Gospel according to Saint Luke, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 16

Luke 16.¹ Jesus also said to his disciples: «A rich man had a manager who was accused in his presence of wasting his possessions. – Jesus also said to his disciples. After a pause of a few moments, Jesus spoke again; however, as this transitional formula indicates, he was now addressing the disciples, not the Pharisees, directly (vv. 1-13). The word "disciples" should be understood neither exclusively as referring to the twelve Apostles, nor solely to the tax collectors mentioned earlier (14:1), but to all those listeners who believed in Jesus. A rich man…This wealthy landowner is a figure of the Lord, to whom everything in heaven and on earth belongs. Commentators who portray him as Mammon (Meyer, JP Lange, Schenkel), Satan (Olshausen), the world personified (Schegg), the Roman emperor (!), or who deliberately leave his nature vague (de Wette, Crombez), seem to us to deviate from the true interpretation. Had a thrifty. According to St. Jerome, ad Algas, quaest. 6, this steward was not a farmer, but a businessman, a general administrator of property, endowed with very broad powers, like Eliezer in Abraham's time. This steward symbolizes all men, insofar as they will one day have to give God a strict account of the many talents entrusted to them. How could various exegetes have seen in him the type of Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, the tax collectors? Who was accused…The Greek verb used in the original text often means «to slander»; but it is generally accepted that here it is equivalent to «to accuse»: indeed, the context shows that the accusation was all too well-founded. Nevertheless, this word (literally «I cast sideways») also denotes a secret denunciation, made out of malice or envy. This expression does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament. To squander his assets, These are the current malpractices he is accused of. We encountered the same word in the parable of the prodigal son, 12:13.

Luke 16.² He called him and said: What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management: for from now on you will no longer be able to manage my property. This familiar story, of which the world offers daily examples, continues its natural course. The master immediately summons the accused. What am I hearing about you? «"In an indignant voice, with a reproachful tone," Kuinoel said. It was also a word of astonishment: "Is it possible that I should learn such things about you?" "From you, whom I entrusted with managing my affairs." Wetstein. Report on your management. Before dismissing his unfaithful steward—for it is a definitive and formal dismissal he gives him with the following words, "for you will no longer be able to manage…"—the owner demands of him, as is customary in such cases, a rigorous accounting, a symbol of those we will have to render to the Supreme Judge after our death. His words, therefore, do not contain a mere hypothetical threat, for he is completely certain of the matter.

Luke 16 ³ Then the steward said to himself, "What shall I do, since my master is taking away my management of his property? I am not strong enough to work the land, and I am ashamed to beg.". ⁴ I know what I will do, so that when my job is taken away from me, there will be people who will receive me into their homes. – The steward's little monologue is admirably picturesque and psychologically truthful. He doesn't try to justify himself: what excuses could he possibly offer to cover up his squandering? But, certain of losing his job, he wonders what his means of subsistence will be from now on. What will I do? The opening of the council he holds with himself. For misery is his only prospect; indeed, he has not enriched himself at his master's expense, but he has spent the proceeds of his domestic thefts day by day, no doubt in debauchery. – With what skill he weighs the different options between which he can choose. All things considered, he has only this alternative: to work the land (digging, hoeing), or to beg. To work the land, he is incapable. "What then do you want me to do? Farm work? These are charming things that fortune has not taught me," Quintilian, Decl. 9. To beg, he cannot bring himself to do. Better to die than to descend to such shame. cf. Ecclesiasticus 40, 28-30. – Then he reflects for a few moments. His embarrassment was not long-lasting, for suddenly he exclaimed: I know what I will do. He devised a clever plan to live comfortably without working and without too much humiliation. He would arrange things so that he would have friends for the rest of his life where he could be sure to find food and shelter. who receive me into their homes. And yet, the kind of life he aspired to is described in the Holy Scriptures in the darkest colors: «Better is the food of the poor under a wooden roof than a magnificent feast in a stranger’s house when one has no home,» Ecclesiasticus 29:29-31. But even that was better than misery. – a natural and dramatic detail: the subject of receive me is not named; he remains in the mind of the manager, but the rest of the story will reveal him to us. 

Luke 16.⁵ So he called in his master's debtors one after another, and said to the first, "How much do you owe my master?" No sooner said than done. Besides, the steward had very little time to settle and present his accounts. one after the other the debtors…These debtors were not, as some exegetes have thought, farmers paying their dues in kind. The corresponding Greek word can only refer to ordinary debtors who had been supplied on credit with goods they had not yet paid for. It has also been gratuitously assumed that they were insolvent and that the steward is currently making an advantageous agreement with them, beneficial to both themselves and the owner; or that, in a spirit of reparation, the dishonest steward had withdrawn from his own purse and given back to his master the sums he was forgiving them. But the text and the context, on the contrary, most clearly suggest that we are faced with a blatant injustice, simply intended to secure a tolerable situation for its perpetrator in the future. He said to the first. All the debtors were summoned, probably one after the other. The parable will only mention two by name, but this will be by way of example: the manager behaved the same way with all of them.

