The parables which Jesus told in this period of his ministry are remarkable for their intense emotional quality. Love, anger, pity, anxiety, rejoicing and wretchedness continually jostle each other for pride of place—and of course, lor they were spoken by a Jesus whose emotions were wrought to the highest pitch as rejection by his own nation became more inevitable and as the shadow of the cross grew longer across his path.

Derided by the Pharisees out of their misapprehension of his parable about a dishonest steward, he went on to tell another parable which concerned them and their Sadducee colleagues even more directly, if that were possible.

A powerful story

A certain rich man lived in almost unimaginable luxury. Fine clothes, the best of food, every wish and whim catered for, comfort and ease past describing, and plenty of merriment (Gk.). He had them all.

In extreme contrast with this self-indulgence was the condition of a miserable beggar called Iflzarus. This poor fellow was lame (v.20: “laid”) and covered with foul open sores—yaws, probably, the result of undernourishment—or something a good deal worse (s.w. Lev.13 :18-26; Dt.28:27,35). Day after day he was dumped at (Gk. pros—facing) the impressive gateway of the rich man’s sumptuous dwelling, there to beg for his livelihood. Surely there would be scraps thrown out which even the servants would scorn to eat. Jesus implied that he got little even of these, because of the dogs which roamed wild in the streets of the city. They got what food there was. So almost the only comfort left him (if indeed it was a comfort) was the way in which these smelly unclean animals licked his sores. It is noteworthy that the only morally good thing mentioned about Lazarus is perhaps the hint supplied by his name—Eleazar, God is my help.

Day after day the rich man had opportunity to aid and cheer the poor wretch whom he actually knew by name (v.24), yet he did nothing. Was such kindness beneath his dignity, or did he never give a thought to the suffering he could so easily have alleviated? The reader is left to speculate. Nothing specifically bad is said about him. Indeed, his concern for his five brothers appears to be definitely to his credit.

With the death of both characters, the beggar being given priority, the story develops dramatically, The soul of Lazarus was carried by the angels to the place of blessedness; there he was comforted in the bosom of Abraham, where (as with Moses; Ex.4 :7) leprosy was turned clean. The language suggests a scene comparable to the apostle John’s reclining in Jesus’ bosom at the meal table (Jn.13 :23,25).

When the rich man died, his body was buried with pomp and circumstance. That of Lazarus was probably thrown out into Gehenna, perhaps to be eaten by the dogs who had licked his sores. But the soul of the rich man was in a place of torment indescribable.

There, as he writhed in agony, he. was tortured all the more by seeing “afar off” his great progenitor Abraham giving consolation and comfort to the despised beggar. He forthwith shouted out an agonized appeal for aid. ‘Father Abraham, mercy! (the very cry he had heard from the beggar many a time.) One tiny drop of water—please! Even if it is brought me by the finger of that lousy beggar I knew, I shall be glad of it. This torment is past bearing.’ There is a striking contrast here with rich ;’ Abraham’s treatment of strangers; Gen.18:4 LXX has the same word as “cool” here ; (v.24).

No present help

But Abraham could offer no alleviation or succour. Speaking not unkindly, he reminded the sufferer of the days when the two roles were exactly the reverse: “Thou receivest thy good things, likewise Lazarus evil things” (cp. 6:22-25; Ps. 17:14). That personal pronoun is eloquent. The rich man had assumed that all his pleasures and luxuries were his by right (cp.12 -.17-19). The beggar had simply taken evil experience as it came, without complaint.

Help for the rich man was out of question: “In all these (regions) there is a great chasm fixed.” Movement to or from was impossible. Again, in these words there was gentle reminder that things might have been different, if only, whilst there was abundant opportunity, the rich man had not during his mortal life regarded the gulf as unbridgeable.

The inevitability of the sufferer’s fate was duly accepted. But was it too late to mount a salvage operation for the rest of his family? ‘Send Lazarus to my five brothers to warn them to save themselves from this fate.’ Behind this plea there was perhaps the complaint:’ haven’t had a fair chance. Nobody warned me!’ The appearance of Lazarus would not only warn but convince (Gk.) his brothers.

Abraham’s response was now curt and unsympathetic: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.”

‘That’s all very well’, urged the man with a certain disparagement of the power of the Scriptures (Is.8 :19), ‘but let Lazarus come to them from the dead, and they will show the repentance which they need as much as I did.’

‘Not they,’ replied Abraham, ‘those who take ‘ ‘no notice of Law and Prophets, will take no more notice even if a man comes to them from the grave.’ This refusal has its counterpart in the witness borne by the resurrection of Jesus: “not to all the people, but to chosen witnesses…” (Acts 10:41).

Remarkably, through all this vivid Lazarus has nothing to say – no word of complaint against his hardships, no murmuring against God, no crowing over the rich man in hell, no grumble about the suggested errand to the five brothers. All that needs to be said comes from Abraham with far greater authority.

Life after Death

Before any positive attempt can be made at interpreting this remarkable parable, it is necessary first of all to establish very clearly that this is not an actual picture of life after death, The believer in the immortality of the soul who would read this story with any degree of literality is asking for trouble.

Admittedly Luke’s gospel does not say explicitly that it is a parable. But then, neither is this the case with the unjust steward. Both stories begin in exactly the same way: “There was a certain rich man . . .” Yet where is the commentator who will insist on the unjust steward being an actual person known to Jesus! Indeed, verse 15 requires interpretation with reference to the Pharisees.

More than this, detail after detail in the story plumbs the depths of absurdity if an attempt is made to take it all literally. “In hell the rich man lifted up his eyes, and seeth . . . Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom . . . Send Lazarus that lit may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue.” Do disembodied souls have eyes, fingers, tongues, bosoms?

And what good, it may pertinently be asked, would one drop of water do in a place ol unquenchable fire? Surely Jesus designed details such as these so that they would impress hearers with their absurdity.

Again, is one seriously to believe that on integral part of the felicity of the blessed hereafter will be the constant opportunity to look out of the window and see the damned writhing in torment? What sort of everlasting happiness is this?

Lazarus is described as enjoying comfort in Abraham’s bosom. Is that bosom the happy destiny of all good people? How is it possible to take such a detail literally? It is to be noticed also that the story says nothing about the rich mm being wicked and the beggar being good Indeed the former is pictured as showing a quite unselfish love for his brothers. Then is one to conclude that affluence in this life means hell in the next; and that misery now guarantee everlasting bliss hereafter? This is the theology of Alice in Wonderland. After all, in his lifetime Abraham himself received his good things-he was a man of very considerable wealth (Gen.13:2 etc).

Last of all, the parable concludes with a powerful double emphasis on the teaching of Moses and the prophets. What is their teaching about the death state of Abraham and the rest! “Abraham . . . was gathered to his people” (Gen.25 :8)—and they were idol-worshippers! (Josh.24:2). Concerning the supposed death of Joseph, Jacob lamented: “I shall go down to the grave (LXX: Hades, as in v.23) unto my son mourning” (Gen.37:35). Thus Moses!

And similarly the prophets: “Out of the belly of hell cried I,” lamented Jonah when he was in “the fish’s belly” (Jonah 2 -.1,2). A cold and clammy hell, truly, very different from the usual version! But of cause this “hell” was Jonah’s grave. He thought himself buried alive!

Hezekiah, one of the greatest saints of the Old Testament, bewailed the imminent outcome of his sickness: “I shall go to the gates of the grave (hades) . . . The grave (hades) cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee … The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day (the day of his recovery)” (ls.38 :10,18,19).

Thus, as a basis for belief in disembodied immortality the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is about the most fragile sheet-anchor imaginable:

Then why, it may very fittingly be asked, did Jesus couch his parable in terms of an utterly false idea?

Christ derides false ideas

The simple, very adequate, answer is: In this parable it was the Lord’s intention to parody and expose as ridiculous the false ideas of both Pharisees and Sadducees. In proof of this the witness of Josephus, a Pharisee of the next generation, is very detailed and valuable. In his “Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades” he gives the following description of the Pharisees’ beliefs about life after death:

“Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterranean region, where the light of this world does not shine . . . This region is allotted as a place of custody of souls in which angels are appointed as guardians to them; these distribute to them temporary punishments, according to every one’s behaviour and manners. In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, wherein we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day afore determined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall deservedly be passed upon all men:… there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light . . . This region we call the Bosom of Abraham. But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand, by the angels allotted for punishment. … a terrible and exceeding great prospect of fire . . . and not only so, but where they see the place of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them, cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it” (Whiston, page 663; see also B.J.3.8.5. and Ant. 18.1.3.).

The marked resemblance between this and the Lord’s parable is too detailed to be accidental.

Similarly, Rabbi Judah the holy, in a pronouncement concerning one of his colleagues, lately deceased, said: “This day he sits in the bosom of Abraham.”

The only reasonable construction to be put on the words of Jesus is that he was deliberately representing the beliefs of the Pharisees in such a way as to make them appear ridiculous. He meant to expose their absurdity.

And not of the Pharisees only. There is good reason to believe that, just as Jesus modelled his parable of the pounds (Lk.19 :11-27) on the experience of both Archelaus and Antipas, the sons of Herod the Great, so here he built the present parable round Caiaphas the high priest whose five brothers-in-law, the sons of Annas, all held the high priestly office at one time or another. “Clothed in purple and fine linen” was a phrase apt enough to describe this family of place seekers. In the conclusion of the parable Jesus surely exposed also the absurdity of their Sadducee belief. In effect, he said: These men are so determined not to believe in life after death that even the resurrection of one known to them will make no impression on their prejudice. So there was no appearance of the risen Jesus to them.

They claimed to “hear Moses,” but in practice they constantly disregarded his precepts. And they disallowed the authority of the prophets altogether, whether regarding the truth of the resurrection (ls.26 :19; Dan.12 :2; Ps.17 :15) or any other topic. The prophets had too many denunciations of rascally priests (e.g. Is.28 :7; 56 :10-12; Ez.34 :2-10_; Mal.2 :l-9) to make comfortable reading.

Detailed interpretation

The interpretation of the parable must not stop at these negative aspects. Its meaning reaches much further. As in the parables of the prodigal son and great supper, the mind of Jesus was looking to a future day when the faithlessness of Israel would be put to shame by the eager acceptance of the gospel by godly Gentiles. From this point of view the story has some fascinatingly significant details.

The rich man is a fitting figure of Israel, clothed in high religious privilege. That phrase: “purple and fine linen” (see Pr.31 :22 LXX) is part of an elaborate parable of what Israel should have been like. “Thy good things” (using Gk.: agatha, where kala would have been expected) implies this kind of interpretation of the rich man’s prosperity. The word which describes him faring “sumptuously” comes only rarely in the Old Testament—with reference to priestly garments (“the beauty of holiness”; Ps.110 :3), and as a description of the Shekinah Glory (Ps.90 :17; ls.60 :3).

By contrast, the beggar, sitting at the rich man’s gate, represents the remnant amongst the Gentiles who recognized that spiritual truth of any sort was to be had only through Israel. Lazarus is a name capable of meaning either: “No help”, or “God is my help.” Both are appropriate—to the different parts of the story. Godly Gentiles seeking some degree of religious affiliation with Israel were actually known as “proselytes of the gate” (e.g. Jn.12:20). The beggar’s sores may be taken as a representation of the pathetic moral standards of pagan life in those days, and the seeking for scraps of thrown-out food (Mt. 15:27) as a token of the spiritual destitution of these seekers after God.

“Dog of a Gentile” was a commonplace phrase amongst the Jews; then do the dogs licking the sores of Lazarus indicate the paltry help which came from pagan philosophers or the grievous discouragement which was all that pagan religion could give?

