Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 16:20
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
20. named Lazarus ] Lazarus is not from lo ezer, ‘no help,’ i.e. ‘forsaken,’ but from Eli ezer, ‘helped of God,’ Gotthilf. It is contracted from the commoner Eleazar. This is the only parable in which a proper name occurs; and the only miracles of which the recipients are named are Mary Magdalene, Jairus, Malchus, and Bartimaeus. Whether in the name there be some allusive contrast to the young and perhaps wealthy Lazarus, brother of Martha and Mary, as Prof. Plumptre has conjectured, is uncertain. From this parable come the words lazaretto, lazzarini, a lazar, &c.
at his gate ] Not a mere putt but a pulon a stately portal.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Beggar – Poor man. The original word does not mean beggar, but simply that he was poor. It should have been so translated to keep up the contrast with the rich man.
Named Lazarus – The word Lazarus is Hebrew, and means a man destitute of help, a needy, poor man. It is a name given, therefore, to denote his needy condition.
Laid at his gate – At the door of the rich man, in order that he might obtain aid.
Full of sores – Covered with ulcers; afflicted not only with poverty, but with loathsome and offensive ulcers, such as often are the accompaniments of poverty and want. These circumstances are designed to show how different was his condition from that of the rich man. He was clothed in purple; the poor man was covered with sores; he fared sumptuously; the poor man was dependent even for the crumbs that fell from the rich mans table.
The dogs came – Such was his miserable condition that even the dogs, as if moved by pity, came and licked his sores in kindness to him. These circumstances of his misery are very touching, and his condition, contrasted with that of the rich man, is very striking. It is not affirmed that the rich man was unkind to him, or drove him away, or refused to aid him. The narrative is designed simply to show that the possession of wealth, and all the blessings of this life, could not exempt from death and misery, and that the lowest condition among mortals may be connected with life and happiness beyond the grave. There was no provision made for the helpless poor in those days, and consequently they were often laid at the gates of the rich, and in places of public resort, for charity. See Act 3:2. The gospel has been the means of all the public charity now made for the needy, as it has of providing hospitals for those who are sick and afflicted. No pagan nation ever had a hospital or an almshouse for the needy, the aged, the blind, the insane. Many heathen nations, as the Hindoos and the Sandwich Islanders, destroyed their aged people; and all left their poor to the miseries of public begging, and their sick to the care of their friends or to private charity.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 20. There was a certain beggar named Lazarus] His name is mentioned, because his character was good, and his end glorious; and because it is the purpose of God that the righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance. Lazarus, is a contraction of the word Eliezar, which signifies the help or assistance of God – a name properly given to a man who was both poor and afflicted, and had no help but that which came from heaven.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
20, 21. laidhaving to becarried and put down.
full of soresopen,running, “not closed, nor bound up, nor mollified with ointment”(Isa 1:6).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,…. By whom is designed, not any particular beggar in the times of Christ, that went by this name; though there were such persons in Israel, and in the times of our Lord; as blind Bartimaeus, and others: nor David, in the times of Saul, who was poor and needy; and who sometimes wanted bread, and at a certain time went to Abimelech for some: nor the godly poor in common, though the heirs of the heavenly kingdom are, generally speaking, the poor of this world; these receive Christ and his Gospel, and have their evil things here, and their good things hereafter; they are now slighted and neglected by men, but shall hereafter have a place in Abraham’s bosom, and be for ever with the Lord: nor are the Gentiles intended; though they may be said to be poor and helpless, as they were without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, and without hope and God in the world; and were despised and rejected by the Jews, and not suffered to come into their temple, and were called and treated as dogs; though, as the Syrophenician woman pleaded, the dogs might eat of the crumbs which fall from their master’s table; and who, upon the breaking down of the middle wall of partition, were called by grace, and drawn to Christ, and were blessed with faithful Abraham, and made to sit down with him in the kingdom of heaven: but our Lord Jesus Christ himself is here meant; as appears from the cause and occasion of this parable, which was the derision of Christ by the covetous Pharisees, who, though high in the esteem of men, were an abomination to God; and from the scope and design of it, which is to represent the mean and despicable condition of Christ in this world, whilst the Pharisees, his enemies, lived in great pomp and splendour; and the exaltation of Christ hereafter, when they would be in the utmost distress; and also the infidelity of that people, who continued in their unbelief, notwithstanding the resurrection of Christ from the dead: the name Lazarus well agrees with him. The Syriac version calls him “Loozar”, as if it signified one that was helpless, that had no help, but wanted it, and so a fit name for a beggar; and well suits with Christ, who looked, and there was none to help, Isa 63:5 nor did he receive any help from men; though rather, the word is the contraction of Eleazar, and so the Ethiopic version reads it here; and it is easy to observe, that he who is called R. Eleazar in the Babylonian Talmud, is in the Jerusalem called, times without number, , R. Lazar h; and R. Liezer, is put for R. Eliezer: it is a rule given by one of the Jewish writers i, that
“in the Jerusalem Talmud, wherever R. Eleazar is written without an “aleph”, R. Lazar ben Azariah is intended.”
