reply must be considered in close relation to the rich mans request. Dives had not asked to be freed from his punishment. He accepted that as just. He had asked for a slight alleviation, and in a way which involved an interruption of the bliss of Lazarus. Abraham replies that to interfere with the lot of either is both unreasonable and impossible. Dives had unbroken luxury, and Lazarus unbroken suffering, in the other world. There can be no break in the pangs of Dives, or in the bliss of Lazarus, now. Apoc. Baruch, lxxv. 9.
. An intermediate form between and . Such things belong to the popular Greek of the time. Comp. (Rom 2:17; 1Co 4:7), (Rom 11:18), and see on and (Luk 17:8). See Expos. Times, viii. p. 239.
26. . In his omnibus (Vulg.). The (A, etc.) for ( B L) is a manifest correction. While ver. 25 shows that on equitable grounds no alleviation of the lot of Dives is admissible, ver. 26 shows that the particular kind of alleviation asked for is impossible. Can it mean, In all these regions, from end to end?
. Has been and remains fixed. Evidence is lacking to show that the Jews pictured the two parts of Hades as divided by a chasm. Here only in bibl. Grk. is found: not Num 16:30.
Chaos magnum firmatum est (Vulg. f), chaus magnum confirmatus est (d), chaos magnus firmatus est (1). For this use of chaos comp. Posita est mihi regia clo: Possidet alter aquas, alter inane chaos (Ovid, Fast. iv. 599). Bentley conjectured chasma, the ma having been lost in magnum and chas expanded into chaos. This conjecture finds support in two MSS. of Vulg., M having chasma and Y chasmagnum. Jerome would be likely to correct chaos into chasma.
. Not, so that they cannot (AV.); but, in order that they may not be able.
. Nor yet: this would be still less permissible. The before is probably not genuine, but we may understand a new subject. Groups from each side are supposed to contemplate crossing; not one group to cross and recross.
27. But perhaps there is no between paradise and the other world; and Dives makes another request, which, if less selfish than the first, is also less humble. It implies that he has scarcely had a fair chance. If God had warned him sufficiently, he would have escaped this place of torment.
28. . May bear witness successfully, right through to a good issue. But the – need not mean more than thoroughly, earnestly (Act 2:40, Act 2:8:25, Act 2:10:42, Act 2:18:5, Act 2:20:21, Act 2:23, Act 2:24, Act 2:23:11, Act 2:28:23). Elsewhere in N. T. only five times, but freq. in LXX. That any five persons then living, whether Herods, or sons of Annas, or among the audience, are here alluded to, is most improbable. That the request is meant to illustrate the Pharisees craving for signs is more possible: and the lesson that the desire to warn others from vicious courses may come too late is perhaps also included. But the simplest explanation of the request is that it prepares the way for the moral of the parable,-the duty of making use of existing opportunities.
29. . Nemo cogitur. Auditu fideli salvamur, non apparitionibus. Herodes, audire non cupiens, miraculum non cernit (Beng.). Wonders may impress a worldly mind for the moment; but only a will freely submitting itself to moral control can avail to change the heart.
30. , . Not, No, they will not repent for Moses and the Prophets, which Abraham has not asserted; but, No, that is not enough. He speaks from his own experience.
It is better to take with than with . Vulg. is as amphibolous as the Greek: si quis ex mortuis ierit ad eos. See on 1:8.
. They will repent. Not, they will give all to the poor, or they will leave all and become as Lazarus. There is no hint that being rich is sinful, or that the poor are sure of salvation. In ver. 28 he did not say that wealth had ruined himself.
31. . If, as matters now stand, they are refusing to hear. We go beyond the tenour of the reply when we make it mean that a far mightier miracle than you demand would be ineffectual for producing a far slighter effect. Does imply a far mightier miracle than ? And does imply a far slighter effect than ? Persuaded obviously means persuaded to repent; and one who goes from the dead to warn the living must rise from the dead. By this conclusion Christ once more rebukes the demand for a sign. Those who ask for it have all that they need for the ascertainment of the truth; and the sign if granted would not produce conviction. Saul was not led to repentance when he saw Samuel at Endor, nor were the Pharisees when they saw Lazarus come forth from the tomb. The Pharisees tried to put Lazarus to death and to explain away the resurrection of Jesus. For allegorical interpretations of the parable see Trench, Parables, p. 470, 10th Exo_1
In the negative belongs to the verb so as almost to form one word, and is not influenced by the : If they disregard. Comp. 11:8, 12:26, 18:4. The pres. indic. represents the supposition as contemporaneous. Note the change from with pres. indic. to with aor. subjunc. The latter is pure hypothesis.
The Idea of Hades or Sheol in the Old Testament
It is surprising how very little advance there is in O.T., respecting conceptions of the unseen world, upon Greek mythology. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that, until about b.c. 200, the Jewish Sheol is essentially the same in conception as the Hades of Greek poetry. There are no moral or spiritual distinctions in it. Good and bad alike are there, and are apparently much in the same condition. Moreover, there is no thought of either of them rising again. In some places, possibly, Sheol or Hades is merely a synonym for the grave or death, which receives good and bad alike, and retains them: e.g. Gen 37:35, 42:38; 1Sa 2:6. But in passages in which the unseen world of spirits is plainly meant, the absence of the religious element is remarkable. Nay, in one way the bad are better off than the good; for while the Just have lost the joys which were the reward of their righteousness, the wicked have ceased to be troubled by the consequences of their iniquity. See Davidson on Job 3:16-19. Sheol is a place of rest; but also of silence, gloom, and ignorance. In the only passage in which the word occurs in Ecclesiastes we are told that there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou goest (9:10). Those who have gone thither return no more, and none escape it (Job 7:9, Job 7:10, Job 7:10:21, 22, Job 7:20:9). It is a land of forgetfulness, in which there is no more remembrance of God or possibility of serving Him (Psa 6:5, 30:9, 88:12; comp. Isa 38:11, Isa 38:18). And it is insatiable (Pro 1:12, Pro 1:27:20, Pro 1:30:16; comp. Isa 5:14). In some Psalms there is some trace of hope for eternal life in God in the other world (49:15), but not of hope for resurrection. In 17:15 when I awake probably does not mean awake from death, but from sleep. It is the daily renewal of communion with God that is desired. In Isa 25:8, and still more in Isa 26:19, hope in a resurrection from Sheol is expressed; and in Dan 12:2 we reach idea of resurrection with rewards and punishments. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 740; D.C.G. ii. p. 514.
Side by side with the hope of a resurrection (2 Mac. 12:43-45, 14:46) comes the belief did Sheol is only an intermediate state, at any rate for the rightous (2 Mac. 7:9, 11, 14, 36, 37; Enoch li.): and along with the idea of a resurrection to rewards and punishments comes the idea that there is retribution in Sheol itself, and consequently a separation of the righteous from the wicked (Enoch xxii.). But the idea of rising again to be punished does not seem to have prevailed. The view rather was that only the righteous were raised, while the wicked remained for ever in Sheol (Enoch lxiii. 8-10, xcix. 11). In this way Hades becomes practically the same as Gehenna (Ps. Sol. 14:6, 15:11, 16:2). In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus there is nothing to show whether Hades is intermediate or final: but the doctrine of its being a place of retribution, with a complete separation of the righteous from the wicked, could hardly be more clearly marked. In the Talmud, Sheol is identical with Gehenna, just as in popular English hell is always a place of punishment, and generally of final punishment. See DB.2 art. Hell; Herzog, Pro_2 art. Hades; Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 168.
L. & T. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Found in Luke alone.
Vulg. Vulgate.
AV. Authorized Version.
RV. Revised Version.
Cod. Sinaiticus, sc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.
B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).
D D. Cod. Bezae, sc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.
Beng. Bengel.
Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.
Jos. Josephus.
Hist. of J. N. History of the Jewish Nation.
Syr Syriac.
Sin. Sinaitic.
Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moultons edition).
Wic. Wiclif.
Lft. J. B. Lightfoot,* Notes on Epistles of S. Paul.
Aug. Augustine.
A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.
L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.
Boh. Bohairic.
Arm. Armenian.
Aeth. Ethiopic.
F F. Cod. Boreeli, sc. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains considerable portions of the Gospel.
U U. Cod. Nanianus, sc. x. In the Library of St. Marks, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.
G G. Cod. Harleianus, sc. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.
. Cod. Sangallensis, sc. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.
Goth. Gothic.
Wordsw. Wordsworth (Chr.)
Hippol. Hippolytus.
. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, sc. viii. In the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains 1:1-9, 19-23, 27, 28, 30-32, 36-66, 1:77-2:19, 21, 22, 33-39, 3:5-8, 11-20, 4:1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, 5:17-36, 6:21-7:6, 11-37, 39-47, 8:4-21, 25-35, 43-50, 9:1-28, 32, 33, 35, 9:41-10:18, 21-40, 11:1, 2, 3, 4, 24-30, 31, 32, 33.
Cypr. Cyprian.
Wetst. Wetstein.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
Tert. Tertullian.
1 Jsus se serait-il abaiss de pareilles personalits? asks Godet, with some reason.
2 Ambrose also takes it as history: Narratio magis quam parabola videtur, quando etiam nomen exprimitur (Migne, xv. 1768).
Greg. Gregory, Prolegomena ad Tischendorfii ed. N. T.
Iren. Irenus.
TR. Textus Receptus.
1 Near the end of the Koran are two passages worth comparing. (Sales Koran, chs. 102, 104).
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
the Right Use of Money
Luk 16:1-13
We are all stewards, but how much we waste! Well might our Master deprive us of our post and trust! The unjust steward used his opportunity of ingratiating himself with the tenants at the landowners cost. He thus secured for himself a welcome to their homes, when his defalcations came to light and he was dismissed. Our Master did not commend his fraud, but pointed out that the children of this world are singularly alive to their future and prepare for its contingencies. If they make a wrong use of money to provide for the future, how much more should Christians make a right use of it, so that when they die they may be welcomed to the eternal home by those whom they have benefited!
Money is described as unrighteous Mammon, the name of the heathen god of wealth. It is so often associated with cheating that the adjective is most appropriate. Note also that money is the least and not that which is our own, but Gods, to be used by us as His servants and at His direction,
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
The Unjust Steward — Luk 16:1-18
And He said also unto His disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lords debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another mans, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided Him. And He said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery- Luk 16:1-18.
It is with the first part of this passage that I desire to deal particularly at this time. The parable of the unjust steward is one which has been misunderstood frequently. In these occidental countries we have a different conception of a steward than in oriental lands. Then too, we read that the lord commended the unjust steward. Many people are perplexed about this, because they have failed to notice that lord begins with a small letter instead of a capital. It was not our Lord who commended him but the master of the unjust steward. In an eastern home a steward is overseer of the affairs of the whole household, and the master turns over to him a certain amount of money with which to buy the necessities for the comfort of the family. If the steward is able to purchase these things at a price lower than the ordinary market value, then that is money in his pocket. A wise steward is a very valuable personage in an oriental home, and nobody begrudges him the perquisites he earns. If this be kept in mind we shall understand better what our Lord meant here. And He said also unto His disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. Just as it was possible throught thrift, carefulness, and economy to save money for his master and also gain a substantial profit for himself, so it was possible for an unfaithful steward to waste what was entrusted to him by reckless buying, or keeping dishonest accounts. Such was evidently the case in this instance.
And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship : I cannot dig, to beg I am ashamed. We can imagine him saying, I am going to lose my job, and I cannot work hard. After thinking the matter over, he says, I know what Ill do; Ill call in my masters debtors and see what I can do with them. So he summoned the first one and asked, How much do you owe my lord? He replied, One hundred measures of oil. Well, said the steward, just cut that in half. Change the bill to fifty. By remitting this part of the indebtedness, actually the steward cut out that which would come to himself. Then he said to another, How much do you owe? He said, One hundred measures of wheat. He told this one to deduct twenty measures. When this came to the ears of the master of the steward, The lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. You see the master of the house could readily understand the wisdom of this procedure, and he said, After all, he has acted very wisely. He has made good friends for himself by cutting off his own profits. These friends would be ready to welcome and assist him in his hour of need. The Lord Jesus makes the application that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. How many of Gods children are very much more concerned about present gains than they are about future blessings. The Lord makes this definite application: And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? He speaks of making friends by the right use of wealth. The word mammon really means riches. Actually it was originally the name of a Canaanite god of wealth, and the word had been carried over into the language of the Israelites as a synonym for riches or treasure. So the Lord Jesus says, as it were, If God entrusts riches to you, you can make friends therewith, even though He calls them the riches of unrighteousness. If man had not fallen he would have lived a pure, innocent life here on earth, receiving everything at Gods good hand instead of having to toil and labor for the means of sustenance. There would have been no occasion for money as a medium of exchange. The fact that one happens to have a few dollars in his pocket is, in itself, a witness that sin is in the world; so mammon, riches, is the mammon of unrighteousness. Someone might ask, If it is true that money came into the world only because of sin, why should we not endeavor to get along without it? Under present conditions that is impossible. We cannot get along without it in a world like this. But if God has given us wealth we should use it to His glory in spreading His gospel, and in relieving distressed and suffering humanity. In this way we make friends by the mammon of unrighteousness; and when we come down to death and leave this world behind, those friends we have made through the right use of the mammon of unrighteousness will receive us joyfully into the everlasting habitations. To illustrate: Suppose the Lord Jesus has entrusted an amount of money to you, and you say, God has given me this money. I am going to give a certain portion of it to help send the gospel to heathen lands. And you contribute regularly to some missionary, and because of your support that missionary is enabled to go forth and present the gospel to lost souls. Here on earth you may never see those who have been won through that missionarys efforts; but by-and-by, when you leave this scene and go home to heaven; you will find there those who will greet you with gladness as they say, It was your money that enabled the teacher to come to me and to lead me out of the darkness of heathenism into the light of the gospel of Christ. We have been waiting here to welcome you into these everlasting habitations and to tell you how grateful we are to you for the interest which you took in us! You can apply the principle in a thousand ways. You may use some of your money to help a poor, needy brother or sister, or to assist some underprivileged children. Your kindness and goodness to them may never be fully appreciated or recognized here on earth, but the day will come, if they are in Christ, when they will meet you in yonder land and express their gratitude to you for the way in which you used the mammon of unrighteousness.
Our Lord here is impressing upon us the stewardship of money. He says, He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. Money in Gods sight is a very little thing; in the sight oi man it is most important. In the book of Ecclesiastes we read, Money answereth all things. Someone has said, Money is a universal provider for everything but happiness. We have heard of the father who said to his son, My son, make money. Make it honestly if you can, but make money. Some people have the idea that there is nothing more important. But our blessed Lord speaks of it as a very little thing; and He says, He that is faithful in his use of money will be faithful also in greater things. Have you noticed that a mans use of his money is often the acid test of his character? A man who loves money will be unkind and evil in many other ways. The love of money is not exactly the root of all evil, but it is a root of all evil. The definite article in the Authorized Version is somewhat misleading here. Covetousness is like a hardy root on which all kinds of evil plants may be grafted. If a man loves money inordinately he exposes himself to every other kind of iniquity.
If ye have not been faithful in that which is another mans, who shall give you that which is your own? One may ask, In what way shall I know whether or not I am faithful in regard to unrighteous mammon? When we turn to the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1Co 16:2) we read, Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him. That is a rule which every Christian should observe. If we fail to do so we lose in many ways. Then one may ask, How much should be used for myself, and how much should be set aside for God and for others? If you had been a Jew under the law you would have been required to give ten per cent. As a Christian under grace you surely do not want to give less than a Jew gave under the law. One ought to give more if he can, and in so doing he is faithful in that which is least, and will also be faithful in that which is much.
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. You cannot be a lover of God and a lover of money at the same time. If you are afraid that perhaps the love of money is getting a grip upon you just try giving away some of it, and if you feel more cheerful and happy than before, then love of money has not gotten hold of you. But if you find that it hurts to give, then you may well be fearful lest covetousness is getting a grip on your soul. The world admires the man who does well for himself; the world admires him who becomes wealthy and can live in a beautiful mansion. But God estimates true greatness in an altogether different way. Gods heart goes out in loving appreciation to the man who lives for the benefit of others and uses that which is entrusted to him in the light of eternity.
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. The ministry of John the Baptist ushered in a new era. The old dispensation was drawing to a close, soon to be ended at the cross. Meantime the kingdom of God was proclaimed, and men were invited to enter through the door of repentance and faith. Many tried to press in who were not, in reality, children of the kingdom. Only by new birth, as our Lord explained to Nicodemus (Joh 3:3), can one actually enter that kingdom. No word which God has spoken can fail in fulfilment, however man might react to the kingdom proclamation. All the demands of the law must be met either by those who come under its condemnation, or by Him who came in grace to bear its curse for others. Gods Word was to be carried out even to the crucifying of His own blessed Son when He took the sinners place.
The last verse of this section is of tremendous importance in these days when people look so leniently upon the violation of their marriage vows. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. If those words could be blazoned across the sky they might bring conviction to thousands who are living in that sin which is here condemned. It is true that on one occasion Jesus made an exception, which leaves the innocent party, where one has been divorced because of immorality, free to marry another. But the Word of God denounces any who treat lightly this sacred relationship. Marriage is for life, not to last only as long as people seem to take pleasure in each other. The tie once formed can be dissolved only by death or by grave sin.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Luk 16:2
We are God’s stewards our whole life long: each day of our lives, therefore, claims its own account; each year, as it passes, suggests to us naturally such reflections, since we reckon our life by years. To many thoughtful men their own birthdays have been days of solemn self-examination. To many, the last day of the civil year brings a like reminder. Indeed, popular language recognises in it something of this power.
I. While our life is full of vigour, such anniversaries, however, invite us to look forward as well as backward. The end of an old year is the beginning of a new one. To look back is for a Christian to repent, since the best of us is but a sinner before God; but repentance should bear fruit in new life. And if we have abused God’s gifts in the past year, the approaching festival of Christmas with the whole train of holy seasons that follow one after another, and bringing manifold reminders of God’s love to man, tells us that there is help in heaven, help ready for us on the earth, if we will even now turn to God and amend our lives. Advent, Christmas, Passiontide, Easter, Ascension Day, are not only thankful commemorations before God of glorious things done for us in past time; they are not only settings forth before man of great events of which we might neglect to read, or read carelessly, in Scripture. They serve to remind us also of a God, ever-living and ever-present, able and willing to renew to us daily those great blessings which our Lord lived and died on earth to win for us all.
II. But as anniversaries multiply upon us, as the years behind us are many, the years to come few in comparison, my text has a meaning for us which deepens continually-a meaning which cannot but force itself on the attention of those who avoid generally serious thoughts. The end of life is in very deed the end of our stewardship. We know little of the existence appointed for us between death and judgment. Little has been told us, except in brief and momentous outline of that which is to come after the Judgment Day. But we have no reason to think that in either there will be room for further probation for use or misuse of gifts and opportunities. As we draw near to the end of this earthly life our thoughts are apt to retrace the space which we have crossed. We find that we have done little, far less than we might have done, because our own indolence made us decline the task, or private aims warped and marred our public action. And yet another question remains which we put to ourselves as we look back on our past life. How have we done our duty to God in it? Ability to know God and to serve Him is one portion assuredly of our stewardship; and as we draw near to the end of life, we cannot but ask ourselves how we have used it. We alone know-I do not say that we ourselves know perfectly-whether we have sought to draw near to God, to know, serve, and love Him in real earnest. In the retrospect of which I have been speaking, there is more of sadness and less of hope. Little time, little opportunity, remain for amendment. But there is hope for us still. God’s love, God’s mercy, is inexhaustible. Humbly, trustfully, lovingly, we must cast all our sins before the throne and commit ourselves to God’s mercy in the Name of Him who heard and accepted the thief upon the cross.
Archdeacon Palmer, Oxford and Cambridge Journal, Dec. 4th, 1879.
References: Luk 16:2.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv., No. 192; E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. i., p. 64; F. O. Morris, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 276; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 91; H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The Life of Duty, vol. ii., p. 77; H. P. Liddon, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxii., p. 353. Luk 16:3.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 111. Luk 16:5.-J. M. Neale, Occasional Sermons, p. 132. Luk 16:5-7.-Ibid., Sermons in a Religious House, 2nd series, part i., 231.
Luk 16:8
I. It is a remarkable story told by the poet Cowper of himself, that, when he was a young man, and living in London, where his companions were not only persons of profligate life, but of low and ungodly principles, they always had a great advantage over him when arguing upon the truth of Christianity by reproaching him with the badness of his own life. In fact, it appears that his life at that time was quite as bad as theirs, and they used to upbraid him for it; telling him that it would be well for him if they were right and he wrong in their opinions respecting the truth of the Gospel; for if it were true, he certainly would be condemned upon his own showing. These men, like the unjust steward in the parable, had at least the merit of acting wisely upon their own view of the matter; they made the mammon of unrighteousness-that is, the riches and enjoyments of the world-serve their turn for all that they believed them capable of yielding. And therefore Christ makes their conduct a reproof to Christians, who do not make the world yield to them that fruit which, according to their professed belief, it might afford them.
II. The lesson which the parable of the unjust steward is designed to teach us is, that nothing is more unworthy, nothing more ruinous, than to be a Christian by halves; to begin to build, and not be able to finish. Salt is good, but the salt that has lost its savour is good neither for the land nor yet for the dunghill, but men cast it out; and even so vile and worthless is that Christian, in name only, who does not live according to his own principles but in defiance of them-who, with a journey to an eternal state opened before him, plays away his time on the road, and makes no provision for the end of his pilgrimage.
III. This one parable of our Lord’s is to many a stumbling-block and to few so useful as it ought to be. To make to ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, an English reader naturally understands to mean to make the mammon of unrighteousness, or unrighteous riches, our friends; whereas the real meaning of the words is: “Make to yourselves friends with, or by, the mammon of unrighteousness; that is, so use the riches and other advantages of this world that they may gain you friends hereafter-friends that will stand by you, when the riches themselves have perished. I need hardly add what these friends are-the record of good done upon earth, of misery relieved, of folly enlightened, of virtue encouraged and supported-the record of their thankful voices, who, having received from us good things in this world, shall welcome us with thanks and blessings, when we all stand together before Christ’s judgment-seat.
T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 205.
Luk 16:8-9
The Unjust Steward.
I. It is impossible to read this parable, and our Lord’s remark upon it, without being struck by the broad assertion that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. The children of light are those who have been called to a knowledge of the Gospel, and who have given ear to that call, at least in some measure. The child of this world, on the other hand is one who, like Gallio, the Roman governor, cares for none of these things. Now of these two men, our Lord says, the child of this world is wiser in his generation, mind; that is, wiser in his own time. He who chose his path like a fool, walks along it like a wise man, he who chose his like a wise man, walks along it like a fool. The true child of this world is thorough-going, active, persevering. When he has made up his mind that this or that thing is desirable, he sets his heart upon having it. Mammon is the god he has chosen for himself, and he serves his god, as a god ought to be served, with all his heart, with all his mind, and with all his strength. He is wise, therefore, in his way.