Luke 16.⁶ He replied: One hundred barrels of oil. The steward told him: Take your note: sit down quickly and write fifty. ⁷ Then he said to another, "And you, how much do you owe?" He replied, "One hundred measures of wheat." The steward told him, "Take your bill and write eighty.". – One hundred measures of oil. This measure, unknown to the classical authors in the sense we find it here, was equivalent either to the bath (22 pounds) or to the Attic metretes (38 liters). Cf. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Catholic Theology, art. Measures of the Ancient Hebrews. Moreover, the value of Hebrew measures has not yet been definitively determined. Take your ticket Your written document; your receipt, we might say. Sit down quickly. A picturesque detail. Write…This too is perfectly natural and obvious. The steward fears an unpleasant surprise; he urges his men to have the transaction completed promptly. FiftyIn this way, the debt was reduced by half, consequently by approximately 2000 liters. It is difficult to say whether the requested operation simply consisted of changing the figures on the original receipt (something easily accomplished, since Hebrew letters, which are also used to manufacture numbers(often bear a considerable resemblance to one another), or if the debtor had to write an entirely new document. The text seems to favor the first hypothesis. One hundred measures of wheat. The kor was another measure of capacity among the Hebrews, the largest of those used for dried vegetables: it contained 10 baths, that is to say, approximately 400 liters. Write eighty. This time, the steward only remitted one-fifth of the debt: it is true that the remission amounted to 8,000 liters. Why this difference? Is it, as some have thought, an insignificant detail (Euthymius), a mere variation intended to make the story more vivid? We prefer to see it as a detail of great psychological insight on the part of the steward. He knows his world, as they say, and anticipates that the same effects will be produced with different concessions, depending on the debtors' personal circumstances.

Luke 16.⁸ And the master praised the dishonest steward for having acted skillfully, because the children of this world are more skillful in dealing with each other than the children of light. Having learned what had happened, the master could not help but admire, in a certain way, the conduct of his steward. Certainly, his praise did not refer to the act itself, which was a blatant act of deceit; thus, the parable takes care to call the steward to this point. unfaithful thrifty. What the owner praised was the ingenuity of the expedient, the skill with which this man had immediately found a practical way to extricate himself from his predicament: because’He had acted skillfully.. «His master praised him, not, no doubt, because of the injustice he had committed, but because of the skill he had shown» (St. Augustine, Enarrat, in Psalm 53:2). It is because this distinction has not been made that the general meaning of our parable has so often been misunderstood, and that this verse has been seen sometimes as a clear indication of the steward's conversion (see the note on verse 5), and sometimes (such was the opinion of Julian the Apostate) as an apology for injustice and theft. The steward's act is not judged from a moral point of view, but simply as a successful adaptation of the means to the end. Thus, the master «praises ingenuity while condemning the deeds» (Clarius). The words that follow clearly indicate this. Because the children of this world… A perfectly appropriate name to designate worldly people, who are primarily concerned with material interests, whose thoughts and desires are all directed towards the earth. cf. 20:34. Obviously, the faithless steward was a child of this world. More skillful than the children of light. The Itala said "more cunning." cf. St. Augustine, 11th. To the sons of this world, Jesus contrasts the sons of light, that is to say, as is clear from the context and several similar passages (John 12:36; Ephesians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:5), his disciples, so divinely enlightened, swimming as it were in an ocean of light. Between them. The men of the world are supposed to form one and the same family, animated by identical feelings, and, as we saw in our parable, they know admirably how to get along when their interests are at stake.

Luke 16.⁹ I also tell you: Make friends for yourselves by means of the riches of iniquity, so that when you leave this life, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.  Jesus would like the children of light to show similar skill in matters of heaven: he tells them this in solemn terms (I also tell you: note the emphasis of the two pronouns) in this verse which contains the key to the entire narrative. He argues by inference from less to more, or conversely, as in the parables of the importunate friend (11, 6 ff.) and the unjust judge (18, 1-8); he offers the good the example of the wicked as a powerful stimulus. See St. Jerome, Ep. ad Algas.; St. Augustine, Quaest. Evang. 2, 34; Maldonat, etc. Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth.. Wealth is indeed the cause, the occasion, the instrument of countless iniquities. «It rarely happens, or practically never, that in the acquisition or preservation of wealth there is no sin on the part of those who possess it, who manage it, fathers or grandfathers,» Cajetan, hl. Jesus was therefore not speaking only of goods acquired unjustly, but of wealth in general. We will not dwell on refuting the rationalist opinion (M. Renan, de Wette, the Tübingen school) according to which Our Lord would condemn the rich here as rich, as the Ebionite sect later did, for this is a completely gratuitous allegation, condemned by the entire narrative. When you leave life That is to say, when you are dead. It essentially means the same thing, since everyone lacks money after death. They receive you in the eternal tabernaclesOrdinarily, nothing is less stable than a stay in a tent (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:1): however, in heaven there are eternal tents, as the 4th (apocryphal) book of Ezra similarly states. Several exegetes understand "angels" before "receive you"; according to others, the verb can be understood without designating a person; but, Cocceius rightly adds, "the plot of the parable presupposes that it refers to friends," and these friends are none other than the poor with whom he generously shared his possessions. Not that the poor They may be directly the gatekeepers of heaven; nevertheless, their prayers, their good witness, will reach Him who considers as done to Himself the alms given to one of these little ones, and He will open heaven in their name to all their benefactors. cf. St. Augustine, loc., and Maldonat.