And Christ may very well be called by this name; since this was the name of one of his types, Eleazer the son of Aaron, and one of his ancestors, who is mentioned in his genealogy, Mt 1:15 and especially as the name signifies, that the Lord was his helper: see
Ex 18:4. Help was promised him by God, and he expected it, and firmly believed he should have it, and accordingly he had it: God did help him in a day of salvation: and which was no indication of weakness in him, who is the mighty God, and mighty to save; but of the Father’s regard to him as man, and mediator; and of the concern that each of the divine persons had for, and in man’s salvation: and on account of his circumstances of life, he might be called
, a “poor man”, as he is in 2Co 8:9 and frequently in prophecy; see Ps 34:6 Zec 9:9 and though by assuming human nature, he did not cease to be God, or to lose the riches of his divine nature and perfections, yet his divine perfections, and the glory of them, were much hid and covered in his state of humiliation; and he was much the reverse of many of them in his human nature; in which he was exposed to much outward poverty and meanness: he was born of poor parents; had no liberal education; was brought up to a trade: had not a foot of ground to call his own, nor where to lay his head: and lived upon the ministrations of others to him; and when he died, had nothing to bequeath his mother, but left her to the care of a disciple: and he is further described, by his posture and situation,
which was laid at his gate; that is, at the “rich man’s”, as is expressed in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions: this was the place where beggars stood, or were laid, and asked alms; hence is that rule with the Jews k, and in many other places the following phrase;
“if a man dies and leaves sons and daughters—if he leaves but a small substance, the daughters shall be taken care of, and the sons, , “shall beg at the gates.””
This denotes the rejection of Christ by the Jews; he came to them, and they received him not; he had no entrance into their hearts, and was admitted but into few of their houses; they put those that confessed him out of their synagogues; and caused him himself to depart out of some of their cities; they delivered him up unto the Gentiles that were without; and at last led him without the gate of Jerusalem, where he suffered:
full of sores; so Nahum Gamzu l is said to have his whole body,
, “full of ulcers”: sometimes the Jewish phrase, which answers to the word here used, is , “one plagued with ulcers” m; and this by the commentators n, is explained of a “leprous” person; so one of the names of the Messiah is with the Jews o, , which signifies “leprous”, in proof of which, they produce Isa 53:4. “Surely he hath borne our griefs”, c. By these “sores” may be meant, sins see Ps 38:5. Christ was holy and righteous in himself, in his nature, life, and conversation; he was without both original, and actual sins, yet he was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was reproached and calumniated by men as a sinner; and had really and actually all the sins of his people on him, by imputation; and was made even sin itself, for them; so that in this sense he might be said to be full of them, though in himself he was free from them: they may also intend the temptations of Satan, those fiery darts which were flung at him, and by which he suffered; as also the reproaches and persecutions of men, which attended him more or less, from the cradle to the cross; together with all his other sorrows and sufferings, being scourged, buffeted, and beaten, and wounded for our sins, and bruised for our transgressions; of which wounds and bruises he might be said to be full.
h T. Hieros. Biccurim, fol. 63. 3, 4. & 64. 1. & 65. 3, 4. & Sheviith, fol. 36. 3. & passim. i Juchasin, fol. 81. 1. k Misn. Bava Bathra, c. 9. sect. 1. & T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 140. 2. Piske Tosaph. in Cetubot, art. 138, 372. l T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 21. 1. m Misn. Cetubot, c. 3. sect. 5. & 7. 10. n Maimon. & Bartenora in lb. o T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Beggar (). Original meaning of this old word. See on Mt 5:3. The name Lazarus is from , “God a help,” and was a common one. Lazar in English means one afflicted with a pestilential disease.