II. Turn now to the children of light, and tell me whether you can see the like marks of wisdom in them. We profess to make heaven the object of our lives; are we really and earnestly following after it? Too certain it is, that we serve our God, the great Maker and Ruler of the world, with less zeal, with less affection, with less heartiness, with less truth, than the man of business his mammon, or the man of pleasure his Belial. This is the fault and frailty of our Christian life. We do our work by halves. Seeing that we do believe in Christ, seeing that we do hope and wish for heaven, let us take a lesson from the enemy, and learn the wisdom of the serpent. Let us imitate the zeal, the perseverance, the prudence, the courage, the unweariableness-in a word, the wisdom-which the children of this world show in the pursuit of their vain and perishable, of their ruinous and deadly objects. Let us be as active and as determined to please God as they are to please themselves. Then on the great day, the God who for His Son’s sake will vouchsafe to accept our services and to look with favour on imperfect attempts to employ the mammon of unrighteousness in His service, will receive us into everlasting habitations.
A. W. Hare, The Alton Sermons, p. 228.
Reference: Luk 16:8.-E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. ii., p. 174; C. Kingsley, All Saints’ Day, p. 385; Homilist, new series, vol. i., p. 503; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xi., p. 141; J. Armstrong, Parochial Sermons, p. 201; Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 105; H. P. Liddon, Ibid., vol. xxvi., p. 97; I. Taylor, Saturday Evening, p. 161. Luk 16:8-12.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 277.
Luk 16:9
The Earthly Life and Heavenly Training.
I. Every circumstance of man’s life may become a training for immortality. The tenth and eleventh verses of this chapter imply two great principles on which this possibility is founded: (1) The eternity of God’s law; (2) the perpetuity of man’s character.
II. Observe the practical application of the words of our text. (1) They are a call to action. (2) They contain a lesson of encouragement.
E. L. Hull, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 144.
References: Luk 16:9.-J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 193; Church of England Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 138; Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. ix., p. 305; J. P. Waldo, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 84; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 257; G. Moberly, Parochial Sermons p. 296. Luk 16:9-11.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 280.
Luk 16:10
Living to God in small Things.
I. Notice how little we know concerning the relative importance of events and duties. We use the terms great and small in speaking of actions, occasions, or places, only in reference to the mere outward look and first impression. We are generally ignorant of the real significance of events, which we think we understand. Almost every person can recollect one or more instances where the whole after-current of his life was turned by some single word, or some incident so trivial as scarcely to fix his notice at the time. The outward appearance of occasions and duties is, in fact, almost no index of their importance, and our judgments concerning what is great and small are without any certain validity. These terms, as we use them, are, in fact, only words of outward description, not words of definite measurement.
II. It is to be observed that, even as the world judges, small things constitute almost the whole of life. The great days of the year, for example, are few, and when they come they seldom bring anything great to us. And the matter of all common days is made up of little things, or ordinary or stale transactions.
III. It very much exalts, as well as sanctions, the view I am advancing, that God is so observant of small things. He upholds the sparrow’s wing, clothes the lily with His own beautifying hand, and numbers the hairs of His children. The works of Christ are, if possible, a still brighter illustration of the same truth. Notwithstanding the vast stretch and compass of the work of redemption, it is a work of the most humble detail in its style of execution. When perfectly scanned, the work of Christ’s redemption, like the created universe, is seen to be a vast orb of glory, wrought up out of finished particles.
IV. It is a fact of history and of observation, that all efficient men, while they have been men of comprehension, have also been men of detail.
V. It is to be observed that there is more of real piety in adorning one small than one great occasion. The piety which is faithful in that which is least is really a more difficult piety than that which triumphs and glares on high occasions.
VI. The importance of living to God in ordinary and small things is seen in the fact that character, which is the end of religion, is in its very nature a growth. And, accordingly, there never has been a great or beautiful character which has not become so by filling well the ordinary and smaller offices appointed of God. Private Christians are instructed by this subject in the true method of Christian progress and usefulness. If it is your habit to walk with God in the humblest occupations of your days, it is very nearly certain that you will be filled with the Spirit always. Why is it that a certain class of men, who never thrust themselves on public observation by any very signal acts, do yet attain to a very commanding influence, and leave a deep and lasting impression on the world? They are the men who thrive by constancy and by means of small advances, just as others do who thrive in wealth. They live to God in the common doings of their daily life as well as in the more extraordinary transactions in which they mingle. And their carefulness to honour God in humble things is stronger proof to men of their uprightness than the most distinguished acts or sacrifices. Such persons operate principally by the weight of confidence and moral respect they acquire, which is the most legitimate and powerful action in the world. If a Christian of this stamp has not the talents or standing necessary to lead in the most active forms of enterprise, he will yet accomplish a high and noble purpose in his life. The silent savour of his name may, perhaps, do more good after he is laid in his grave, than abler men do by the most active efforts.
H. Bushnell, The New Life, p. 191.
Luk 16:10-12
This Life our Trial for Eternity.
I. It is a great and awful thought which is put before us in these words by the Saviour and Guide of our souls; the great importance, namely, of every part of our behaviour here in this present world, seeing that, from beginning to end, we are here upon our trial. The Lord and Head and Father of the family tries and proves us His children and servants whilst we are here by the little things of this world, whether we are fit to be entrusted with the great things of the world to come. The life in which we now are is our place of education, our school, our apprenticeship, which, if we get through well, we shall be ready for that which God hath prepared for us in the eternal life by-and-by. The little, short, passing affairs in which the Lord employs us now, are to us in one way great, and enduring, and eternal-for, by them, and by our behaviour in them, He would have us to become ready for the good, the true, the eternal things.
II. The true riches, given through God’s mercy in Christ as a reward for our faithfulness in these mean, earthly things, are the very joy and glory of heaven itself, that joy and that glory of which it is written, that when He was rich in it, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich. Nothing here can be truly called our own; it is only lent for a short time, just to see how we will employ it; how can it be our own, indeed, seeing we must so soon part from it? We may call it ours as little children call things their own which are put into their hands as playthings for a time; but really and truly that only is ours which we shall meet with in the other, the eternal, part of our being; that which we have committed in faith and love to the keeping of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is ours, and will be so for ever. Our time, our money, all that we will call ours, is in reality His time and money, to whom we ourselves belong. To Him we must account for all. None of them have passed away for ever; they will one day surely find us out.
J. Keble, Sermons for Sunday’s after Trinity, part i., p. 283.
I. From the highest point of view true faithfulness knows no distinction between great and small duties. From the highest point of view, that is, from God’s point of view, to Him nothing is great, nothing small, as we measure it. The worth and the quality of an action depend on its motive only, and not at all on its prominence, or on any other of the accidents which we are always apt to adopt as the tests of the greatness of our deeds. Nothing is small that a spirit can do. Nothing is small that can be done from a mighty motive. “Large” or “small” are not words for the vocabulary of conscience. It knows only two words, right and wrong. This thought binds together in a very terrible unity all acts of transgression, and in a very blessed oneness all acts of obedience.
II. Faithfulness in small duties is even greater than faithfulness in great. We may legitimately adopt the distinction of great and small, a distinction which is founded upon truth, in regard to the different kinds of duties which devolve upon us in our daily life, if only we remember that all such distinctions are superficial; that the great and the small, after all, run down into one. Remembering that we may, then, fairly measure our different actions by two standards: one is the apparent importance of the consequences and the apparent splendour of the act, the other is the difficulties with which we have to contend in doing it;-I think it is quite true that it is a great deal harder, in ordinary cases, for us to go on doing the little things well, than for us to do the great things well. The smallest duties are often harder, because of their apparent insignificance, because of their constant recurrence, than the great ones. Be faithful in that which is least, and the accumulation of minute faithfulnesses will make the mighty faithfulness of a life.
III. Faithfulness in that which is least is the preparation for, and secures our having, a wider sphere in which to obey God. Every act of obedience smooths the road for all that shall come after. To get the habit of being faithful wrought into our life, and becoming part of our second and truer self, that is a defence all but impregnable for us when the stress of the great trials comes, or when God calls us to lofty and hard duties.
A. Maclaren, Sermons preached in Manchester, 1st series, p. 274.
How the Little may be used to get the Great.
I. Consider that strange new standard of value which is set up here. On the one side is placed the whole glittering heap of all material good that man can touch or handle, all that wealth can buy of this perishable world; and on the other hand there are the modest and unseen riches of pure thoughts and high desires, of a noble heart, of a life assimilated to Jesus Christ. The two are compared in three points: (1) As to their intrinsic magnitude; (2) as to their quality; (3) as to our ownership of them.
II. Notice the other broad principle that is laid down in these three verses, as to the highest use of the lower good. Whether you are a Christian man or not, this is true about you, that the way in which you deal with your outward goods, your wealth, your capacity of all sorts, may become a barrier to your possessing the higher, or it may become a mighty help. The world thinks that the highest use of the highest things is to gain possession of the lowest thereby, and that truth and genius and poetry are given to select spirits, and are wasted unless they make money out of them. Christ’s notion of the relationship is exactly the opposite: that all the outward is then lifted to its noblest purpose when it is made rigidly subordinate to the highest; and that the best thing that any man can do with his money is so to spend it as to purchase for himself a good degree, laying up for himself in store a good foundation that he may lay hold on eternal life.
III. One word as to the faithfulness which thus utilises the lowest as a means of possessing more fully the highest. You will be faithful if through all your administration of your possessions there runs (1) the principle of Stewardship; you will be faithful if through all your administration of your earthly possessions there runs (2) the principle of Sacrifice; you will be faithful if through all your administrations of your earthly possessions there runs (3) the principle of Brotherhood.
A. Maclaren, A Year’s Ministry, 1st series, p. 341.
References: Luk 16:10.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. xv., p. 106; W. M. Punshon, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 104; Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 372; Ibid., vol. xvii., p. 115; Ibid., vol. xxxi., p. 140; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 239; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, part i., p. 283; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 3rd series, p. 68. Luk 16:11.-Ibid., 4th series, p. 18. Luk 16:11, Luk 16:12.-J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, part i., p. 274. Luk 16:12.-Homilist, 3rd series, vol. x., p. 346.
Luk 16:14
Consider the conduct of the Pharisees, whose weak point had been touched by our Lord’s teaching; they adopted the fool’s course of mocking at that which they could not deny to be true, but whose truth they did not like to follow into its consequences, namely, into the practical result of a godly, self-denying life. Concerning this mode of dealing with rebuke, I have two remarks to make.
I. In the first place, I remark that however foolish a mode it may seem, and however much people may feel ashamed of it, when they see what it really is, yet it is very common and, in the usual sense of the word, very natural. It is natural to turn into ridicule any exhortation or rebuke which has been felt to touch ourselves, and because it is natural, therefore it is also common. In the Book of Proverbs a fearful light is thrown upon the subject of mockery when wisdom is represented as eventually adopting the same course herself, mocking those who had once mocked her, laughing at their trouble, showing in such an awful manner the folly of such conduct by a terrific kind of retaliation.
II. The second remark which I have to make is that this method of derision is not only foolish and empty, but is also positively mischievous. The Pharisees in the text, for example, were morally injured by their conduct towards the Lord; they were less fit than they were before to receive impressions for good; their covetousness was fixed more firmly, and all their other evil habits also. For this is the special characteristic of deriding what is good, that the whole moral sense suffers, the edge of the conscience is blunted; the man is less open to conviction than before, not only with regard to the particular subject which called forth his derision, but with regard to every subject. Indeed the surest method which Satan can adopt, to ruin in the end a Christian’s character, is to tempt him in the beginning to deride the persons from whom he hears solemn instruction and warning, or the books in which he reads the same.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 5th series, p. 233.
References: Luk 16:14.-J. P. Gledstone, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 181. Luk 16:15.-C. G. Finney, Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 347.
Luk 16:17
I. My text is true of the Bible as a Book divinely inspired. Since John wrote in his cell at Patmos, and Paul preached in his own hired house at Rome, the world has been turned upside down-all old things have passed away, all things on earth have changed but one. Rivalling in its fixedness and more than rivalling in its brightness the stars that saw our world born and shall see it die, that rejoiced in its birth and shall be mourners at its funeral, the Word of our God stands for ever. Time that weakens all things else has but strengthened its position. And as, year by year, the tree adds another ring to its circumference, every age has added its testimony to this truth, “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of the Lord shall endure for ever.
II. In practical application of my text I remark: (1) It can be said of the threatenings of the word, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. If there are more blessed, there are more awful, words in the Bible than in any other book. It may be compared to the skies which hold at once the most blessed and the most baneful elements-soft dews to bathe the opening rose, and bolts that rend the oak asunder. In its threatenings, as much as in its promises, heaven and earth shall sooner pass, than one tittle of the law shall fail. (2) In regard to its promises. The traveller in the desert has heard that, far across the burning sands, a river rolls. He has seen or heard, or read of those who have sat on its willowy banks, and quenched their thirst and drunk in life there, and bathed their fevered frames in its cool crystal pools. So, though with bleeding feet, and sinking limbs, and parched throat and dizzy brain, led on by hope, and already in imagination quenching his thirst, he stoutly fights a battle for life and reaches the brink at length. Alas, what a sight meets his fixed and stony gaze! He stands petrified; no wave glittering in the sunbeams ripples on the shore, and invites the poor wretch to drink. The channel is full, but full of dry white stone. It saved others; him it cannot save. Victim of the bitterest disappointment, he lies down to expire, losing life where others found it. To such an accident, to hopes so fair but false, none are exposed who, rising to the call, “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink,” seek life in Jesus-salvation in the grace of God. There is not one promise in the Gospel which is not as good and true as on the day it was made.
T. Guthrie, Family Treasury, Nov. 1861.
Reference: Luk 16:17.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 200.
Luk 16:19-20
I. It is very important to observe that, in this parable, we have not before us the entire character either of the rich man or Lazarus. The luxurious self-indulgent habit of living is the assumed scriptural characteristic of an unrenewed, worldly mind; and when it is associated with indifference to the suffering that everywhere abounds around us, it is itself a proof that, in such a manner as the love of God is wanting, the spirit of Christ does not dwell. The rich man was not cast into prison because he was rich, but because he had abused his riches to pride and selfishness and worldly-mindedness, and forgetfulness of God. Still more important it is to observe that we have not the whole character of Lazarus. He was poor, he was afflicted, he was neglected and cast off by men; but so have many been who yet when they died found no entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Worldliness of spirit may be as confirmed, and disaffection towards God and holiness as inveterate and deep, under an outside of poverty and sores, as under a covering of fine linen and purple. It was not because he was poor that Lazarus was carried into Abraham’s bosom. The real state of the heart towards God was the test applied, so that if Lazarus had not been patient as well as poor, resigned as well as afflicted, he would have been as rejected a suitor for a drop of water in the next world as he had been for a few falling crumbs of bread in this; for in Christ Jesus neither riches avail anything, nor want of riches, but a new creature.
II. The leading design of the parable is to show the inveterate stubbornness of unbelief, and the utter inadequacy of all conceivable means for its removal, where the ordinary appliances of revelation fail. “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Unbelief is a disease of the heart. Evidence cannot reach it; miracle cannot reach it, it can be reached only, can be cured only, by the enlightening and transforming power of the Spirit of God.
D. Moore, Penny Pulpit, No. 3,371.
References: Luk 16:19.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 200; C. C. Bartholomew, Sermons Chiefly Practical, p. 131. Luk 16:19, Luk 16:20.-H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The Life of Duty, vol. ii., p. 9. Luk 16:19-31.-R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables, p. 453; H. Calderwood, The Parables, p. 347; A. B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 376; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 117; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., pp. 102, 190; Ibid., vol. vi., p. 91; Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 265; W. Hubbard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 372. Luk 16:22.-Ibid., vol. vi., p. 200; L. Campbell, Some Aspects of the Christian Ideal, p. 175. Luk 16:22, Luk 16:23.-G. Calthrop, Words spoken to My Friends, p. 223. Luk 16:22-31.-S. A. Tipple, Echoes of Spoken Words, p. 163.
Luk 16:23-24
Prayer to Saints, and Purgatory. These are two points of doctrine, upon which I think that we may regard this parable as throwing light, without straining its words to purposes for which they were not intended.
I. The first doctrine to which I allude is that of prayer to saints. (1) I observe that the description of the resting-place of the blessed, as “Abraham’s bosom,” is the adoption of a merely Jewish figure for the condition of the departed. To be taken to that place in which Abraham, the head and father of their race, was, and to remain in his society, was to the mind of a pious Jew the fulfilment of all his soul’s hopes; and the Lord, not desiring to raise the veil which hides the mysteries of the unseen world, adopted a description of the regions of the departed which at once explained itself to those whom He addressed, inasmuch as they were Jews. (2) Even if we do look upon the prayer of the rich man to Abraham as an example of a prayer to a saint, still that prayer was not answered. Abraham, without saying whether he had or had not the power to grant the request, shows why it would be wrong that it should be granted. The five brethren were in the hands of the Judge of all the earth, who would assuredly do right; and therefore it would be useless for him to interfere in a matter which was in God’s own hands. This seems to point out the immorality of all prayers made to saints. For why are not the prayers made to God Himself? The conduct of Abraham seems to show that prayers to saints must either be unanswered and therefore vain, or else answered at the expense of interfering with the all-wise government of a just and jealous God.
II. The doctrine of purgatory. The rich man seems to me to be himself the best evidence we can have of the entire impossibility of changing the condition of those whose time of trial has terminated, and whose time of retribution has come; for those reasons which prevented the prayer offered to Abraham from being answered, though it is true that that prayer was one offered by a sinner in his torment, are quite as cogent when they are applied to prayers offered upon earth by the friends who have been left behind. The parable shows us, not only the futility of the prayers of the dead for their surviving friends, but also the emptiness of the prayers of surviving friends for the dead. There is a great gulf fixed; the saint cannot pass it to help the sinner, neither can the sinner pass it to claim the company of the saint.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 5th series, p. 276.
Luk 16:25
Memory in Another World.
“Son, remember.” It is the voice, the first voice, the perpetual voice, which meets every man when he steps across the threshold of earth into the presence-chamber of eternity. All the future is so built upon and interwoven with the past, that for the saved and for the lost alike this word might almost be taken as the motto of their whole situation, as the explanation of their whole condition. Memory in another world is indispensable to the gladness of the glad, and strikes the deepest note in the sadness of the lost.
I. Memory will be so widened as to take in the whole life. We believe that what a man is in this life he is more in another, that tendencies here become results yonder, that his sin, that his falsehood, that his whole moral nature, be it good or bad, becomes there what it is only striving to be here. Whether saved or lost, he that dies is greater than when yet living; and all his powers are intensified and strengthened by that awful experience of death, and by what it brings with it. In this life, we have but the island memories heaving themselves into sight, but in the next the Lord shall cause the sea to go back by the breath of His mouth, and the channels of the great deep of a human heart’s experience and actions shall be laid bare. “There shall be no more sea,” but the solid land of a whole life will appear when God says “Son, remember.”
II. Memory in a future state will probably be so rapid as to embrace all the past life at once. We do not know, we have no conception of, the extent to which our thinking and feeling and remembrance, are made tardy by the slow vehicle of this bodily organization in which the soul rides. From the mountain of eternity we shall look down and see the whole plain before us. The memory shall be perfect-perfect in the range of its grasp, and perfect in the rapidity with which it brings up all its objects before us at every instant.
III. There will be a constant remembrance in another world.
IV. Memory will be associated in a future life with a perfectly accurate knowledge of the consequences, and a perfectly sensitive conscience as to the criminality of the past.
A. Maclaren, Sermons preached in Manchester, p. 111.
References: Luk 16:25.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 294; vol. xxviii., p. 123; R. Duckworth, Ibid., vol. xxii., p. 264; M. Dix, Sermons Doctrinal and Practical, p. 257.
Luk 1:26
The Great Gulf.
Consider the lasting distinction between the condition of the rich man and of Lazarus which the text brings before us. Abraham says that between the rich man and Lazarus a great gulf was fixed, so that none could pass from one side to the other. A great gulf fixed; observe, it is no slight interval, no trifling difference, but it is a chasm, a gulf and a wide one; and, moreover, it is fixed, the word in the original Greek is quite as strong as that which our English version has given, perhaps stronger; it means that this gulf or chasm has been firmly and durably established, that it is no slight or accidental difference which it may be hoped that time will blot out, but that it is a deep wide gap which no reasoning can hide, and no time can ever heal. It is most necessary that, as this is our Saviour’s own description, we should take His words in all the fulness of their meaning, of course not straining them beyond their intention, but, also, not cutting off from them any of their strength.
I. What I conceive, then, that our Lord asserts in the text is this,-that there is a great impassable gulf fixed between the spiritual condition of those whom He represents by the rich man, and those whom He represents by Lazarus. The great gulf is not between the rich and the poor, not between those who have been favoured by God in this life and those who have been chastened by Him, but it is between those who have so used this world as to starve their spirits, those who have fixed their eyes so firmly on the things of time and sense that they could not see the realities of a future world, those who have become carnal and sensualised because they must needs give all their efforts to feed their bodies, and have been content to leave their souls uncared for.
II. And without pretending to go into the deep mystery of the other world, yet this, at least, is enough to show us the greatness of the gulf, and why it is so firmly fixed; the joys of heaven are spiritual, there is no pleasure there for a man who has no fear of God, no pleasure in obeying Him; and therefore he who by a long course of carelessness and self-indulgence and neglect of God has hardened his soul, has thereby put a gulf between heaven and him. The mere possibility of doing so should make all of us ask ourselves earnestly and with trembling, how far we are improving our opportunities. Even this is the seed-time of a long existence, and he who does not sow good seed, or having sown it does not water it and weed it, may not complain if his crop fail in the end.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 2nd series, p. 216.
References: Luk 16:26.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ix., No. 518; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, part i., p. 20; Homilist, vol. vi., p. 25.
Luk 16:27-28
I. The Scriptures distinctly reveal future punishment.
II. In a future state punishment will completely arouse memory. “Son, remember.”
III. The punishment of hell will be regulated by the previous conduct and character of the punished. Hell is a grave in which God places what is not fit to be elsewhere, and from which is absent all but the process of corruption and the workings of destruction.
S. Martin, Westminster Chapel Pulpit, 3rd series, p. 165.
References: Luk 16:27.-C. C. Bartholomew, Sermons Chiefly Practical, p. 143. Luk 16:27, Luk 16:28.-Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. ii., p. 189; R. S. Candlish, Scripture Characters and Miscellanies, p. 522; Homilist, vol. iv., p. 47.
Luk 16:30
The Future Results of Present Indifference.
I. Many read this parable, and are staggered at finding that so little is said against the rich man. What was it by which he so grievously offended? and which caused his being cast into that fire which shall never be quenched? We can only say, from what we read in the parable, that there was in this rich man a complete unmindfulness of others-that he was swallowed up in himself. The sick beggar lay at his gate, where he could not have been wholly unobserved; but he took no notice, and ordered no relief. This was a grievous inhumanity. I do not mean that the rich man was a cruel and hard-hearted man, but he was thoroughly selfish and devoted to his own pleasures and enjoyments; he did not give even a passing thought to the necessitous and the suffering among his fellowmen. Surely we ought to gather a more startling lesson from this than had the rich man been charged with what the world regards as enormous crime.
II. Consider the rich man’s entreaty that Lazarus might be sent to warn his five brothers, lest by living the same life they should incur the same doom. It seems inconsistent with the thorough selfishness of Dives that we should suppose him at all actuated in making this request by compassion towards his brethren. Probably, as a selfish being still, he dreaded the coming spirits as those of ministers of vengeance who would overwhelm him with reproaches and execrations, as having encouraged them by his example in the broad way of ruin. Dives shrank from the presence of his brethren. Come any companions rather than these.