The deaths of both beggar and rich man point to a change of dispensation. Here, in Lazarus’s changed experience (which came first), Jesus foreshadowed the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, so that it was actually possible for them to become Abraham’s seed through sharing the faith of Abraham (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:7,29). “Comforted” (v.25) suggests the Holy Spirit. And in Genesis 16:5 Abraham’s bosom suggests the Gentile concubine received, and the true wife barren.

On the other hand, the torments of the rich man in hell give a graphic picture of the dissolution of the Mosaic order and the dereliction of Israel, their scattering and ceaseless persecution (compare here Dt.32 :15,20,24). Their “torment” could have been borne instead by one whom God provided for this very purpose, for the familiar Scripture: “he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Is.53 :4), uses the same word. But that would have involved believing in Jesus, and this they were not prepared to do. And “a great gulf” is the description of the deep pit into which the body of Absalom was cast (2 Sam.18 :17)-the rebel son for whom the Beloved lamented; “Would God I had died for thee!”

That torment has continued throughout the centuries, with a deep, apparently unbridgeable, gulf between Gentile Christian and Jewish outcast, and also between Father Abraham and his natural seed. But “send Lazarus” suggests that the rich man still thought of himself as of a higher caste. And to this day Jews have a similar pride of race.

I n the early days, Gentile believers would have been glad enough to supply material aid, during the time of the Jewish war, A.D.67-70, (the drop of water to cool the sufferer’s tongue), but even this was not practicable. The day of Jewish opportunity was gone.

The five brethren for whom special appeal was made perhaps represent communities of the Jewish Dispersion (or, maybe, later generations) who had not had personal acquaintance with the Son of God making his great appeal in Galilee and Judaea. But the concluding words of “Father Abraham” summed up the practical impossibility of evangelizing the Jews by Gentile believers. Too Jew no witness could surpass that of Moses and the Prophets. If that was without effect, then even though one rose from the dead, all would be in vain.

And one did rise from the dead. It can have been a matter of days or weeks only after this that a man called Lazarus well known to the Jewish rulers (Jn. 11:19,31,44), was called forth from the tomb. Nevertheless that undeniable fact made them all the more determined to destroy both him and Jesus (Jn.12 :10,11).

Only another month or two and Jesus himself rose from the dead; and this truth also was rejected even more vehemently (Ads 4 :2,3), because they believed not Moses and the prophets. There is marked intensification of the language from verse 30 to verse 31: “go to them from (apo) the dead … repent” becomes “rise from (ek) the dead … be persuaded (convinced).”

In this gloomy picture there is one small ray of hope—the way in which Abraham addresses the wretched man as “son” (child). So all is not lost. This is the counterpart of Paul’s tender words: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake: but. . . they are beloved for the fathers’ sake” (Rom.11 :28). But even so, Abraham is “afar off” (v.23).

How long before Israel gives heed to Moses and the prophets, and their hell of torment ends in the bosom of Abraham’s Seed?

This amazing parable has been anticipated entire in the song (dirge?) of Moses:

“I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell (LXX: hades), and shall consume the earth (Land?) with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat” (Dt.32 :20…24).

All this because “Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked . . . covered with fatness.” Nevertheless, there is a good ending: “He (the Lord) will be merciful unto his land, and to his people” (v43)

Notes: Lk.l 6:19-31.

19.	Fared;s.w. 15:23,24.
20.	Laid at his gate. This suggests that Acts 3 also (note v.2) is to be read as a parable of the gospel going to the Gentiles; see Acts of the Apostles, H.A.W. The Gk. word for “laid’ implies impatience and lack of consideration on the part of those who regularly carried him there (in return for a share of his takings?).
24.	Cool my tongue. Gk. katapsucho, thoroughly cool—with one drop of water?
26.	Us and you. Why you (plural), and not thee? Here surely is a plain hint that the rich man is intended to be seen as representing a class of people.
	So that they which would pass . . . cannot The Gk. conjunction suggests that the great gulf is there for that very purpose.
30.	They will repent. Not so! After 1 Sam.28, Saul died, and David came into his own. And Mt.28 :12-14 tells what is true to this day. Note that the rich man agrees on the need for their repentance.

It was a strange paradox-the experience of Gideon over again. Although the leaders of the nation held off, Jesus had no lack of followers: “there went great multitudes with him.” Yet he was dissatisfied and gloomy regarding the situation. He sought their personal committal to the life he was showing them how to live. But they were more interested in the excitement of his miracles, more intent on the Messianic Kingdom which many of them still hoped for from him.

So once again, austere and demanding, he presented his manifesto: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

To some the words must have been like sudden immersion in ice-cold water. But Gideon had had to rid himself of the weak and fainthearted and had had to whittle down the remaining thousands even further by what became a test of their personal religious scruples. Here now the corresponding winnowing process was being applied to the multitudes of the Lord’s superficial sympathisers. In its tone the call was astringent and challenging. Of course Jesus did not mean there must be literal hatred of one’s family. Jacob’s inferior love for Lean was called hatred (Gen. 29:30,31). And had not Jesus mercilessly trounced the Pharisees’ sophistry which allowed a man to evade the duty of caring for his aged parents (Mt. 15:4)? On an earlier occasion Jesus had defined this “sacred hate” as “not loving more” those who are normally closest and dearest (Mt. 10:37)-this especially when they are opposed to or in competition with Christ. It had been exemplified in ancient days by the willingness of the tribe of Levi to forsake the natural ties binding them to worshippers of the golden calf, in order to respond to the call: “Who is on the Lord’s side?” (Ex. 32:26,27; Dt. 33:8,9; 13:6).

The straight meaning of this saying of Christ has been much neglected-or distorted. Very clearly he was requiring that all natural affections be given second place compared with allegiance to himself. It is a sentiment quickly and easily said, but for disciples of Christ whose families do not share their loyalty to him this con be the most demanding thing he ever required, Of course Jesus did not mean that oil responsibilities and affections for one’s own kith and kin should be let go. But he did require that priority of devotion and service should be given to his work and the members of his family. So there may be times when, to others not instructed in the gospel, following one’s duty to Christ may look like hatred of one’s own family.

But the hardest clause is the last: “yea, and his own life also.” The Greek word psuche, soul, is constantly used in the New Testament to sum up a man’s natural instincts and inclinations, all the life, interests and affections of unregenerate man (see Notes). In asking his disciples to forego these, could Jesus have been more demanding?

Yet, except a man make a conscious choice of his way of life, except there be a deliberate renunciation of the priority of natural ties and inclinations, “he cannot be my disciple.” The shape of the sentence puts the emphasis on the last word. It is possible to be an “associate member” of the ecclesia and family of Christ, and yet not be a disciple. “There went great multitudes with him,” says this record, but few of them were “called, and chosen and faithful,” Amongst them all how many were prepared to “bear the cross of self, and come after Jesus”?

What a contrast here between the call of Christ and that of all human leaders! They ever beckon their disciples on with the prospect that all will be easy, pleasant, and prosperous. But not so Christ. And yet, by a strange paradox, he is able to promise an easy yoke and a light burden (Mt. 11:28-30)-which thing is true, for those who achieve the forsaking called for here.

But Paul was forewarned “how great things he must suffer” for the Lord’s sake (Acts 9:16). And Ezekiel was goaded into faithful witness, though “thou dost dwell among scorpions” (2:6).

In a general kind of way everyone hearing this challenge knew at once its sombre meaning, but in all that multitude was there one who lecognised just how pointed it was? The twelve hod heard this poignant saying before, but not one of them realised yet the plangent meaning it was to take on in a few week’s time. After Passover many of those who now heard would think again with renewed seriousness of this realistic metaphor.

Building a tower

There were those who lacked the purposeful self-dedication which Jesus sought. With a blithe airy self-confidence they said: “Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.” In a telling parable he now bade them stop and think what they were about. Yet the warning stood written in the Book of Proverbs: “Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established… Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house” (24:3,27). Jesus proceeded to turn this into a very forceful parable.

With great gusto and optimism a man proceeded to put down the foundations of a tower. Course by course the structure rose, with all the promise of impressive completion. Then, suddenly, when the tower was yet a long way from its full height all activity came to a halt. The man had run out of money and materials. The fine impressive structure, the mental picture of which had so fascinated his sanguine imagination, was now a monumental folly, a joke on the lips of everybody for miles round.

If only he had had the elementary prudence to go carefully into the costing of the undertaking first, the foolish fellow could have saved himself from becoming a laughing stock and a bankrupt. If, instead, he had tailored the project to suit his pocket and his own strength (v.28, 29 Gk.), there might have been a house or other erection that would have been his pleasure and pride for many a long day.

The warning against a sanguine over-hasty decision to serve Christ is specially needful when a man is of a blithe unreflective disposition. Appropriately, then, Jesus spoke in terms of building a tower. This for two reasons. It was a reminder of the tower of Babel, that great futility which men set out to erect with sublime confidence in their own powers. And, by contrast with (say) the construction of a wall round a garden or estate, the building of a tower gets more and more difficult as the structure rises higher. Thus nothing could more suitably represent a discipleship of Christ undertaken in a spirit of se/Areliance and self-confidence. Such a man, even though he lay a good foundation (which is Jesus Christ himself; 1 Cor. 3:11), if he expect to achieve eternal life through his own efforts, can end only as a sorry, failure:

“Like one that draws the model of a house

Beyond his power to build it; who, half-through,

Gives o’er, and leaves his part-created cost,

A naked subject to the weeping clouds,

And waste for churlish winter’s tyranny.”

In his version of the parable Shakespeare (Henry IV, part 2, 1:3) suggests perhaps the sadness of heaven at such a failure, but he omits

the mockery of all who, looking on, see the fine project grind to a halt, and contribute nothing but a coarse joke.

This last is an important feature in the tragedy, for when a man rushes unthinking into discipleship of Christ and comes to grief, his failure and abandonment of all high aspirations are made to reflect badly on the One he has chosen to follow. For it is in this illogical fashion that the world, itself making no effort at all, quietens its uneasy conscience.

In the parable the man’s basic mistake was in ever setting out to build a tower, for, if completed, it could only be a monument to his own industry, cleverness, and wealth. If the intention was to erect a tower of refuge for times of danger, then why build at all? There was such a haven of safety already available: “The name of the lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe” (Pr. 18:10). But perhaps he was set on having one of his own. Then more fool he!

This story of the unfinished tower would sound familiar in the ears of the crowd, for lately Pilate’s excellent project to furnish Jerusalem with a fine new supply of water had had to be left unfinished through lack of revenue.

And the twin parable also was the story of king Herod whose divorcing of the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, in order to marry the infamous Herodias, had involved him in a disastrous war and a shameful defeat.

Following Jesus, there were others in the multitude just as much in need of warning, though for a very different reason. These could see plainly enough that the claims of Jesus were true. Nevertheless, for various reasons -fear of the rulers, the influence of family ties, the pull of worldly circumstances, the daunting idealism Jesus constantly insisted on— for one or other of such reasons they held back from openly espousing his cause. Willing enough to cheer from the spectators’ benches, they were put off by the rigours of the contest from joining in.

War or Capitulation?

These, Jesus now proceeded to show, were in dire danger. Only prompt decision could save them. For, by their irresolution, they were turning the grace of God into an enemy. It was, and still is, the predicament of a king, with no more than ten thousand troops all told, having to face an aggressive campaign by an invader with an army of twenty thousand at his back, besides lots more he can bring into action if necessary. (The Greek prepositions seem to imply this.)