Was laid (). Past perfect passive of the common verb . He had been flung there and was still there, “as if contemptuous roughness is implied” (Plummer).
At his gate ( ). Right in front of the large portico or gateway, not necessarily a part of the grand house, porch in Mt 26:71.
Full of sores (). Perfect passive participle of , to make sore, to ulcerate, from , ulcer (Latin ulcus). See use of in verse 21. Common in Hippocrates and other medical writers. Here only in the N.T.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Beggar. See on poor, Mt 5:3.
Lazarus. Abbreviated from ‘Eleazarov, Eleazar, and meaning God a help. “It is a striking evidence of the deep impression which this parable has made on the mind of Christendom, that the term lazar should have passed into so many languages as it has, losing altogether its signification as a proper name” (Trench).
Was laid [] . Lit., was thrown : cast carelessly down by his bearers and left there.
Gate [] . The gateway, often separated from the house or temple. In Mt 26:71, it is rendered porch.
Full of sores [] . Only here in New Testament. The regular medical term for to be ulcerated. John uses the kindred noun elkov, an ulcer (Rev 16:2). See next verse.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,” (ptochos de tis onomati lazaros) “Then a certain poor man named Lazarus,” during the life of the rich man. The name Lazarus is derived from Eleazar and means, “God (is) my help.” The word beggar means an impoverished man, a man in poverty, a very poor man.
2) “Which was laid at his gate,” (ebebleto pros ton pulona autou) “Had been placed at his gate,” at the rich man’s gate.
3) “Full of sores,” (heilkomenos) “Being covered by sores,” perhaps sores of near Leprous nature, incurable sores, or contagious in nature; Contracting diseases were often caused by poor diet, or lack of medication, to keep diseases from spreading to others. Note, Lazarus was laid there, by others.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(20) And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus.The word for beggar, it may be noted, is the same as the poor of Luk. 6:20. The occurrence in this one solitary instance of a personal name in our Lords parables, suggests the question, What was meant by it? Three answers present themselves, each of which is more or less compatible with the other two. (1) There may have been an actual beggar of that name known both to the disciples and the Pharisees. (2) The significance of the name, the current Greek form of Eleazar (=God is the helper), may have been meant to symbolise the outward wretchedness of one who had no other help. (3) As that which seems most probable, the name may have been intended as a warning to Lazarus of Bethany. He was certainly rich. We have seen some reason to identify him with the young ruler that had great possessions. (See Notes on Mat. 19:18.) In any case he was exposed to the temptations that wealth brings with it. What more effectual warning could be given him than to hear his own name brought into a parable, as belonging to the beggar who was carried into Abrahams bosom, while his own actual life corresponded more or less closely to that of the rich man who passed into the torments of Hades? Was he not taught in this way, what all else failed to teach him, that if he wished for eternal life he must strip himself of the wealth which made it impossible for him to enter the Kingdom of God? It may be noted that almost every harmonised arrangement of the Gospel history places the parable almost immediately before the death and raising of Lazarus (see Note on Joh. 11:1), while in some of them the question of the young ruler comes between the two. The combination, in either case, suggests the thought of a continuous process of spiritual education, by which the things that were impossible with men were shown to be possible with God (Mat. 19:26). First the picture of the unseen world drawn in symbolic imagery, so as to force itself upon his notice, then an actual experience of the realities of that life; this was what he needed, and this was given him.
Laid at his gate, full of sores, . . .Literally, at his porch, or gateway. The Greek word for full of sores is somewhat more technical than the English one; literally, ulcerated, one which a medical writer like St. Luke would use to express a generally ulcerous state of the whole body. The description led, in course of time, to the application of the lepers name to those who suffered from leprosy, as producing an analogous condition, and so we get the terms, lazar, lazar-house, lazaretto. In the Italian lazzaroni the idea of the beggary is prominent without that of the sores.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20. Named Lazarus The abbreviated form of Eleazar, signifying, “God is my help;” a very suitable name for one who had no sympathy from man, and very little aid from the brutes. But, besides this suitableness, it is very probable that our Lord was soon to be on his way to raise Lazarus of Bethany from the dead; a circumstance which not only sheds a peculiar illustration upon Luk 16:31, but suggests the reason why Jesus at this time adopted that name for the parable. See notes on Luk 13:32. Two messages had just been announced to Jesus: one that his friend Lazarus is dead; the other that his own life is threatened by Herod. To the silver-loving Pharisees, followers of Herod, he might now say: Let a Lazarus be as poor as a perishing beggar, and an Antipas rich as a prince, yet the destiny of the former is infinitely preferable to that of the latter.