III. Consider the reasons on which Abraham refused so earnest a petition. The parable put into the mouth of Abraham may be vindicated by the most cogent, yet simple, reasoning. The effect of a messenger threatening us with punishment unless we repent, depends chiefly on our assurance that it is actually a messenger from God. Now which is the stronger, the evidence which we have that the Bible is God’s Word, or that which we could be supposed to have that the grave has given up its tenant, and that the spectre has spoken to us truth. The man who is not persuaded by Christ and the Apostles, might be expected to remain unpersuaded by the spectre. It would give a solemnity, an awful unearthliness, to the ministry of the word if it were conducted by a visitant from the separate state; but the pleasures and business of this life would produce gradually the same effect as now, obliterating the impression made by the solemn discourse. If they hear not Christ and His Apostles, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No., 1,496.
Reference: Luk 16:30, Luk 16:31.-J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 63.
Luk 16:31
Let us ask what was the cause which brought on the rich man so terrible a fate? It was not simply his wealth, and it was something from which an observance of the precepts of the Jewish religion would have saved him. What, then, is the character of the rich man as drawn in the parable? It is drawn in two strokes-his ordinary life, and his treatment of Lazarus. (1) His daily life was luxurious. But most certainly we have no right to condemn him for that. With the Jewish nobility in practice, as with the Jewish law in theory, luxurious living does not seem to have been thought to involve any sin whatever. (2) Lazarus is, then, the type of the poor generally. The treatment which Lazarus received is to be regarded as a fair specimen of the rich man’s behaviour to the poor generally. The portrait of the rich man, as drawn by Christ, is that of a man luxurious and selfish-habitually careful of the gratification of his own appetite, and habitually careless of the suffering which was around him, even at his doors. And from this selfish disregard of human misery, “Moses and the prophets,” had he listened to them, would certainly have saved him. There was no point on which they spoke more plainly. Love to his kindred the rich man certainly had, and his anxiety, in the midst of his own suffering, to save from the same fate the brethren whom he had left behind is almost sublime. The charity which is so often said to begin at home-the love which, strong but narrow, expends itself wholly upon the small circle of relatives and friends-that he had. The love that looks more widely, not refusing pity and aid, because the applicant is a stranger-that he had not.
J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son and Other Sermons, p. 15.
I. What the chief sins of the rich man were, although not expressly stated in the parable, may yet be understood from attending to two or three of its circumstances. First, his heart seems to have been too much set upon the good things of this life, instead of seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Secondly, as Lazarus desired to be fed with the crumbs that fell from his table, and as we do not read that he was fed, we may guess that the rich man took no notice of him, but let him lie and languish without relief. Here are two grievous sins, worldly-mindedness and hard-heartedness, justly punished with God’s wrath and damnation. Let us look to ourselves, that we be not guilty of the same sins, and liable to the same punishment.
II. Let no man complain as if he had not enough made known to him by Almighty God concerning his duty. For if even in the time of Moses and the Prophets, and before one rose from the dead, they were inexcusable, whoever they were that sinned, much more we, if we do despite unto the Spirit of grace, and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing-as we plainly do if we sin wilfully after we have come to a knowledge of the truth. For unto us that hath happened which alone this man thought needful to make any sinner repent, to us One hath come from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord, who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification. Let us therefore hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, knowing that if we break or reject this covenant, there remaineth no other.
III. Finally, if ye know these things, ye are but the more unhappy except ye do them. It is not your calling yourselves Christians, nor even your believing the Gospel when you happen to think of it, that will make you worthy to be carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom, if your heart be not with God-if your thoughts, words, and actions be not governed by His Commandments.
J. Keble, Sermons Occasional and Parochial, p. 29.
I. The radical defect in this rich man, that which was the root of all his sin and the cause of all his woe, was, that he did not use his advantages, he despised Moses and the Prophets, he had a talent given him and he buried it in a napkin. And this being the case, we shall not be so much surprised at the words of the text, if we think well upon them; for the Books of Moses and the Prophets told the rich man of his duty quite as clearly as Lazarus could have done if he had returned from the dead. They told him that he was to love God above all things and his neighbour as himself; and they told him also that God was a jealous God, and One who would in no wise spare the guilty. And if he shut his ears to this, what reason have we to think that a man returned from the dead would have greater powers of persuasion? For it is not as though there were something of which a man had to be convinced, and of which a resurrection from the dead would be a proof: there is a voice within every man, which tells him what is right and condemns what is wrong, and when this is stifled by selfishness and sin, no voice from the grave can supply its place.
II. Some advantages we all have in common: we have all the public prayers of the Church; we have all the Holy Spirit striving within us, and convincing us of sin and of righteousness; we have all our Bibles, which we can read; we may all partake, if we will, of the Holy Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. These, and such as these, are our “Moses and the Prophets;” they are the voice of God speaking to us, and telling us of the beauty of holiness, the ugliness of sin, of the glories of heaven and the horrors of hell. Do we want any other voice? Nay, if we shut our ears to these, a voice from the grave would be in vain. The same message of repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ has come to us all, and it is for us to attend to it; and if we shut our ears and harden our hearts to such messages as this, we have put ourselves into an attitude of resistance to God, and have so injured our own perceptions of right and wrong, have so blinded our eyes to that Light which lighteth every man who comes into the world, that no miracle, not even a resurrection from the dead, will have any power to convince.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 1st series, p. 209.
I. Consider how we are to understand this declaration of Abraham. There is at first sight something very startling in the principle here enunciated, more especially if we remember from whom it came. Are these, it may be asked, indeed the words of the Founder of Christianity? Is it thus He speaks of the value of miracles, who Himself repeatedly appealed to His own marvellous works as a convincing evidence of His Divine mission? To understand what the thought really is, we must inquire what additional proof of the truth of His religion or incentive to its practice, would have been given to one who had in his hands the writings of “Moses and the Prophets,” by the re-appearance of man after death. We must note here that scepticism with regard to the marvellous events of their own history does not seem to have been prevalent among the Jews of that time, and was certainly not the fault of that class, the Pharisees, to whom this parable was more immediately addressed. The Divine mission of Moses-a mission attested and enforced by miracles-was quite generally accepted as a truth. So far, then, the thought seems to be, “On you, who have already in your hands the recorded miracles of the Mosaic Dispensation, no seen miracle could produce, in enforcing the same truths, any appreciable results.”
If this were all, the passage which I have taken for my text would not present any great difficulty. But there is something still behind. Does the Author of this parable mean to say that the doctrine of a future life would be destitute of moral effect on those who were deaf to the teaching of Moses? I answer that whatever of obedience to positive law could be obtained by a system of temporal rewards and punishments-by the promise or bestowal of earthly prosperity-by the threat or infliction of earthly suffering-all that had been done by the Mosaic Dispensation. And I cannot read the words of Christ to mean less than this: that if you alter the Mosaic system merely by super-adding to the hopes and terrors of this life the hopes and terrors of the life to come, you will effect nothing. If that system has failed, yours will not succeed. If such promises and threats fail to obtain the result, you will not obtain it merely by changing the scene of their fulfilment from this world to the next.
J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son and Other Sermons, p. 30.
References: Luk 16:31.-H. P. Liddon, Church of England Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 1; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii., No. 143; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 225; G. Moberly, Parochial Sermons, p. 47; R. L. Browne,’ Sussex Sermons, p. 141; R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 2nd series, p. 186; T. T. Lynch, Three Months’ Ministry, p. 169; R. Scott, University Sermons, p. 210. Luke 16-F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, p. 246.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 16
1. The Unjust Steward. (Luk 16:1-12)
2. The Impossible Service. (Luk 16:13)
3. The Deriding Pharisees Answered. (Luk 16:14-17)
4. Concerning Divorce. (Luk 16:18)
5. The Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luk 16:19-31.)
Luk 16:1-12
Let us notice that this story was spoken to the disciples. It contains a number of difficulties. It has well been said there are knots in it which perhaps will never be untied, until the Lord comes again. We might reasonably expect that a book written by inspiration, as the Bible is, would contain things hard to be understood. The fault lies not in the book, but in ourselves. The story of the unjust steward is used to teach wisdom in the use of earthly things. What the steward did was an unjust thing, but he acted wisely. The lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely. Then our Lord makes the statement that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. But what is the application? And I say unto you, Make yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when it (not ye) fails, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. Pages could be filled with interpretations which have been given of this statement. Many of these have been made at the expense of the grace of God, which alone fits a sinner for glory. (Godet gives a novel interpretation: May not the disciple who reaches heaven without having gained here below the degree of development which is the condition of full communion with God, receive the increase of spiritual life, which is yet wanting to him, by means of those grateful spirits with whom he shared his temporal goods here below?) Heaven cannot be bought by the rightful use of earthly things. Man as Gods steward has failed and has wasted His goods. But the disciple is to use earthly things, the mammon of unrighteousness, to a wise and advantageous purpose. The Lords word may be paraphrased in this wise: Use the temporal things, the mammon of unrighteousness with an eye to the future, as the steward did his, so that it will be like friends you have made. That they may receive you is indefinite and must be regarded to signify rather Ye may be received. We leave this difficult passage by quoting a valuable comment on it: On the one hand let us beware of opposing that by any use of money we can purchase to ourselves Gods favor and the pardon of our sins. Heaven is not to be bought. Any such interpretation of the verse is most unscriptural. On the other hand, let us beware of shutting our eyes against the doctrine which the verse unmistakably contains. That doctrine plainly is, that a right use of our money in this world, from right motive, will be for our benefit in the world to come. It will not justify us. It will not bear the severity of Gods judgment, any more than other good works. But it shall be an evidence of our grace, which shall befriend our souls. There is such a thing as laying up treasure in heaven, and laying up a good foundation against the time to come. (Mat 6:20; 1Ti 6:19.)–Bishop Ryle. That the whole story has a meaning connected with the elder son the Pharisee in the preceding parable must not be overlooked. The Pharisees were avaricious. After the Lord had declared the impossible service, not alone then, but in all times, Ye cannot serve God and mammon, the Pharisees, who heard all these things and who were covetous, derided him.
Luk 16:19-31
A solemn paragraph closes the chapter. Avoid the use of the word parable in connection with these verses. The Lord said, There was a certain rich man. It is history and not a parable. The derision of the Pharisees on account of the Lords words about the unjust steward must have been based upon their trust in the law and the promise of the law, that temporal blessings and riches were in store for all who keep the law. The story our Lord relates is aimed once more at the sneering, unbelieving, self-righteous Pharisees.
The rich man had great riches. But his riches were not the evidences of divine favor and blessing. Lazarus, the poor man, had no earthly possessions. Was his poverty an evidence of divine displeasure? Then the Lord, the omniscient Lord, draws aside the veil and reveals what is hidden from the sight of man. Both die. Lazarus is carried by the angels into Abrahams bosom. He had no means to make friends for himself by using the mammon of unrighteousness, so as to be welcomed in the everlasting habitations. And yet he is there. God had in His infinite grace carried him so high. Lazarus name means God is Helper.
The rich man also died and is in Hades (not in hell; the lake of fire opens after the judgment). He is in torment and sees Lazarus in Abrahams bosom. He hears that there is no relief, no hope. An impassable gulf is fixed, which separates forever the lost and the saved. Not a ray of hope is given by the Lord, that there is the slightest possibility after death for another chance. Death fixes forever the eternal condition of every human being. Whoever meddles with this solemn truth, whether a Russellite, or Restorationist or whatever name he may bear, rejects the testimony of the Son of God and charges Him with not having spoken the truth. We cannot follow the solemn story in all its details. Future punishment of the wicked, the future conscious punishment of the wicked, the future conscious and eternal punishment of the wicked is denied and sneered at today by the majority of professing Christians. But the Lord Jesus, the friend of sinners, the One who came to seek and to save what is lost, teaches beyond controversy in this solemn story, the future, conscious and eternal punishment of the wicked.
Of late one hears much that the story is a parable, that the rich man typifies the Jew, his torment, their persecutions; the poor man is the Gentile. It is an invention. The story must be forced to mean this. The careful student will soon see how impossible such an application is. Nor is the view new. It was taught by many errorists of past generations.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Chapter 13
The Parable Of The Unjust Steward
An Illustration
Remember that parables are earthly illustrations of heavenly truths. We do not build our doctrine upon parables. We do not interpret the rest of the Bible in the light of the Lords parables. We build our doctrine upon the plain statements of holy scripture. And we interpret the parables of our Lord in the light of the whole Volume of Inspiration.
A parable must not be forced beyond its purpose. The purpose of a parable is to illustrate one primary thing. It has one central message. It is not necessary to give every word of the parable a spiritual or doctrinal meaning. In order to understand it, we must look at the parable as a whole, and seek to determine what its primary message is. In this parable the certain rich man represents the Lord our God. The rich mans steward represents us all. We are all, in a sense, stewards of God. The message taught in this parable is this: As the stewards of God, you and I are responsible to wisely use what God has put into our hands for his glory and for our own eternal good. This unjust steward was not commended for his injustice, but for his wisdom and great care in using his present circumstances to provide for himself in the future.
Someone has suggested that this world is a house. Heaven is the roof of the house. The stars are its lights. The earth, with its fruits, is a table spread by the Master of the house, who is the great and glorious Lord God. Man is the steward of the house, into whose hands God has given all the goods of his house for a time. It is the stewards responsibility to use his Masters goods wisely for the honour of his Master, and according to his Masters will. In the Day of Judgment we will be called to give an account of our stewardship.
The message of this parable is a subject of indescribable importance. It is deeper than election, more profound than predestination, and more difficult to receive than Divine sovereignty. You and I are stewards under God, responsible to use what he has put into our hands for the good of his people and the glory of his name, according to his will. If we learn nothing else from this parable, I want us to learn this: Everything (money, material possessions, time, talents, opportunities, family everything!) we have in this world belongs to God. We are only the stewards of Gods property for a while. He allows us to use that which is his. But it is our responsibility to use it for his glory and according to his direction.
The Parable Itself
First, we will briefly look at the parable itself (Luk 16:1-8).
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lords debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light (Luk 16:1-8).
Here our Lord holds before us a wicked, self-serving, unjust steward. His master trusted him with the goods of his house. But this man used his office and position to cheat his master and his masters debtors and served himself. As stated above, this unjust steward represents all men and women. God made man to serve him with his creation and honour him. But we have taken that which belongs to God and used it for ourselves. We have all attempted to rob God, both of his dominion and his dignity as God.
It is not accidental that this parable immediately follows the Lords story of the elder brother and the parable by which he rebuked the Pharisees and scribes in Luke 15. I am certain that the Pharisees understood both that parable and this one as specifically speaking of them, because they took offence at it (Luk 16:16).
Here are four things that the Lord specifically tells us about this unjust steward
He wasted his lords goods (Luk 16:1). This steward embezzled his masters goods, misapplied them, or through carelessness lost them. And for this, he was accused before his master. This is the charge laid against us all. We have taken that which God has given us to use for his glory, his Son, and his people and wasted it upon our own pleasures.
Because he had wasted his lords goods, this steward was given notice that he would soon be put out of his stewardship (Luk 16:2). In a little while he would be required to give up his stewardship and give account of himself to his master. Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke these words against the Pharisees; but he spoke them to his disciples. They are written for our learning. What do they teach us?
Soon we will be compelled to give up our stewardship. Our Lord tells us to work while it is day, for the night cometh when no man can work. We will not always enjoy the privileges and pleasures that are now ours. Death will soon come. When it does, it will deprive us of the abilities and opportunities we now have of serving Christ and his people. And when we are gone, another steward will come to take our place. We will soon be forgotten.
Our discharge from our stewardship is a matter of justice. We must die, because we have sinned. We have wasted our Lords goods. Therefore, we have forfeited our stewardship. When the Lord takes it from us, we have no grounds for complaint.
When our stewardship is taken from us, we must give account of it to our Lord (Heb 9:27; 2Co 5:10-11). Having been warned of these things, if we were wise, we would make preparation for that great day. He is a wise man who says to himself continually, Prepare to meet thy God. Soon we must stand before God to give account of our stewardship.
As soon as this unjust steward realized that his stewardship was to be taken from him, he began to make preparations for the appointed day (Luk 16:3-7). He used the time and opportunities he had to prepare for that appointed day when his stewardship would be taken away. We would be wise to think upon that day. We have been warned. Soon God will take us out of this world. Soon we will stand before God in judgment. We are fools if we do not prepare for that day.
He realized that he had no ability to earn his livelihood, and that he was too proud to beg. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed (Luk 16:3). He could not dig, because he would not dig. He was not willing to lower himself to what he looked upon as menial labour. He was not too proud to steal. But he was too proud to work! He was too lazy to work and too proud to beg. Both work and humility were contrary to his nature.
Spiritually, you and I are in the same position he was in. We cannot, by the works of our hands, save our souls. We have neither the will nor the ability to obey Gods law. By the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified. Man is not justified by the works of the law. Salvation is by grace. It cannot be earned or won by works. Salvation is the free gift of Gods free grace in Christ (Eph 2:8-9). But there is another problem We are all too proud by nature to beg for mercy. We are too proud to come to God like the publican, upon the footing of free grace through a Substitute (Luk 18:13). We are too proud to seek grace through the merits of another.
Though he was too lazy to work and too proud to beg, this unjust steward determined that he would make friends of his lords debtors, so that when he was turned out of his masters house, he might be received into theirs. This unjust steward was a treacherous, dishonest man. But he was brilliant in one thing. He used the opportunity he had to prepare for his future welfare.
I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lords debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore (Luk 16:4-7).
In Luk 16:8 the Lord Jesus tells us that the unjust stewards master commended his behaviour. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
This is a strange commendation. His lord did not commend him because he had done the things he had done, but because he had wisely provided for himself. Dishonest as he was, by lessening the bills of his masters debtors, he made for himself friends. Wicked as he was in his deeds, he had an eye to the future. Disgraceful as his actions were, he provided well for himself. He did not sit still in idleness and wait to be reduced to poverty. He schemed, planned, contrived, and found a way to secure a future home for himself.
Therefore, the Lord Jesus said, The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Do you see the contrast? This man, with regard to earthly things, was diligent. He wisely looked to and provided for the future. This is commendable even in insects and animals (Pro 6:6-9; Pro 30:24-28). But, as John Trapp observed, The worldlings wisdom serves him (as the ostrichs wings) to make him outrun others upon earth, and in earthly things; but helps him never a wit toward heaven.
Spiritual Things
Without question, the Book of Proverbs is a book of inspired wisdom drawn from earthly maxims. But the maxims, as given by Solomon, under divine inspiration, are not about carnal matters. They are about spiritual matters. Solomon is not telling us how to lay up treasures upon the earth. That would be a direct contradiction to our Lords word in Matthew 6. Solomon purpose is to show us the necessity of laying up treasure in heaven.
Yet, how foolish we are to neglect our souls! In this regard the unjust steward sets before us an example we would be wise to follow. Like him, we should look to the future (2Co 4:18). We would be wise to make provision for that day when we shall have to leave our present habitation and secure for ourselves, by faith in Christ, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. We should use every means at our disposal to secure our everlasting welfare.
J. C. Ryle wrote, The diligence of worldly men about the things of time should put to shame the coldness of professing Christians about the things of eternity. They improve their opportunities. We waste ours. They redeem their time. We squander ours. They seize the moment to increase their riches. We live as if we expect to live here forever, as though there were no eternal riches in glory.
Christs Exhortation
Second, I want us to understand the exhortation our Lord Jesus gives us in Luk 16:9. The parable ends in Luk 16:8. Luk 16:9-13 are words of instruction to you and me, by which our Saviour pointedly applies the parable to us. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations (Luk 16:9).
This is the meaning of our Lords words in this verse: Make to yourselves friends with your money and earthly goods, so that when you die, you may enter into everlasting habitations. Use your earthly goods, as stewards under God, with an eye to the future. Use your riches in this world in such a way that they shall be friends to you and not a witness against you in the Day of Judgment.
Lest any mistake what I am saying, or what our Lord is teaching in this verse, let this be perfectly understood. No man can purchase an eternal inheritance in heaven with money, any more than he can earn it by his works. Our only grounds of acceptance with God is the precious blood of Christ (1Pe 1:18-21). Your earthly riches cannot get you into heaven, no matter what you do with them. But your earthly riches can keep you out of heaven (Mat 13:22; Luk 18:22-24). It is our responsibility not to serve our earthly possessions, but rather to use our earthly possessions to serve our God, his people, and his gospel. All that we have belongs to God and is to be used for God. We are nothing but stewards. A steward takes in with one hand and distributes with the other according to his masters will (Mat 6:19-21; Mat 6:33). We were not put here to amass wealth, but to use what God puts in our hands for the glory of Christ and the good of his people.
The doctrine our Lord teaches us by this parable is unmistakable. The proper use of our earthly goods, from the proper motives, will be for our eternal benefit. It is an evidence of Gods grace in us, which shall befriend our souls forever. God the Holy Spirit has given us three inspired commentaries on our Lords exhortation in Luk 16:9.
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days (Ecc 11:1).
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith (Gal 6:7-10).
Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life (1Ti 6:17-19).
And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations (Luk 16:9).
Faithful, Or Unfaithful?
Third, our Lord gives us the basis of this exhortation and enforces it in Luk 16:10-12. If we do not make good use of Gods temporal gifts of providence, we need not expect him to bestow upon us the true riches of spiritual and everlasting grace and glory. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much (Luk 16:10).
The riches of this world are called that which is least. Men think riches are great, significant, and all-important. Our Lord calls riches that which is least, the very least of all Gods gifts to man. The spiritual riches, the riches of grace and glory are much, infinitely, immeasurably much. These are the unsearchable riches of Christ (Eph 3:8) and Gods riches in glory by Christ Jesus (Php 4:19).
Matthew Henry said, God withholds his grace from covetous worldly people more than we are aware of. And our Lord said virtually the same thing in Luk 18:25.
If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? (Luk 16:11) The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. They are the unrighteous mammon. Spiritual riches are true riches. I wonder if we really believe that. Those who are rich in faith are truly rich. Those who are rich in grace are infinitely rich. Those who are rich towards God are permanently rich. Those who are rich in Christ are perfectly rich and rich in all things (1Co 3:21). In Christ all providential things are ours, all temporal things are ours, all gracious things are ours, all spiritual things are ours, and all eternal things are ours.
And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another mans, who shall give you that which is your own? (Luk 16:12). The riches of this world are another mans. They all belong to God. We are only stewards of them, who use them for a very little while. Then, we must leave them to another. Spiritual, eternal riches are our own. They are that good part which shall not be taken away from us, neither in this world nor in the world to come. That which God has imputed to me is mine forever. That which he imparts to my soul can never be separated from me. It is my very own forever. Christs righteousness is our righteousness (Jer 33:16). His reward is our reward (Col 1:12). His inheritance is our inheritance (Rom 8:17). And his glory is our glory (Joh 17:20).
Little Things
In these verses, our Lord plainly shows us the importance of faithfulness in little things. He is showing us that little things are the truest tests of character. A man who will steal a dime will rob a bank, if he thinks he can get away with it. A woman who will gossip about you would murder you, if she could. A person who is not faithful in little things is really unfaithful in all things. And he certainly is not an heir of heavenly things. Yet, it must be understood that faithfulness is not measured by acts, but by lives. David failed greatly in some areas; but he was a faithful steward in Gods house.