Luke 16.¹⁰ He who is faithful in small things is faithful also in great things, and he who is unjust in small things is unjust also in great things.  Verses 10-13 are closely linked to each other and to our parable, whose moral they contain along with verse 9. It has been wrongly claimed that St. Luke placed them here arbitrarily. The first three (10-12) repeat, albeit with a nuance, one and the same thought; the fourth specifies the kind of faithfulness required by God in the preceding aphorisms. He who is faithful in small things… This is a truth of simple common sense as well as of daily experience, reproduced in the second hemistich in another form: he who is unjust in small things… By «small,» we must understand here, according to the context, worldly riches, which in reality have so little substance, and by «great,» spiritual goods which are a thousand leagues above them.

Luke 16 ¹¹ Therefore, if you have not been faithful in the riches of unrighteousness, who will entrust you with the true assets ? ¹² And if you have not been faithful in a stranger's possession, who will give you what is yours?  – Jesus now applies this great principle. Would someone who is unfaithful in small things (see the note on verse 9) deserve to be entrusted with heavenly treasures? – Another application: “And if you have not been faithful in what belongs to another…” Again, the expressions are admirably chosen, and the contrast is very striking. The property of another represents, as St. Jerome said, everything that is in the world: it is therefore another name for fortune. “By the property of another, he designates earthly resources, which no one can take with them when they die.” St. Augustine, 11. A designation of the most perfect accuracy, since, as the pagans themselves understood, “Nothing is mine either. Nothing of all that can be taken away, snatched, or lost,” Cicero, Parad. 4. On the contrary, the goods of heaven are called our property in advance, because they are destined for us and it is relatively easy for us to acquire them forever. What could be clearer, but also what could be more irresistible, than this simple argument? St. Paul made a similar argument when he wrote about the selection of bishops, 1 Timothy 3:5: “For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take charge of God’s church?” Loyalty is whole, universal, absolute, or it is not. The Rabbis possessed several examples or parables to show how God tests men in small things to see if they will be faithful in great things. This is how, they say, he initially entrusted David with only a very small number of sheep before appointing him shepherd of his chosen people.

Luke 16.¹³ No 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 wealth.» – We already encountered this truth in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6:24 (see the commentary). Jesus repeats it now to indicate how the rich should demonstrate loyalty which he has just recommended to them in such urgent terms: they will be faithful if they do not hesitate to prefer the worship of God to that of Mammon. These two masters, in fact, vie for our affections and our services. Now, one could not imagine anything more incompatible than their characters, their desires, their demands, for they are as if at opposite ends of the spectrum (cf. James 4:4). Between them we must choose: to which will we belong? (In Greek, the verb signifies true servitude.) Events will soon proclaim it, as this vivid comparison from Stella (hl) expresses: “If a dog follows two men who have met by chance on a road, you will not easily discover which of the two is its master. But if one of the two moves away from the other, it immediately becomes clear which one is the master. For the dog abandons the unknown and goes to the one it knows.” He thus clearly shows who his master is.

Luke 16.¹⁴ The Pharisees, who loved money, also listened to all this and mocked him. – The Pharisees… were listening to all of this That is to say, the parable of the dishonest manager and the moral that Jesus drew from it, vv. 1-13. This still refers to the Pharisees mentioned at the beginning of chapter 15 (see 16:1 and the commentary). Who loved money. The Pharisees are thus presented here as friends of Mammon, "an accusation amply justified by the allusions made by the Talmud to the rapacity of the Rabbis of that time. cf. Matthew 23:13." And they mocked him. The Greek verb indicates a blatant, open derision, reaching the very limits of insolence. It is the equivalent of laugh in your face Latins. These proud Pharisees no doubt found it strange that a poor man like Jesus would presume to lecture the rich. As if, moreover, wealth and religion were two irreconcilable things: Were they not both favored with worldly goods and yet full of piety? Such talk therefore seemed ridiculous to them. 