The commonsense thing to do, Jesus emphasized, would be to hold a conference of generals about the prospects, and then, surely, before the invader’s campaign can really get under way, to send a delegation to get the best peace terms possible.

The way this story is developed by Jesus, it is possible to see special meaning in every detail. The king who has incurred the wrath of his neighbour is the enlightened rejector of the gospel. The cloud of war now looming on the horizon is the coming day of adverse judgment. The counsellors whose wisdom is consulted in this strait are surely the men who wrote the books of Holy Scripture. Perhaps the envoy sent to parley is the mediator, Jesus himself. And in such circumstances the conditions of peace (Lk. 19:42 Gk.) are always the same-total surrender (of all that is originally his; v.33 Gk.) Here is a full renunciation comparable to the “hatred” already called for (v. 26).

How Jesus hoped as he told this brief but vivid story that his hearers would draw the logical conclusion: “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”

But it may be urged that, if the correspondence is to be pressed, there is a marked lack of seemliness about the numbers of the respective armies. Is the unsubmissive hearer of the gospel even half as good as God? Of course not! But he would like to think that he is! The man, whom the Bible’s solemn message about human sin does not impress with his own desperate plight, evidently thinks of himself as falling not too far short of the divine standard. Otherwise, in earnest repentance he would gladly make friends with God and not dally until the day when he had made the Almighty implacably hostile.

UnsaltySalt

Jesus summed up the message of this grave discourse with another little parable which he had used earlier in another context (Mt. 5:13), Salt is unique in its powers of bringing out the flavour of anything that is savoury. But if the salt loses its saltness, what else can be used to restore the flavour to it? It is then not only quite useless in cooking but also, if thrown on to cultivated land or the manure heap, positively harmful. The only place where it will do no harm is in the street or on a busy path, trodden underfoot by all.

This, exactly, is the prospect for both types that Jesus exhorted that day. The self-confident fellow who eagerly takes on discipleship with much assurance regarding his own powers of achievement, and who as hastily loses his zeal for the high calling in Christ; and the man who, learning more and more, in a detailed kind of way, about the gospel of Christ, yet lacks either the courage or the good sense to throw caution to the winds and to lose his nervousness in fully-committed service to Christ-neither of these types has any hope of finding a better, more rewarding life away from Christ. For them life can only become an insipid dissatisfaction. Both must inevitably end up as castaways.

The lessons were obvious enough. Jesus could hardly have made his point more trenchantly, Why did they not recognize and follow the wisdom of his counsel? And why do they not?

Notes: Lk. 14:25-35

26.	Life, psuche, the inclinations of the natural unregenerate man; e.g. Lk. 12:19,22; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:22; Rev. 18:14; 1 Cor. 2:14; Jas. 3:15; Jude 19.And Jn. 10:11; 12:25,27; Mt. 26:38.
30.	Contrast the great project undertaken by heaven: Heb. 4:3; 12:2;Jn. 19:30.
32.	Conditions of peace. King Josiah unwisely followed a different course and paid for it (2 Kgs. 23:29).
33.	Forsaketh. In OT (LXX), Ecc. 2:20 only.
34.	Wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is possible that Jesus intended an ellipsis here: “wherewith shall it (your sacrifice) be seasoned?” (Lev. 2:13).

By common consent it is the most perplexing parable of all. Yet in fact the perplexity is more in the comment with which Jesus followed on. The story itself is as vivid and fascinating in its detail as any told by Jesus.

Word reached a rich man that his steward was “wasting his goods” (the same phrase as that describing the prodigal son!). Astonished at the news, he took him to task about it and demanded that he present his accounts. Dismissal now appeared certain.

The rascal pondered the situation anxiously. What was the best course for him to follow? There was no hope of getting another lucrative job. He was not fit for farm work, and in any case the mere thought of it horrified him. And he went hot and cold at the thought of becoming a professional beggar. He who had no shame at the misappropriation of his master’s money felt shame at the mere thought of begging for subsistence. What had happened to all the money he had fraudulently diverted to his own use? He must have been a self-indulgent spendthrift as well.

All at once, as he brooded over the problem: ‘I have it! I can easily make my master’s debtors into my own very good friends.’

So he called all the debtors, one after another. ‘What do you owe my lord?’ he asked the first. ‘A hundred measures of oil? Here’s your reckoning. Do as I bid you. Sit down right now, and alter that hundred to fifty.’ That original debt (for rent) was the produce of about 150 olive trees. The farm was a big one.

Similarly the next had his debt of a hundred measures of wheat, the produce of about 100 acres, reduced to eighty—the wily fellow knew that some people can be bought more cheaply than others. The same unscrupulous process was applied also to all the other outstanding debts.

Thus he made all these men his friends, willing to help him out when the blow fell. And he had done it without directly incriminating himself; also at the same time he had bought their silence.

The employer’s surprise when the sacked steward was readily provided for by the debtors is not mentioned specifically in the parable, but is readily imagined. Completely unaware as yet of the underhand transactions, he spoke admiringly of the man for his ability to be steward and at the same time popular with the debtors. But how appropriate it is that the steward’s “doing wisely” should also be the subtlety of the serpent in Eden (same word in Genesis 3:1 LXX).

The wise use of wealth?

What was Jesus trying to teach?

That the parable is difficult of interpretation is almost the only proposition concerning it that commands general assent. Is it really possible to find an interpretation which can cope adequately with the various problems which it and its context present?

Consider, for example, the view of the parable which most commonly finds favour; its unsatisfactory nature will be immediately apparent. It is suggested that what Jesus put before his disciples for emulation was not the unscrupulous scheming of the steward, but the assiduity with which he purposefully followed the path of personal profit. ‘If only you, my disciples, would show the same business-like efficiency in pursuing what is, after all, your own self-interest! And how should you do it? By using mammon-money, and anything else which this world can offer-as a means of furthering your own standing with God. If you use such things faithfully for God, you may be relied upon to be equally faithful with the more essential spiritual truths of the Gospel.’

Thus, briefly, but not unfairly, may be summarised the best that is usually made of this parable. It is a not-very-impressive best! The difficulties which thus remain unsolved are considerable:

1. Can money, when being used in the ways of godliness be fairly described as “the mammon of unrighteousness”?
2. Who are the friends made through the right use of money who can provide “everlasting habitations”? No human friends, for certain. Then, on this view, how near is the parable to teaching justification by works?
3. Christ’s own words require an application of the parable, in the first instance, to the Pharisees, for he said of them: “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men (as did this steward)” (v.15).
4. The context of the parable, consisting of Christ’s own comment on it, especially v.16-18, has nothing whatever to do with the question of money. Any explanation worth its salt must take account of these verses also.
5. This interpretation gets, at most, one point out of the parable. Yet in other parables there is to be found a clear one-one correspondence (as the mathematician would call it) between details of the story and details of the interpretation (as, for example, in the parables of the Sower and Tares and Drag-net—the only ones for which Christ’s own interpretation is available). These objections are surely fatal.
6. On “the right use of wealth” the argument of v.11 is no argument at all, squaring neither with reason nor experience; for it would then paraphrase: “If you don’t use money properly, is it likely that God will give you the blessing of the gospel?’—this to disciples who already had the gospel and very probably no money.
7. Verse 9 is the biggest stumbling block of all: “And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” The natural way to read these words is to take them as a plain injunction to imitate not only the steward’s enthusiasm for his own well-being but also his shady methods! Some different approach must be attempted.

Drastic alternative

Bullinger, in the Companion Bible, has a characteristically neat solution of the difficulty of verse 9, which is, after all, the crux of the whole matter. He suggests that the words be read as a rhetorical question implying a negative answer: “And do I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations? Certainly not!”

This suggestion evades the main difficulties by thus setting forth the steward as an example to be shunned, save perhaps in his dedication to self-interest. Unhappily, such a solution can only be reached by doing violence to the orginal-a strange oversight, this, on the part of a scholar with a well-deserved reputation for accuracy. For the sentence to be read in the way suggested would require the inclusion of the negative particle me which is absent from all the manuscripts. (Contrast its inclusion in such rhetorical questions as Luke 17 :9 and 10:15RV).

Even if this suggestion were allowable grammatically, there would still remain the difficulty of the “everlasting habitations.” Such nefarious work as the steward indulged in can provide only an everlasting tomb: Did Jesus really mean that?

A fresh approach

There is available a much simpler solution, and one which allows of an unforced interpretation of the details in harmony with the context.

The words of Jesus are: “Make to yourselves friends of (ek) the mammon of unrightousness.” This is commonly read as signifying “Make to yourselves friends on the basis of, or by means of, the mammon of unrighteousness.” Such a translation may be perfectly correct, but it is not necessarily so. There is another common use of this preposition which actually yields an exactly opposite idea: “Make to yourselves friends away from, apart from the mammon of unrighteousness.” This meaning of ek as indicative of separation is listed in Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon, and numerous examples of it are to be found in the New Testament. The following are only a few out of what might be cited :-

Luke 16:31: “though one rose from the dead.”

Luke 16:4: “when I am put out of the stewardship.”

Luke 23:55: “which came with him from Galilee.”

Acts 1:25: “this apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell.”

Acts 3:23: “shall be destroyed from among the people.”

Acts 7:3: “Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred.”

Acts 7:10: “delivered him out of all his afflictions.”

1 Cor.5 :13: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

Rev. 2:21: “And I gave her space to repent of her fornication.”

It is now easy to demonstrate that not only the puzzling verse 9, but also the entire parable becomes a warning against allowing worldly unscrupulousness to mar sound ministration of the holy law of God.

The details fit

The rich man is God Himself. The steward, who had neither hoarded his master’s goods nor given them away, but merely wasted them, represents (v.15) the Pharisees and lawyers who by virtue of their religious and social standing had become ministers of God’s law to the rest of the nation. The first warning of impending trouble (v.2) came through John the Baptist (Lk.3:8). Just as the steward, about to be called to account for his unfaithful service, proceeded to make friends elsewhere by unscrupulous means—so also the Pharisees, before ever God cast them off, used subtlety to ensure that, whatever the divine displeasure, their standing with men would continue undiminished. This they achieved by drastically reducing the bill of men’s religious obligations to God and their fellow men.

Like the steward they were essentially “children of this world.” In careful application to their own temporal self-interest they were wiser than “the children of light” (Christ’s disciples) would prove to be in later days in seeking their own eternal well-being.

It is to be remembered that Jesus spoke the parable to his disciples, intending the story of the steward and its application to Pharisaic casuistry to be a warning to them for the days when they would find themselves in positions of authority in his ecclesia-God’s stewards (Lk.12 :42)-with the responsibility on their shoulders of administering faithfully the principles of his teaching.

A new stewardship

So Jesus bade them: You must make better friends-myself and my Father-by scrupulous avoidance of these Pharisaic methods, so that when it shall fail (the temple destroyed and the Mosaic system ended), you will be blessed with “eternal tabernacles/’This last phrase involves a strange paradox. Tabernacles—that is, tents-are essentially temporary. “The tabernacles of the (Messianic) age” are the ecclesias soon to take the place of Judaism as the spiritual home of the Lord’s people.

“He that is faithful in that which is least (the law of Moses) is faithful also in much (the teaching of Christ): and he that is unrighteous in a very little (Moses), is unrighteous also in much (Christ).” This antithesis between administration of Law-and-Prophets and the direction of the ecclesias of Christ runs through the entire passage. The repetition of the word “mammon” has misled many into thinking that Jesus was talking about the wise use of money, whereas in fact he was alluding backto his parable and what the steward’s “mammon” stood for. It is to be noted that Jesus was not concerned with prudence, but with faithfulness.