Our Lords Lesson
Fourth, our Saviour sets before us a lesson we must learn. No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (Luk 16:13). As Matthew Henry rightly observed, We have no other way to prove ourselves the servants of God than by giving up ourselves so entirely to his service as to make mammon, that is, all our worldly gain, serviceable to us in his service.
If we love the world and seek to hold on to the things of the world, we will hate God and despise his grace. Our worship of, service to, and faith in God will be made to be subservient to our worldly interests. We will use the things of God to serve the world.
If we love God and seek to hold on to him, serving his kingdom and his glory, his Son and his gospel, then we will hate the world and despise all that it offers. That simply means, when the world comes into competition with God, we throw the world away and hold our God and Saviour (Luk 14:25-33). We make our business and worldly interests subservient to the worship of, obedience to, and service for our God. We make the things of the world to be neither more nor less than instruments with which we serve the Lord our God.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon! So I say to you as Joshua did to Israel of old, How long halt ye between two opinions? Choose you this day whom ye will serve. As for me and my house, I have made up my mind, We will serve the Lord!
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospels, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mar 8:34-37).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
a certain: Mat 18:23, Mat 18:24, Mat 25:14-30
a steward: Luk 8:3, Luk 12:42, Gen 15:2, Gen 43:19, 1Ch 28:1, 1Co 4:1, 1Co 4:2, Tit 1:7, 1Pe 4:10
wasted: Luk 16:19, Luk 15:13, Luk 15:30, Luk 19:20, Pro 18:9, Hos 2:8, Jam 4:3
Reciprocal: Gen 40:20 – lifted up Gen 47:14 – Joseph brought 2Ki 12:15 – for they dealt Pro 21:20 – but Pro 28:20 – faithful Ecc 5:13 – riches Mat 20:8 – unto Mat 25:19 – reckoneth Mat 25:29 – shall be taken Joh 6:12 – that nothing 1Co 7:31 – use Col 4:1 – ye
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE MAN WHO ACTED WISELY
There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely.
Luk 16:1-8
This parable draws a lesson from the conduct of a worldly man. Not that we are advised to act as he didbut that as he showed wisdom and decision in his worldly concerns, so should we in spiritual matters.
Consider the story. An accusation was made against a certain steward of having embezzled his masters property. He was not at once dismissed (Luk 16:4), for that would have been unjust before the accusation was proved, but was ordered to bring in his account, so as to satisfy his master. Just so do we stand in Gods sight. The accusation is made (Rom 5:12; Rom 5:16; Rom 5:18). We are told to be ready for the day of reckoning (Amo 4:12; 2Co 5:10).
What did the steward do? Three points may be noticed:
I. He profited by the past.When the word came to him he saw at once that he was condemned. He does not justify himself (Luk 18:11). He does not go in rashly with the account as it is (Mat 27:5). No. He was convinced, in reflecting on his situation, that he must alter his ways (1Pe 4:1-3). He says, What shall I do? Such is the cry of conviction (Act 2:37; Act 16:30).
II. He overcame the present.No sooner was he convinced of his difficulty than he set to work to conquer it. I am resolved what to do (Jos 1:7; 1Ki 18:21; Jam 1:8). There is no delay (Pro 6:5), no hesitation (Heb 2:3). He thinks, he decides, he acts (Luk 15:17-20). Look at the case of the first tenant. The steward had clearly been in the habit of receiving from him a hundred measures, of which he appropriated fifty, and sent in fifty to his lord. Now he says to the tenant, You need only pay fifty. This would put the man under obligation to himself, and make the account right for his master. So with the others, and the difficulty was overcome.
III. He provided for the future.Whichever way matters went, he was right for the futureright for his lord; standing well with the tenants. What was the result? His lord (Luk 16:8) commended him. See the case of St. Paul as illustrating our duty. What wilt Thou have me to do? This one thing I do. I know Whom I have believed. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.
Wisdom and diligence in spiritual things is the lesson to be drawn from this. We must decide and act with reference to our account for God.
Bishop Rowley Hill.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
THESE PARABLES WERE spoken to the Pharisees but the one that opens this chapter was spoken to the disciples. They were instructed by it as to the position in which men find themselves before God, and the behaviour that befits them in that position. We are stewards, and have been unfaithful in our stewardship. The steward was accused to his master that he had wasted his goods. This phrase gives us a link with the previous parable, for the younger son had wasted his substance with riotous living. All that we possess has reached us from the hand of God, so that if we squander upon ourselves that which we may have, we are really wasting our Masters goods.
The unfaithful steward found himself under notice to quit, whereupon he resolved he would use certain opportunities, still within his reach in the present, with a view to his advantage in the future. Verse Luk 16:8 is the close of the parable. The steward was unjust-the Lord plainly calls him so-yet his lord could not but commend the subtle wisdom with which he had acted, in spite of it being to his own detriment. In matters of worldly shrewdness the children of this age excel the children of God.
Verses Luk 16:9-13 are the application of the parable to us all. Earthly possessions, money and the like, are the mammon of unrighteousness, because they are the things in which mans unrighteousness is mostly displayed, though in themselves they are not intrinsically unrighteous. We are to use the mammon in such a way as to lay up a good foundation against the time to come (see 1Ti 6:17-19), or as our verse says, when it fails ye may be received into the eternal tabernacles (New Trans.).
Verse Luk 16:9 therefore shows that we-are to act upon the principle so wisely adopted by the steward; verse Luk 16:10 shows that we are to wholly differ from him in this, that what he did in unfaithfulness we are to do in all good fidelity. The unrighteous mammon, which men struggle to obtain so earnestly, and often so dishonestly, is after all that which is least. It is not properly ours at all but another mans, inasmuch as the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof. But there is the true mammon, which the Lord speaks of as, that which is your own. If we truly realize that our own things are those which we have in Christ, we shall use all that we have in this life-money, time, opportunities, mental powers-with a view to our Masters interests. At all events, we cannot serve two masters. Either God or mammon will dominate us. Let us see to it that God dominates us.
Though all this was said to the disciples, there were Pharisees listening and they openly mocked Him. To their covetous minds such teaching was ridiculous. They were great sticklers for the law, and the law had never stipulated things like these. The Lords answer to them was twofold. First, they were all for that which was outward before the eyes of men, merely concerning themselves with that which men esteemed. They ignored the God who is concerned with the state of mens hearts, and whose thoughts are wholly opposed to mens. Ultimately Gods thoughts will be established and mens thoughts overthrown.
But second, the law in which they boasted was being superseded by the kingdom of God. The law had stipulated the things necessary for mans life on earth, and the prophets had predicted Gods coming kingdom on earth. The time of the visible, world-wide kingdom was not yet, but nevertheless it was being introduced in another form by preaching, and already in this spiritual form men were beginning to press into it. The Pharisees were blind to all this, and were staying outside. But, though the law was being superseded in this way, not one tittle of it was going to fail. In its own domain it stands in all its majesty. It is holy, just and good, and its moral enactments still remain. The particular enactment which the Lord emphasized in verse Luk 16:18, was no doubt a tremendous thrust at the Pharisees, who were very slack in such matters, while busily occupied with their tithes of mint and anise and cummin.
This home-thrust was followed by the tremendous parable of verses Luk 16:19-31, if indeed it is a parable. The Lord uses a few figurative expressions such as Abrahams bosom, but He relates it all as fact. Verses Luk 16:19-22 relate very ordinary facts of this life ending in death and burial, and there for us the curtain drops. As we begin verse Luk 16:23 the Lord lifts the curtain and brings into our view the things which lie beyond.
The rich man acted on precisely the opposite principle to the steward at the beginning of the chapter. All that he had he used for selfish, present enjoyment and he left the future to care for itself. The Lord is not inveighing against riches, but against mans selfish use of riches without God. The rich man was all for the present, all for this world; Gods kingdom was nothing to him.
The word Jesus used for hell here is hades; not the lake of fire, but the unseen world of the departed. He therefore shows us that even that is for the unsaved a place of torment. Four times over does He state that hades is a place of torment.
He also shows that once the soul enters hades no change is possible. The great gulf is fixed. No transference from torment to blessedness is possible. No larger hope is here.
The rich man became quite evangelistic in hell. He desired his brethren to have a supernatural visitation to stop them reaching that awful place. The Lord shows us that no such supernatural event, were it possible, would stop people, if they are not stopped by the Word of God.
Today God is appealing to men by the New Testament as well as by Moses and the prophets, and in the New Testament is the record of the One who rose from the dead. If men reject the Bible, which is the full Word of God for today, nothing will persuade them, and they will reach the place of torment.
Oh, that a God-given conviction of this may possess us! Then, the love of God our Saviour toward man also possessing our hearts, we should be full of zeal for the souls of men. We should be more like Joseph Alleine, one of the devoted men ejected from their livings under the Act of Uniformity, who was said to be, insatiably greedy of the conversion of precious souls! And we should have the zeal for the souls of men while still it is the accepted time and the day of salvation.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
1
The first seven verses of this chapter constitute another parable. Like others, it has a specific point in view, which is to show the importance of using present opportunities to prepare for the future. Keeping this in mind, let us consider the details of the story. The rich man in the parable represents God, and the steward means human beings to whom God has entrusted the use of talents and good things of life.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
[Which had a steward.] This parable seems to have relation to the custom of letting out grounds, which we find discoursed of, Demai; cap. 6, where it is supposed a ground is let by its owner to some tenant upon this condition, that he pay half, or one third or fourth part of the products of the ground, according as is agreed betwixt them as to the proportion and quantity. So, also, he supposes an olive-yard let out upon such kind of conditions. And there it is disputed about the payment of the tithes, in what manner it should be compounded between the owner and him that occupies the ground.
Steward with Kimchi is pakidh; where he hath a parable not much unlike this: “The world (saith he) is like unto a house built; the heaven is the covering of the house; the stars are the candles in the house; the fruits of the earth are like a table spread in the house; the owner of the house, and he indeed that built it, is the holy blessed God. Man in the world is as it were the steward of the house, into whose hands his lord hath delivered all his riches, if he behave himself well, he will find favour in the eyes of his lord; if ill, he will remove him from his stewardship.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
THE passage we have now read is a difficult one. There are knots in it which perhaps will never be untied, until the Lord comes again. We might reasonably expect that a book written by inspiration, as the Bible is, would contain things hard to be understood. The fault lies not in the book, but in our own feeble understandings. If we learn nothing else from the passage before us, let us learn humility.
Let us beware, in the first place, that we do not draw from these verses lessons which they were never meant to teach.
The steward, whom our Lord describes, is not set before us as a pattern of morality. He is distinctly called the “unjust steward.” The Lord Jesus never meant to sanction dishonesty, and unfair dealing between man and man. This steward cheated his master, and broke the eighth commandment.-His master was struck with his cunning and forethought, when he heard of it, and “commended” him, as a shrewd and far-seeing man. But there is no proof that his master was pleased with his conduct. Above all, there is not a word to show that the man was praised by Christ. In short, in his treatment of his master, the steward is a beacon to be avoided, and not a pattern to be followed.
The caution, now laid down, is very necessary. Commercial dishonesty is unhappily very common in these latter days. Fair dealing between man and man is increasingly rare. Men do things in the way of business, which will not stand the test of the Bible. In “making haste to be rich,” thousands are continually committing actions which are not strictly innocent. (Pro 28:20.)
Sharpness and smartness, in bargaining, and buying, and selling, and pushing trade, are often covering over things that ought not to be. The generation of “the unjust steward” is still a very large one. Let us not forget this. Whenever we do to others what we would not like others to do to us, we may be sure, whatever the world may say, that we are wrong in the sight of Christ.
Let us observe, in the second place, that one principal lesson of the parable before us, is the wisdom of providing against coming evil.
The conduct of the unjust steward, when he received notice to quit his place, was undeniably dexterous and politic. Dishonest as he was in striking off from the bills of debtors anything that was due to his master, he certainly by so doing made for himself friends. Wicked as he was, he had an eye to the future. Disgraceful as his measures were, he provided well for himself. He did not sit still in idleness, and see himself reduced to poverty without a struggle. He schemed, and planned, and contrived, and boldly carried his plans into execution. And the result was that when he lost one home he secured another.
What a striking contrast between the steward’s conduct about his earthly prospects, and the conduct of most men about their souls! In this general point of view, and in this only, the steward sets us all an example which we should do well to follow. Like him, we should look far forward to things to come. Like him, we should provide against the day when we shall have to leave our present habitation. Like him, we should secure “a house in heaven,” which may be our home, when we put off our earthly tabernacle of the body. (2Co 5:1.) Like him we should use all means to provide for ourselves everlasting habitations.
The parable, in this point of view, is deeply instructive. It may well raise within us great searchings of heart. The diligence of worldly men about the things of time, should put to shame the coldness of professing Christians about the things of eternity. The zeal and pertinacity of men of business in compassing sea and land to get earthly treasures, may well reprove the slackness and indolence of believers about treasures in heaven. The words of our Lord are indeed weighty and solemn, “The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” May these words sink into our hearts and bear fruit in our lives!
Let us notice, lastly, in this passage, the remarkable expressions which our Lord uses about little things, in close connection with the parable of the unjust steward. We read that He said, “He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much.”
Our Lord here teaches us the great importance of strict faithfulness about “little things.” He guards us against supposing that such conduct about money as that of the unjust steward, ought ever to be considered a light and trifling thing among Christians. He would have us know that “little things” are the best test of character;-and that unfaithfulness about “little things” is the symptom of a bad state of heart.-He did not mean, of course, that honesty about money can justify our souls, or put away sin. But He did mean that dishonesty about money is a sure sign of a heart not being “right in the sight of God.” The man who is not dealing honestly with the gold and silver of this world, can never be one who has true riches in heaven. “If ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?”
The doctrine laid down by our Lord in this place, deserves most serious consideration in the present day. An idea appears to prevail in some men’s minds, that true religion may be separated from common honesty, and that soundness about matters of doctrine may cover over swindling and cheating in matters of practice! Against this wretched idea our Lord’s words were a plain protest. Against this idea let us watch and be on our guard. Let us contend earnestly for the glorious doctrines of salvation by grace, and justification by faith. But let us never allow ourselves to suppose that true religion sanctions any trifling with the second table of the law. Let us never forget for a moment, that true faith will always be known by its fruits. We may be very sure that where there is no honesty, there is no grace.
==================
Notes-
v1.-[And he said…to his disciples.] The parable of the unjust steward is notoriously full of difficulties. The curious diversity of the explanations of it which have been given is sufficient to prove this. Those who wish to examine some of these explanations fully, will find them in Trench on Parables. I can only briefly refer to them.
Pearce thinks that the “rich man” means God, and that every man is His steward.
Schleiermacher thinks that the rich man represents the Romans, the steward the publicans, and the debtor the Jewish nation,-and that our Lord’s object was to vindicate the publicans, and prove their kindness to their countrymen.
Anselm and others, think that the rich man means God, and the steward all true penitents,-and that the steward’s lowering the bills represents the first actions of repentance and charity.
Vitringa thinks that the rich man means God, and the steward the Pharisees,-that the accusation against the steward means, the charges of the prophets and of Christ,-and that the lowering of the bills means the effort made by the Pharisees to retain their position by lowering the standard of righteousness.
Jerome records an opinion ascribed to Theophilus, that the unjust steward is the Apostle Paul, who was thrust out of Judaism, -and then made himself friends by preaching the Gospel.
Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, and Olshausen think that the unjust steward is the devil, and the creditors, whom he makes his friends, mankind.
Some have thought that the unjust steward represents Pontius Pilate or Judas Iscariot.
Many think that the parable is nothing more than an earnest exhortation to liberal almsgiving. This is the view of Irenus, Augustine, Athanasius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, and Luther. Luther says, “It is a sermon on good works, and especially against avarice, that men abuse not wealth, but therewith help poor and needy people.”
I shall not discuss these opinions. I will only say that I cannot assent to any of them. Some seem to me very fanciful. All seem to me more or less untenable or defective. My own opinion shall be summed up in a few general remarks.
(A.) In interpreting this parable, we should carefully observe to whom it was addressed. It was not spoken to the “Scribes and Pharisees,” like the three last parables, but “to the disciples.” They had heard a lesson to the proud and self-righteous. Now let them hear a lesson for themselves.
(B.) The connection between the parable of the unjust steward, and that of the prodigal son, which it immediately follows, is probably something of this kind. The disciples had heard of one who sinned by wasting money. They should now hear of one who sinned by dishonesty.-They had heard of one who by carelessness squandered all his property and lost all his friends. Let them now hear of one who, by cunning management of money, made friends, and secured himself a home.-They had heard of the wickedness of riotous living. Let them now hear of another kind of wickedness no less abominable in God’s sight, dishonesty, cheating, and fraud.- They had heard the sins of Pharisees denounced and exposed. Let them now hear an exposure of the sins of impenitent and extortionate publicans. They had heard what Pharisees ought to do,-to rejoice at the conversion of sinners. Let them now hear what publicans ought to do,-to be faithful in money matters, and to make themselves friends by a right use of their wealth.
These, or some of them, appear to me the connecting links between the parable before us, and the preceding chapter. It looks to me like a caution to our Lord’s “disciples.” They were not to suppose that all Publicans were right in the Lord’s eyes, or that the sins of Publicans were not noticed by Him as well as the sins of Pharisees.
(C.) The rich man and the steward and the debtors do not appear to me to be allegorical persons. I regard them as actors in the story, which our Lord is telling; but I cannot think that they were intended to represent any particular persons.
(D.) The great lessons which the parable is intended to convey, appear to me to be three.-The first is the wisdom of providing against the future. This is taught by the story of a rich man’s steward, who by a wicked contrivance secured himself a home when he lost his office. If a wicked man can do this for an earthly home, and in a wicked way, how much more ought a righteous man to provide for himself a heavenly home, in a lawful way?-The second lesson is the importance of using money rightly. By prudent management of money, however dishonest, the unjust steward made himself friends. Let the disciples follow his example, but in an honest and righteous manner.-The third lesson is the importance of faithfulness in the least affairs of business, as a test of character. The dishonesty of the steward showed plainly the state of his heart. Let the disciples remember that unfaithfulness in money transactions, is a sure evidence of a rotten state of soul. The cheating Publican who persevered in dishonesty, and the self-righteous Pharisee who trusted in his own goodness, were both alike in one respect. They were both unfit for the kingdom of God.
[A steward.] The steward in this parable seems to have been an agent, who received his master’s rents, which were paid in kind and not in money, and through whose hands all his master’s receipts passed.
[Was accused.] The word so translated is only found in this place in the New Testament. It is the root of the word “devil.” The word devil means “accuser.” It does not however mean in this place that the steward was falsely accused. On the contrary, his own language seems clearly to show that he felt the accusation to be just, and incapable of refutation.
v2.-[Thou mayest be.] The expression so rendered means literally, “Thou wilt not be able to be steward any longer.”-It is impossible that thou canst be. I cannot allow thee.
v4.-[I am resolved.] The Greek word so translated means literally, “I have known.”-I know what I will do.
[They may receive me.] Let it be noted that the expression “they” is here used generally and indefinitely. We are not told to whom it is applied. Precisely the same expression will be found in the ninth verse.
v6.-[An hundred…fifty.] The dishonesty of the steward, we should observe, consisted in this:-He struck off part of what was due to his master. He remitted debts which were lawfully due to his lord. Instead of attending to his employer’s interest, he robbed him, and made a present to his debtors. His master apparently had no means of checking this dishonesty. If his steward told him that a debtor only owed him one half, or one fifth, of his real debt, he could apparently only take it for granted that the statement was correct.
[Of oil.] We should remember that olive oil was largely used in eastern countries, and formed a large portion of the annual produce of the land.
v8.-[The lord commended.] Let it be always noted in reading this parable, that the expression “lord” here, does not mean the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the “master or lord” of the unjust steward. He saw the result of the steward’s schemes, in his reception at his creditors’ houses. It is not, however, quite clear that he saw that he himself had been cheated.
Compare with this expression the words of David, “Men will praise thee when thou doest well unto thyself.” (Psa 49:18.)
Perhaps it is well to mention here, that some think the dealings of the steward with his lord’s debtors were not really so dishonest and fraudulent as they appear to us in the present day. They say that this steward had a plenary power to remit or abate part of the debts due to his master, and that he simply exercised this power at a time when it very much promoted his own interests. If this explanation were true it would certainly account for the absence of angry expressions on the part of the master. But it is an explanation which is slenderly supported.
[The unjust steward.] The Greek words here are remarkable. They mean literally the “steward of unrighteousness.” The expression translated the “unjust judge,” in Luk 18:6, is precisely similar.
[Done wisely.] The word translated “wisely,” might have been better rendered “prudently.” The wisdom commended in the steward, is wisdom in attending to his own interests. It is not wisdom unto salvation. The Greek adjective of the adverb “wisely,” is the very word that is used in the Septuagint about the serpent in Gen 3:1. “He was more ‘subtle’ than all the beasts.”
[Children of the world.] This expression means worldly people; and the opposite expression, “children of light,” means godly people, people who follow the light, and walk in the light. See Joh 12:36; Eph 5:8. Compare also Luk 7:35.
[In their generation wiser.] The meaning of this expression is, “The children of this world are wiser towards their generation-that is, in what relates to this world-than the children of light are toward their generation-that is, in what relates to the kingdom of God.” It might even be rendered more closely, “The children of this world are wiser toward their own generation, that is, in their intercourse with worldly people like themselves,-than the children of light are in their intercourse with their own brethren.”
v9.-[Make to yourselves friends, &c.] The meaning of this saying of our Lord’s, is often much misunderstood. The true sense of it I believe to be as follows, “Make to yourselves friends with your money,-by a right use of it,-in order that when ye die, ye may be received into everlasting habitations.”
[Friends.] This question is often raised, who these friends are, whom we are to “make” in life, and to be “received by” in death. Some have thought the Three persons of the Trinity are intended,-some the angels,-and some the people to whom our money has done good. I cannot assent to any of these three views. The expression appears to me to be general and indefinite, and to be borrowed from the conduct of the unjust steward, in order to make the lesson more pointed. The meaning seems to me to be no more than this, “Use your money with an eye to the future, as the steward did his. Spend your money in such a way that your expenditure shall be a friend to you, and not a witness against you in another world.”
[The mammon of unrighteousness.] This is a very remarkable expression. It means “riches.” But why “riches” are so called in this chapter and no where else in the Bible, we do not know.
The word “mammon” is Syriac; or, according to Augustine, Punic. It means, all are agreed, riches or gain. Some think that it was a name given to the god of riches. But this is questionable.
The expression, “riches of unrighteousness,” is very peculiar. Some think that our Lord meant “riches acquired unrighteously,” like “treasures of wickedness.” (Pro 10:2.)-Some think that He meant “riches which in the nature of things can never be got without some unrighteousness of sin.”-Some think that He meant “uncertain, unstable riches.”-This last, compared with the expression, “true riches,” in the 11th verse, appears most likely to be the true meaning. Pearce quotes in support of this view, Joh 7:18, and 2Th 2:12. Compare 1Ti 6:17.