Luke 16.¹⁵ Jesus said to them, «You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts, and what is highly valued in the sight of men is an abomination in the sight of God. Jesus did not let this gross insult go unanswered. Addressing his adversaries directly (YOU, (with emphasis), he began by reproaching them, with entirely legitimate indignation, for their shameful hypocrisy. You are trying to appear fair.. They affected, in fact, to appear holy in the eyes of their fellow men. (cf. 7:39 ff.; Matthew 23:25; etc.) We will soon see (18:10) one of them justify himself even before the Lord. However, if men were deceived by these vain appearances, God, for whom nothing remains hidden, knew all their moral wretchedness. Maldonat quite rightly calls the phrase a litotes. God knows your hearts, he writes : «Insinuation is that by which more is said than what words signify. The hearts of these people are filled with iniquity.» This is indeed evident from the context: what is great for men is an abomination… What does this «great,» this «abomination,» represent if not the conduct of the Pharisees judged according to a twofold principle, the principle of men and the principle of God?

Luke 16.¹⁶ The Law and the Prophets go up to John; since John, the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone strives to enter it.  – According to Reuss, verses 16-18 contain maxims «which appear to be completely foreign to the text and are there only by the effect of an inexplicable chance,» Histoire évangéliq., p. 495. The Dutch theologian van der Palm even says, without a hint of irony, that St. Luke, wanting to begin the parable of the rich man on a new page, and yet desiring to use the short space remaining at the bottom of the previous one, filled it with these lines, violently separated from their logical and chronological connection. The Law and the Prophets…Jesus had already proposed this beautiful idea on another occasion (Matthew 11:12-13); he now presents it in a more concise, more focused form. Until St. John the Baptist, we were still in the era of the Law and the Prophets; but, since the appearance of the Forerunner, the New Testament has begun, we have entered the evangelical, messianic period: the kingdom of God is announced. St. John had indeed been the first to publicly spread this good news; Jesus had made it resound even more loudly, and already the happy results of their preaching were showing: it was a race to see who would enter the divine kingdom first. Cf. 15:1; John 12:19. For further discussion, see our commentary on St. Matthew 11:12. Eusebius. It is not without great struggles that weak mortals can ascend to heaven. How, indeed, could men clothed in mortal flesh, without forcing themselves, subdue lust and every sinful desire, and imitate on earth the life of angels? Seeing them devote themselves to such arduous labors in the service of God, and reduce their flesh almost to a true death (Romans 8, 13 ; Colossians 3, 5), who will not admit that they truly do violence to the kingdom of heaven? Can one, considering the admirable courage of the holy martyrs, fail to recognize that they have truly done violence to the kingdom of heaven? — St. Augustine (Evangelical Questions, 2, 37.) Violence is also done to the kingdom of heaven by despising not only earthly riches, but also the words of those who mock this complete indifference to these fleeting pleasures. Indeed, the Evangelist reports these words after having observed that they mocked Jesus when he spoke to them about despising earthly things.

Luke 16.¹⁷ Heaven and earth will pass away more easily than one stroke of the law will perish. – The opening of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:18 (see the commentary), announced in almost identical terms that the law of Sinai would persist even under the Christian regime, albeit in a transfigured, idealized, and perfected form. But here again, Luke's version has the merit of greater force. Heaven and earth will pass away ; For heaven and earth will endure at least until the end of the world. Just one feature of the law. One of those tiny, barely perceptible hooks invented to differentiate certain Hebrew letters. «To fall,» a beautiful image to signify: to lose its power, to cease to exist, to be nullified. And indeed, the Law did not fall to the ground; its abrogation was nothing other than its complete fulfillment in all its eternal principles. The Pharisees, so outwardly reverent for the letter of the law, nevertheless frequently violated its spirit: this is what tended to overthrow it, to ruin it.

Luke 16.¹⁸ Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and anyone who marries a woman divorced by her husband commits adultery. – An example to support the preceding principle. Few divine precepts had been so obliterated as that concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage. Jesus restores to it, in the Messianic code, its full original force, thus showing that he was perfecting Mosaic law, far from destroying it. For a detailed explanation, see Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11, and the corresponding notes.