Laid at his gate Deposited there with the hope of attracting the rich man’s pity. The portals of the wealthy were the customary resort for mendicants.
Full of sores Ulcerated; one of the natural effects of a mendicant’s life.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores.’
There was also a beggar. He was probably a semi-invalid for he was ‘laid’ (the root of the verb means ‘thrown’) at the gate of the rich man, with the hope that some pity might be shown to him. He was full of sores (and therefore ritually ‘unclean’), but the only ones who had any association with him were the dogs who licked his sores, and this only aggravated his sores. His misery was thus added to by the fact that scavenging dogs snuffled around him, and he could do nothing about it. No one else wanted even to touch him. But there is one other difference. He has a name, in Hebrew ‘Eleazar’ (Eliezer), ‘he whom God had helped’. It tells us that although no one else was willing to touch him, God was willing to do so. The world saw a man to be pitied, a man who had nothing. But he had all the riches in the world, because he had God. And his name is mentioned because it was written in Heaven (Luk 10:20), and would be used when he went there. It may well be that in choosing the name Jesus remembered Abraham’s faithful servant (Gen 15:2). Here was one who was faithful to Abraham’s memory.
The story has in mind that in general it is the ‘poor’ who tend to seek God, and the rich who keep Him at a distance (see Luk 6:20-26, and compare the use of ‘poor’ in the Psalms e.g. Psalm 40:18; Psa 72:2-4).
‘Gate.’ A large oriental gate leading into a city or a mansion (Mat 26:71; Act 10:17; Act 12:13; Act 14:13).
‘Desiring to be fed.’ All he wanted was a few crumbs, and he did not even get that. It is a picture of total lack of concern and utter callousness. (We can almost hear the rich man saying, “Don’t give him anything. It will only encourage him”).
‘The crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table.’ All he wanted was what was thrown away. But they were not for him for he could not get near the table. Such ‘crumbs’ were regularly eaten by dogs (Mar 7:28). So the only taste of the crumbs he got was from the misery of the dogs licking his sores! (Compare here the vivid description in Jdg 1:7. Even those poor souls were better off than he was).
Some have said that the rich man was condemned for being rich. But that is not strictly true. Abraham had been rich too. The stress is rather on the fact that he had the opportunity to show kindness and compassion on his doorstep and did nothing. He was totally callous. His sin was that he did nothing when much needed to be done. It was that that revealed the true state of his heart.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Luk 16:20-21. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, An exceedingly emphatic name; for it seems to be derived from Laozer, which signifies a helpless person. Some have imagined, from the name of Lazarus and the particular detail of circumstances, that this was a history: but this must be a groundless supposition, as the incidents are plainly parabolical; and some ancient manuscripts, particularly that of Beza at Cambridge, have at the beginning,and he spake unto them another parable. Some versions after the words, from the rich man’s table, add and no man gave unto him; which Grotius thinks is intimated in his wishing to be fed with the crumbs which the dogs used to gather. If so, it was with singular propriety that he who denied a crumb, is represented as unable to obtain a drop.But I should rather think that this gloss is ill-placed, since it appears more probable that the beggar used to lie at the rich man’s door, as receiving alms from thence. The word moreover, at the end of Luk 16:21 should rather be rendered yea; for it is undoubtedly mentioned as an aggravating circumstance of the poor man’s distress. “He lay at the rich man’s gate,” says St. Chrysostom, “that he might have no excuse, saying, ‘I saw him not.’ He was full of sores, that he might be to the rich man a spectacle of his own mortality, seeing, in the body of Lazarus, to what he himself was subject: and he is set forth as requesting food, not as complaining of his sores,to shew the greatness of that poverty which so exceedingly pressed him, that he forgot his bodily pains.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 16:20-21 . In view of the significance of the name, we can the less conclude, with Calvin and others, following Tertullian, that this is an actual history , since even at so early a period Theophylact describes the occurrence of the circumstances as . [208] , i.e. , abbreviated for , Deus auxilium , as frequently also among the Rabbins. See Lightfoot on Joh 11:1 . Not: , auxilio destitutus (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others). But that any kind of confusion with the Lazarus from Bethany had arisen (de Wette) is a quite arbitrary conjecture. Just as groundless, moreover, is it either to doubt of the historical reality of the Lazarus of the fourth Gospel and his resurrection, because of the Lazarus of the parable being fictitious; or, on the other hand, to support this historical character by the assumption that Jesus in the parable referred to the actual Lazarus (Hengstenberg). The two men called Lazarus have nothing to do with one another. The name which the Lazarus of Bethany actually bore is here a symbolically chosen name, and how appropriate it is!