[When ye fail.] This expression evidently means, “when ye die.” It is very peculiar, and the Greek word is only found in this sense here. It is the root of our English word “eclipse.”
[They may receive you.] I cannot believe that this expression refers either to the Trinity, the angels, or the persons whom we have helped with our money. I regard it as indefinite, and signifying only, “Ye may be received.” The same sort of expression is found in Mat 1:23, Mat 5:15; Luk 12:20; Act 7:6; 1Th 5:3; Rev 6:4.
[Everlasting habitations.] This expression must evidently mean heaven. The word translated “habitations,” is translated “tabernacles” in every other place where it is found in the New Testament.
In leaving this verse, I will mention two cautions which should always be remembered in interpreting it.-On the one hand let us beware of supposing that by any use of money we can purchase to ourselves God’s favour and the pardon of our sins. Heaven is not to be bought. Any such interpretation of the verse is most unscriptural.-On the other hand, let us beware of shutting our eyes against the doctrine which the verse unmistakeably contains. That doctrine plainly is, that a right use of our money in this world, from right motives, will be for our benefit in the world to come. It will not justify us. It will not bear the severity of God’s judgment, any more than other good works. But it shall be an evidence of our grace, which shall befriend our souls. There is such a thing as “laying up treasure in heaven,” and “laying up a good foundation against the time to come.” (Mat 6:20; 1Ti 6:19.)
v10.-[Faithful…least…much.] This verse seems to be used in a proverbial way. It is an acknowledged truth, that a man’s conduct in little things is a sure test of what he is likely to do in great things, and that when a man is unfaithful in small matters, we do not expect him to be faithful in important ones. The application of this principle is made in the two following verses.
v11.-[If therefore…not been faithful.] The argument in this and the following verse is one and the same, though the expressions are different. The “unrighteous mammon” here means “money.” The “true riches” mean treasure in heaven. The doctrine is, that he who is dishonest and unfaithful in the discharge of his duties on earth, must not expect to have heavenly treasure, or to be saved.
v12.-[That which is another man’s.] The argument in this verse is like that of the preceding one.-Money is called “that which is another man’s,” because it passes from one to another, and is never our own long.-Eternal life is called “that which is your own,” because it is the only property which endures for ever. Everything else that we have is only a loan from God, and may be withdrawn any day. Grace and peace once given are an everlasting possession. Once ours they are ours to all eternity.
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
The second division of the discourse (chaps, Luk 10:1 to Luk 17:10), addressed to the disciples. The parable it contains presents great difficulties to the interpreter; although the sense of the words is clear, and the general lesson obvious. The view given below seems to present the fewest difficulties; other interpretations are indicated in passing.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
USE OF OPPORTUNITY
In the last lesson thought was turned towards the heavenly calling of the disciples, of which earthly wealth is not necessarily a part. To the Jews, this was a great change, which we who, unlike them, never had a country on earth allocated to us, cannot well understand. For this reason our Lord now changes the character of His instruction, and shows in the parable of the unjust steward the results of the right use of opportunity, and in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the perilous consequences of the opposite.
The lord of Luk 16:8 is not Jesus Christ, but the stewards earthly master who commended him for his foresight. The world which the sinner serves commends him in the same way for similar chicanery. On the other hand, Luk 16:9 is to be understood as in the RV. It is not when ye fail, but when it shall fail, the mammon of the worldly possessions leased to you for a little while, that the eternal friends you have made by the righteous use of it will receive you into the eternal tabernacles. We thus see that our future possession, so apt to be viewed as airy and intangible, comes out as a solid and substantial reality.
Of course the covetous Pharisees deride Him for teaching like this (Luk 16:13-15), therefore, after he rebukes them for their fleshly desires (Luk 16:18), He enforces what He has said by the story that follows (Luk 16:19-31). It is not said that this is a parable, and for all we know there may have been two such men on earth whose history in the other world answers to that set forth in language suited to the day. The vail is here lifted by Him who was competent to do it, and the condition of the lost in the unclothed state laid bare before us. Of what use then is earthly wealth so dearly prized by the covetous, if it be expended only in gratifying the selfish desires of its possessor?
This lesson will not be too long if we include the next chapter down to verse 20, where we reach a natural division of the book. The chief feature of that chapter is the healing of the ten lepers (Luk 17:11-19), but the transition to it is our Lords discourse to His disciples in the duty of forgiveness (Luk 17:1-10). The occasions for the forgiveness would be many and unavoidable in a life of sin (Luk 17:1-2), but it should never be omitted (Luk 17:3-4). In the presence of such an obligation the disciples might well say Lord increase our faith! (Luk 17:5). And yet as He teaches them, it is not faith they require as much as obedience. This obedience should be displayed without self- glorying (Luk 17:6-10).
The story of the ten lepers illustrates four principles of the Gospel: (1) the Lord visited the scenes of their wretchedness unasked; (2) they owned that among themselves, Jews and Samaritans there was no difference; (3) they supplicated divine mercy as those who felt their need of it; and (4) manifesting the obedience of faith they got the desired blessing. It is not till after all this that any difference is seen, and that in the case of the Samaritan. He who was the most signal example of grace of them all, most valued it. But what a gainer he was by turning back to glorify God! (Luk 17:19).
QUESTIONS
1. In what sense does Christ now change the character of His instruction?
2. Who is meant by lord in Luk 17:8?
3. How does this lesson show that the future hope of the saint is solid and substantial?
4. Have we any positive ground for calling the story of the rich man and Lazarus a parable?
5. How does the incident of the ten lepers illustrate the principles of the Gospel?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Our Lord begins this chapter with the parable of the rich man’s steward, who being called upon by his master to give up his accounts, in order to his being discharged from his office, casts about with himself what course he had best take to provide for his subsistence, when he should be turned out of his employment: at last he resolves upon this course; that he will go to his lord’s debtors, and take a favorable account of them, writing down fifty for an hundred, that by this means he might oblige them to be kind to him in his necessity; this is the sum of the parable.
Now the scope and design of it is this: To exhort all men that are intrusted by God here with estates, honors, and authority, to make use of all these unto spiritual ends, the glory of God, and the benefit of others; for we are not proprietors and owners, but stewards only, of the manifold gifts of God, and must be accountable unto him for all at last; but in the mean time to use, employ, and improve our Lord’s goods to the best advantage for ourselves, while we are entrusted with them; this is the scope of the parable.
Now the observations from it are these:
1. That all persons, even the highest and greatest of persons, are but stewards of the good things of God.
2. That our stewardship must and shall have an end; we shall not be always, no, we shall not be long, stewards.
3. That when we are put out of our stewardship, we must give an account of our carriage therein; and the greater our trust was, the heavier will our reckoning be.
4. That therefore it will be our highest prudence, while we are entrusted with our master’s goods, so to use and improve them, as may make most for our comfort and advantage, when we give up our account.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Luk 16:1. And he also, &c. To give a further check to the maliciousness of the Pharisees, and the obstinacy with which they opposed every thing that was good, he delivered, while they were still present, the parable of the crafty steward, whom he proposed as an example of the dexterous improvement which worldly men make of such opportunities and advantages as fall in their way for advancing their interest. By this parable, Jesus designed to excite his disciples to improve, in like manner, the advantages they might enjoy for advancing their own spiritual welfare; and particularly to spend their time and money in promoting the conversion of sinners, which, of all the offices in their power, was the most acceptable to God, and the most beneficial to man. He said also to his disciples Not only to the scribes and Pharisees, to whom he had been hitherto speaking, but to all the younger as well as the elder brethren, to the returning prodigals, who were now his disciples. A certain rich man had a steward To whom the care of his family, and all his domestic concerns, were committed: Christ here teaches all that are now in favour with God, particularly pardoned penitents, to behave wisely in what is committed to their trust. And the same was accused unto him, &c. Some of the family, who had a real concern for their lords interest, observing the steward to be both profuse in his distributions, and negligent in taking care of the provisions of the family, thought fit to inform their lord, that he was wasting his goods. Dr. Whitby quotes Rab. D. Kimchi, on Isa 40:21, commenting as follows, The fruits of the earth are like a table spread in a house; the owner of this house is God; man in this world is, as it were, the steward of the house, into whose hands his Lord hath delivered all his riches; if he behave himself well, he will find favour in the eyes of his Lord; if ill, he will remove him from his stewardship. And thus, adds the doctor, the scope of this parable seems to be this: that we are to look upon ourselves, not as lords of the good things of this life, so as to get and use them at our pleasure, but only as stewards, who must be faithful in the administration of them.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
This piece contains: 1 st. The parable of the unjust steward, with accompanying reflections (Luk 16:1-13); 2 d. Reflections forming an introduction to the parable of the wicked rich man, and the parable itself (Luk 16:14-31). Those two portraits are evidently the counterparts of one another. The idea common to both is that of the relation between the use made of earthly goods and man’s future beyond the tomb. The steward represents the owner who is able to secure his future by a wise use of those transitory goods; the wicked rich man, the owner who compromises his future by neglecting this just employment of them.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
XCII.
SECOND GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.
(Probably in Pera.)
Subdivision E.
PARABLE OF THE UNRIGHTEOUS STEWARD.
cLUKE XVI. 1-18.
c1 And he said also unto the disciples [If we remember that many publicans were now taking their stand among Jesus’ disciples, we will more readily understand why Jesus addressed to them a parable about an unjust man. They would be more readily affected by such a story], There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. [“Wasting” of this verse and “wasted” of Luk 15:13 are parts of the same verb. The attitude of the two brethren to their father’s estate, as set forth in the previous parable, introduced thoughts as to the proper relation which a man bears to his possessions, and these relations Jesus discusses in this parable. While no parable has been so diversely explained, yet the trend of interpretation has been in the main satisfactory. In Luk 16:8 the Lord himself gives the key to the parable, which is that the children of light, in the conduct of their affairs, should emulate the wisdom and prudence of the children of the world in the conduct of their affairs. The difficulty of the parable is more apparent than real. The whole parabolic machinery is borrowed from worldly and irreligious life, where dishonest cunning and rascality are freely tolerated. The child of light is equally shrewd and wise in the management of his affairs; using, however, only those means and methods which are permissible in his sphere of action. God’s word, of course, nowhere teaches the absurdity [506] that sinful methods are permitted to him whom it calls to lead a sinless life. While the steward’s conduct teaches valuable lessons, the steward himself is condemned as an “unrighteous” man in Luk 16:8.] 2 And he called him, and said unto him, What is this that I hear of thee? [an indignant expression of surprise arising from abused confidence] render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward. [Ordinarily the stewards were slaves; but this was evidently a free man, for he was neither punished nor sold, but discharged.] 3 And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord taketh away the stewardship from me? I have not strength to dig [Being too weak in body because of my luxurious living. Digging refers generally to agricultural labor]; to beg I am ashamed. [Being too strong in pride because of my exalted manner of life.] 4 I am resolved what to do [a way of escape comes to him in a sudden flash of discovery], that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they [my lord’s debtors] may receive me into their houses. 5 And calling to him each of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6 And he said, A hundred measures of oil. [The measure mentioned here is the Hebrew bath, which corresponded roughly to a firkin, or nine gallons.] And he said unto him, Take thy bond [literally, writings], and sit down quickly and write fifty. [The amount remitted here–450 gallons of olive oil–represented a large sum of money. Such a reduction would put the debtor under great obligation to the steward.] 7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. [The measure here is the Hebrew cor, which contains ten baths, or ephahs, or, more exactly, eighty-six and seven-tenths gallons.] He saith unto him, Take thy bond, and write fourscore. [The amount remitted was about 267 bushels, and the debtor himself altered the writing, that he might be in no uncertainty about it. Scholars disagree as to whether these debtors were tenants or traders; i.e., [507] purchasers of produce who had given their bonds or notes for the same. Meyer, Trench, Godet, and others favor this latter view, but the language used and the customs of the land rather indicate that the former is correct. In the East rents are in proportion to the crop, and hence they vary as it varies. It was natural, therefore, that the steward should ask the amount of the rent; and also natural, since rents were thus payable in kind, that the tenant should answer as to the very thing owed. A trader would have been held, not for the purchase, but for the price, and would rather have specified the money due than the quantity or thing bought. Since the price of produce varies, it has been the immemorial custom everywhere to fix the amount to be paid for it at the very time it is purchased, and this amount becomes the debt.] 8 And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely [shrewdly]: for the sons of this world are for their own generation [their own clan or class] wiser than the sons of light. [That is to say, the steward, a worldly-minded rascal, knew better how to deal with a worldly-minded master above him and dishonest tenants beneath him, than a son of light knows how to deal with the God over him and his needy brethren about him. The verse contrasts the sons of two households: the children of the worldly household exercise more forethought and prudence in gaining among their brethren friends for the day of need, and in expending money to that end, than do the children of the light. The “devil’s martyrs,” in their skillful prudence, often shame the saints. If the latter showed a wisdom in their affairs analogous to that which the unjust steward employed in his affairs, God would commend them as the lord commended the steward.] 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness [see Mat 25:35-40, where our Lord altogether identifies himself with his poor and unfortunate disciples, and returns on their behalf a heavenly recompense for any kindness which has been shown them on the earth. Only in this secondary and subordinate sense can those whom the Christian has benefited receive him into heaven. Nor does the passage teach that their is any merit in almsgiving, since the thing given is already the property of another ( Luk 16:12). Almsgiving is only a phase of the fidelity required of a steward, and the reward of a steward is not of merit but of grace– Luk 17:7-10, Mat 25:21.] 10 He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. [God does not judge by the magnitude of an act, but by the spiritual principles and motives which lie back of the act. A small action may discover and lay bare these principles quite as well as a large one. In the administration of small properties entrusted to us on the earth we reveal our disposition and temper as stewards quite as well as if we owned half the universe.] 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? [The word “unrighteous” is here used to mean deceitful, as opposed to true. Worldly riches deceive us by being temporal and transitory, while the true riches are eternal– 2Co 4:18.] 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? [We are all God’s stewards, and the perishing possessions of earth are not our own ( 1Ch 29:14), but that which is given us forever is our own– 1Co 3:22.] 13 No servant can serve two masters [ Gal 1:10, Jam 4:4]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and [509] mammon. [See Luk 23:35). This was a new phase of their opposition, and showed that they no longer feared Jesus as formerly, being assured that he aimed at no earthly dominion. Because of his poverty they may have regarded him as prejudiced against wealth. At any rate, they regarded themselves as living contradictions of this to them ridiculous statement that a man could not be rich and yet religious.] 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: dor that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. [The Pharisees lived in such outward contrast to the publicans and made such pretensions and claims that men esteemed them righteous, but they were none the less abominable in God’s sight. God approves righteousness when inward, but despises the mere outward show of it.] 16 The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it. [See p. 283.] 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than one tittle of the law to fall. [See page 236. The law and the prophets had been used of God to set up the old dispensation, and it had been so perverted and abused that in it the Pharisees could pass for righteous men, though abominable according to its true standard. Since the days of John the old dispensation has been merging into the new, and this also has been subjected to violence. But despite all the changes made, approved, and justified by men, the God-given law had never changed. Its smallest letter could no more be eliminated than the universe could be obliterated. But of course the Lawgiver could with notice modify his law.] 18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery. [See p. 242. This precept is inserted here as [510] an illustration of a flagrant violation of the law of God both countenanced and practiced by these Pharisees.]
[FFG 506-511]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Luke Chapter 16
In chapter 16, the effect of grace on conduct is presented, and the contrast that exists (the dispensation being changed) between the conduct that Christianity requires with regard to the things of the world, and the position of the Jews in that respect. Now this position was only the expression of that of man made evident by the law. The doctrine thus embodied by the parable is confirmed by the parabolic history of the rich man and Lazarus, lifting up the veil that hides the other world in which the result of mens conduct is manifested.
Man is the steward of God (that is, God has committed His goods to man). Israel stands especially in this position.
But man has been unfaithful; Israel had indeed been so. God has taken away his stewardship; but man is still in possession of the goods to administer them, at least, in fact (as Israel was at that moment). These goods are the things of earth-that which man can possess according to the flesh. Having lost his stewardship by his unfaithfulness, and being still in possession of the goods, he uses them to make friends of his masters debtors by doing them good. This is what Christians should do with earthly possessions, using them for others, having the future in view. The steward might have appropriated the money due to his master; he preferred gaining friends with it (that is, he sacrifices present to future advantage). We may turn the miserable riches of this world into means of fulfilling love. The spirit of grace which fills our hearts (ourselves the objects of grace) exercises itself with regard to temporal things, which we use for others. For us it is in view of the everlasting habitations. That they may receive you is equivalent to that you may be received-a common form of expression in Luke, to designate the fact without speaking of the individuals that perform it, although using the word they.
Observe that earthly riches are not our own things; heavenly riches, in the case of a true Christian, are his own.
These riches are unrighteous, in that they belong to fallen man, and not to the heavenly man, nor had any place when Adam was innocent.
Now, when the veil is lifted from the other world, the truth is fully brought to light. And the contrast between the Jewish dispensation and the Christian, is clearly unfolded; for Christianity reveals that world, and, as to its principle, belongs to heaven.
Judaism, according to Gods government on earth, promised temporal blessing to the righteous; but all was in disorder: even the Messiah, the head of the system, was rejected. In a word, Israel, looked at as set under responsibility, and to enjoy earthly blessing on obedience, had entirely failed. Man, in this world, could no longer, on that footing, be the means of bearing testimony to the ways of God in government. There will be a time of earthly judgment, but it was not yet come. Meanwhile, the possession of riches was anything rather than a proof of Gods favour. Personal selfishness, and alas! indifference to a brother in distress at his door, was, instead, the characteristic of its possession among the Jews. Revelation opens the other world to our view. Man, in this world, is fallen, wicked man. If he has received his good things here, he has the portion of sinful man; he will be tormented, while the other one whom he had despised will find happiness in the other world.
It is not a question here of that which gives title to enter heaven, but of character, and of the contrast between the principles of this world and the invisible world. The Jew made choice of this world; he has lost this and the other also. The poor man whom he had thought contemptible is found in Abrahams bosom. The whole tenor of this parable shews its connection with the question of Israels hopes, and the idea that riches were a proof of the favour of God (an idea which, false as it may be in every case, is intelligible enough if this world is the scene of blessing under the government of God). The subject of the parable is shewn also by that which is found at the end of it. The miserable rich man desires that his brethren might be warned by some one who had risen from the dead. Abraham declares to him the uselessness of this means. It was all over with Israel. God has not again presented His Son to the nation who rejected Him, despising the law and the prophets. The testimony of His resurrection met with the same unbelief that had rejected Him when living, as well as the prophets before Him. There is no consolation in the other world if the testimony of the word to the conscience is rejected in this. The gulf cannot be crossed. A returning Lord would not convince those who had despised the word. All is in connection with the judgment of the Jews, which would close the dispensation; as the preceding parable shews what the conduct of Christians should be with regard to things temporal. All flows from the grace which, in love on Gods part, accomplished the salvation of man, and set aside the legal dispensation and its principles by bringing in the heavenly things.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
CHAPTER 13
THE UNJUST STEWARD
Luk 16:1-13. And He continued to speak to His disciples, There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and he was falsely accused to him as wasting his goods.
a. The word here dieblethe, accused, E. V., is the strongest word in the Greek language for false accusation. Yet he could not help himself, but was forced to face his landlord, and abide his destiny as if he had been ever so guilty.
b. And calling him, he said to him, What is this I hear concerning you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you are not able to be steward any longer. We should all profit by this incident, considering the fact that we are Gods stewards, every one of us, and liable every minute to be called into His presence to give an account of our stewardship as when we pass out of this world we can be stewards no more.
c. The steward said within himself, What shall I do? because my lord taketh my stewardship away from me. I am unable to dig; I am ashamed to beg. The truth of it is, the man had held the office so long, and thus accustomed to mental labor only, that he had lost his ability, hardihood, and aptitude to rough work and hard manual toil, so that he was actually unable to make a living if put out of his office; while, of course, he was ashamed to turn beggar. It seems that the man had used all of his salary as fast as it came due, so that he had actually accumulated nothing, and would consequently be utterly destitute of a living if turned out of his office.
d. I know what I shall do, in order that when I may be removed from my stewardship they may receive me into their houses. He now proposes to do something in order to make favor with the people, so they will show him kindness, and extend him their hospitality, after he is thrown out of office. Calling each one of the debtors of his lord, he spoke to the first, How much do you owe my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said to him, Take thy accounts, and sitting down, quickly write fifty.
Of course this was a private transaction in his office, known only to himself and the recipient. And then he said to another, How much do you owe? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. He says to him, Take out thy accounts, and write eighty. So the steward doubtless went through the entire curriculum of indebtedness to his lord, meeting each debtor privately, and confidentially making these liberal donations to each one, thus bringing them under great financial obligation, so they would be ready in any emergency to reciprocate the favor. Consequently the steward would have so many people thus brought under obligations to him, that when thrown out of employment and tramping round, he would have plenty of homes and friends, and find an abundance of kind hospitality among the people to whom he had made these liberal donations.
e. And the lord praised the unjust steward, because he acted shrewdly. Of course, the landlord in a case of that kind would find out this extensive depletion of the accounts; but as the business was all in the hands of this steward, who was his legal and responsible agent, and authorized to sign his name to the papers, he could neither disentangle the matter nor have recourse so as to rectify the mutilations. Consequently while he could not help himself, seeing through the problem involved, and recognizing the fact that this man had brought quite a lot of his customers under lasting financial obligations to him, he said to the people, He is a sharp, shrewd fellow, thus ingeniously managing to subserve his own interest when forced to resign his office. Now you see this landlord emblematizes God. N.B.