Luke 16.¹⁹ There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who held sumptuous feasts every day. – After this address to the Pharisees, vv. 15-18, Our Lord returns to his subject, the necessity for the rich to make excellent use of their wealth (cf. vv. 1-13). In a second parable, which is rightly ranked among the most beautiful and instructive of the third Gospel, he illuminates another facet of this important question, showing, by the terrible example of the wicked rich man, where the possession of earthly goods ultimately leads if one uses them only for one's own enjoyment, instead of throwing a portion into the bosom of the poor, that is to say, into the bosom of God. See the commentaries of St. Gregory the Great (Hom. 40 in Evang.), St. John Chrysostom (Hom. 4 de Lazaro), St. Augustine (Serm. 14, 26, 41), and the admirable sermon by Massillon, The Rich Man. – There are, as it were, two acts in this drama; the first, vv. 19-21, takes place on earth, the second, vv. 22-31, in the other world. On both sides, we find a striking contrast between the state of the two characters around whom the narrative revolves. – 1° On earth: There was a rich man. He was a Jew, according to vv. 24, 25, 29-31. The divine narrator avoids mentioning his name, either out of delicacy, or rather, as St. Augustine already conjectured, because he had not merited being inscribed in the book of life. According to a probably legendary tradition, mentioned by Euthymius and with even older traces found in the Sahidic version, his name was Nineveh. – The evangelists had summarized the mortified life of the Forerunner in two significant traits, one concerning clothing, the other food; in two similar traits, Jesus summarizes the entire sensual and worldly life of the rich man. First trait: He was dressed in purple and linen.The brilliant purple of Tyre, the fine linen of Egypt as white as snow, were also famous in antiquity. cf. Genesis 41, 42; Esther 8, 15; Proverbs 31, 22; Ezekiel 27, 7; Daniel 57, 16, 29; 1 Maccabees 10, 20; 11, 58; 14, 43; Revelation 18, 12. These fabrics, sometimes worth their weight in gold (cf. Pliny, Natural History 19, 4), provided kings, nobles, and the wealthy in general with sumptuous clothing. Purple was most often reserved for outer garments, linen for inner garments: they were often combined because of the graceful color combinations thus obtained. – Second feature: He held sumptuous feasts every day.See verses 15, 23, 24, 29 and the commentary. It is the luxury of the table alongside the luxury of clothing. What power in these few words! One could not better paint, in two brushstrokes, a life of idleness, indolence, perpetual and sumptuous feasts, and utterly regal magnificence. It is noteworthy that Our Lord reproaches the wicked rich man with no other crime than this worship of the flesh and his harshness toward poor Lazarus. "He is accused neither of violence, nor of extortion, nor of avarice, nor of injustice" (Dominique Calmet), nor even of orgies and debauchery. See Massillon, 11th century, Exordium and beginning of the first part. In the eyes of the "world," he appeared perfectly innocent. And yet God will condemn him. This rich man, according to the context (cf. v. 14), is clearly the emblem of the avaricious Pharisees, to whom Jesus wanted to prove that it is not enough, in order to achieve salvation, to lead a respectable life outwardly, if one does not combine it with the practices of charityIt is wrong to have sometimes seen him as a type of the voluptuous and unbelieving Sadducees, for there is no testimony or mention of any passage from the Pharisees to the Sadducees.

Luke 16 ²⁰ A poor man named Lazarus was lying at his gate, covered with sores, ²¹ and wishing to fill himself with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, but even the dogs came to lick his ulcers. – A picture of utter misery following one of the greatest worldly happiness. Named Lazarus“The world gave a name to the rich and kept silent about the poor; the Savior keeps silent about the name of the rich and mentions that of the poor,” St. Augustine. This name of Lazarus, also borne by the friend of Jesus, brother of Martha and of MarriedJohn 11:1 is usually considered an abbreviated form of Eleazar, "God's help." Rabbinic literature tells us that the same person was sometimes called both Lazarus and Eleazar. This was, moreover, a very common name in the time of Our Lord, as can be seen from the writings of Josephus. It was admirably suited to the poor man presented to us here by the divine Master, for it symbolically expressed his trust in God and his patience in the midst of his misery. Thus, although no other proper name appears in the parables As evangelicals, we do not believe that this alone is sufficient to prove that, in this particular case, Jesus was describing a real story and not simply an imaginary event. On this question, which has been debated since ancient times, see St. Irenaeus, contra Her. 4, 2, 4, Theophylact, 11, Dom Calmet, Maldonatus, Corneille de Lapierre, Schegg, etc. was lying at his door. The Greek verb literally means "had been thrown," as if Lazarus's friends had brought him and abandoned him at the rich man's door, thinking that the rich man would greatly help him. Lazarus is lying at the carriage gate, the main entrance. Covered in ulcers. For Lazarus, illness—and what a terrible illness it was—was added to his utter destitution. In his distress, this unfortunate man longed (cf. 15:16) to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; but no one gave him any, for the servants, fashioned in the image of their master, were as inhuman as he was. But the dogs came…a picturesque, dramatic, and touching detail, whatever meaning one might ascribe to it. Indeed, exegetes are divided on this point, some viewing it as an antithesis, others as an ascending gradation. The former (St. Jerome, Hugh of St. Victor, Erasmus, Wetstein, Stier, Trench, etc.) believe, in accordance with the popular belief that attributes medicinal virtues to dogs' tongues, that the narrative deliberately contrasts the cruelty of the rich man toward Lazarus with the pity of irrational beasts. The latter, and they are the majority (among others Jansenius, Fr. Luc. Reischl), see in this final detail an indication of the most extreme misery: unable to defend himself, Lazarus had to endure the cruel licks of the dogs of the East, who roamed the streets without masters, constantly starving. The particle "same", and the biblical custom of presenting these animals in an unfavorable light, seem to support the second sentiment.

Luke 16.²² Now, it happened that the poor man died and he was carried by the angels in Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. – 2° We are suddenly transported to the other world, where we find the two heroes of our parable. But their roles have now changed considerably. This time, Lazarus is the first person we encounter. The poor man died. Death finally came to deliver him from his cruel suffering; moreover, we see him, scarcely having entered the next life, showered with honors and enjoying the holy delights reserved for the elect. carried by the angelsHe whom men had once forsaken is now served by the heavenly spirits, who gently carry him to the abode of the blessed. “They hasten in great numbers,” exclaims St. John Chrysostom, 11, “to form a joyful choir; each of the angels rejoices to touch this burden, for they love to take upon themselves such burdens to lead men to the kingdom of heaven.” It was the belief of the Jews that the souls of the righteous were thus carried by the angels to paradise. “Only the righteous can enter Paradise. Their souls are brought there by the angels,” Targum Cant. 4, 12. In Abraham's bosomAnother image borrowed by Our Lord from rabbinic theology. Moreover, almost all the colors he uses here to depict the state of the good and the wicked in the afterlife are drawn from ideas then prevalent in Palestine. These ideas were generally accurate, and by adhering to them, the Savior could only make his narrative more striking. The Jews of Jesus' time used three main expressions to designate the abode of the blessed: in the Garden of Eden; under the throne of glory; and in Abraham's bosom. The latter expressed, in a most graceful way, the rest and happiness of the elect. This metaphor is drawn from parents who, to console them, receive into their bosom their children, weary from a long walk, or returning home after an exhausting journey, or lamenting for any other reason. We find it again, slightly amplified, in the 4th (apocryphal) Book of Maccabees. Through the Holy Fathers (see St. Augustine, letter 187; Confessions 9, 3; De Anima, book 4, chapter 16), it passed into Catholic liturgy and theology, where it sometimes represents the limbo of the patriarchs, sometimes heaven itself (“That the angels "They take you into the bosom of Abraham." (Prayers for the dying) cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3a, q. 52, art. 2. Christian art, especially in the 13th century, readily represented heaven in this simple form. It can be seen sculpted [in France] at St. Stephen's Church. Bourges, at Moissac, at Vézelay, at Notre-Dame de Reims (see Ch. Cerf, Histoire et description de N.-D. de Reims, vol. 2, p. 49 et seq.) cf. moreover the analogous expression in the fourth Gospel, 1, 18, “the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”. – The rich man died too. Then the words of Job 21:13 were fulfilled: «They will live out their days in happiness and go down to the realm of the dead in peace.» This death seems to have closely followed that of Lazarus. 

Luke 16.²³ In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side., –In the abode of the dead, The Hebrew Sheol, divided, according to the context, into two distinct parts: Abraham's bosom for the righteous, Gehenna for the wicked; it was in the depths of Gehenna that the rich wicked man was plunged. Looking upThis detail, and several others that followed, sometimes caused great embarrassment to those ancient authors who took them literally, "to the point of having misled many" (Maldonatus), including Tertullian, De anima, 7. They concluded from this that the soul is corporeal. But obviously, "That the rich man raised his eyes to heaven, that he spoke with Abraham, that he asked for a drop of water to refresh his tongue, is a parable drawn not from what is happening now, but from what will happen later." the resurrection, "...and which is in accordance with our capacity to understand," Maldonat. This is a way of speaking quite analogous to the anthropomorphisms that so often attribute to God in the Bible a body, limbs, and human passions. But reality is easily discerned beneath these figures, and we truly have in this parable an open window onto hell, and we can see through it what happens in that dreadful abode. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus contains the most sublime description ever made of this world and the next life in their striking contrasts. What is the trilogy in which Dante sang of hell, purgatory, and heaven, if we compare it to the trilogy of this parable, which suddenly presents us, through a few but vivid and eloquent details, with earth, Gehenna, and paradise as one great and perfect unity?... The Savior provides us here with the most surprising explanations, and he lifts the veil that hides the mysteries of the future. He was in torment.. A most expressive plural. «This man suffered infinite torments. That is why the evangelist does not say: as he was in torment, but in torments. For he was entirely in torment.» St. John Chrysostom, 11:11. Abraham saw him from afar…The Rabbis also taught that the damned could contemplate the blessed in Limbo. «Paradise and Gehenna are arranged in such a way that from one one has a view of the other.» (Midrash Kohelet, 7, 14). It is true that, according to them, these two parts of Sheol were separated only by the width of a hand, or by the space occupied by an ordinary wall. Within its breast. Instead of the singular, the Greek text this time has a plural of intensity or majesty.

Luke 16.²⁴ And he cried out, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony from these flames.”. – He cried out. He cries out, says St. John Chrysostom, because «his great suffering gave him a powerful voice,» or, more naturally, to make himself better heard by Abraham, whom he could see in the distance (v. 23). A dialogue of the keenest interest ensues between the reprobate and the Father of believers (vv. 24–31). The latter refuses, one after the other, not without alleging compelling reasons, two pleas from the rich man. Abraham, our father. Three times (cf. vv. 27 and 30) the supplicant takes care to remind Abraham of the close ties of blood that unite them. He doubtless hoped, by this title of affection and respect, to make him more receptive to his prayer. But in vain, as St. John the Baptist once said to the Pharisees (3:8). After a have pity on me emphatic, which inspired St. Augustine to make a striking comparison ("superb in this world, a beggar in hell"), we hear the first request: Send LazarusWhy does he desire that the favor so humbly implored be granted to him through the intercession of the poor man Lazarus? Several authors (Bengel, J.P. Lange, etc.) have seen in this detail, quite wrongly, a lingering contempt for the beggar to whom the wicked rich man once passed so proudly: he would still regard him as his servant. The true reason, however, is clear. The order of things called for this circumstance. The rich man could not reasonably implore Abraham to personally render him the requested service; but, having recognized among the blessed the poor man whom he had so often seen lying at his gate, he designates him in the most natural way as an intermediary between Abraham and himself. Moreover, and in a deeper way, according to Maldonatus, «This is what the parable was meant to convey. Christ, in fact, wanted to teach that the fates of the rich man and Lazarus were reversed.» To teach this, he had to say that the rich man, in the next life, needed Lazarus's help, just as during his earthly life Lazarus had needed the rich man and had often asked for his help. Neither obtained what they asked for: Lazarus, because of the rich man's cruelty, and the rich man because he had asked too late. (S. Greg. Hom. 40 in Evang.) Let him dip the tip of his finger. What a modest request. A slight alleviation of his torments, the tip of a finger dipped in water and applied to his burning tongue to cool it a little. But the voice of his conscience prevented him from asking for more: he felt that he could not obtain complete deliverance. The processes of the Lord's retributive justice are admirable and terrible: "He now asks for a drop, he who refused a crumb" (S. Césaire, Hom. of Lazaro). "He had sinned above all through his tongue" (Bengel). I am suffering terribly from these flames.. The fires of hell could not be more clearly described.

Luke 16.²⁵ Abraham replied: My son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus received his bad things: But now he is comforted here, and you are in pain. – There is a dignity and delicacy in Abraham's response that has often been admired. Moreover, Jesus' words are all marked by perfection; from all the sermons of the supreme master emanates a passion for beauty and honesty that ensures one can never read and reread them without experiencing the greatest satisfaction. My son. The father of believers does not deny the rich man the name of tenderness. However, it is also remarkable that all feeling of compassion is excluded from his response; indeed, according to the profound reflection of St. Gregory the Great, Hom. 40 in Evang., «The souls of the saints, merciful as they may be, since they are united to divine justice, are compelled by the rectitude of the sentence to feel no compassion for the reprobate. Their judgment agrees with that of the Judge in whom they abide. And they do not look mercifully upon those whom they cannot snatch from hell, for they will see all the more that they are strangers to them, seeing them rejected by their Creator whom they love.» Remember. Abraham first appeals to the supplicant's memories, to lead him to conclude for himself that it would be unjust to grant his prayer. You received (In Greek, you have fully received). He is among those of whom it was said, "They have received their reward," 6:24. He enjoyed life on earth as he wished; that should suffice for him. Lazarus likewise received the evils. This is the contrast developed in lines 19-21. NOWCurrently, the exact opposite is true. Abraham simply states the facts: his interlocutor could easily appreciate their accuracy. – By what right do rationalists still claim, regarding this passage (Baur, Ueber die kanon. Evangel. p. 44; Hilgenfeld, die Evangelien, p. 202, etc.), that the evangelist St. Luke attacks and condemns the rich simply for being rich? No: of the two men judged in this parable, the first “is not tortured for having been rich, but for not having been merciful” (St. John Chrysostom), the second had other credentials with God than his poverty This is quite clear from the context, which tacitly described patience of Lazarus and the harshness of the rich man. "All poverty is not holy; not all wealth is criminal.” But, “as lust makes wealth guilty, holiness makes it honorable poverty "(St. Ambrose). The Gospel has no other doctrine."

Luke 16.²⁶ Moreover, between us and you there is forever a great chasm, so that those who would like to pass from here to you cannot do so, and it is impossible to pass from there to us. – Second part of Abraham's response: the rich man is asking for something not only unjust, but impossible. A great chasm has been established between us and you.. Between us, the chosen, and you, the reprobate. The Greek word corresponding to chasm refers more to an abyss than what is generally understood by chaos. However, the words abyss and chaos were essentially synonyms for the Greeks, and likewise for the Latins who had borrowed these expressions from the Greeks. There is forever. A very forceful way of saying that the chasm separating paradise from hell is not only gaping, but eternal. "A chasm that separates those between whom it is dug, and dug forever." St. Augustine, letter 164. The damned are therefore forever in hell; their sentence is irrevocable. Those who would like to pass…As a consequence of the foregoing, the barrier on either side cannot be crossed. From now on, no personal merit, no intercession of the Saints, can build a bridge across the terrible abyss.