If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon (that is, if you have perverted the principles of the Old Covenant), who will commit to your trust the true riches?” This Greek word for “true” nearly always contrasts the New Covenant with the Old.

With memory of this sober warning (and perhaps with allusion to it) Paul was to write his solemn charge: “O Timothy, guard the deposit (of sound teaching)” (1 Tim.6 :20). “The good deposit which was committed unto thee keep through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us” (2 Tim.l :14).

Jesus continued the antithesis: “And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?” Whereas the Law of Moses was designed to exalt the holiness and glory of God, the gospel gives greater emphasis to forgiveness and redemption of the sinner.

The Pharisees, hearing Jesus repeat his allusions to “mammon”, mistakenly assumed that he was speaking in a derogatory way about their attitude to money, and, having no argument to use, they responded with open derision. The fact that these Pharisees thought that in the parable Jesus was talking to his disciples about a wise use of money is surely as good a proof as could be wished that that is not what he intended. Not until the last parable of all did these hostile critics grasp what Jesus was after (20 :19). Even the disciples were capable of mistakes of this sort: Mt. 15 :5; 16:7.

The failures of Pharisaism

Jesus now bade them think again about his parable, for it was intended as a picture of themselves: “Ye are they which (like this steward) justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men (the eminence and high reputation which these Pharisees sought at the expense of true religion) is abomination in the sight of God.” There Jesus used a word which the Old Testament reserved for idol-worship, but which the medico Luke would employ as a technical term for nausea. You Pharisees make God feel sick!

Jesus went on: “The Law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail.”

A good paraphrase of that key expression would be: “and they all handle it roughly.” The same Greek word is used of Israel at the foot of mount Sinai: ” Let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord” (Ex.19:24LXX). At this place Bagster’s edition of the Septuagint has a footnote: “Luke 16 :16 perhaps refers to this passage.” What Israel in the wilderness had not dared to attempt physically, the Pharisees had had the effrontery to do spiritually (Jn.10 :1). With their subtle distortions of the moral requirements of the Law they far surpassed any of the later casuistry of the Jesuits. How well Jesus had summed it all up: “Take thy bill and write four score.”

He now cited a concrete example by correcting the Pharisees’ unprincipled attitude to divorce: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” The basic principles of God’s law of marriage were clear enough but these men were unscrupulously ready to “bend” them, using their religious authority to dilute divine truth and the moral obligations of the people.

The gospels furnish other examples of Pharisaic equivocation by which they adulterated the robust principles of God’s law. A man could swear impressively by the temple and his words be utterly empty of force or binding value. If, however, he swore by the gold of the temple (the golden altar of incense or the mercy-seat?) his oath was to be regarded as binding. How easy to overreach one’s fellow in business if he happened not to know of these artifical distinctions! And how dishonouring was all this to the God in whose honour the entire temple was consecrated!

Similarly, a man could callously evade his sacred obligation of providing support for an aged parent. They had a cynical fiction that all that was consecrated (in theory but not in practice!) to the temple service was therefore not available for such a profane use as ministering to the wants of a needy father or mother. It was after castigating this particular enormity that Jesus, openly angry at such hypocrisy, quoted bitterly: “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt.15 :9).

A like danger in the Ecclesia

The parable of the unjust steward, with the commentary which Jesus appended to it, is now seen to have been a thorough exposure of the evil Pharisaic practice of adulterating the law of God with human sophistry. Specially, it was a direct warning to his apostles that the day would soon come when they would be in positions of authority and responsibility among the Lord’s own people. To them also would come the temptation to whittle down the exacting standards of Christ’s teaching for the sake of human considerations. “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law (the law of Moses, the law of Christ now) to fail” (v.17). Paul appears to have seen the parable in this light, with apt reference to his own work in the ecclesias (1 Cor.4 :l-5).

Who shall say that the warning thus taught has never been needed? The ecclesia has always had this problem to contend with, how best to resist the eroding effect of worldly circumstances on “the good deposit” of Christian truth, both faith and practice, how best to combat the insidious temptation to live a casuistic existence on both sides of the fence at once.

This same problem has beset the present generation just as much as any other. Examples are not hard to seek.

The parable stands today as a warning to those who now lead an ecclesia of Christ, that without vigilance and scrupulous honesty in moral judgement the same will happen (has happened) again.

Notes: Lk. 16:1-18

4.	Put out; s.w. Acts 13 :22: Saul displaced to make way for David. Here, a similar new order.
6.	Bill; s.w. Jn 5:47; 2 Tim. 3 :15 etc; in each place, with reference to the Old Covenant. For the idea in this verse, cp. Mic.3:11.
9.	A few other examples of the use of ek in Luke’s gospel are: 17:7; 22:3; 23:55; 1:71, 74, 78; 4:35, 38; 5:17; 6:42.
	When ye fail (AV) is a reading which will have to be let go. There is too much MS support for RV: “when it fails.” In any case, AV can hardly mean, in line with the parable: When you are exposed as failures there will be a much better future for you. RV reading: “when it fails” speaks of the day of God’s rejection of the old Mosaic administration, the day when stewardship of the gospel is put in the hands of the apostles.

It is not easy to see just what connection there might be between this discourse of Jesus and the parables which immediately precede it. This section of Luke’s gospel, which has hardly any perceptible links with Matthew and Mark, gives the impression of being an assemblage of disconnected paragraphs, but it might be a serious mistake to assume that this is the case.

Here the Lord begins with a warning against being personally a cause of stumbling in the life of any of his “little ones”. This expression can hardly mean little children. It is used in the sense of new or young or immature disciples (cp. 1Jn. 2:12, 13; Jn. 13:33; Mt.l0:42; Zech.l3:7).

How could such offence come about? Most probably in one of two ways-through clumsiness in personal relations, or through unsympathetic ill-advised decision by the ecclesia. It is evident from this very serious admonition that the Lord deemed the preserving of fellowship to be of paramount importance.

The vivid hyperbole of the one who has caused his brother to stumble now having a great mule-driven millstone (and not just the hand-manipulated thing) tied to his neck and he then thrown by superhuman strength into the depths of the sea is a terrible warning of the extent of divine displeasure in such human crises.

But there is also the other side of the picture. The one to whom offence is given must beware of taking too seriously any slight, whether wilful or accidental. There is always the possibility of mistaken judgement at the receiving end also. The thin-skinned individual can be a serious liability in ecclesial fellowship, and by his very susceptibility he can compass his own spiritual downfall. How easily it can be forgotten that God knows and that therefore sooner or later all, even the most grievous misjudgement, is sure to be set right.

So, warns Jesus: “Take heed to yourselves” that there be not an unforgiving spirit.

Peter had asked: “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? till seven times?” (Mt.18 :21). The shattering answer given then was now reinforced with a further counsel of impossible idealism:

“If he repent, forgive him; and if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying I repent; thou shalt forgive him”.

Such facile repentance would surely proclaim an arrant cynical insincerity. Nevertheless Jesus bids his disciple take a man at his word. There must be no harbouring of the least suspicion of duplicity. After all, is it really serious if one who has been undeservedly forgiven by Almighty God should himself forgive a man not deserving of it?

Faith and the Sycamine Tree

“Lord, increase our faith,” begged the apostles of their Master one day. Faith regarding what? If there is connection with the context, they may have felt the need for help in keeping closer to his daunting idealism.

Another possible connection is with the day after the Transfiguration when Jesus had to reprove his disciples because of their little faith concerning their attempts to heal the epileptic boy whilst Jesus was absent from them (Mt.17 :19,20). The natural reaction to this reproof would be to ask, as soon as opportunity came their way: “Lord, will you teach us how to add to our little faith, so that we may be of greater usefulness in your service, and not let you down by failures such as that?” But Luke 17 and Matthew 17 appear to be remote from each other in point of time.

More likely, the parables of Luke 15 and especially 16—the Unjust Steward and the Rich Man in Hell—had at last told the Twelve that their Master was not aiming at a reform of the existing order, but at making a completely fresh start, a New Creation. And they, these twelve ordinary men, were to have such a formidable task committed to them. How could they hope to succeed against all the tradition and deep-rooted prejudices of people and rulers? What hope of progress against the vested interests of the men of the temple? No wonder faith faltered at the prospect. (The rare use of the word “apostles” would support this suggestion; v.5).

The Lord’s response to their plea, in a short and a longer parable, was strictly relevant:

“If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye would say to this sycamine tree, Be (hot plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it would have obeyed you.” This saying is marvellously like the answer Jesus had given them on the earlier occasion, just referred to: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say to this mountain (the Mount of Transfiguration), Remove hence to yonder place (Mount Zion); and it shall remove” (Mt.17:20), That saying reflected the Lord’s exhilaration of spirit after the mountain experience of tin presence of Moses and Elijah and the Shekinah Glory of God. Since then the discouragements which had beset him imparted a more sombre tone to his prophecy.

Interpretation

The sycamore (AV) is a kind of maple. But the sycamine, which is what Jesus really referred to, is a species of fig tree. In the LXX version every reference to the sycamine is unmistakably too fig tree. The figure hardly needs to be expounded. One passage of Scripture after another points to the Jewish nation (e.g. Jer. 24; Mic.7:1; Hos.9:10 Joel 1:7; Hab.3 :17; Mt.21 :19; 24 :32; Lk.13 :6; Rev.6 :13).

Jesus, it would seem, foresaw that one of (lie greatest trials awaiting his apostles was that which he also found hardest to bear-the faithlessness and opposition of his own people. Their apostolic work of taking the gospel to all parts would certainly be mightily hindered by the opposition of Jewry. Nevertheless, he bade them believe that if in faith they committed to God the mission he was soon to commit to them, their great obstacle—the fig-tree nation—would be uprooted and planted in the sea (2 Chr.7 :20); that is, Israel would be cast adrift, to be no longer a hindrance to their great task.

Other similar scriptures seem to have a similar reference: “The wicked shall be cut off from the Land, and they that deal treacherously shall be rooted out of it” (Pr. 2 :22—the origin of the Lord’s saying?). “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Mt.15 :13). And Jude was to describe Judaistic perverters of the gospel as “Trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;” and, remarkably enough, his next figure of speech is: “raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame” (Jude 12,13).

Unprofitable Servant

By yet another parable Jesus bade his disciples recognize that, in their work for him, success depended not only on their faith but also on their faithfulness.

When an employee (or, more exactly, a stave) comes into the house at the end of a day’s ploughing or shepherding, he has no right to expect that he may immediately rest and enjoy a meal. First, there is the master’s meal to prepare and serve. Then, when that is concluded, the servant’s turn comes next. And oil this he may expect to do as a matter of course, and without even a word of thanks.

In that epoch, so different from the twentieth century, this kind of thing happened every day. Although difficult to imagine now, the social system of that time took it for granted. Today it is important to seek out the meaning Jesus intended, and why he used such an idea to answer the disciples’ request.

Once again, it is possible to observe a fairly clear one-one correspondence between the details and their meaning. The servant ploughing or tending sheep is a picture of the typical Jew devoted to the service of the Law of Moses. He serves God in the “field” of Jewry; the curse on the ground (Gen. 3 :17-19), which makes his labour necessary, suggests the curse of the Law: “by the Law is the knowledge of sin”(Rom.3:20).

When a man leaves the field to come into the house, he is like a disciple moving from the dispensation of works to that of grace. Then let him not assume that thenceforward he has no further responsibilities save to receive comfortably all the blessings that are poured upon him. As the servant is now called upon to gird himself with a towel and serve his master personally, providing whatever is his good pleasure (Gk: “serve continually,” or “go on serving”), so also the new-found convert from Judaism has an obligation to take on himself the imitation of Christ. He now serves his Master in a more personal sense doing all things as unto the brd (who has himself been a suffering Servant)—and this with no sense of personal virtue or of pride in his own achievements, but purely as a commonplace expression of humble duty. Yet, paradoxically enough, it is through the dedication and diligence of the man in the parable that faith is increased.