He did not praise the man for his rascality, but for his shrewdness, which is an exceedingly commendable trait. We must not apply our Saviors metaphors indefinitely, as the illustration is generally confined to some isolated salient fact. Much confusion in Biblical interpretation arises from the misapplication of the tropes and figures used by the Holy Ghost to bring Divine truth within our comprehension. Because the sons of this age are wiser in their generation than the sons of light. The meaning of this is very plain. People, as a rule, provide much better for this life than that which is to come. O how difficult it is to get Christians so filled and dominated by the Holy Spirit as to subordinate time to eternity, earth to heaven, and the people to God! O how few are actually living for heaven, with an eye single to the glory of God! When the things of this world are so fleeting and transitory, how strange that even Christians do not more faithfully obey the Saviors commandment: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust do corrupt, and thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupt, nor thieves break through nor steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also!
f. I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, in order that when it may fail you, they may receive you into eternal habitations. The mammon of unrighteousness is money, the unrighteousness signifying the fraudulent manner in which it is so frequently obtained, the word here being inserted in continuation of the preceding narrative, where the steward acted fraudulently, and yet very wisely, his lord commending his wisdom, but not his fraud. Now the answer to the above question simply involves the solution of the problem by which we can all make money our friend. We frankly admit that money is a wonderful power. Why does England, a small island in the Atlantic Ocean, girdle the world with her commerce, overawe the time-honored nations with her gunboats, and constrain all the powers of earth to recognize her as Mistress of the Seas? The principal reason is because she has been piling up gold in the Bank of England a thousand years. Hence her money-power solves the problem. When mammon gets you by the throat, she is almost certain to drag you into hell. There is a way by which you can make money your friend, instead of permitting it to be your enemy. What is that way? It is none other than entire sanctification. The truly sanctified man has made money his friend, ready to go at his bidding and come at his beck, so that he rules it, sending it on missions of love and mercy, to shine the light of truth and holiness into the dark hovels of poverty, sin, and misery; causing prisoners to rejoice, and hell-dens to be transformed into heavenly vestibules, and missionaries to cross the great oceans and light the antipodean continents with the glory of God; and bring heaven down to bless the sable children of Ham as they tread the burning sands of the Dark Continent; cause the wild sons of Esau to rejoice in the glorious benedictions of Abrahams God, the red men of the Orient to turn away from their dumb idols and glorify the God of Israel, and the almond-eyed Chinaman and the wild Tartar hordes to hail with joy the glorious coming King, turn evangelists, and roll the celestial fire from arctic mountains to equatorial seas. Now we are well assured that we will all soon fail in this world, when we must go into eternity. This man, through the instrumentality of money, brought many people under obligation to him, so that when turned out of his stewardship, to abide his destiny a penniless tramp, he had so many people thus indebted to him that he actually found it more comfortable tramping than performing the duties of his office, as doors were thrown open on all sides, and a hearty welcome extended from many homes to come and abide with them indefinitely, without money and without price. When we die, we all surrender up our stewardship. Now, do you not know that many poor widows, beggars, invalids, and especially the heathens, who have been saved by your money, whose names you have never heard, will get to heaven, in all probability, before you are called to give up your stewardship? Do you not know that all the saints have guardian angels, whether in America, Africa, Asia, or the islands of the sea? Thee guardian angels are posted about our relations either to other. Now the end has come, and it is said, You can be steward no longer; i.e., You die today. Do you not know that the guardian angels around your dying bed will wing their flight to heaven, and there notify the beneficiaries of your philanthropy that you are coming? Do you not know that they will ring the bells of heaven, blow the jubilee trumpets, come sweeping out through the gate in shining platoons, calling your name, with a long, loud Welcome home! thus actually verifying this promise of Jesus to receive you into eternal habitations?
g. He who is faithful in little is faithful in much; and he who is unjust in little is unjust in much. So if you are faithful, industrious, frugal, and economical in the little things of temporal life, it is demonstrative proof, as a rule, that you are faithful in the great things of God and heaven. This is an awful argument against laziness and carelessness appertaining to temporal things. As a rule, indifference, indolence, and neglect of house, farm, books, education, and all phases of temporal interest, are indices of a corresponding indifference and depreciation in the great things of the kingdom. Hence it is exceedingly difficult for a lazy person to be a Christian. If therefore you are not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will intrust to you the true? There is a woeful blindness among Christians, and even holiness people, on this very subject of industry, economy, and frugality. So many would like to go to the Holy Land, but stagger when those who have been there testify that it is impossible to make the trip on less than one thousand dollars, while it is unsafe to start with less than twice that amount. All that is true, if you sail first-class and eat at tables. I very recently traveled through England, France, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and the Holy Land, seventeen thousand miles, on four hundred dollars, sailing second class, and when on land buying my own edibles, and thus boarding myself, living elegantly everywhere I went, in Europe, Asia, Africa, as well as America, on fifteen cents a day, and always having money to give the poor beggars and help the missionaries in all of my travels, which is no small matter in the Old World. Well has the poet said,
Man wants but little here below, Nor wants that little long.
It takes so little to live on in this world that any person who has the use of bodily organs can not only make a living, but have much more to contribute for the glory of God in the amelioration of soul and body than the small pittance requisite to his fleeting life. A girl in New England, only twelve years old, made and sold maple-sugar and built stone fence to the amount of ninety dollars, every cent of which she gave the missionary cause, as she lived with her parents and did not need the money. If you are unfaithful in anothers business, who will commit to you your own? This life is so complicated that no man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself,
our affairs being so identified with the interest of others that, either directly or indirectly, we are working for one another. Not so in spiritual things. Every tub stands on its own bottom. You can go to heaven if all your neighbors go down to hell, et vice versa. So if you are not faithful, true, reliable, industrious, economical, and frugal in temporal things, can you expect God to entrust to you the priceless investment of glory and immortality? The presumption is, you would fail.
h. No servant is able to serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other, You are not able to serve God and mammon. You see from our Saviors conclusion of this notoriously mysterious parable (as generally considered), while temporal things are indices of spiritual, and as a rule both are appreciated or neglected together, yet we must not forget that making the best we can of all temporal things, as Gods faithful stewards we are to subordinate them indiscriminately to the glory of God. If we permit a competition to rise between the things of this world, here emblematized by mammon, and the things of God, His claims upon us, our duties and responsibilities, we will end in wreckage. God made the material world, and gave us these mortal bodies, vehicles of probation, and requires us to appreciate, appropriate, and utilize the elements of earth, air, and water for His glory; meanwhile all temporal labors, enterprises, and achievements are to be subordinated to the will of God, and utilized with an eye single to His glory in the amelioration of humanity and the salvation o the world. John Wesleys maxim is here exceedingly appropriate: Make all you can, save all you can, and give all you can. You see, the final evolution of this mysterious parable culminates in that full and perfect sanctification which alone can make mammon your friend, submissive to your mandamus, meekly wheeling into line, and becoming your most potent ally in the salvation of the world. If your life does not thus culminate in complete and perfect victory over money and all temporal things, so that you can ungrudgingly and joyfully subordinate them to the sweet will of God in every respect, you still leave a handle for Satan to take hold of, divert you from the narrow way, and drag you down to endless woe.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Luk 16:1. A certain rich man had a steward accused that he had wasted his goods. After the parable of the prodigal son, we have a second, of a prodigal steward, who had wasted his lords property. The spirit of the parable is, that we should so live in equity with men and in piety towards God, as to ensure the rewards and the gift of righteousness in the life to come.
Luk 16:2. Give an account of thy stewardship. The steward, being now overtaken with poverty, had recourse to the unrighteous mammon instead of equity. What shall I do? I will lay a plan for future support, and will draw all the tenants into it, by making them co-partners in my fraud. Short- sighted mortal, he might have been sure that the tenants would get rid of such a burden as soon as they could. The time when a man suddenly loses his bread, or his property, is the time for the brightest virtues or the foulest vices to appear. In my wide intercourse with the religious world, I have known several characters ruined at a stroke by being drawn into insolvent partnerships; and by honourably giving up their all, they have acquired that excellence of character which has ensured the sympathy of the public, and the happiness of their future lives.
Luk 16:7. A hundred measures of wheat. The cors of the Hebrews was almost the load of an ass, as on Ezr 7:22.
Luk 16:8. The lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely. There is some dispute among the critics whether these words were spoken by our Saviour, as Erasmus contends, or by the stewards lord. Tirinus takes the contrary side. What matter. If our Saviour spake them of himself, he spake them as a parable; and so moralized on the unrighteous policy of the steward, as to teach his disciples wisdom for a future world. Neither the steward nor his falsehood is here commended, but his prudence, base as it was, like the prudence of the ant, which is commended, to make us wise as the stewards of worldly riches, that when we fail on earth, we may be received into the heavenly habitation.
Luk 16:9. The mammon of unrighteousness. The word mammon designates money, riches; and the mammon of iniquity or unrighteousness is applied to the gifts by which judges are corrupted. 1Sa 8:3. It is the opposite of the mammon of righteousness, of mercy or alms; for alms in a multitude of places is expressed by the Hebrew word tsadikeh, and the Greek dikaiosyne, and the Syriac ezdakat. But adikia in the text is often rendered hurtful, both in the Septuagint and in the new testament; and in a few places it has an import of deceit. Dr. Lightfoot has quotations from the targumists, where the terms mammon of wickedness, mammon of violence, mammon of rapine, and mammon of falsehood frequently occur. By the mammon of unrighteousness we understand riches unlawfully acquired, for the Lord commended the unjust steward, as the model of christians, to lay up a good foundation for the life to come, enjoining them, at the same time, to be most strictly conscientious in every trust and duty; for if we are not faithful in the false, the worldly and deceitful mammon, God will not give us the true and durable riches of his grace. But what man ever realized a fortune, without an infinitude of hard bargains and advantages. Happy is the man who, like Zaccheus, makes himself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; or like the young man just come to a great estate and fortune, who is desirous to consecrate his fathers hoard by doing some good thing for God and the poor.
Luk 16:10-11. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. This is a proverb highly characteristic of perfect morality. The conscientious servant gets promoted, while the unjust steward is dismissed. And if we are not faithful to men, who will trust us for the future? More especially, if we are not faithful to God, as stewards of the good things with which he has entrusted us, he will not give us the true riches of grace and glory.
Luk 16:13. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. If our hearts be on earth, we are servants of corruption, the mammon that perishes; but if our affections be above, we shall follow after righteousness, and inherit all the realities of future felicity.
Luk 16:16. The law and the prophets were until John. After that time, the Messiah being come, there was no need of those holy men to foretel his advent. Mat 11:12.
Luk 16:18. Whosoever putteth away his wife, by an unlawful divorce, or for any cause less than adultery, as stated in Mal 2:11-14.
Luk 16:19. A certain rich man clothed in purple and fine linen. In the Hebrew book, Gemara Babilonicum, there is a story analogous to this; but in point of theological purity and beauty quite inferior to the parable in the sacred text.
Luk 16:23. In hell he lifted up his eyes. See the following scriptures. Job 26:4. Psa 9:17; Psa 16:10. Isa 30:33. Eze 31:14. Mat 5:22.
REFLECTIONS.
Perhaps the contrast of characters between the rich man and Lazarus cannot appear more conspicuously than as they would appear to a learned and impartial traveller, seeking wisdom, and enquiring after truth. Let us suppose the stranger, after hearing the rich mans display of sadducean pride, to leave the princely mansion and enchanting pleasure-grounds, couched at the gate he sees a meagre, worn-out skeleton. Drawn by humanity, he asks his name, his case, and many things concerning his principles of support and comfort in so sad a situation; for genius in travel is inquisitive. The afflicted man, turning to the sage a countenance irradiated with heaven, and totally dissimilar from the polished regards of a courtier, tells him all his happiness; his gratitude to God, his patience and resignation, his religious comforts, and his daily prayers to be delivered from the body, and received to paradise above. The philosopher, while the beggar spake, would be seized with all the sentiments of humanity and religion. Tears would relieve the emotions of his soul, and money he would scatter with a forgetful hand. He would seek at the same time a retreat for pensive reflection, to weigh all the inscrutable difficulties which the contrast of these two characters had excited in his mind. Now, the parable demonstrates the necessity of a future state to develope the divine equity, beclouded by a diversified providence.
We may here remark, that God indulged both these men with the good things they desired. The one chose much of earth, and the other much of heaven.
Again: if the sores and hunger of the beggar hastened his exit, the luxuries of the rich man presently occasioned his death: and those who die of surfeiting are more than those who die of want.
God takes special care of his poor afflicted saints in the hour of death. Holy angels carried Lazarus into Abrahams bosom. He who had been most afflicted on earth, was most caressed and honoured in glory.
The torments of the damned correspond, we see, with their crimes. While the infidel was buried with pomp, and while a venal herald was recounting his public spirit, his alms, his illustrious actions, and affirming, that his manes enjoyed the highest felicities of Elysian delight; in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment: yea, and his tongue which had rioted on delicious viands, and uttered so many provocations against the scriptures, was peculiarly tormented. As the king of Babylon was satirized for his assumed divinity; so shall every one be appropriately punished for his sin. Isa 14:9.
There is no mitigation of punishment in hell. Dives having no promise, did not venture to ask much; but he who had denied a crumb of bread was now denied a drop of water. Justice will not trifle with its own decisions: it fixes a great gulph as the barrier of its sentence which cannot be passed.
Reflection shall greatly augment the torments of the damned. Son, remember, thou in thy lifetime hadst thy good things, and Lazarus his evil things. Now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Men having but partial views of providence in the prosperity of vice, and the oppression of virtue, were prudent in suspending their judgment, but now the clouds are cleared up; the righteousness of God is as the sun at noon day, and all men applaud thy punishment, and the beggars comfort.
The damned deprecate an encrease of torment. The infidel knew that he had instilled all his bad principles into his five younger brothers; that he had allured them into all his licentious practices, and left them in full route to perdition. Consequently, that, on entering the vaults of hell, they would most furiously assault him as the cause of their ruin. Hence he earnestly prayed, that Lazarus might be deputed to certify to them the reality of the rewards and punishments of the life to come, because he believed repentance possible to all men.
If men hear not Moses and the prophets they will not be persuaded, though one rose to warn them from the dead. What could an apparition say on any one article of revelation, which had not been fully said before; and said with a cloud of miracles, and by the holiest men that ever lived. A constant course of providence, had also confirmed the promises, and fulfilled the prophecies. Could any apparition possibly convey the tenth part of the instruction afforded by the great body of internal and external evidences of revealed religion. Let us therefore learn to make a good use of the light we have before we ask for more; let poor and afflicted men seek their comfort in religion, and let the rich and the proud tremble to despise the truth and providence of God.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Luk 16:1-9. Parable of the Unjust Steward (Lk. only).It has been suggested that a better title would be The Shrewd Agent. At any rate the epithet unrighteous has as much reference (if not more) to Luk 16:1 as to Luk 16:5-7. A steward in danger of dismissal for mismanagement of his masters estate seeks to provide for the future by making friends with the tenants. That this is at his masters expense has nothing to do with the point of the parable-, it is a parable, not an allegory. The agent summons the tenants, who are under bond to pay part of their rent in kind (or perhaps they are merchants having supplies of goods on credit) and encourages them to alter their contracts in their own favour. Who is the lord that praises the overseer for his action? Apparently it is the landlord (cf. Luk 16:5), himself a man of the world, though some commentators, e.g. Wellhausen and J. Weiss, say it is Jesus (cf. Luk 18:6). In any case the stewards cleverness is commended (along the lines of Mat 10:16), and the comment is made (by Jesus) that the children of this world display more shrewdness and common-sense, at least in their everyday and present life affairs, than the children of light. (There is a Johannine ring about this antithesis.) The former are keener on temporal, than the latter on eternal, well-being. Men are more resourceful, resolute, and zealous about material gain (and we may add sport) than in social and moral reform, or the spread of the Kingdom of God. An interesting but not convincing interpretation of the parable is given in Latham, Pastor Pastorum, pp. 386398. Luk 16:9 refers not to general alertness or worldly wisdom, but to a wise use of money, especially money wrongly acquired, and we could understand it better if it were addressed to tax-gatherers (like Zacchus). Unjust gains cannot always be restored to their owners, but they can be given in alms, and so win friends or even heaven. It is perhaps better to take the parable as ending with Luk 16:8, and Luk 16:9 as a comment on it, a link with Luk 16:10-13, and a prelude to Luk 16:19-31.
Luk 16:1. accused: the papyri have the Gr. word diaball in the sense of complain, so we need not assume any malice or falsehood in its use here.
Luk 16:4. they: the tenants or debtors of Luk 16:5
Luk 16:8. The emphasis is on wisely (which is not honestly).
Luk 16:9. when it fails: we should probably read when you fail, i.e. die.the eternal tabernacles: in contrast to the houses of Luk 16:4. The parallel does not necessarily stamp the verse as a moralising accretion to the parable.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
A PARABLE AS TO THE USE OF THE MASTER’S GOODS
(vs.1-13)
Now the Lord turned to address His disciples. For though it is pure grace that saves and finds deep delight in the repentance of a sinner, yet God’s wise government is not ignored in the case of one wasting His goods, as the prodigal had done. The steward (one employed to care for his master’s goods) in this chapter had proven unfaithful. The goods (the unrighteous mammon — v.11) are earthly possessions entrusted to the hands of the steward, that is, to all mankind. Sad to say, all of Adam’s race has been guilty of wasting our Master’s goods. For who would dare to say that he had used all his material possessions honestly for God? Pharisees are no less guilty of this than are prodigals. “The unrighteous mammon” refers to all material possessions including money.
The steward was called to give an account, and was given notice that he has forfeited his stewardship. Just so, because of Adam’s sin he was sentenced to death, “and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). We have forfeited all title to any place on earth. In the case of each individual, the actual putting out of the stewardship is at death; meanwhile we are still in possession of our Master’s goods. How shall we use them? Would the restored prodigal not have serious thoughts as to how he ought to use his father’s goods after he had been shown such kindness?
The steward pondered what was his wisest course, not with the object of pleasing his master, but to care for his own interests. Having no other promise of employment, he was clever enough to devise a plan that would benefit himself and please his master. Being evidently in the place of a credit manager, the steward used his wits effectively in providing for his future. He called his employer’s debtors and offered to them the kindness of reducing their debts if they would simply write a check out for the reduced amount. In this way he collected what might have remained outstanding bad debts, so his employer was benefited by it. His motives were not those of love for his employer, nor for his debtors either, but entirely selfish, for he counted on the debtors showing him kindness in return when he was discharged. The man was plainly an “unjust steward” since he used his master’s goods with his own benefit in view, but his master commended him because he realized some present gain from what might have been otherwise uncollectible.
Thus, unjust men of the world are far-sighted enough to use what they have with a view of benefiting in the future on earth. In their own generation they are wiser than the children of light (v.8). The children of light know they are to be put out of this world entirely, and have accepted God’s decree as to this. But do we use our possession with eternity in view? Sadly, we easily forget that all we have has been entrusted to us by God only for a brief time. We should therefore use “the mammon of unrighteousness” to “make friends.” This term, “mammon of unrighteousness” is used because our earthly possessions are too commonly used in an unrighteous and selfish way, not that our possessions are unrighteous in themselves.
Notice that the steward used these things in showing kindness to others. God can commend this, though certainly He cannot commend motives of selfishness. Are we using in an honestly unselfish way that with which God has entrusted us for our brief time on earth? It is only our wisdom to do so in view of “an everlasting home” (v.9). How much better to have friends for eternity than those who can benefit us on earth! “When you fail” (v.9) refers to when we die, as is indicated also in our being “put out of the stewardship” (v.4).
Those things of “least” importance, our earthly possessions, test us as to whether we are faithful. If we are faithful that in using these things, then it is a safe conclusion that we will be faithful in our use of much more. If one has not proven faithful in these passing things, then who would trust him with the true riches, that is, infinitely higher spiritual blessings?
Or, put in another way, if we have not proven faithful in using another’s goods, can we expect to be given that which is our own? “Another’s goods” are those which God has allowed us to use on earth for the time being, but we cannot call them our own, for we only have them in trust. But “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” are given to the believer today: they are his own because he will keep them for eternity. This is in contrast to what we have only for a time on earth.
This lesson is summed up pointedly in verse 13. There is no true service to two masters at the same time. The world serves mammon, material things: the believer is a servant of God. Let the lines be clearly drawn: the believer is not wise if he tries to serve both masters. It will not work. Pharisees made a show of serving God, while all the time being mere servants of mammon. They were not believers at all.
SELF-EXPOSURE OF THE PHARISEES
(vs.14-18)
The Pharisees could not conceal their irritation at the Lord’s words, and thus they derided Him. This exposed their covetousness — their greed for the mammon of unrighteousness — and He spoke directly to them as being those who, desiring men’s approval, did not consider that God knew their hearts, and their deceit would be exposed (v.15). What men esteem highly is often an abomination in the sight of God. Our great God discerns every motive of every heart.
The law had promised earthly blessings on condition of obedience, and the Pharisees were clinging desperately to the desire for those blessings without obedience. Now the dispensation was changing. John the Baptist was the last of the prophets under law. Now the kingdom of God was preached, and for one to enter it, he had to force his way in the face of opposition from the scribes and Pharisees (see. J.N.D. translation). This kingdom did not promise present wealth for its subjects. In fact, “blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5:3).
Yet this was not because the law had failed: it had not, but man under it had proven a total failure. The law is the word of God: not one iota of it can fail, though all temporal things (heaven and earth) pass away.
The Lord added verse 18 because the Pharisees took advantage of what the law had said, to allow divorce for virtually any cause. Deu 24:1 had required a man, if putting away his wife, to give her a bill of divorcement (Mat 19:3-9). But the Lord calls divorce and remarriage adultery (though Mat 19:9 gives the one exception); and if one were to marry a woman divorced from her husband, he committed adultery. This is evidently a case where the first husband had not remarried, for adultery is the violation of the marriage bond. The world shows no regard for God’s thoughts as to marriage and divorce, but a believer should be most careful to honor God in marriage, with the firm intention of proving consistently faithful. Then the only permission he can find for divorce in Scripture is if his spouse is guilty of fornication. If one is divorced by his spouse, then let him make sure from Scripture that his circumstances allow him to marry again.
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
(vs.19-31)
All these matters in the previous verses have to do with the fact that what men esteem highly is often abomination in God’s sight. This is emphasized by the record of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man, clothed in purple (that is, living as a king) and fine linen (the assuming of at least outward moral righteousness, as did the Pharisees), partook of the finest food every day. Such luxury in Israel was considered a sign of God’s approval: but how far this is from the truth! The poor man, Lazarus, was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores. His condition ought to have awakened sympathy and concern. But even his desire to have only the crumbs from the rich man’s table was evidently ignored. The dogs had more sympathy for him than did the man of wealth. (Is there not a hint here that Gentile “dogs” had more heart than did the self-righteous Pharisees?)
However, what a reversal at death! “The rich man died and was buried.” The poor man, Lazarus, died also. The rich man’s name is not told us: it was not worth remembering. Whether Lazarus had a burial or not is of no importance, for, as to his spirit and soul, he was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. This tells us that his faith had been in the living God, for he is “blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal 3:9). Jews considered this their natural title, but the rich man found he had no such title at all, as many Jews will find to their regret. The rich man may have had a beautiful, imposing funeral, but it made no difference to his condition of torment after death.
The rich man’s body was in a grave, but he lifted up his eyes in “hades,” which speaks of the condition of his soul and spirit as separated from his body. Hades is an unseen state, and does not refer to a place, just as death refers to a state, not a place (as is popularly believed). But there was a great distance between him and Abraham. Each was in a place, but the place of the rich man was a place of torment, and that of Lazarus a place of blessing. The rich man pled for mercy, but too late! He asked only that Lazarus might be sent to merely dip his finger in water and cool his tongue, for the heat of the judgment he must bear was tormenting. Did he remember that he had shown no mercy to Lazarus in his lifetime?
Abraham reminded him that in his lifetime he had had his good things and Lazarus evil things. He had lived only for this life. How fatal a mistake! Now Lazarus was comforted and he was tormented. The body had no part in this, for it is the intermediate state between death and resurrection that is involved here — the time the body is in the grave. But there was conscious comfort for the spirit and soul of one, conscious torment for the other.
Abraham solemnly reminded the rich man of his past and that of Lazarus, and adds beside this that at death a great gulf has been fixed between the saved and the lost, so it is impossible for any cross over from one side to the other. All the prayers for the dead that man’s “religion” can devise are useless. At death there is no doubt as to a man’s final destiny: it has been decided.
Then the tormented man prayed for his five brothers who were still living, desiring that Lazarus might return from death to testify to them, that they might be saved from so dreadful an end. Abraham answered that they had Moses and the prophets, that is, the Old Testament Scriptures: let them believe what God had written for their benefit. The formerly rich man objects that this was really not sufficient: they needed the evidence of such a miracle as one returning from death, to convince them to repent.