] not: was laid down (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius), but pluperfect, had been thrown down. The poor sick man had been cast down there in order to procure for him what fell from the rich man’s table. Even in Mat 8:6 ; Mat 9:2 , the idea is not merely that of lying , but of being cast down.
] there at the gate (see on Mat 26:71 ), which led from the into the house. The form (Lachmann, Tischendorf), afflicted with ulcers (from ), is convincingly attested, and that in opposition to the usage elsewhere (Eur. Alc . 878: ; Plut. Phoc. 2 : ); but it was probably formed by Luke, according to the analogy of the augment of and (Lobeck, Paral . p. 35 f.).
Luk 16:21 . ] desiring , craving after it. Whether he received of what fell or not is left undecided by the expression in itself , and de Wette (comp. Bleek) leaves the matter as it is, there being, as he thinks, nothing at all said about what was done or not done, but only about a lot and a condition. But the following . . . shows that the craving was not satisfied, which, moreover, presents itself a priori according to the purpose of the description as the most natural thing. The addition borrowed from Luk 15:16 : , in min. and vss., after , is hence (comp. Luk 15:16 ) a gloss correct in sense .
. . . ] but , instead of being satisfied, even still ( , see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134) the dogs came , etc. An aggravation of the misery, and that too not merely as depicting the negative evil of neglect ( , Theophylact; comp. Euthymius Zigabenus), but also positively : the unclean beasts and their licking ( ) aggravating the pain of the helpless creature! According to others (Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Wetstein, Michaelis, and others, including Kuinoel, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek), even the dogs appeared to have compassion upon him. So also Klinckhardt, super parab. de hom. divite et Lazaro , Lips. 1831. But the idea of contrast which must introduce would not thus be made prominent, nor the accumulation which indicates, nor would the whole strength of the contrast between Luk 16:21-22 remain. According to Bornemann, the meaning is: . . ., “egestati ejus micae de divitis mensa allatae, vulneribus succurrebant canes.” This is opposed to the purpose of the doctrinal narrative, to which purpose corresponds rather the unmitigated greatness of the suffering (Luk 16:25 ; moreover, the rich man’s suffering in Hades is not mitigated).
[208] Nevertheless, the houses of the rich man and of Lazarus are still shown to this day on the Via dolorosa (Robinson, I. p. 387).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Ver. 20. A certain beggar named Lazarus ] Or Eleazar (as Tertullian and Prudentius call him), who having been Abraham’s faithful servant, now resteth in his bosom.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
20. ] The significant name Lazarus (= Eleazarus = , Deus auxilium ) should have prevented the expositors from imagining this to be a true history .
Perhaps by this name our Lord may have intended to fill in the character of the poor man , which indeed must otherwise be understood to be that of one who feared God.
., was, or had been, cast down, i.e. was placed there on purpose to get what he could of alms.
, see on ref. Matt.: it was the portal, which led out of the into the .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 16:20 . gives the impression of a story from real life, but the name for the poor man is introduced for convenience in telling the tale. He has to be referred to in the sequel (Luk 16:24 ). No symbolic meaning should be attached to the name. : Lazarus is brought into relation with the rich man. This favours the view that the moral is the folly of neglecting beneficence. If the story were meant to illustrate merely the reversals of lot, why not describe Lazarus’ situation in this world without reference to the rich man? Is he placed at his door simply that he may know him in the next world? : covered with ulcers, therefore needing to be carried to the rich man’s gate; supposed to be a leper, hence the words lazaretto, lazar, etc.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
beggar = poor man. App-127.
Lazarus. A common Talmudic contraction of the Hebrew Eleazar; but introduced by the Lord to point to His own closing comment in Luk 16:31.
laid = cast down.
at. Greek. pros. App-104.
full of sores. Greek. helkoo. Occurs only here.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
20.] The significant name Lazarus (= Eleazarus = , Deus auxilium) should have prevented the expositors from imagining this to be a true history.