Nor can there be expectation of thanks for anything which he achieves. Such service is the least he can do. Peter crystallizes out the same lesson using the very words of Lk. 17: “giving all diligence (like the servant in the parable), add to your faith …” (2 Pet. 1 :5). And with the finest endeavours he is capable of, this servant knows himself to be at best an “unprofitable servant” (Ml. 25:30).

At last, when all duties are at an end, there is his own meal. The food is provided by his master, but the quality of the meal depends on the pains and skill with which he himself prepares it. It will be even so regarding the gift of eternal life and the rewards which the sharing of Christ’s kingdom will bring (1 Cor. 3 :12-14; Lk. 12:37).

The lesson, then and now

The main principle behind this parable is a highly important one, and valid for every generation. No man in Christ must ever allow himself to think that the blessings open to him are to be earned through his own dedicated efforts. At best, when all is done, he is a very ordinary fellow, an “unprofitable servant’—’in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps. 143 :2). No amount of good works can put God in his debt: “Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?”(Rom. 11 :35). The true spirit of Christian service is expressed by Paul regarding his unique achievements as a minister of Christ: “Though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, I have a stewardship intrusted to me” (1 Cor.9 :16,17); that, is, I must keep at it just the same.

It is not difficult to see how a parable stressing this aspect of life in Christ is closely related to the preceding saying about the uprooting of the fig tree. Judaism was to be the great obstacle to the preaching of the gospel in the early days, and only the faith of the preacher and the providence of God would remove it. But why should there be such bitter Jewish opposition to a movement so basically Jewish, the Hope of Israel, in fact? Because Jewry was unwilling, and still is, to let go the idea of justification by works (Rom.9 :30-33; 10 :3). To ask a Jew to regard his faithful allegiance to the formalities of the Law of Moses as “unprofitable” was an almost outrageous proposition. And to this dpy many earnest Gentile disciples of Christ are too much in love with the same misguided concept.

The problem of the challenge of loyalties— Moses or Christ?— as it was to face the early church is mordantly illustrated in an acted parable which Luke inserts in his record at this point.

But, first, a geographical detail which is something of a puzzle: “And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.”

Probably Luke is indicating here another of the big circuits which Jesus made during the last few months of his ministry. It took him through Samaria and into Galilee once again, though not for long. He was now staying for no appreciable length of time in any place. And this northern sweep was “as he went to Jerusalem,” because that was the ultimate goal of his pilgrimage.

Lepers, and a leper

As Jesus and his party were approaching a village, a group of ten lepers (a synagogue of misery) clamoured for his compassion. Social outcasts that they were, they kept at a good distance but raised a united shout which they repeated again and again: “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” The fame of the powers of Jesus had reached even these pariahs. Now was their great opportunity.

The narrative reads as though Jesus, busy in discourse as he went, was not aware of their proximity until their shout reached his ears. His response was immediate: “Go and show yourselves unto the priests.” It was an indirect promise of healing.

Without any hesitation they believed his word, and set off. Soon, as they were going they realised that what they had asked was already granted them—they were every one of them healed, their flesh as clean, firm and wholesome as a child’s. With an excitement and gladness which may be readily imagined they quickened their pace to the local Jewish priest who would provide certification of healing.

All except one. When this one of them—a Samaritan!—knew himself to be healed he forthwith abandoned all idea of going to his Samaritan priest. Disobeying the instruction Jesus had already given him and instead giving priority to what he deemed a higher duty, he rushed back to Jesus. His loud shout of praise to God was heard from a distance:

“I cried to Thee, O Lord; and unto the Lord I made supplication . . . Hear, O lord, and have mercy upon me: Lord, be thou my helper. Thou hast turned for me my mourning (Lev. 13 :45) into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness; to the intent that my glory may sing praise unto thee. O Lord my God, I will give thanks unto thee for ever” (Ps.30 :8-12, a psalm of David’s leprosy; cp. Ps.38). This time, instead of standing afar off, the man came right up to Jesus, pouring out his ceaseless fervent thanksgiving, and prostrating himself at his feet.

“Were there not ten cleansed?” But where are the nine?” There was surely a touch of bitterness about his question: “Were there none found that returned to give glory to God (by thanking his Son) save this stranger?”

Then he spoke his thanks to the man at his feet: “Arise and go thy way: thy faith hath saved thee.” Faith in Christ had cleansed the other nine, but now they were taken up with dutiful observance of the outward forms of the bw. This stranger, by rising to the higher level of continued personal dependence on Christ, was more than cleansed, he was saved.

Acted parable

And now the parable. Always, ten men have been a necessary pre-requisite for the formation of a synagogue. The prophet foretells a time when “ten men shall take hold of the skirt of Him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard (and now believe) that God is with you (Immanuel!)” (Zech. 8 :23). It is a prophecy of the long overdue acceptance of Christ by the nation which has always rejected him.

These ten lepers, then, prefigured a Jewish synagogue healed by Christ and then going off to pay full observance of the Law, to the neglect of the One who healed them. Out of them all, only one shows due loyalty to Christ—and he an outcast, from whom the others would now be extremely glad to hold themselves aloof.

This is what happened in the early church. Many Jewish Christian communities came into existence through the preaching of the gospel. Yet, although experiencing the healing Christ imparted, they mostly went back to the synagogue and the Law. The powerful “counter-reformation” mounted by Jewish vested interests overwhelmed them. The main purpose behind the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews waste stem this drift back to the synagogue. By the time another generation had gone by, there were hardly any Christian Jews at all, and such as there were knew themselves to be out-Law-ed by the rest. Yet these were saved with an everlasting salvation.

The miracle has also its message for the believer of the present day. Cleansed of his leprosy, he must be warned against going to seek justification by his own works. The nine lepers actually obeyed Christ’s command implicitly. Yet they pleased him less. What they lacked was the personal appreciation of the One who gave it. There was more self-interest in a prompt appearance before the priest. Then today let a man not neglect to show himself to Jesus his true high-priest. Euchariston, the Samaritan’s giving of thanks (v.16), is one of the names adopted by the early church for the Breaking of Bread (Study 197). There, at the Breaking of Bread, let him pour out his thanks; there let him be reminded that it is his faith in Christ which saves him; and there let him accept the Lord’s own assurance that he is saved.

Notes: Lk. l7:1-19

5.	The apostles said. This rare use of the word (9:10; cf.v. 1) might well suggest a break in the narrative here. Where else besides Mt. 17:19; 18:1; Acts 1 :6 was there a general apostolic enquiry?
9.	Doth he thank...?Gk. implies: No, of course not. But by contrast, v.8 implies an affirmative answer.
11.	Samaria and Galilee. Mentioned in this order because of v.16-18?
13.	Voices. The Gk. word is singular. As one man.
	Have mercy on us. Even the Samaritan among them believed that salvation is of the Jews (Jn. 4 :22). It was a better importunity than even that by another healed leper (5:12). Yet it was this plea which in the parable father Abraham disregarded.
17.	The nine. It is usually assumed that these were all Jews. See note on v. 18.
18.	Found; cp. 2Chr. 29:29 mg.
	This stranger. Gk: one of another race. So here Jesus is explicit that Samaritans had no right to claim descent from Abraham.
19.	Hath made thee whole. Gk. implies a lasting salvation.

Among the closest friends of Jesus were Lazarus and his family in Bethany, just over the hill from Jerusalem. John refers to Martha and Mary as though already well-known to his readers. This is just another of the many times that he appears to assume his reader’s familiarity with the synoptic gospels (e.g. 3 :24; 6:53,70; 7:42; 20:2). Morethanthis, his mention of Mary’s anointing of Jesus rather awkwardly anticipates the narrative in the next chapter— unless, that is, he is steering his reader to the record of an earlier anointing (Lk.7 :37,38; see Study 73). The words: “wiped … feet … hair(v.2)… weeping (v.33)” all come together in that earlier narrative. Also, would John have distinguished Mary in this way, knowing that the same description belonged to another woman?

Lazarus, the brother of the two sisters, was desperately ill. The time of this sickness can be pin-pointed fairly accurately. “Master”, said the disciples, “the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?” (v.8). That expression: “of late” is really the Greek word “now” (i.e. just now, a short whileago;see21:10; cp. also 11:37), so the attempt at stoning was very recent. But that foul episode took place at the Feast of the Dedication, i.e. Christmas (10:31,22). So thedeath of Lazarus can be fairly safely placed at the beginning of January, about four months before the crucifixion.

“If only Jesus were here!” was the constant sigh of both Martha and Mary, as they saw their brother fighting his losing battle. Yet how could they send and ask Jesus to come, for they knew that he could only return to the vicinity of Jerusalem at the risk of his life.

Possible Timing

But at last they could hold back no longer. Their brother was dying. Now all help, save that of Jesus, was useless. So, very urgently, they sent a messenger to him in Peraea on the other side of Jordan. If it was a one day journey to reach Jesus, the chronology of that week goes roughly thus:

A. The messenger leaves Bethany,

B. He delivers his message.

C. He arrives back in Bethany.

D. Jesus begins the journey to Bethany.

E. He arrives, and raises Lazarus.

Then L, the time of the death of Lazarus, was very soon after the messenger left Bethany.

If Jesus was two days’ journey away, the time pattern is more probably this:

In this case Lazarus died soon after Jesus received the message.

“Lord, behold (here is urgency), he whom thou lovest is sick”. This was all that the sisters said in their message. Thus they taught all their brethren in many generations how to pray in time of dire need. It is not for the disciple to say what must be done. It is sufficient simply to tell the Lord how great the need is (cp. Jn.2 :3). The rest may be left to Him. And, as the sisters were soon to learn, the divine response is not always precisely what has been sought or expected.

Christ’s immediate rejoinder on receiving the message was: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God (ls.49 :2,5), that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.” The messenger heard these words and with great eagerness took them back to Bethany (v.40), only to find that Lazarus had already been laid to rest.

The mystification and pain of the two sisters may be well imagined. This sickness not unto death? But it was! Lazarus was dead already! The glory of God? Some would have lost faith in Jesus forthwith. But these were of finer spiritual quality. So it is not difficult to imagine them talking over every possible meaning of the Lord’s enigmatic words, as they tried to read his intention in them. Perhaps they grasped his meaning.

But time went by, and he did not appear. The fourth day I By this time corruption had surely set in. They must come to terms with their loss, and rest their hopes on the last day when, as the prophet Daniel had foretold (Dan.12 :2), the dead would be raised. What hope now that they would see their brother again before that great Day? Then, surely, and not before, the Son of God would be glorified, for had he not said: “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live” (5 ;25)?

Yet Jesus had meant more than this. The glory of God was soon to be witnessed not only in the re-awakening of Lazarus from the sleep of death, but also in the tenacious faith of these bewildered sisters and in the unique witness which the raising of Lazarus was to make in the face of Jewish unbelief. One writer has very trenchantly said: “He will have his glory somehow in the death of every man!”

Delay

“When therefore Jesus heard that Lazarus was sick’—he set out immediately to succour him. No! “he abode two days in the same place where he was.” This is a dramatic unexpected consequence of that “therefore.” The love of Christ was testing the faith of Martha and Mary, but, as their words were to testify, he would not suffer them to be tempted above what they were able to bear (1 Cor.10 :13). Comparison may be made here with the way Jesus held lit nobleman at arm’s length when he pleaded for his sick son: “Except ye see signs and wonders,, ye will not believe . . . Lord, come down ere if child die” (Jn.4:48,49). Yet another comparison is with the tantalising, frustrating delay when Jesus was on his way to restore the daughter of Jairus—did he have to stop on the road to spend time talking to the woman who had touched hi garment to gain health and blessing (Mk.5 :22ff)?