The answer to this is most solemn and decisive. No miracle, however great, will persuade one to repent if he has chosen to ignore the clear Word of God. The Old Testament bears abundant testimony to warn men of the folly of pursuing a self — centered, independent course. To ignore this is a bold insult to their Creator. If the moral power of the Word of God accomplishes no moral result in them, then physical miracles also will produce no moral result.
A little later another Lazarus did come back from the dead (Joh 11:43-44)! Did men believe? No, they determined to put Lazarus to death again (Joh 12:10-11)
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 1
Steward; a person intrusted with the care and management of property.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
CHAPTER 16
Ver. 1.-And He said also unto His disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. Having rebuked in three parables those who murmured because He received penitents, Christ now adds a fourth and fifth on almsgiving and frugality, for the proud and avaricious Pharisees refused both pardon to the penitent, and relief to those who were in want. Gloss.
Unto His disciples, i.e. His hearers, those who were His followers, although they had not given up all, as the Apostles.
A steward, , one who had the management of his master’s property, and was answerable for the letting of his land.
Hence we learn “that we are not masters of what we possess, but rather stewards of that which is another’s.” S. Ambrose and Theophylact.
For although as regards men we are the absolute masters of our own possessions, yet with respect to God, who is Lord over all, we are but stewards. Because, whatever we possess was given us for our own moderate use and for the relief of our poorer brethren, and in the day of judgment we shall have to render a strict account of our stewardship.
So S. Paul says, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” 1Co 4:2. For all our gifts and endowments are not our own, but belong to God who gave them. Hence we are bound to use them not for our own pleasure, but according to His will. Thou hast genius, a keen judgment, a retentive memory, wisdom, eloquence, or the like! Forget not that thou art a steward of these gifts, not a master. Remember that thou hast to give an account of their use, and take heed to use them to the honour and glory of God. Hear S. Chrysostom, “There is an erroneous opinion that all the good things of this life which we possess are our own, and that we are lords over them. But we are as it were guests and strangers, whose departure draweth nigh, and dispensers of another’s bounty. We ought therefore to assume the humility and modesty of a steward, for nothing is our own, but all things are the gift of God.”
Was accused, , denounced, Arabic. Hence the devil , is called the “accuser” (Rev 12:10), because he accuses us before God. “We are accused,” says the Interlinear, “not only when we do evil, but when we omit to do good.” For a steward ought to omit nothing which concerns his own duty or his master’s good.
Had wasted his goods, i.e. by carelessness and riotous living.
Ver. 2.-And he called him, and said unto him,. . . give an account of thy stewardship, i.e. of how much thou hast received and how thou hast expended it, for thou mayest be no longer steward.
So Christ saith, unto every one in the hour of death, “Give an account of thy stewardship. Give an account of thy life, of thy goods, and of thy talents, whether thou hast used them to promote the glory of God and the salvation of thyself and thy fellow-men.”
Climacus relates that a monk, who was afterwards abbot, saw in a dream, the first night he entered the monastery, certain men who demanded of him the payment of one hundred pounds of gold. Whereupon for the space of three years he gave himself up to obedience and mortification, and at the end of that time was told that ten pounds had been subtracted from his debt. For thirteen years longer he continued to practise still greater austerities, and then messengers were sent from God to say that all his debt was forgiven. The same writer has also something terrible to say about the abbot Stephen, who had for forty years lived a holy life of fasting and prayer. This man, the day before he died, fell into a trance, and was heard as if in colloquy with an unseen judge, denying at one time the accusations against him, at another time pleading guilty to the charges, and praying for mercy. Terrible indeed was the spectacle of this invisible and stern judgment.
Ver. 3.-Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? The steward acknowledges the justice of the accusation. He had wasted his master’s goods, henceforward he must labour or beg for his living. The one thing he was unable, and the other he was ashamed to do. In his distress, he knows not which way to turn. Truly, St. Chrysostom says, “A slothful life is powerless in action.” Symbolically, when life is past, no compunction can, as it were by digging, prepare the soul for fruit; whilst to beg, after the manner of the foolish virgins, is not only disturbing, but vain and useless. Gloss.
Ver. 4.-I am resolved what to do, &c. 1 will give each one of my lord’s debtors a bond to show that they owe less than they are actually indebted, so that in return for my kindness and dishonesty, they may entertain me when I am deprived of my stewardship.
Vers. 5 and 6.-How much owest thou unto my Lord? And he said, an hundred measures of oil. Greek , in the Vulgate cadus, the tenth part of an homer. Lev 27:16, and Eze 45:2.
And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fourscore. Greek , i.e. “cautio” or bond, or as the Vulgate renders it “obligatio.” The meaning is, “Take back thy bond, wherein thou didst acknowledge that thou owest one hundred measures of oil. Tear it up and write another, confessing to a debt of fifty only, and divide the other fifty between me and thee.”
Ver. 7.-Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. The which was the same size as the homer, contained ten ephahs. See .
“To me,” says S. Augustine (Qust. Evang. Lib. ii 34), “the meaning of the passage seems this; that whatever the Jews do for the priests and Levites, should be more liberally provided for in the Church; that whereas they give a tenth, Christians should give a half, as Zaccheus gave, not of his crops, but of his goods; or at least that they should give two tenths, and thus exceed the payments of the Jews.”
Ver. 8.-And the lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely. The landlord, not the Lord Jesus, as Erasmus holds. The lord praised not the action, for it was dishonest, but the prudence, the cunning craft of the steward, just as we often admire, not indeed a crime, but the cleverness shown in contriving it.
The children of this world are in their generation, i.e. after their kind, in worldly matters, or as Himmel understands it, amongst their fellow-men, wiser than the children of light, i.e. than those who are followers of Christ. Very wisely has some one said, “In worldly matters we are philosophers, as to our spiritual affairs, fools; in earthly things we are lynx-eyed, but in heavenly we are moles.”
The children of this world, says S. Augustine (Lib. ii. de Genesi) are wiser in providing for their future; and very naturally so, because the desire of earthly pleasure and enjoyment is strong in man, but the aspirations of his soul are blunted and weakened, partly because of the body, partly from love of earthly things. Hence those that are led by the flesh are more active and energetic than those who are led by the spirit, inasmuch as spiritual things, being invisible, produce but little effect on the minds of men.
The parable was directed against the avarice of the Pharisees. We are taught by it to use our riches not for our own selfish ends, but for the relief of our poorer brethren. For Christ bids us all remember that we are but stewards of God’s good gifts, and therefore bound to use them so that we may give a good account of our stewardship, and obtain our due reward. In this sense the unjust steward is held up as an example, and not because of his injustice and fraud.
Hence S. Augustine, as already referred to, considers that Christ reasons thus, “If this steward could so wisely provide for this life, much more ought we to be solicitous for the life to come.” And again, “If this steward, unjust as he proved himself to be, was praised for his wisdom, much more shall we receive praise of God, if by our almsgiving we injure none, but benefit many.” And he goes on to say, “If a wrongdoer received praise from his lord, how much more pleasing are they to the Lord God, who do all in accordance with His will. So from the parable of the unjust judge Christ took occasion to speak of God as judge, although between the two no comparison was possible.”
We learn then from this parable (1.) That those who are possessed of riches, or any other gift of God, such as health, intellect, and the like, are but stewards of His bounty. (2.) That every one is bound to use his possessions to the honour and glory of God. (3.) And that every one at the day of judgment will have to give account, not only for the sins which he has committed, but also for duties which he has neglected to perform. Such is the general meaning of the parable. Its particular application I will proceed to explain.
Ver. 9.-And (in like manner) I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness. Ye have heard how the unjust steward made his lord’s debtors so kindly disposed towards him, that when he was deprived of his stewardship, they were willing to receive him into their houses. In like manner take heed that ye, who have wasted your lord’s goods through your misuse of them, by the mammon or the riches of unrighteousness-not by robbery and fraud, but in another sense which I will soon explain-give to the poor, so that after this life is over, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
Here note that the word unrighteousness has a double signification. In the case of the steward it meant dishonesty and deceit: in our case it has a different meaning, us I shall proceed, to show.
Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, i.e. of riches, which are “unrighteous” in a fourfold sense and from a fourfold cause.
1. Because riches are often amassed through unrighteousness, i.e. through fraud, usury, and the like of oneself or one’s ancestors. Hence S. Jerome (Ep. 150) says every rich man is either himself unrighteous or else the heir of an unrighteous man, and although he may not be ignorant of the evil-doings of his ancestors, yet he can scarcely be expected to know to whom restitution should be made. Therefore he is bound to make such restitution as lies in his power, by giving to the poor. And commenting on S. Matt. vi. the same Father goes on to say, Riches are called Mammon because they are acquired through unrighteousness, taking mammon to be derived from , min, and , mona, i.e. violence, from the root , iana, the meaning being “to exercise force.” But the real derivation seems to be from taman, to hide or conceal; for riches and money are wont to be hidden.
2. They are unrighteous in the sense of faithless and deceptive, for they are not to be depended upon, but often desert one man and pass on to another.
3. They are called the mammon of unrighteousness, because in their endeavour to become rich men are guilty of fraud, dishonesty, unrighteous dealing, and every kind of sin.
4. And again, they are unrighteous, because wicked and ungodly men esteem them of more value than the heavenly treasures. S. Augustine (serm. 35 De Verbis Domini). Hence we may understand Christ as saying, “Ye rich and avaricious men have made money your god, but be ye well assured that it is unrighteous, i.e. vain and deceptive. Break up your idol, therefore, and give to the poor, and God will recompense you with eternal riches.” See S. Mat 6:24.
That when ye fail, when life is over and your riches are no longer at your disposal, or according to the Syriac version, when it, i.e. mammon, fails you.
They may receive you. The poor, i.e. those whom you have made your friends by the right use of your riches. For they, if they are worthy of heaven, will by their prayers and by a communication of their merits make a way for you to enter therein: but if, on the contrary, they are unworthy of so great a blessing, you will be received into heaven because of your almsgiving, for what is given to the poor is accepted of Christ.
Christ seems, here to be speaking of the poor who lead godly lives, who are poor as far as earthly possessions are concerned, but rich in understanding and in spiritual grace. Let not the rich then think that they are conferring, but rather that they are receiving benefits from such as these, for they give gold, to receive in return heaven. Hence S. Gregory (Moral. xxii. 14) says, “Almsgiving is not so much the relieving the necessities of the poor as the offering of gifts to those who hereafter will receive us into everlasting habitations.”
Learn therefore, that heaven is the inheritance of the poor, not for their own possession, but rather that they may introduce therein those who have been their benefactors. They are therefore the door-keepers of heaven, for “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (see S. Mat 5:3), and this their blessedness is not of their own deserving, but the special gift of God. So S. Augustine (lib. ii. q. 38 Qust. Evang.) says, “They receive them not as of right but by the permission of Him who counselled them to make themselves friends, and who deigns to look upon Himself as being fed, clothed, entertained and visited in the person of the least of His followers.”
“Everlasting habitations,” says Theophylact, “are in Christ ordained for the poor, wherein they may receive those who have given them liberal alms out of that which God has committed to their trust.” Happy indeed is the exchange, for earthly things become heavenly. Hence almsgiving is the most skilful of arts, for it does not build us an earthly tabernacle, but provides us with eternal life.” S. Chrysostom.
Ver. 10.-He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. By “that which is least” we must understand earthly possessions as distinguished from the “much” of spiritual gifts. That ye may not be deprived of your heavenly stewardship, or rather that ye may be entrusted therewith, take heed rightly to administer your temporal affairs, and especially to give alms to the poor, according to the purpose of God. For so Christ explains His words in the next verse. In a similar sense S. Paul writes, “If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1Ti 3:5.) Christ seems here to be reproaching the Pharisees with unfaithfulness in the disposal of their riches, and in the interpretation of the law, and also with being little worthy of the position they held (see S. Matt. v. and xxiii.), for from ver. 14 it is clear that these things were spoken against them.
Ver. 11.-If, therefore, ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? If ye have made a wrong use of this world’s fleeting possessions (1Ti 6:7), who will entrust to your care the things which are lasting, and which pertain unto the kingdom of God? Theophylact and many others.
Ver. 12.-And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? The wording of this verse is different, but the sense is the same as that of the preceding. The mammon which in the verse above Christ called unrighteous, he here calls “another man’s.” For temporal possessions are another’s:
1. Because they are in their nature totally different from the nature of man. They are of the earth, given to man for his use in this life, to revert again to the earth after death.
2. They are another’s as regards God, for we are not absolute masters of what we possess but administrators only, bound to dispose of our goods according to His will. So Titus says, “He describes much riches as that which is another man’s, because to abound in riches is, considering human nature, foreign to men. For if any man possesses them, they are external to him, and as it were, an accident.” “They are,” says S. Ambrose, “foreign to the nature of man, for they have no continuance, they were neither born with us, nor can they follow us when we die.” S. Augustine also (Qust. Evang. ii. 35) “He calls earthly endowments another’s, for no man can carry them away with him at his death.” “We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (1Ti 6:7); and Euthymius: “Earthly riches are called another’s for they do not remain long with their possessor.”
Christ reproves avarice, and shows that he who loves money cannot love God: therefore the Apostles, if they would love Him, must despise riches. S. Jerome. But the better interpretation is one which I am about to give.
That which is your own. “Christ calls heavenly riches ours says Euthymius, “because, as Theophylact explains, ‘our citizenship is in heaven.’ For man was created in the image of God, but wealth and earthly possessions are not ours, for there is nothing divine therein. But to enjoy divine blessings, and to partake in the nature of God, is ours.”
But you will say, Men are wont to value that which is their own, more than that which is the property of another. Why then does Christ here imply the contrary?
I answer that the force of our Lord’s argument is seen: 1. If we look to the meaning of the parable, If ye have not been faithful in earthly things, how will ye be so in heavenly, and who will dare to commit such things to your trust? and 2. From the parable itself. Men are as a rule more careful in their management of the affairs of others than of their own, for many reasons, but chiefly because they are bound in justice to make good any losses which may have been incurred by their carelessness, and if careless may even be suspected of dishonesty or theft; whereas for their own losses, or for the mismanagement of their own concerns, they are responsible to no one.
True, therefore, is the argument of Christ, If ye have not been faithful in earthly things, which are another’s, God will not give you those heavenly treasures which are rightly your own. For he who makes a wrong use of that which belongs to another deserves to lose that which is his own. For, as Dionysius (Denis) the Carthusian astutely remarks, “In the former verse, Christ spoke of the good things of this life, ‘who will trust, or commit,’ because an account will have to be rendered of their use. But of the good things of the heavenly country, he says, ‘who will give,’ for we shall not be called upon to account for these, because once given they are everlastingly our own.”
For the following verse, see S. Mat 6:24.
Ver. 14.-And the Pharisees also derided Him, , “turned up their noses,” sneered at Him.
Ver. 15.-And He said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men, i.e. make outwardly a show of justice, whereas God knoweth your hearts to be full of all uncleanness. For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Your pretended zeal for the service of God, which is held in admiration of the common people, is hateful to Him who seeth the foulness and corruption of your hearts. For my explanation of verses 16 to 19, see S. Mat 11:12; Mat 5:18; and Mat 19:9.
Ver. 19.-There was a certain rich man. You ask, Is this a parable or a true history? I answer, A history!
1. Because Christ does not call it a parable.
2. Because the poor man is named Lazarus, and the rich man, according to a Hebrew tradition quoted by Euthymius, is called a native of Nice.
3. Because the torments of the rich man are related as an actual reality.
4. Because in memory of Lazarus many hospitals for those suffering from leprosy and such like diseases are called by his name.
5. Because with the exception of Justin, Theophylact, and Eucherius, all the Fathers are of my opinion.
Euthymius infers from the mention made of Abraham and Moses in verses 24 and 31, that this rich man was a Jew, and mentions a Hebrew tradition to the effect that he was living in the time of Christ, who gave his history as that of a well-known man, in order the more to impress his hearers, and to teach them to despise the good things of this present life.
Was clothed in purple and in fine linen. The one denoting luxury and pride, and other softness and effeminacy. There are some, says S. Gregory, who do not think that extravagance in apparel is a sin. But if it were not so, the Word of God would not have so directly stated that Dives, who was tormented in hell, had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one seeks fine clothing but out of vainglory, in order to appear better than his fellow-men.
And fared sumptuously every day. The Greek signifies both gladness and feasting. So Dives, not content with the richness of his banquet, sought to add to the pleasures of the feast the delights of music, dancing, and whatever else could add to his enjoyment. Forgetful of the future, perhaps not believing that there was any future at all, he lived without God, a follower of him who bids men “eat, drink, and enjoy themselves, for death makes an end of all delights.” He lived as they live who “take the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the organ. They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave” (Job 21:12-13).
Hence S. Gregory teaches that we cannot indulge in revelling without sin. For when the body is given up to the enjoyment of the feast, the heart is led away to empty rejoicing. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” (Exo 32:6).
Conversation generally follows after a feast, for when the appetite is satisfied, the tongue is let loose. Hence Dives is fitly described as desiring water to cool his tongue, for feasting ministers to gluttony, wantonness, pride, evil speaking, envy, and many other vices.
Ver. 20.-And there was a certain beggar, a poor man, according to the Arabic. A beggar, poor in earthly possessions, but rich in virtues and in patience; named Lazarus.
“The mention of the name,” says S. Ambrose, “shows this to be a narrative, not a parable;” and S. Cyril tells us, “that according to the tradition of the Jews, there was at that time a certain poor man at Jerusalem, by name Lazarus, apparently so called because he was laid at the rich man’s gate to pray for the help which he needed so much.”
For Lazarus is in Hebrew , laazar, “ad adjuvandum.” Hence S. Chrysostom and Augustine explain the name as meaning helped, or rather one that ought to be helped, for Lazarus, by drawing attention to his sores, as good as exclaimed, ye see my misery, help me in my wretchedness.
Was laid. , was placed by bearers at the gates of the rich or the entrances of the temples as a breathing corpse, bereft of the power of motion. “He lay,” says Titus, “each day and every day in abject misery, neglected, counted as nothing, uncared for, and unprotected.” “So that,” says S. Chrysostom, “the rich man, as he went out and as he came in, could look upon him, and see his miserable state.” “By which things,” as S. Gregory teaches (Hom. 40), “our Lord has explained His two judgments, the greater condemnation of the unpitying Dives, and the greater acceptance and reward of the suffering Lazarus. For how great,” he asks, “do ye suppose were the temptations which the poor and suffering beggar had to resist, when hungry and diseased he saw the rich man enjoying health and the delights of life? When overcome by pain and cold, he beheld him clothed in purple and fine linen and rejoicing in the good things of this life. When brought low by the nature of his ailment, and in need, he saw him in full prosperity, yet regardless of another’s wants. What a storm of temptation, may we, my brethren, think there must have been in the heart of the beggar, to whom either ill-poverty or sickness, alone would have been a sufficient punishment! But that he might be the more tried, he was subjected to both evils, and saw, moreover, that whilst the rich man was surrounded by flattering friends and supporters, he had no one to visit him in his misery and want.”
Full of sores. Not only poor but diseased , covered with ulcers. Hence many think that Lazarus was a leper, and therefore look upon him as the patron saint of those afflicted with leprosy, who are called Lazars, and their hospitals Lazarettos, after his name.
Ver. 21.-And dogs came and licked his sores. Francis Lucas thinks that they did this as if feeding on a dead body, and that they thus caused the poor sufferer much pain, for, S. Chrysostom adds, “he had not the strength to drive them away.”
But in another sense the dogs may be considered as cleansing and healing the poor man’s sores. Hence S. Chrysostom says, “The wild animals in compassion lick the sores which no one, much less the rich glutton, cared to cleanse. For the rich, unmindful of the condition of their fellowmen, laugh at misery, and turn away from those whom they ought to pity.” S. Ambrose.
S. Chrysostom (hom. De Lazaro), enumerates nine grievous ills to which the poor man was subjected:
1. A poverty so extreme, that he could not even obtain the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.
2. A disease so grievous and so weakening, that he was unable to drive away the dogs which gathered round him.
3. Desertion by all, even those who ought to have aided him.
4 The constant sight of the rich man’s happiness, for his bodily pains and his grief of mind were increased by the knowledge, that they who were possessed of every enjoyment had no thought or consideration for him.
5. The hard heartedness of the rich man, who passed him by, without a kind word or look.
6. His loneliness, for “it is pleasant to have a companion in misfortunes.”
7. Uncertainty as to the future, for since the coming of Christ, faith in the resurrection of the dead is a wonderful support in affliction.
8. The long continuance and constancy of his sufferings.
9. The loss of reputation, for many thought that his sufferings were a direct punishment for some great crime. But, like another Job, he bore all his trials with fortitude and an undaunted mind. Hence God has set forth Lazarus, Job, Tobias and S. Lydwina, whose sufferings are recorded by Sirius, to be as long as the world last examples of patience to all who are sick and afflicted
Ver. 22.-And it came to pass that the beggar died, of disease, misery, and want.
And was carried, i.e. his soul was conducted with honour for the soul after death needs no actual carrying. Observe here the office of the angels; for S. Chrysostom says, if we need guides then we are changing from one country to another, how much shall we need some to lead the way when the disembodied soul is on its passage to futurity. He further adds, “Ye saw the poor man at the rich, man’s gate: ye see him now in Abraham’s bosom; ye saw him surrounded by dogs: ye see him in company of the angels; ye saw him poor, famished, struggling: ye see him happy, filled with good things, and possessed of the prize. Ye saw his labours: ye see his reward.”
Into Abraham’s bosom. In order that, beholding Lazarus entertained as a guest by Abraham, the rich man might be confounded at his own want of hospitality. Euthymius. Abraham was hospitable: that the sight of Lazarus might rebuke the rich man’s want of hospitality. Abraham was wont to watch for wayfarers, to bring them to his house; but the rich man despised him who lay within his gate, and though the poor man was daily ready to his hand, he used him not as a treasure by means of which he might obtain salvation. S. Chrysostom (hom. De Lazaro.)
You ask, What is Abraham’s bosom, and where situated? S. Augustine (lib. iv. De Anima) replies, “It is the place of rest in which are received after death the souls of all who are imitators of the faith and piety of Abraham. The place which before Christ was the ‘limbus patrum,’ but now is heaven, the paradise of the blessed. Hence the Church sings, “Martin rejoices in Abraham’s bosom-Martin, here poor and mean, enters heaven abounding in wealth.”
And S. Augustine, treating of the death of Nebridius (Confess. lib. ix.) says, “He lives in Abraham’s bosom, wherever that may be, there my Nebridius lives.” And the Church prays that God will receive the souls of the departed in Abraham’s bosom, and give them eternal rest, “as thou hast promised to Abraham and his seed for ever.”
It is called Abraham’s bosom. 1. Because children rest quiet in the bosom of their parents, and all the faithful are called children of Abraham, who excelled all in faith and holiness. Hence “in the limbus of the fathers” he was chief
Abraham’s bosom, therefore, says Ambrose, is a certain haven of rest, and a sacred retreat.
In the Greek , in the Latin “sinus,” because retired or secret. S. Augustine.
Because this blessedness was promised to Abraham and in him to all the faithful Gen 22:18.
3. Because Abraham was remarkable for his hospitality. Hence it was fitting that the poor and friendless Lazarus, whom the inhospitable rich man had rejected, should be received into his bosom. For, says Chrysologus, the kindness which he showed to God made him chief of the heavenly banquet, and because he received two men with God at an earthly feast (Gen 18:8), he will receive the people of the East and West at a heavenly.