Perhaps by this name our Lord may have intended to fill in the character of the poor man, which indeed must otherwise be understood to be that of one who feared God.
., was, or had been, cast down, i.e. was placed there on purpose to get what he could of alms.
, see on ref. Matt.: it was the portal, which led out of the into the .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 16:20. , by name) Lazarus was known by his own name in heaven; whereas the rich man is not designated by any name (is not accounted worthy of any name or reputation marked by a name), Luk 16:25 [Son], but has merely a genealogy in the world, Luk 16:27-28. [This is not due to the parabolic nature of the narrative, for] Even in a parable a proper name has place: Eze 23:4 [Aholah and Aholibah]. However that there was really at Jerusalem at that time such a person, named Lazarus, is recorded by Theophylact from the tradition of the Hebrews.-, was lying)[175] disabled in his limbs. His hunger and nakedness is opposed to the sumptuous fare and fine clothing of the rich man. The character which marked the soul of Lazarus is to be gathered in part from his own external condition, and in part from the opposite character of the rich man.-, gate) that of a great house: the poor man was removed to a distance from the rich man, at such a distance however, as that the rich man might have been moved to compassion, and Lazarus at the same time might see his table. The antithesis is Abrahams bosom, [, Luk 16:22], Comp. note Act 12:13 [ is more spacious than , and may include the adjoining hall or uncovered entrance].
[175] Rather, he had been laid by others, not being able to move himself.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
a certain: Luk 18:35-43, 1Sa 2:8, Jam 1:9, Jam 2:5
Lazarus: Joh 11:1
was laid: Act 3:2
full: Luk 16:21, Job 2:7, Psa 34:19, Psa 73:14, Isa 1:6, Jer 8:22
Reciprocal: Job 2:8 – took him Job 12:5 – of him Pro 22:2 – rich Isa 5:14 – he that rejoiceth Isa 14:10 – Art thou also Eze 16:49 – neither Mat 25:29 – shall be taken Mar 10:46 – begging Luk 16:3 – to beg Luk 16:25 – likewise Joh 9:8 – sat Rev 16:2 – a noisome
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
Sores is from a Greek word that is defined “ulcers” in the lexicon. Lazarus was afflicted so badly he had to be carried to be laid at the gate of the rich man. He was placed there as an object of charity, even as beggars today seek a prominent place on the streets where they can be seen by the public.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[Lazarus.] I. We shew in our notes upon St. Joh 11:1; in several instances, that the word Lazar is by contraction used by the Talmudists for Eleazar. The author of Juchasin attests it: in the Jerusalem Talmud every R. Eleazar is written without an Aleph, R. Lazar.
II. In Midras Coheleth there is a certain beggar called Diglus Patragus or Petargus: poor, infirm, naked, and famished. But there could hardly be invented a more convenient name for a poor beggar than Lazar; which signifies the help of God; when he stands in so much need of the help of men.
But perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his servant, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse the heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into Abraham’s bosom? Which I leave to the judgment of the reader, whether it might not hint the calling of the Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.
The Gemarists make Eliezer to accompany his master even in the cave of Machpelah: “R. Baanah painted the sepulchres: when he came to Abraham’s cave, he found Eliezer standing at the mouth of it. He saith unto him, ‘What is Abraham doing?’ To whom he, He lieth in the embraces of Sarah. Then said Baanah, ‘Go and tell him that Baanah is at the door,’ ” etc.
[Full of sores.] In the Hebrew language, stricken with ulcers. Sometimes his body full of ulcers; as in this story: “They tell of Nahum Gamzu, that he was blind, lame of both hands and of both feet, and in all his body full of sores. He was thrown into a ruinous house, the feet of his bed being put into basins full of water, that the ants might not creep upon him. His disciples ask him, ‘Rabbi, how hath this mischief befallen thee, when as thou art a just man?’ ” He gives the reason himself; viz. Because he deferred to give something to a poor man that begged of him. We have the same story in Hieros Peah; where it were worth the while to take notice how they vary in the telling it.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Luk 16:20. A certain beggar. Introduced in contrast with the rich man, who is the principal figure.
Named Lazarus. The significant name is mentioned in this case. It means God a help, not, as some suppose, helpless. The Lazarus of this parable has nothing save the name in common with Lazarus of Bethany. We infer from the name, as well as from the sequel, that the beggar was one who feared God.