Why did Jesus wait those two days? Knowing Martha and Mary to be on the rack, he too would feel wretched on their account, for, “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister and Lazarus” (v.5)—these words come in here to acquit him of indifference to their misery. Yet he held back-a delay that had its purpose. His prayer at the graveside: “Father, I thank thee that thou didst hear me” (v.41), implies that during that time he was praying on Lazarus’ behalf and for wisdom to do what was best in this trying situation. More than this, who knows what transcending blessings came into the lives of nameless men and women there in Peraea during those two extra days of bewildered uncertainty before Jesus set out for Bethany? In more ways than one this delayed answer to prayer was to the glory of God.

Discussion and Return

At length Jesus bade the apostles prepare for departure to Judaea. He met with immediate and sustained remonstration: “Master, of late the Jews sought to stone thee (10 :31), and goes! thou thither again?” By any standards of human judgement such a journey seemed the height of folly. So disciple might well expostulate with Teacher.

Jesus gave them one of his characteristic indirect answers: “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” It was a saying complementary to: “Mine hour is not yet come,” only with more point to it. The last Passover had marked the first mass rejection of Jesus by the people (6:60,61,66). From that time he knew for certain that only twelve months more remained to him in the days of his flesh. But until the “day” of twelve months had run its course he knew himself to be inviolate.

The disciples could hardly be expected to appreciate this, so Jesus generalised the lesson for their benefit: “If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because the light is not in him.” The disciple of Christ who lives his life in a conviction that all is under God’s control and his times in God’s hand finds that ” all things work together for good” (Rom.8 :28). But the one who does not have this “light” in himself is bound to flounder and stumble in the dark experiences of life. Before long both Judas and Peter were to prove the truth of this.

Jesus now told the twelve plainly, though not plainly enough, the purpose of the journey: “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep.” The disciples remembered the earlier dictum: “This sickness is not unto death,” and confidently assumed a completely literal meaning. Indeed, they may have concluded that, by the “remote control” that they had known Jesus to operate on other occasions, the sleep of Lazarus had been brought about by him, and that his “going” to awake him would be a similar exercise of power from a distance. So, greatly relieved that there was now no need to go to Bethany and danger, they blithely replied: “Lord, if he sleep he shall do well.” A sick man falling into a sound sleep! Isn’t it a sure sign that he is on the way to recovery? (cp. their misunderstanding in Lk.22 :36-38; Jn.4 :32-34; 14 :5,8,22; Mt. 15:15; 16:6-12)

So Jesus had to tell them bluntly: “Lazarus is dead. And (he added) I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe.” The Lord was glad because, had he got there in time, there would have been a less sensational, less convincing, restoration of the sick man. This miracle, then, was to be “for the glory of God”, not only by provoking the gratitude of Martha and Mary, not only in the higher life of Lazarus in ensuing years, not only by proving to disbelieving Jews that Jesus was the Son of God (v.45), but also in the strengthened faith of the disciples (v.15).

Coming after the earlier declarations of their faith(e.g.l:41,45;2:ll;6:69;Mt. 14:33; 16:16), these words read strangely. Yet they serve to indicate that there may be different degrees or qualities of faith. They are also a reminder of how in the finest of people faith may ebb and flow.

Loyal Thomas

“Let us go to him,” Jesus concluded, and must have been greatly heartened by the reaction of Thomas: “Let us also go that we may die with him.” Could anything be more hazardous than, a return to Jerusalem? But, argued Thomas,’ strong in loyalty, though not in faith (20 ;25,26), the least they could do was to stand by Jesus in this peril. After all, if he died, what did life hold for the rest of them? This grand affirmation of constancy and devotion might well have come from the lips of Peter. Why didn’t it? Was Peter not there at the time? The need for Thomas’s exhortation to the rest seems to imply that there was a marked reluctance among some of the twelve to face such a palpable risk. And for all his doubts, this pessimist was right, for it was the raising of Lazarus more than anything else which drove the rulers to an irrevocable decision (11 :47-53).

The names Thomas and Didymus are Hebrew and Greek for “twin” . It has been speculated that, since Lev! means “joined”, the other twin was Matthew the publican. But in this place the implication surely is that Thomas himself was twins, a kind of double personality— marvellously loyal to Jesus, yet terribly unsure.

Man’s mortal soul

It is worth while, at this point, to note the emphatic witness which this record of the death of Lazarus makes against the common assumption of the immortality of the human soul. “Let us go to him, ” Jesus said. The real Lazarus, all that there was, was in Bethany, not in heaven. Compare also “Where have ye laid him” (v.34). “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth” is a further reminder that Jesus and his apostles always speak of the death of the faithful as “sleep” (Mt. 9:24; 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 15:6,18,20,51; 1 Th.4-.13-15). The word is meaningless if dead people are more alive than they are in this mortality. And so also is the assurance of “waking” Lazarus out of his “sleep.” The call: “Lazarus, come forth” (v.43) was addressed to the corrupting body in the tomb, not to a spirit in an unseen world. “And he that was dead came forth.” This chapter needs no reinforcement to establish the mortality of man.

Martha

As Jesus drew near to Bethany, he foresaw that the house would be crowded with mourners and sympathisers—important people (for, in this gospel, “the Jews” means the leaders of the nation). The Greek text also neatly implies that the Bethany family were regarded as important people. These mourners of consequence would be there the more readily because of an expectation that Jesus would be present.

The Lord therefore sent a messenger ahead to inform the sisters of his coming. (Or had a lookout been posted in expectation of his coming?). Apparently Martha did not pass on the news to Mary, but immediately went to meet Jesus outside the village (v.30). She greeted him with the words; “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” It was the nearest to a reproach that she could attempt. “But,” she added less directly, “I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.” The raising of Jairus’ daughter and of the widow’s son must have been known to Martha. But those had taken place within hours of death. Lazarus had been dead four days. However, such was the confidence of Martha in her Lord that even in these circumstances help might yet be possible.

The Lord’s reply of comfort was designedly ambiguous; “Thy brother shall rise again”. Was he directing her hope to the great resurrection at the end of the age, or was he preparing her mind for an immediate reward of faith?

Martha was not prepared to presume on the latter: “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” There is evidence of much uncertainty and ambiguity in contemporary Jewish thought about life after death, so Martha’s emphatic declaration of faith had surely been learned from Jesus himself. Her confidence rested on what he himself had taught her.

Jesus now centred this re-assuring doctrine specifically on himself: “I am (i.e. now) the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” Martha’s hopes were not to be disappointed.

The balance of phrases in this saying is worth noting. For those who die before his coming in glory he is Resurrection. For those believers who live to witness his return (1 Th.4 :15,17) he is Life.

It was probably at this point that Jesus also encouraged Martha with the assurance: “If thou believest, thou shalt see the glory of God” (v.40). The first miracle Jesus wrought is called a “manifesting of his glory” (2 :11), so this was now an almost direct promise that the Power of the Father in him would succour the sisters in their distress.

In reply Martha, in a comprehensive confession of faith, declared her confidence: “Lord, I do believe. I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, the Coming One.” These familiar phrases point back to the great promise made to David (2 Sam.7), for “Christ” (Anointed) means “the promised King,” and it is in that foundation Scripture (and in Ps. 2, 89, as commentaries on it) that he is picked out as Son of God. In these prophecies also there was anticipation of the resurrection of the dead, for “when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers” is given its completion in “thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee” (7:12,16), thus plainly implying resurrection. And “his seed shall endure for ever” (89:36) has the same idea. Martha’s convictions were definite and clear.

Mary

Jesus added no more, save to bid her send Mary to him. This Martha did, taking care to communicate the message in a whisper, for among the many influential people joining in the formality of sharing their mourning were critics and enemies of Jesus.

Mary now lost no time in going out to meet Jesus, who had made no move to come to the house. Falling at his feet (see Study 74), she too confessed her grief, her need, her faith and hope: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” How many times during the past few days had that sentiment been spoken with a sigh of sadness in that Bethany home! (but note here the force of Mt. 18:19).

There was opportunity to add little in reply, for the Jews who saw Mary leave the house had assumed that she was going to her brother’s grave and therefore followed her. Seeing Mary’s tears renewed, as a result of her meeting with Jesus, they too broke into loud conventional lamentation of an obviously artificial nature, The sharp contrast between the intense grief of his much-loved disciple and the crude insincerity of their clamour affected Jesus very strongly. A mighty surge of indignation at their hypocrisy almost mastered his deep sympathy for Mary in her bitter loss. The wave of emotion showed in his face (see the use of this word “troubled” in Jn.5 :4), and as he moved with Mary to the tomb tears came to his eyes, but whether in sorrow with the sisters, or in bitter disapproval of hypocritical mourners (cp. Lk.19 :4 1,42) it is difficult to say. The wretchedness and woe of the two sisters, the thought of his dear friend under the cold hand of death, and (very probably) the sickening plight of that nation that they should have as leaders and exemplars such false men as these who now added their caterwauling to the scene of sadness— all these things combined to produce in Jesus a tangle of emotions almost too much for his self-control. So even as he wept, he prayed (v.41,42).

Some of these Jews even broke off from their lamentations to comment repeatedly and in hostile cynical fashion: “Behold, how he loved hirn.” Even more caustic was the unbelieving mockery: “Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man (even one so sick) should not have died?”. The hostile intent of these words is surely established by Psalm 69 :10: “When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach” – with reference, naturally enough, to the miracle Jesus had recently wrought in Jerusalem (9 :6).

At the Tomb

So it was with mounting indignation that Jesus came to the sepulchre. Like the tomb in which he himself was to be laid, it was hewn out of the rock, and its entrance blocked by a mighty boulder; indeed, certain details in the Greek text might suggest that the entrance to the tomb was at the top, with a short flight of steps wining down into the interior (see Notes).

Peremptorily he called for the removal of the stone. Naturally enough, the practical-minded Martha protested; as nearest relation she had a right to protest. Lazarus was four days dead. By this time corruption could have set in (perhaps it is unwise to assume that it had).

But Jesus insisted. Had not the word brought by his messenger (v.4) bidden her: “Believe, and see the glory of God”? (cp.2:11). The Shekinah Glory of God, which had led forth captive Israelites to freedom from Egyptian bondage, now in the person of Jesus was to initiate a yet more splendid deliverance. There was no lack of willing hands to shift that ponderous boulder. Even if these influential Jewish mourners were loth to be implicated, Jesus had the twelve with him, and by this time, because the word had gone round that Jesus was come to Bethany, the entire village was gathered there (v.42).

Now, before the open tomb, Jesus stood and prayed, with eyes up-lifted to heaven. It was probably a quiet prayer, heard only by John and the few who stood close by. It was not a prayer for power. This gift had already been sought and received, probably when first the news about Lazarus had come to him: “I thank thee that thou didst hear me (in that prayer spoken earlier). I asked it then for the benefit of the multitude now standing here, that they may see and believe” (cp. Jn.12 :20). In this later prayer he now attributed the impending miracle to its Source.

Then, with a loud voice of authority (s.w. Mt.12 :19), he addressed himself to the corpse within the tomb: “Lazarus, come forth.” The tense silence and concentration of attention of all that crowd may be imagined. Then the suppressed gasp of astonishment as Lazarus himself came into view—the eerie spectacle of a living man completely enswathed in the white linen wrappings of the dead. He groped his way uncertainly into the light of day, for sight was obscured by the cloth over his face.

