AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Who was lazarus in luke 1612/13/2023 ![]() It has sometimes been felt as a difficulty that the one is not said to have done anything bad, nor the other to have been devout or good and some hasty readers have thought that Jesus was here teaching the communistic doctrine that wealth is sin, and that poverty is virtue. ![]() The juxtaposition of the two figures carries the whole lesson. It is very striking that neither he nor the beggar is represented as acting, but each is simply described. The rich man does not stand for something else, but is one of the class of which Jesus wishes to set forth the sin and fate. Properly speaking, we have here, not a parable-that is, a representation of physical facts which have to be translated into moral or religious truths-but an imaginary narrative, embodying a normal fact in a single case. There are three parts in the story-the conduct of the rich man, his fate, and the sufficiency of existing warnings to keep us from his sin and his end. Nor does the parable teach that the use of wealth is the only determining factor, but, as every parable must do, it has to isolate the lesson it teaches in order to burn it into the hearers. What a man does with his conditions settles what he is and what becomes of him. Christ never treats outward conditions as having the power of determining either character or destiny. It is meant to rebuke, not the possession of wealth, but its heartless, selfish use. Keeping them in view, its true purpose is plain. This, the sternest of Christ’s parables, must be closely connected with verses 13 and 14. There was “good cheer” in each, but of how different a complexion! The word is the same as that in Luke 15:32, and we can hardly doubt that there is a designed contrast between the holy mirth and joy in the one case, and the ignoble revelry of the other. ![]() The reference to the teaching of the scribes as to divorce ( Luke 16:18), naturally suggested the most prominent and most recent instance in which their lax casuistry had shown itself most criminally compliant with the vices of an adulterous and incestuous prince.įared sumptuously.-More literally, was sumptuously merry. ![]() It was meet that they should learn what was the outcome of such a life when it passed “behind the veil.” We may add, too, that this view enables us to trace a sequence of thought where all at first seems unconnected. This was their highest ideal of happiness, and for this they were content to sacrifice their true calling here and their hopes of eternal life hereafter. This, then, was what the scribes, even those that were not avowedly of the Herodian school, who should have been teachers of righteousness, were striving after. (See Notes on Matthew 14:6 Mark 6:14 Mark 6:21, and the quotation from Persius cited in the latter.) If we assume that there is this sketch, as it were, of the Tetrarch’s character, it is obvious that the teaching of the parable receives a fresh significance. The “faring sumptuously” reminds us of the stately pomp of Herod’s feasts. There is the “purple garment,” rich with the dyes of Tyre, which was hardly worn, except by kings and princes and generals (see Notes on Matthew 27:28 Mark 15:17) the byssus, or fine linen of Egypt, coupled with purple in Revelation 18:12 Revelation 18:16, itself not unfrequently of the same colour. In the rich man himself we find, generic as the description is, some features which must at least have reminded those who heard the parable, of the luxurious self-indulgence of the Tetrarch himself. It is clear that the section of Pharisees for whom the parable was specially designed, were such as those described as being “in king’s houses and in soft raiment, and living delicately” (see Notes on Matthew 11:8 Luke 7:25)-the scribes, i.e., who had attached themselves to the court of Herod Antipas, the Herodians, or those who, while differing from them politically, were ready to coalesce with them ( Matthew 22:16 Mark 3:6), and reproduced their mode of life. They are now taught, and the disciples are taught also, what comes of the other friendship that men for the most part secure with money. The former had mocked at the counsel that they should make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, who should receive them into everlasting habitations. On the one side, among those who listened to our Lord, were the Pharisees, living in the love of money and of the enjoyments which money purchased on the other, were the disciples, who had left all to follow their Master, poor with the poverty of beggars. But the sneer of Luke 16:14 explains the sequence of thought. Here, also, there is a certain appearance of abruptness. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(19) There was a certain rich man.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |