Chú giải Kinh Thánh

The scope of Christ's discourse in this chapter is to awaken and quicken us all so to use this world as not to abuse it, so to manage all our possessions and enjoyments here as that they may make for us, and may not make against us in the other world; for they will do either the one or the other, according as we use them now. I. If we do good with them, and lay out what we have in works of piety and charity, we shall reap the benefit of it in the world to come; and this he shows in the parable of the unjust steward, who made so good a hand of his lord's goods that, when he was turned out of his stewardship, he had a comfortable subsistence to betake himself to. The parable itself we have (Lu 16:1-8); the explanation and application of it (Lu 16:9-13); and the contempt which the Pharisees put upon the doctrine Christ preached to them, for which he sharply reproved them, adding some other weighty sayings, Lu 16:14-18. II. It, instead of doing good with our worldly enjoyments, we make them the food and fuel of our lusts, of our luxury and sensuality, and deny relief to the poor, we shall certainly perish eternally, and the things of this world, which were thus abused, will but add to our misery and torment. This he shows in the other parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which has likewise a further intention, and that is, to awaken us all to take the warning given us by the written word, and not to expect immediate messages from the other world, Lu 16:19-31.

The parable of the unjust steward, Luke 16:1-8. Christ applies this to his hearers, Luke 16:9-13. The Pharisees take offense, Luke 16:14. Our Lord reproves them, and shows the immutability of the law, Luke 16:15-17. Counsels against divorce, Luke 16:18. The story of the rich man and the beggar, commonly called Dives and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31.

CHAPTER 16.

TWO ADDITIONAL PARABLES ON THE RIGHT USE OF WEALTH.

These two parables, the unjust steward and Dives, bear such a foreign aspect when compared with the general body of Christ’s teaching as to give rise to a doubt whether they have any claim to a place in an authentic record of His sayings. One at first wonders at finding them in such company, forming with the preceding three a group of five. Yet Luke had evidently no sense of their incongruity, for he passes from the three to the two as if they were of kindred import (ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ). Doubtless they appealed to his social bias by the sympathy they betray for the poor (cf. Luke 6:20, Luke 11:41), which has gained for them a place among the so-called Ebionitic sections of Luke’s Gospel (vide Holtzmann in H. C.). In favour of the authenticity of the first of the two parables is its apparently low ethical tone which has been such a stumbling-block to commentators. Who but Jesus would have had the courage to extract a lesson of wisdom from conduct like that of the unrighteous steward? The literary grace of the second claims for it the same origin and author.

CHAPTER 16

Luke 16:2. δυνήσῃ] B D P א, min. have δύνῃ, which Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 121, approves, and Tisch. has now adopted. But if it were genuine, it would have been changed, not into δυνήσῃ, but into δύνασαι. The present came more readily to the transcribers, hence also δύνῃ was introduced.

Luke 16:6. καὶ εἶπεν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, in accordance with A B L R א, min. Copt. Theophyl. (D has εἶπεν δέ). The Recepta easily originated in the desire to vary the expression used in the preceding clause.

τὸ γράμμα] Lachm. and Tisch. have τὰ γράμματα, in accordance with B D L א, Copt. Goth. codd. of It. So also in Luke 16:7. Rightly; the singular came more readily to the transcribers, because one writing was thought of (Vulg.: cautionem, Cod. Pal.: chirographum, X: τὰ γραμματεῖον).

Luke 16:7. καὶ λέγει] καί is to be struck out, as with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B L R, min. vss., as a connective addition, instead of which D has ὁ δέ.

Luke 16:9. ἐκλίπητε] E G H K M S V Γ Δ Λ, min. have ἐκλείπητε (Δ has ἐκλείπειτε). B* D L R א* have ἐκλίπῃ; A B** X, ἐκλείπῃ. Several versions also read one of these two. Hence the Recepta has decisive evidence against it. Since to understand the everlasting habitations as the word for death, and consequently to change it into the plural so readily suggested itself, I regard the singular as original, though not ἐκλίπῃ (Schulz, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), but ἐκλείπῃ, since the important authorities which read ἐκλείπητε (so Matthaei) are also in favour of this present form; just as, moreover, the aorist in itself, according to the sense (cum defecerit), presented itself most readily to the uncritical transcribers.

Luke 16:18. The second πᾶς has evidence so important against it that (condemned by Griesbach, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) it must be regarded as a mechanical repetition.

Luke 16:20. ἦν and ὅς are wanting in B D L X א, min. vss. Clem. Suspected by Griesbach, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But if ἦν had been added, καί would have been inserted instead of ὃς, after the model of Luke 16:19. On the other hand, after ΛαζαρΟΣ it was easy to pass over ὃς, which then also caused the omission of ἦν.

Luke 16:21. ψιχίων τῶν] is wanting in B L א* min. vss. Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck and Tisch. A gloss, following Matthew 15:27.

Instead of ἀπέλειχον is to be written, with Lachm. and Tisch., ἐπέλειχον, in accordance with A B L X א (D has ἔλειχον).

Luke 16:25. σύ, which Elz. Lachm. have after ἀπέλαβες, is not found in B D G H L א, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.), Fathers; and in A it does not come in till after σου. An addition for the sake of the contrast.

ὧδε is so decisively attested, that ὅδε (Elz.) can only appear as an alteration for the sake of the contrast.

Luke 16:26. Instead of ἔνθεν Elz. has ἐντεύθεν, in opposition to decisive evidence. The more frequent form forced itself in (ἔνθεν does not elswhere occur in the N. T.). The entire omission of the word is too weakly attested by D, Cant. Colb. Dial. c. Marc.

οἱ ἐκεῖθεν] B D א* Arm. Vulg. It. Ambr. Lachm. have merely ἐκεῖθεν. Rightly; οἱ is an addition in accordance with what has gone before.

On the parable of the dishonest steward, see Schreiber, historico-critica explicationum parabolae de improbo oecon. descriptio, Lips. 1803 (in which the earlier literature is detailed); Loeffler in the Magaz. f. Pred. III. 1, p. 80 ff. (in his Kl. Schr. II. p. 196 ff.); Keil in the Anal. II. 2, p. 152 ff.; Bertholdt in five Programmes, Erl. 1814–1819; Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. 1817, p. 203 ff.; D. Schulz, über die Parab. vom Verwalter, Bresl. 1821; Möller, neue Ansichten, p. 206 ff.; Grossmann, de procurat. parab. Christi ex re provinciali Rom. illustr., Lips. 1824; Rauch in Winer’s Krit. Journ. 1825, p. 285 ff.; Niedner, Dissert., lips. 1826, in the Commentatt. theol. ed. Rosenmüller et Maurer, II. 1, p. 74 ff.; Bahnmeyer in Klaiber’s Stud. I. 1, p. 27 ff.; Gelpke, nov. tentam. parab. etc., Lips. 1829; Jensen in the Stud. und Krit. 1829, p. 699 ff.; Hartmann, Comm. de oecon. impr., Lips. 1830; Zyro in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 776 ff.; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 53 ff.; Dettinger in the Tübingen Zeitschr. 1834, 4, p. 40 ff.; Steudel, ibid. p. 96 ff.; Fink in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 313 ff.; Steinwerder, üb. d. Gleichn. vom ungerecht. Haushalt., Stuttg. 1840; Brauns in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 1012 ff.; Francke in the Stud. d. Sächs. Geistl. 1842, p. 45 ff.; Heppe, Diss. d. loco Luc. xv. 1–9, Marb. 1844 (in opposition to Francke); H. Bauer in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb. 1845, 3, p. 519 ff.; Eichstädt, parabolam J. Chr. de oeconomo impr. retractavit, Jen. 1847; Harnisch also, e. Erklärung des Gleichn. etc., Magdeburg, 1847; Wieseler in the Gött. Viertelj.-Schr. 1849, p. 190 ff.; Meuss, in parab. J. Chr. de oecon. injusto, Vratisl. 1857; Hölbe in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 527 ff.; Engelhardt in “Gesetz und Zeugniss,” 1859, p. 262 ff.; (Eylau) in Meklenb. Kirchenbl. 1862, Nr. 4–6; Lahmeyer, Lüneb. Schulprogr. 1863; Köster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 725 ff.

Lu 16:1-31.

PARABLES OF THE UNJUST STEWARD AND OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, OR, THE RIGHT USE OF MONEY.

1. steward--manager of his estate.

accused--informed upon.

had wasted--rather, "was wasting."

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 Luke 16:1; the perplexities and shifts to which it would drive a man when once he had been dishonest Luke 16:3-7; the necessity of using money aright, since it was their chief business Luke 16:9; and the fact that if they would serve God aright they must give up supreme attachment to money Luke 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 master's 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.

A steward - Οικονομος, from οικος, a house, or οικια, a family, and νεμω, I administer; one who superintends domestic concerns, and ministers to the support of the family, having the products of the field, business, etc., put into his hands for this very purpose. See on Luke 8:3 (note).

There is a parable very like this in Rab. Dav. Kimchi's comment on Isaiah, Isaiah 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 favor in the eyes of the master of the house: but if the master find wickedness in him, he will remove him, מן יפקדתו 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.