Was laid at his gate. The rich man thus had an opportunity of making a better use of his wealth, for the gate was the only entrance to the house itself.
Full of sores. Covered with them. They might have been the result of insufficient food.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Luk 16:20-21. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus According to the Greek pronunciation; or Eliazar, according to the Hebrew; a name very proper for a person in such a condition, signifying, the help of God; or if, as some think, the word be derived from , lo azer, a helpless person. Which was laid at his gate full of sores He was so diseased and decrepit that he could not go himself to the rich mans gate, but he was carried by some compassionate hand or other, and laid there; he was so naked that his ulcers lay uncovered and exposed to the weather; and so poor, that he desired to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich mans table. This expression, , as Dr. Campbell observes, does not afford any foundation for supposing that he was refused the crumbs, the word , rendered desiring, not implying so much in the Scriptural use of it, and the other circumstances of the story not being consistent with such an opinion. For when the historian says, that he was laid at the rich mans gate, he means not, surely, that he was once there, but that he was usually so placed, which would not probably have happened if he had got nothing at all by being laid there. The other circumstances concur in heightening the probability. Such are, the rich mans immediately knowing him; his asking that he might be made the instrument of the relief wanted; to which may be added, that, though the patriarch upbraids the rich man with the carelessness and luxury in which he lived, he says not a word of inhumanity; yet, if we consider Lazarus as having experienced it so recently, it could hardly, on this occasion, have failed to be taken notice of. Can we suppose that Abraham, in the charge he brought against him, would have mentioned only the things of the least moment, and omitted those of the greatest? Much injury, adds the doctor, has been done to our Saviours instructions, by the ill-judged endeavours of some expositors to improve and strengthen them. Many, dissatisfied with the simplicity of this parable, as related by the evangelist, and desirous, one would think, to vindicate the character of the Judge from the charge of excessive severity, in the condemnation of the rich man, load that wretched sinner with all the crimes which can blacken human nature, and for which they have no authority from the words of inspiration. They will have him to have been a glutton and a drunkard, rapacious and unjust, cruel and hard-hearted, one who spent in intemperance what he had acquired by extortion and fraud. Now, I must be allowed to remark that, by so doing, they totally pervert the design of this most instructive lesson, which is, to admonish us, not that a monster of wickedness, who has, as it were, devoted his life to the service of Satan, shall be punished in the other world; but that the man, who, though not chargeable with doing much ill, does little or no good, and lives, though not perhaps an intemperate, a sensual life; who, careless about the situation of others, exists only for the gratification of himself, the indulgence of his own appetites, and his own vanity, shall not escape punishment. It is to show the danger of living in the neglect of duties, though not chargeable with the commission of crimes; and particularly the danger of considering the gifts of Providence as our own property, and not as a trust from our Creator, to be employed in his service, and for which we are accountable to him. These appear to be the reasons for which our Lord has here shown the evil of a life, which, so far from being universally detested, is at this day but too much admired, envied, and imitated. Thus also Henry: It is not said that the rich man abused Lazarus, forbid him his gate, or did him any harm; but it is intimated that he slighted him, was under no concern for him, took no care about him. Here was a real object of charity, and a very moving one, which spoke for itself, and was presented to him at his own gate. The poor man had a good character, and a good carriage, and every thing that could recommend him. A little thing done for him would have been considered as a great kindness; and yet the rich man took no cognizance of his case; did not order him to be taken in and lodged in his barn, or one of his outbuildings, but let him lie there. Observe, reader, it is not sufficient not to oppress and trample upon the poor: we shall be found unfaithful stewards of our Lords goods, in the great day, if we do not succour and relieve them. The reason given for the most fearful doom is, I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat. I wonder how those rich people, that have read the gospel of Christ, and say they believe it, can be so unconcerned, as they often are, in the necessities and miseries of the poor and afflicted. Moreover Or rather, yea even, as should be rendered, (for the circumstance is undoubtedly mentioned as an aggravation of the poor mans distress,) the dogs came and licked his sores In this manner did Lazarus, a child of God, and an heir of heaven, laid at the rich mans gate, drag out an afflicted life, pining away with hunger, and cold, and painful disease; while the great man within, though a child of wrath, and an heir of hell, spent every day in the highest luxury of dress and table: the former, according to the opinion of the world, being a remarkable instance of the greatest misery, and the other of the most consummate felicity.