“Loose him, and let him go,” commanded Jesus. The reader is left wondering how many seconds elapsed before one or two bolder spirits conquered their sense of awe at the sight, and moved forward to help the risen man remove the napkin obscuring his face.

Detail upon detail combines to underline the matter-of-factness of the miracle. Wrought out of love for a lovely family, it was also for the benefit of “the multitude which standeth around.” Jesus did not know the place of interment (v.34), so there was no opportunity for any deceit. And Lazarus was four days dead (v.39), so no chance of burial mistake either. The great stone sealing the tomb’s entrance (v.38,41) was guarantee enough of an undisturbed body. Nor were the tears and prayer of Jesus the tokens of a charlatan (v.35,41,42). There was even something miraculous about Lazarus’s emergence from the cave “bound hand and foot with grave clothes” and sightless because of the covering secured over his face (v.44).

And it was of set purpose that Jesus commanded: “Loose him, and let him go”; i.e. “let him go away” (Gk.), to save him being pestered by the attentions of a curious crowd. To the end of their days those who first overcame their trepidation and set about releasing the risen Lazarus would testify emphatically that their hands handled a firm warm living body. There the whole multitude, friends and enemies alike, saw Lazarus united with his sisters, saw and heard him give praise and thanks to Almighty God and to His compassionate Son, saw him—still clad in linen wrappings—go through their midst to the familiar home whence he had been carried. Thus was the nation’s last tenuous excuse for doubt concerning Jesus finally shot to pieces.

But though doubt was gone, disbelief lived on. As always Jesus once again set the Jews into sharply defined groups. There were those, even among the nation’s leaders, who saw and believed. Others went off and vented their, antagonism in a virulent report to the Sanhedrin. “In truth (says one old commentator) death yields more readily to Christ’s power than unbelief does.”

The Seventh Sign

Why did they not believe? Jesus had given them evidence in plenty, and none more conclusive than this. It taught them not only the divine power and authority of this Man of Nazareth but also that there is hope of life after death only for those who are his friends. To these, who have believed him to be the Resurrection and the Life—to these, even though they have corrupted, he will come with the trumpet voice of authority (1 Th.4 :16): “Come forth.” And come forth they will, cumbered still with all the marks of mortality until, with o further word of power, Jesus pronounces them loosed from such disabilities.

Various other details may perhaps be fitted into this picture. For instance, as Lazarus prefigures the sleeping friends of Christ, so also Mary and Martha could represent those who are alive at his coming; and this suggests o gathering to meet the Lord not all at once but in two well-defined groups (cp. Mt.25 :1-13; Study 178). Lazarus four days dead might suggest the long 4000 years from Abraham (the first man in Scripture to be told of a glorious resurrection to the fulfilment of that promise. The raising of Lazarus caused many to believe; and—it may be safely surmised—so also will the resurrection of other friends of Jesus at the last day. But there was also a sharp reaction by others into conspiracy against Jesus. This, too, will have its counterpart (Ps.2 :1,2).

These are not the only features of the story worth examining from this angle. For this miracle was also a sign, the seventh in John’s gospel.

Notes: Jn. 11:l-44

1.	This account of the resurrection of Lazarus is designedly enclosed between two pointed allusions to the death (and resurrection) of Jesus: 10:17,18; 11 :50-52.
	Of Bethany, of the town of Mary. . . The variation in prepositions here (apo, ek) implies that Bethany was where Lazarus originated but that after his (and Jesus’) resurrection he had to cease living there (cp. 1 :45,46 Gk.)—his life being under threat?
	Mary and Martha. Everyone assumes that Mary was the younger. But it is easy to see why she is given priority here.
3.	Lovest and loved (v.5). These differing Gk. words preserve a nice decorum about Christ’s relations with this family. For the distinction see also: 15:17,19; 21 :15,16,17; Rev.3 :9,19; 1 Cor.l6:22,24.
4.	Glorified. It is difficult to find a comprehensive definition of what is meant in this gospel by the diverse uses of this word. Strong witness? With this passage cp. 9 :2,3.
9.	Other examples of the Lord’s indirect answers:2 :4,19;3 :5,10;4 :13,21; 6 :32,53; 8 :7,25,54; 10:25.
10.	Another possibility is that Jesus *vas still speaking with reference to himself and his present but not long-tasting uncertainty as to how best to cope with the problem created by the death of Lazarus.
11.	Our friend. Lazarus was evidently held in affection by all the apostles also.
12.	He shall do well. Gk: shall be saved. John with a keen eye to a double meaning sees this as signifying also; if he sleep, he shall be saved by resurrection (at the last day). Other examples: v.50; 7 :35.
13.	Spake. This word means a special divine utterance, the equivalent of “Thus saith the Lord,” in Old Testament.
16.	Fellow disciples. This one Gk. word, which comes nowhere else, is used concerning Thomas to prepare the way for his later loyalty in spite of disbelief; 20:26 (and see “Risen indeed”, ch. 17).
20.	Mary sat still in the house. The suggestion has been made that Mary was the one who had ministered to Lazarus at his end and that therefore she was now unclean through contact with the dead (Num.19 :11,12). In that case, in v.28 (and 44) the Lord was setting aside the uncleaness of death.
21.	Lord, if thou hadst been here. The presence of Jesus all-sufficient; cp.4 :49.
22.	Whatsoever thou wilt ask of Cod. Jesus had prayed openly at the healing of the blind man; 9:31.
26.	Shall never die. On this phrase see Study 112.
31.	She goeth to the grave. So the grave and Jesus were in the same direction, i.e. on the east side of the village.
33.	He groaned in the spirit. NT, LXX, Versions all use this word in the sense of indignation, anger, severity. There is no single example of it meaning lamentation.
34.	Where have ye laid him? Here and in v. 17 (“found”) are signs of limitations in the knowledge of Jesus.
39.	Take ye away the stone. The verb here and in v.41a is the same as v.41b: Jesus “lifted” up his eyes to heaven. Also, in v.38 “a stone lay upon it,” not “before it” (in 20 :2; Mt.28 :2 the details are different).
44.	He that was dead. This perfect participle might imply that it was as a corpse that Lazarus came out of tomb (cp. ls.26:19).
	Other details in the symbolism which attract attention are: the two days’ delay, the wailing of the Jews, the indignation of Jesus, and his prayer at the graveside.

A sheep lost away from the flock, a coin lost inside the house-two parables, each designed to be the complement of the other. Next, Jesus put the two together in another parable about two sons, one lost away from home, and the other lost staying at home. It is his most detailed and most exquisite parable, one to spend long hours over. Who is there who Is not a mixture of these two personalities?

Like so many of the other parables, it has its origins in the Old Testament, yet all the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old shows here: “Surely after that I was turned, I repented … I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth. Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord. Set thee up way marks… set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest” (Jer.31:19-21). “Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people … Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not… they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek him for all this”(Hosea 7:8-10; and cp. 2:7).

In this parable also, as in most, in order to be true to the spiritual, Jesus has had to frame certain details of his story in a way not true to life. How many parents, on demand, would promptly agree to share out the patrimony well before any sign of personal decay and this, too, knowing the disposition of the two sons and the evident intention of the younger to make reckless use of his share? And, with such an outcome, how many fathers would be continually on the look out for the prodigal’s return, would be able to run to greet him, and would receive him with such emotion? The average parent would be more likely to react by saying: ‘That waster is no son of mine. I do not wish ever to set eyes on him again!’ But this is not a parable about a human father, but about a compassionate gracious God.

The story is fascinating in its details, all of which have to be read with reference to the publicans and sinners, on the one hand, and the scribes and Pharisees on the other. There is also a wider application to the reaction of Gentiles and Jews to the gospel of Christ. In these last weeks of the ministry Jesus was turning his eyes more and more often to the new day when the door of faith would be thrown open to those whom the Chosen Race despised. In later studies this will be seen as a developing prospect receiving constantly increasing emphasis in the Lord’s teaching.

A deliberate bad choice

“Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.” According to the papyri this was the usual legal term for inheritance. He assertively asked to receive by right and not by favour. His father acceded to the request, for was there not precedent for this in the family of Abraham? (Gen.25 :5,6). By and by this boy had his share— one third of all, since the double portion due to the firstborn (Dt.21:17) belonged to his brother. His wilful intention, evident enough from the start, was soon put into operation. He set about turning all his own portion into cash—sold off at unrealistic prices, no doubt. All that he had a right to he now dealt with in this way. It was an open declaration that he had no intention of coming back, and this in spite of his father’s remonstration (v.21). Blithe of spirit, he now set off for a distant land. The Greek word for “took his journey” emphasizes “leaving one’s own people” (Ez.19 :3 LXX; only occ.j. Now he is “lord of himself, that heritage of woe.” The hint supplied by Acts 12 :20 suggests that it was the glitter of Tyre,, and Zidon which drew him.

There he soon found evil companions, and under their skilful coaching learned how to paint the town red. “He that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father,” says Proverbs 28 :7. The same word for “riotous” living describes also the wanton woman (7 :11), so here is an indication of the kind of life he lived. It also hinti, not inappropriately, at another meaning: “without salvation” (Jer.2 :13).

Providential affliction

After a while his inexhaustible purse was empty, and, by a strange coincidence, his bosom friends also melted away. It was no coincidence, but the Providence of God (cp.v.4,8), which then brought a grievous famine (a famine characteristic of that land, so the Greek phrase suggests). Thus this wilful improvident young fool all at once found himself in dire straits. Almost overnight his condition changed from affluence to poverty, from popularity to loneliness, from abundance to want (not only acute need but a sharp sense of it —so the word implies). Here was the first (unheeded) summons to return (Am.4 :6; Jer.5 :3). It was the divine opportunity which man’s extremity has so often begotten.

There was nothing else for it. To keep body and soul together he must move around to seek employment. And at such a time the best he could achieve was the livelihood of a swineherd. He, a Jew, keeping pigs for a Gentile!— and for such a beggarly wage that he was even eager (s.w. Lk.16 :21; Mt.5 :28) to stave off the pangs of hunger with the animals’ food. “He that lives wantonly from a child shall be a servant, and in the end shall grieve over himself” (Pr. 29:21 LXX).

He was now friendless. The boon companions of yesterday had disappeared. Not a soul in the world took notice of him. Never a word or even a look of pity, much less any small act of charity. “No man gave unto him” seems to imply that he tried begging, but without any encouragement. Was the prodigal despised, or had people nothing to give?

Thus the goodness of God, in the guise of severity, drove him to repentance.

Repentance

At last heaven’s therapy had its effect: “he came to himself—this crazy hedonist was brought back to sanity (Ps.34 :10; Am.4 :6). He bethought him of the vastly better life his father’s lowest grade of paid workers had, back home. Like them he was a “hired servant”, but what a difference! (Hos.2 :7; 2 Chr.31 :10).

Nevertheless he still thought of his father as Father, and this was to be his salvation, even though the Law of Moses said: “An hired servant shall not eat of the holy things” (Lev.22 :10). The contrast with his own wretched plight was too much for him. Sickened at the fruits of his own incredible folly, he was miserable with a self-pity which is so often the beginning of repentance.

As he lay there on the ground, weak and dejected, he made his decision: “I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son (had this prodigal even changed his name?): make me as one of thy hired servants’—asking for the meanest of jobs, and as an undeserved favour. Here self-interest and true penitence spoke together: “I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies. I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments” (Ps.119 :59,60). The prodigal’s attitude had now become fundamentally right, like that of David after his sin with Bathsheba: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight” (Ps.51:4;cp.Dt.30:l-3).