Luke 16.²⁷ And the rich man said, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, The parable could have ended after verse 26. But Jesus wants to make it even more complete, showing through new details what constitutes the particular danger of riches. The privileged of this world, immersed in all kinds of pleasures, easily become unbelievers, at least in practice, and hardly concern themselves with their salvation. This is what the rest of the dialogue expresses. Refused in his first request, the rich man presents a second, which no longer concerns himself, but the spiritual good of his brothers. I therefore ask you… to send… If the space that separates us is impassable for Lazarus, there is surely no abyss between you and the earth.

Luke 16.²⁸ for I have five brothers, to testify to these things to them lest they also come to this place of torment. – I have five brothers. This detail has sometimes been interpreted, but without sufficient justification, as an allusion to the five sons of the high priest Anna, who succeeded him in turn as pope. To attest to them. It was as a witness, as an eyewitness, that Lazarus had to go to the rich man's brothers, like the character whom Plato, in Republic 10.14, brings back from the realm of the dead to earth, "to announce to men what is happening there," to assure them of the existence of the terrible realities he had seen with his own eyes. For fear that they might come…They were all too close to that path, for they too lived in luxury, without concern for the poor or for God. It would be wrong to admit, following Protestant theologians, that this concern of a damned soul to prevent the eternal reprobation of his brothers is an indication of a feeling of faith, or of some other seeds of supernatural good stirring in his soul, for the damned are incapable of performing an act of virtue. The Holy Fathers and Catholic exegetes attribute the rich man's wish sometimes to selfishness (St. Gregory, Dial. 4, c. 23, Bede the Venerable, Luke of Bruges, Corneille de Lapierre, etc.) "So that his torments would not be increased by the torments of those whom his example has led to a dissolute life like his own, and without mercy" (Jansenius), sometimes to the fraternal charity (St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Theophylact, etc.), but according to St. Thomas, Supplement to the Summa Theologica, question 98, article 4: "the damned, because of their consummate hatred, rejoice in evils and grieve over good, and consequently they would wish that all the good were damned with them." This fraternal charity Therefore, it is impossible for a rich man to be unkind to his brothers.

Luke 16.²⁹ Abraham replied: They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them. – This time, Abraham did not repeat the kind my son From verse 25. His answer is brief and even severe. They have Moses and the Prophets: that is to say, the whole Bible, thus designated by its two main parts. cf. John 146. The word of God must suffice for them; it is a testimony that no other can surpass. See John 5:39, 45-47.

Luke 16.³⁰ No, Abraham, our father, he replied, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent. – The beggar had submitted without a word to the refusal that affected him personally (v. 27); but here, he proposes an objection to the father of believers, or rather he allows himself to contradict him: No, Abraham, our father. No, they will not listen to Moses and the prophets; that is a completely insufficient means for them. I know them; I know from my own experience that something extraordinary is needed to move and convert them, like the apparition of a dead person. They will repent. Not only will they believe, but they will be morally transformed, and they will demonstrate their conversion through works of penance.

Luke 16.³¹ But Abraham said to him, »If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, someone will rise from the dead, yet they will not believe it.” Abraham coldly rejects this vain allegation. Inspired words are not enough for them; let them not expect extraordinary favor. If the voice of the Holy Scriptures does not move them, will the voice of a dead man leave them unmoved? “We, the faithful, are saved by hearing, not by appearances” (Bengel). In speaking these words, Jesus must have been thinking of what soon followed. Moreover, the Pharisees did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, nor even in the fact that he was the Messiah, the Christ, when he raised Lazarus from the dead. Did they believe it when he victoriously broke down the doors of the tomb for himself? Note the way in which Abraham repeats, but reinforces, the expressions used by his interlocutor. As if he were saying: A miracle far greater than the one you implore would not even succeed in producing a less considerable result than the one you so boldly promise. After these words, the veil is once again abruptly drawn, as happens at the end of several parables of the third Gospel. The audience was meant to feel seized, impressed, and thereby moved to seek more deeply, and then apply to themselves, the meaning of these burning lessons. – On the allegorical applications that the Fathers sometimes made of the main features of the parable of the rich man (“By the Jew, the Jewish people are designated…Lazarus is an image of all the Gentile people,” St. Gregory the Great; “The wounds of Lazarus are the sufferings of the Lord arising from the weakness of his flesh,” St. Augustine; likewise for the other details), see the gold chain of St. Thomas, hl