Hence the soul of the poor man was carried, not into Abraham’s presence only, but into Abraham’s bosom, in order that it might receive comfort and refreshment. S. Chrysostom. And again, Because Lazarus when on earth, was poor and despised, in heaven he became honoured and rich. Thus, solely on account of the ills which he suffered, Lazarus obtained a reward like to that of the Patriarch, and this, not because he had pity on the poor, or had relieved the oppressed, or had done some good thing, but because he bore patiently all the ills he had to endure.
The rich man also died, and was buried. “The man who had so buried his soul in drunkenness and self-indulgence that it was useless and dead within him,” says S. Chrysostom; who goes on to give a touching description of the change which had now come over Dives. “Consider,” he says, “the pomp in which he had lived, the flatterers and friends which were wont to seek his company, and the luxury which had surrounded him: and now all had departed. Everywhere nothing but dust and ashes, lamentation and weeping; no one to help him, no one to call back his soul. Of what avail were his riches, now that he was taken away from all his dependents and left deserted, defenceless, and neglected, left alone to bear in his own person an intolerable punishment?”
In hell, i.e. “in purgatory,” says James Faber, who thinks that the rich man, after suffering the purgatorial fires, was saved. But others understand here the place of the damned, and hold that the rich man had received his condemnation, an interpretation which is supported by the after narrative, particularly by the 26th verse; and indeed, this is the proper signification of the word “hell,” which-in the Greek, , from the primative particle , and , to see-means a place of darkness, where there is neither seeing nor light.
But you will say, We do not read that the rich man sinned, save inasmuch as he fared sumptuously every day, which as a venial sin was deserving of purgatory, but not of hell.
I answer, that although to fare sumptuously is a venial sin, yet if it leads to evil and to excess, especially if it is productive of selfishness and a disregard of the poor, it becomes mortal, and this must happen to him who is a slave to his appetite, for as I have said (ver. 19), a man cannot at the same time serve his belly and his God. The rich man therefore was damned on account of these sins, and chiefly because of his neglect of Lazarus. For he was bound, under peril of committing mortal sin, to minister to the need of the poor man, and since he did not do so, he became liable to the punishment of hell.
“For it is robbery,” says S. Chrysostom “to keep what we have received, and to refuse to others a share in our abundance.” Again he adds, “the rich man was tormented, not because he was rich, but because he had no compassion.” So also S. Gregory of Nyssa.
Hear also S. Hieronymus (Epist. 34, ad Julianum): “The flames of hell received the purple-clad Dives. But the poor and suffering beggar, whose sores the dogs licked, who scarcely could maintain himself on the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table, is carried into Abraham’s bosom, and comforted by the Patriarch with a parent’s care. For it is difficult, nay impossible, to enjoy both present and future possessions; to fill here the belly, there the soul; to pass from delights to delights; to be first in both worlds, and to appear glorious both in heaven and on earth.”
Hence S. Basil (serm. 1, De Jejunio) says, “Beware of luxury, for the rich man is tormented, not because of his evil deeds, but because of his self-indulgent life.” For they who are indulgent to themselves are harsh and unmerciful to others. They take away what the poor man needs to minister to their own unnecessary enjoyments, as this glutton did, not only from Lazarus, but also from the other poor. For, adds S. Chrysostom, “If he had no pity on him whom time after time, as he went out of his house and returned to it again, he was compelled to see lying at his gate, on whom has he ever had compassion? He therefore was content that they should die of hunger, cold, and disease. So to this very day there are some rich men who are liberal in their banquetings, illiberal to the poor-who spend pounds on one feast alone, but grudge a penny for the relief of those in want. Thus they who always study themselves, neglect others, and consume everything on their own pleasures. For gluttony is a master passion and says, “All is for me, nothing for thee.”
He lift up his eyes. The eyes not of his body, but of his mind. God showed the rich man Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, that, says S. Chrysostom, “he might be the more tormented, not only from the nature of his punishment, but also from seeing the estimation in which Lazarus was held. For as the sufferings of Lazarus, when a prey to so many evils, were increased by the sight of the rich man abounding in good things, so now the sight of Lazarus, in his turn comforted, was to Dives an increase of misery.” Hence S. Gregory (hom. 40) and after him the Gloss says: “We must believe that before the judgment the wicked see the just at rest, and are tormented by their happiness, and also that the just behold the wicked in torment, that their joy may be increased as they look upon the evils from which they have been mercifully preserved.”
Ver. 24.-And he cried-“cried” because his great punishment evoked a great cry. S. Chrysostom.
And said, Father Abraham. He calls Abraham father, because he was a Jew, and therefore a descendant of Abraham. He did not address Lazarus, says Theophylact, because he was ashamed, and moreover thought that Lazarus was still mindful of the evils he had suffered at his hands.
Send Lazarus. “0 miserable man,” says S. Chrysostom, “thou art mistaken. Abraham can receive him, he cannot send him! Behold the rich man has now need of the poor man. So when death draws nigh, and the spectacle of life is over, when the marks of riches and of poverty are laid aside, all are judged according to their works, according as they are possessed of true riches, or are poor in the sight of God.”
And again, by a sudden change-a change which is graphically described by the prophet (see Isa 65:13)-the rich man becomes the suppliant of the poor man, and he who was wont to pass by Lazarus as he lay nigh at hand, invokes his aid now that he is afar off.
That he may dip the tip of his finger in water, &c. His tongue, which was inflamed with the desires of gluttony and of boasting, says S. Chrysostom (and of gossiping, adds the Interlinear), now burns with the fires of hell, for wherein that a man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punished. Wisdom 11:16.
For I am tormented, &c, by unspeakable torments, both by the flaming fire and a raging thirst.
Hear S. Chrysostom (serm. 124): “If thou art surrounded on all sides by the fires of hell, why dost thou desire only the cooling of thy tongue? Because, he answers, the tongue which insulted the poor man, and refused him relief, suffers the more in the fiery torment:” and Salvian adds (Lib. iii ad. Eccles.), “How willingly would the rich man have sacrificed all his possessions to obtain release from his endless misery?” Nay more, he would have given up everything for one hour’s respite from the flames. Because, can we imagine that he who prayed that Lazarus might be sent so great a journey to bear but one drop of water, would have begrudged any price to purchase rest?
“Fitly,” says S. Augustine (serm. 110 De tempore) “did he ask a drop of the man who asked of him a crumb, and inasmuch as he loved riches, he met with no compassion. Ever foolish, too late compassionate, he wished his brethren to be warned-but obtained nothing by his request.” And again (Serm.227), “Be warned by the example of the luxurious rich man, whose dogs Lazarus fed by his sores, though he was denied the crumbs which fell from that rich man’s table. But after a short time their lots were changed. The poor man, because of his poverty, obtained happiness; the rich man, on account of his riches, punishment. The one is carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom, the other consigned to the depths of hell. The whole body of the rich man is consumed by the fire, yet his tongue suffers still greater torment. Doubtlessly because by its proud speaking he had despised the poor man. For the tongue which is unwilling to order the relief of the poor, is subjected to greater suffering hereafter. 0 rich man, how canst thou ask for a drop of water, when thou wouldest not give a crumb from thy table? Hadst thou been willing to give, thou mightest now with justice make thy request.” And again, “By a just judgment in thy turn thou sufferest, for judgment without mercy is the reward of the unmerciful.”
And S. Gregory (hom. 40): He who was unwilling to give the suffering beggar the least crumb that fell from his table, in hell was feign to seek, if it were but the least drop of water.” And S. Basil says, “The rich man is worthily recompensed: for the tuneful lyre, wailing; for drink, the intense longing for a drop.”
You ask, How can the soul of the rich man be said to have a tongue, or the soul of Lazarus a finger; or how can the one feel thirst, and be tormented in the flames, or seek to be relieved by the finger of the other?
1. Tertullian erroneously thinks that the human soul is corporeal, and that it therefore has its tongue, finger, and other members.
2. Hugo therianus supposes that the disembodied soul has the semblance of a body, like the reflection of any object in a mirror; and John Huartus, a physician, is of the same opinion.
3, But I hold that Christ was here speaking after the manner of a parable, and wished to place before the eyes of his hearers the punishments and rewards which men will receive at the day of judgment, because we only can form an opinion of the punishments of the soul through the punishments of the body; and further, he wished to show that the rich man was punished suitably to his sin.
Some add that the fires of hell produce in the souls of the damned torments, similar to those which they would suffer if they were still in the body. For why should it be thought impossible for God to cause the soul to suffer without the body what it would have suffered if it had continued to be united with the body? Especially as every feeling which affects the soul whilst it is in the body, is of the soul, and not of the body: for it is the soul and not the body which feels, and sees and hears. See 2Co 4:16. Hence Francis Lucas says, that we are to understand that the soul of the rich man suffered just as if his body had been actually given up to be tormented by the flames, for the soul is afflicted by imaginations derived from the body.
In short, all these things set forth, after the manner of a parable, the extreme misery and torment of the rich man; and also that the blessed are not able to render any aid to the damned, nor indeed have they the wish to do so, inasmuch as they are persuaded that this would be contrary to the fixed purpose of God. Furthermore, the damned do not dare to ask this aid, for they on their part know that they are separated by a great and impassable gulf from those who have entered into rest.
Hence Abraham feels no compassion for the misery of the rich man, because he recognises in his punishment the justice of God. For the sight of the punishment of the wicked does not lessen the happiness of the just, because since they can feel no compassion for the sufferings which they see, their joy will not on this account be diminished. Gloss. And S. Gregory (hom. 40) says, The souls of the just, although in the goodness of their nature they feel compassion, yet after they have been united to the righteousness of their Author, are constrained by such great uprightness as not to be moved with compassion towards the reprobate.
Ver. 25.-But Abraham said, Son, remember, &c. “See,” says S. Chrysostom, “the kindness of the Patriarch. He calls him son, yet he gives no aid to him, who had deprived himself of cure.” “For,” adds S. Gregory of Nyssa, “because he had no pity, he is not heard. Neither Abraham nor God has compassion on his prayer.”
Remember that thou . . . receivedst thy good things. Thou, when thou wast faring sumptuously, wast unwilling to bestow a thought on Lazarus, or on God, or on heaven or hell; but now call to mind thy feastings, which have led to thy condemnation.
“For,” says S. Gregory (hom. 40), “to increase his punishment, his knowledge and memory are preserved. He knows Lazarus, whom he had despised, and remembers his brethren whom he had left, that by the sight of the glory of one, whom he had despised, and by anxiety about the punishment of those whom he had loved to no purpose, he would be the more tormented.”
Thy good things. Thine, i.e. earthly things, which thou didst consider true riches, things for which alone thou didst live in utter neglect of higher concerns. “Evil men,” says S. Gregory, “receive in this life good things, for they consider transitory happiness to be their sole joy.”
2. Thine, i.e. the reward due to thy scanty deserts. “For we are taught,” says S. Chrysostom, “that the rich man was rewarded in this world for any good which he had done, and Lazarus punished for any evil which he might have committed. It follows therefore that Lazarus was comforted, because of his patience and goodness, which had not been regarded in this life, and the rich man tormented because of his sin and neglect of God, which had not been punished in this life.” “So,” S. Gregory says, “the fire of poverty purged the poor man’s sins, and this world’s fleeting happiness rewarded the rich man for any good which he had done.”
3. Thine. Thou in this life didst receive thy portion of good, therefore there was nothing in store for thee in the future; but Lazarus received evil things, therefore happiness in the next world was his due. For thus God in his justice apportions heavenly blessings to the elect, but earthly benefits to the wicked and those who know Him not. Wherefore, let him who abounds in earthly riches and earthly honour, fear lest he may be deprived of them in the life to come: and let him who has none of these enjoyments in this world, look for them in heaven.
This truth Christ revealed to S. Catherine of Sienna, in a vision of which mention has been already made. (See chap. vi. 24).
Behold an image of eternity, the cross leading to the crown, but pleasure to destruction.
On these words of Abraham, S. Bernard exclaims, “Awake, ye drunken, and weep, for God is fearful in His judgments on the sons of men. Can it be that the rich man was in torment, solely because he received good things in his lifetime? Clearly on this account alone!
“For we may not think that we were cast out of paradise because of God’s punishment of sin, in order that the wit of men might prepare for themselves another paradise here upon earth.
“Man was born to labour; if he refuses labour, he frustrates the purpose for which he was brought into the world, and how will he answer him who has ordained labour as the lot of man?”
He presses his argument yet further, and adds, “What shall we say to this? If in the final judgment misery takes the place of rejoicing, are not ills to be preferred to the good things of this life? For it is clear that the one are not really good nor the other actually evil The truer then is the opinion of Solomon, ‘It is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting.'” Ecc 7:2.
And likewise Lazarus evil things. Sickness, poverty, and its attendant ills, which the worldly-minded consider evils, but which the followers of God account good, inasmuch as they conduce to holiness here, and happiness hereafter. S. Thomas, Chrysostom, and others.
But now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. By many a misery, which in thy lifetime thou didst little regard.
Ver. 26.-And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. (Chaos, in the Vulgate). Perhaps the rich man, as an increase to his torment was shown as in a vision the heavenly abode of the blessed, whither Abraham and Lazarus were to ascend a little after the death of Christ.
Hear S. Cyprian (De Ascens. Dom.): “The wicked will for ever dwell amidst devouring fire. There the rich man will burn without any one to cool his tongue with even one drop of water. Every evil lust and passion will have its appropriate punishment, and despair will add to the miseries of the lost. God will then have no pity on the penitent. Too late will be their confession, for when the door is shut, in vain will those who are without oil seek to enter. From thence there is no release. Christ once descended into hell; He will not go thither again. The condemned will not again see God in their dark dwelling. The sentence passed will be irrevocable, the judgment of condemnation stands changeless and fixed for all eternity.”
Hence S. Bernard says, “Thou in the midst of hell must be expecting that salvation, which is to be won in the midst of our earthly existence. But how canst thou imagine that thou wilt have in the midst of eternal burnings the power of obtaining pardon, when the time of pardon has passed away? There is no offering for sin for thee, who art dead in sins. The Son of God will not be crucified again. He died, He does not die again. His blood, which was poured out on the earth, does not flow down to hell. All sinners have drunk thereof on earth. There is none which the devils and the wicked who are their companions can claim for the extinguishing of the flames which torment them.”
Mystically: S. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Theophylact understand the gulf to mean the fixed and final separation of the just and unjust. See Rev 21:5-8, S. Mat 5:25.
Hence S. Gregory, and after him the Interlinear, says, “Between Dives and Lazarus there is a gulf, because after death no man can change his reward, the damned cannot exchange lots with the blessed, nor the blessed with those who are lost.”
“The gulf,” says Titus, “indicates the difference between the just and unjust for as their desires and wishes were opposed, so now their condition is immutable.” “It also,” adds S. Augustine (lib. ii. Qust. Evang.), “shows to those who are in prison, that by the unchangeableness of the divine sentence, no merciful aid can be rendered to them by the righteous, however much they may wish to give it.”
Allegorically. Lazarus lying at the rich man’s gate represents Christ, who by the lowliness of His Incarnation condescended to the case of the proud Jews, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table, i.e., seeking from them the least works of righteousness, which at their own table, that is, when they had it in their power, they were too proud to perform, which works, although very slight, they would do, not out of the set purpose of a good life, but occasionally and by chance, like as crumbs are wont to fall from the table.
The sores are the sufferings of our Lord, which from weakness of the flesh, He deigned to undergo for us. The dogs are the Gentiles, accounted by the Jews sinners and unclean, who throughout the world softly and devoutly lick the wounds of Christ in the sacrament of His body and blood. Abraham’s bosom, the hidden presence of God the Father, into which our Lord was received after His passion. Augustine (lib. ii. Qust. Evang.) And again, symbolically, he goes on to say: “By the rich man we may understand the proud Jews; the purple and fine linen are the grandeur of the kingdom; the sumptuous feasting is the boasting of the Law; Lazarus, i.e. ‘assisted,’ some Gentile or publican, who is all the more relieved, as he presumes less on the abundance of his resources; the dogs are those most wicked men, who praise the evil works which another groans over and detests in himself; the five brethren are the Jews, bound by the five books of the Law.”
In like manner S. Gregory (Hom. 40) says, “Lazarus represents the Gentile people. The bursting forth of his sores is the confession of sin. The crumbs were denied him, for the proud Jews disdained to admit the Gentiles to the knowledge of the Law. The dogs are the preachers, who by their teaching, as it were, touch with their tongue the wounds of the soul. Abraham’s bosom, the secret rest, where the rich man sees Lazarus. For the unbelievers see the faithful abiding in rest above them but afar off, because they cannot attain thither by their merits, and they burn in their tongues because they held in their mouth the words of the Law, but kept them not.”
And again, “Lazarus represents an apostolic man, poor in speech but rich in faith. The crumbs are the doctrines of the faith. The rich man, some heretic who abounds in eloquent discourses-for all such have a talkative tongue, but a foolish and profitless soul.”
Ver. 27.-Then he said, I pray thee, therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him, &c. Probably these words are spoken as the former ones, after the manner of a parable (see verse 24). For it is a very common occurrence in everyday life that those who have met with misfortunes wish to warn their brethren against incurring a similar fate. But of one thing worldly-minded men, who ridicule or else think lightly of the pains of hell, may be assured, no one has ever returned from thence to tell us what their sufferings are.
That thou wouldest send him. Lazarus again in the body, that he, being known to the brethren, and a witness to be seen of all, might move them to faith and penitence. We are taught therefore that the rich man after his death had need of the aid of him whom in his lifetime he had despised.
Touching the appearances of the spirits of the departed, see S. Augustine (De cura pro mortuis); Debrius (in Magicis); and Peter Thyrus (De apparitionibus spirituum).
Ver. 28.-That he may testify unto them how grievously I am tormented for my sinful indulgence, and exhort them to repentance and amendment, lest they also come into this place of torment.
You will say that the damned are in utter despair, hating both God and man, cursing everything and every creature, and bearing good will to none-how then could Dives have wished that his brethren might escape the torments of hell? I answer-
1. The damned do not wish to cause anything good, i.e. any act of natural or supernatural virtue, nor have they the power to do so on account of their despair, and intense hatred of God and all good, but they are able to desire some natural good, for example, that it may be well with their parents or brethren. For this reason S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Theophylact, think that the rich man, influenced by the ties of kindred and by family affection, really was anxious for the welfare of his brethren, for nature remains the same even in the damned. The action of Dives therefore was one of nature and not of virtue, and had regard, not to actual good, but to natural good only, as the action of animals in nourishing their young.
2. The rich man was anxious for himself more than for his brethren, for he considered their evil his own, inasmuch as their condemnation would increase his torments, because he was the occasion and the cause of their evil lives.
Thus S. Gregory, Lyranus, and others, Cajetan adds, “Dives asked this out of the pride which fills the hearts of the damned, that if not in his own person, at least in the person of his brethren he might be blessed and exalted.”
Hence S. Ambrose says, “This rich man too late begins to be a master, for he had neither time for learning nor teaching.”
Ver. 29.-Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the Prophets, i.e. the writings of Moses and the Prophets, which the Scribes and Pharisees read and expound in their synagogues.
Ver. 30.-And he said, Nay, Father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. He is speaking of his own experience. For as he had been affected, so does he think it will be with his brethren. S. Chrysostom. Titus more clearly writes, “Why does the rich man say this but because he himself had heard the prophets to little purpose, and had looked upon their teaching as untrue? Therefore he conjectures that his brethren similarly regarded them. He as much as says, ‘They argue as I once argued. Who has ever given any description of hell-who has ever returned thence? But if any one were sent to them from the dead, they would believe him, and give diligent heed to what he had to say.'”
Ver. 31.-And he said unto him, &c. They will say that Lazarus is a phantom, sent by the spirits of evil to deceive; whereas the writings of Moses and the prophets are inspired, are accepted by the Jews at the rule of faith, according to that which is written, “We have now a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place.” 2Peter 1:19.
The truth of the Patriarch’s answer is proved by the conduct of the Jews, who spoke against the raising of the other Lazarus, and the resurrection of Christ Himself, and refused to believe in Him.
So also Peter, who three years after death was recalled to life by S. Stanislaus, Bishop of Cracow, to testify concerning some land which had been sold by the king, replied to those who asked him concerning the other world, no more than this, “Ye have Moses and the prophets. I have been sent to bear witness, not to preach.”
Dives therefore obtained none of his requests, because it is written, “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.” Pro 21:13.
Morally, we learn from this parable or rather from this history,
1. That God has appointed to each his lot, and has made some rich, some poor. Let each one therefore be content with that station which God has allotted him. Let the poor, by patient endurance of want, and the rich, by the liberal relief of the poor, seek for life and happiness in the world to come. For Christ seems to have spoken this parable to enforce His teaching, “Make to yourselves fiends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” The rich man was not compassionate, and therefore he was rejected by Abraham and Lazarus.
2. That we must not despise the poor and afflicted, but on the contrary render all the assistance which lies in our power. For S. Gregory (Hom. 40) says, “The medicine of poverty heals those whom moral infirmity wounds, and often a pearl lies hidden in a dunghill, i.e. holiness and virtue often lie hid in an unclean body, and in abject poverty. And so S. Romula, dying of poverty and paralysis, was carried to heaven by a chorus of angels. He adds, “We find a Lazarus every day if we seek him, and even if we seek him not, we see him. Behold how importunately the poor present themselves, and make demands on us, in their turn to intercede on our behalf. We ought certainly to ask of them, yet they ask of us. Consider, whether we ought to refuse what is demanded of us when those who ask are our patrons.”
3. That the rich ought not to boast themselves in their riches, for riches endure but for a time, and death deprives men of their all. Wherefore let them not set their hearts upon their riches, but on God; and let them for the love of God use that wherewith He has prospered them for the benefit of the needy and poor.
Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary
16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, {1} There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
(1) Seeing that men often purchase friendship for themselves at the expense of others, we are to be ashamed if we do not please the Lord or procure the good will of our neighbours with the goods which the Lord has bestowed on us freely and liberally, making sure that by this means riches, which are often occasions of sin, are used for another end and purpose.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
1. Discipleship as stewardship 16:1-13
Jesus instructed His disciples about their use of material possessions. He taught them to be prudent in the use of wealth and to beware of the danger of loving it (cf. 1Ti 6:10).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The parable of the shrewd manager 16:1-9
"Luk 16:1-8 contains probably the most difficult parable in Luke." [Note: Bock, Luke, p. 418.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The linguistic connection that ties this parable with its preceding context is the word "squander" (Gr. diaskorpizo, cf. Luk 15:13). This is the clue to the thematic connection, namely, the prudent use of money. The younger son in the parable of the lost son who represented the sinners whom Jesus received did not manage his inheritance well. He squandered, wasted, and dissipated it. The story that follows gives an example of a wise use of some money that a master entrusted to his prodigal servant.
As the story opens, the steward or agent (Gr. oikonomos) is in trouble for unwisely using his master’s money. He was behaving as the younger son in the previous parable. In Jesus’ day wealthy landowners often turned over the management of some of their money to an agent whose responsibility was to invest it to make more money for the master. Today a stockbroker, a banker, or an investment counselor serves his or her clients in a similar way.