So without any delay, “he arose (it is the word which the New Testament constantly uses for “resurrection”), and came to his father.”The decision, and the decision put into action, were as necessary as the repentance.

In an eagerness to get on to the climax of the story, the parable omits all mention of the hardship, weariness and discouragements of a faltering journey home, sustained only by an unfaltering conviction that this was the right thing to do, the best, the only thing. Yet it was no easy road back. The Greek neatly hints at much hesitation as the moment of encounter with his father drew near.

Joyful Reunion

In his most optimistic moments he could hardly have dreamed that things would work out as they did. For “whilst he was yet a great way off,” his father with faculties sharpened by longing and affection, saw and recognized him (Eph.2 :16,17). There is implication here, surely, of hours of faithful prayer that the son would be brought back, of even longer hours of eager vigil from a vantage point near home.

Now, excitement imparting an unwonted youthful vigour, he ran to meet his son, greeting him with a delight and fervour he could express only in repeated embraces (2 Sam.14 :33). All this before ever a word could be said by the penitent of all that he was resolved on confessing.

At last, as the first surge of emotion subsided, he began his confession—a contrite admission of his sin, untrammelled by any kind of self-excuse (Ez. 36 :30,31 Ezra 9 :6). But he never got as far as seeking the high favour of promotion from ragged tramp to paid farm labourer. When the idea of it was first framed in his mind, it had never dawned on him that suck love and forgiveness might be possible (Ps.139 -.2; 103 :13; 32 :5; ls.64 :4-9). Yet how true it is that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just (superb paradox!) to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9).

By the time the returned vagrant had stammered out his confession (for the hardship and duration of his journey had in no way dulled his penitence), they were back at the house, and his father, more excited than any child having a birthday, was pouring out instructions to the servants as fast as he could talk: ‘The best robe—the best one, remember! a ring for his finger, that all may know his place of honour here; shoes on his feet; for he doesn’t return as a slave; and the finest feast you can lay on-don’t forget the fatted calf, kept against his coming; I knew he’d be back! Dead—alive! (Rom.6 :13), lost—found! Could anything happen more wonderful than this?’ The prodigal’s request that he be up-graded to the status of hired servant never got said. This amazing display of joy, love and forgiveness stifled the words in his throat.

The old rags, which once flaunted their owner’s worldly vanity, were, of course, thrown away, like the fig-leaf garments of Eden. Fit for nothing! “The first robe” may mean “the robe he used to wear,” specially kept against his return, a robe which he had deliberately left behind, being set on having something even finer? (Rev.3 :18sw.; ls.61 -.10). But more fikely it signifies “the best there is in the house.” In the Roman world, it was not uncommon to announce that a slave was now a free man by publicly arraying him in a fine new robe.

The slaying of the fatted calf for the feast of rejoicing was an outstanding token of intense religious thankfulness at the prodigal’s return, for the word used in the parable means “to kill for sacrifice” (22 :7 s.w.). This great celebration centred round a peace-offering which outstandingly emphasized the renewal of fellowship together before God (Dt.12 :7,12).

The father’s excited “Let us eat, and be merry” included the household servants and all: “Enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (Mt.25:21,23); in the parables of lost sheep and lost coin: “Rejoice with me” (v.6,9). What a contrast between this heart-felt gladness and the empty gaiety the prodigal had gone in for in that far country I

The phrase “this my son” made public acknowledgement of a lost prodigal’s reinstatement. “He was lost, and is found” |v.4,8) surely indicates that just as the shepherd had sought his lost sheep and the woman her lost coin, so also the father had done all in his power to trace his boy. Now that depressing discouraging search was over.

The older brother

The parable could have ended here, but happily, and unhappily, it didn’t.

The elder son, who had been busy on the farm, returned at the end of his day’s work, to find the house and all connected with it enjoying a splendid party. There was jollity and music (Gk: sumphonia, harmony!) such as the family had not known for many a long day. This in itself riled him (disharmony!). To think that all this should be organized, and he know nothing about it!

There is a problem here. Why had he not been told? Wasn’t it a most obvious thing to send a messenger to him in the field to tell him the great news? Why was it not done?

Now, instead of assuming that what his father did was bound to be right, he called one of the servants and in a churlish tone (so the Greek phrase neatly implies) kept on enquiring whatever it all meant, until he had got the story down to the last detail.

“Thy brother is come.” Like Abraham’s steward, this servant had taken on much of his master’s outlook—the word he used is one which nearly always has to do with divine action (e.g. Mt.23 -.36; 24 :14,50; Lk.19 :43; Jn.6 -.37; 8 -.42; 2 Pet.3:10; Rev.15:4_; 18:8). So this was his way of saying: God has brought him home safe and sound, that is, healthy—when he might have been an incurable wreck; in fact, much more healthy than when he went away!

This news made the brother intensely angry. Nor was it a sudden uncontrolled burst of indignation but a cold deliberate hostility (Gk: orge). He, whose double portion and birthright should have been used to seek out and redeem his younger brother (lev.25 :49), was positively resentful that he was back again. Did he but know it, it was himself who was the lost son (Mt.23 :13). He refused to go in and greet his brother and share in the festivities. So his father came out, as eager to reclaim this son as the other, and kept on beseeching him to share in the general rejoicing. But there was no budging him from his critical self-righteousness. He could not even bring himself to say: “Father.”

Instead: “See,” he said, “all these years I go on slaving for thee (note here his estimate of his father’s character!), and not at any time did I ever transgress a commandment of thine: (18:11) yet not at anytime didst thou give me a kid (not to mention the fatted calf), that I might make merry with my friends.” Here was a fulsome pride in his own qualities. He positively enjoyed writing his own testimonial (Mt.20 :12). Yet his own words gave the game away—that although he had stayed at home, his inclinations were (like the prodigal’s) towards enjoying life away from his father. And the crude grumble: “thou never gavest me a kid”, was downright misrepresentation, for he knew that had he wished for either kid or fatted calf he could have had them without even asking.

The bald fact was that he resented the generous treatment accorded to his brother, and his jealousy boiled over into a tirade against him: “As soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.” “This thy son”! He could not even bring himself to speak of the prodigal as “brother”. Nor did he speak of a “return home,” but instead referred to his coming as though he were a stranger. And the bitter and unkind censure about harlots was almost certainly not conjecture. The prodigal had sought to hide nothing. Such was his penitence, the full sordid story had been told.

The father’s rejoinder could hardly have been in greater contrast. “Son,” he said gently and with affection (although there had been no disposition to address him as “Father” in the way that the prodigal had done), “thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine (had it not all been shared out?). It was necessary, a thing not to be restrained, that we should make merry, and be glad.” This was not recompense to the prodigal for his evil life, as his brother had so unkindly implied, but an overflow of irrepressible joy, “for this thy brother (note the gentle nudge towards a more kindly attitude) was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.”

An unfinished story

There Jesus stopped, his parable still unfinished. Did the older brother have a change of heart, and join the happy fellowship of father and brother and all the household? Or did he persist in his self-righteous aloofness and thus by his unforgiving spirit create a worse rift in the family at a time when bonds should have been stronger than ever? In an earlier parable Jesus, informed by the Old Testament, had already provided the inevitable discouraging end to the story (14 .-18-20). The fact that here he left out the tragedy of Israel’s estrangement is surely an intimation of the intense longing within him that the situation might even now not be past repair. In another parable a forgiven debt had been called into existence again (Mt.18 :34). So here also the elder brother’s birthright, already his, was to be taken away from him (Rom. 11). But how does the story of the younger brother continue?

Whilst the immediate context of this parable may suggest reference to publicans and sinners and to scribes and Pharisees (v.1,2), there can be little doubt that the more fundamental application of it is to the rejection of the gospel by Israel and its eager acceptance by godly Gentiles. Jesus saw the earlier situation as foreshadowing the later.

Certainly some of the details are framed with specific reference to the publicans who although belonging to the commonwealth of Israel, deliberately chose a way of life which estranged them from their own nation and from their God. The prodigal “joining himself to a citizen of that country” and “feeding swine” clearly pictures the un-Jewish activities of the publicans in the service of their Roman taskmasters. Nevertheless, at the first sign of repentance, God was glad to “spare them as a man spareth his own son” (Mal.3 :17). “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him” (Ps. 103 :13). Let the worst of sinners “draw nigh to God” (Jas.4 :8), and God will draw nigh to him. In the story how graphically Jesus represented this truth! “Yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead,” wrote Paul (Rom.6 :13) almost appropriating the words of the prodigal’s father.

The prodigal’s destitution and contrite return home, and the father’s gladness and his eager rehabilitation of his son—these are described with detail marvellously appropriate to the redemption of spiritual castaways in a way which none but Jesus could frame. Even the word used for the slaying of the fatted calf, by its implication of sacrifice, suggests the vital essential in the forgiveness of sin.

And in part two, the hostile indignation and damaged self-love of the elder son represent with superb faithfulness the disdain of the Pharisees, holding off from Jesus and his following of forgiven sinners. It also anticipates with unerring insight the jealousy of spiritually proud Jews when the gospel of Jesus brought benighted Gentiles into fellowship with the God of Israel. From this point of view most of the details explain themselves.

Could Jesus have coined a more gracious or more telling parable than this? And is it conceivable that those able men who heard if failed to grasp its meaning?

Notes: Lk.l5:11-32

11.	Two sons.These two appear again in another parable: Mt.21 :28-31.
13.	Took his journey. Doubtless the father could have kept him at home. But here is the Bible’s doctrine of freewill.
15, 16.	Consider the relevance of these details to the publicans (v. l).
17.	Hired servants of my father’s. The Pharisees were considered models of perfection in the eyes of publicans and sinners.
25.	Music and dancing by hired entertainers?
27.	Me fatted calf… Some of the versions have this precise phrase at Pr. 15 :17.

The gospels tell of three occasions when Pharisees invited Jesus to a meal. Judging from the outcome, the other two invitations were hostile in intention (Luke 7:36; 11:37), and this loo, most probably. This time the host was “one of the rulers of the Pharisees”, the majority parry on the Council.

Even though the Psalmist has trenchant words about “not sitting with vain persons, nor going in with dissemblers” (26:4), Jesus had no qualms about accepting the invitation. Separateness from evil depends essentially on one’s frame of mind, and in this respect Jesus was immune. Indeed he saw to it that the present occasion should provide as fine an example as could be wished of wholesome table talk. “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

It was not by any accident that, close to Jesus at the meal-table, was a poor sufferer, bloated and ugly with dropsy. He had, of course, been set there with the deliberate intention of posing a problem to Jesus, though doubtless he himself had accepted the invitation with eagerness and high hopes that he too might experience the healing powers of this amazing man.

“They watched him”

These Pharisees knew the strength of the Lord’s overmastering compassion. Would he, then, heal the man, even though it was the sabbath day? On five other occasions already • Jesus had been in controversy with the Pharisees regarding his sabbath-wrought miracles. It is a measure of their fanaticism—and confidence-regarding this that they once again provoked a clash with Jesus concerning it.

So “they watched him.” “The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him” (Ps. 37:32); but “all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Is. 29:20,21). There can be little doubt that this was a snare, a trap deliberately laid to put Jesus in a difficult position, with critics on every side and no marvelling crowd to appeal to. Even so, it is not necessary to assume that the afflicted man was party to the evil scheme. Were he so, is it likely that Jesus would have healed him?

Before he did so, the Lord “answered” (v.3) the unspoken challenge in their malevolent stare: “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” How many times had these Pharisees tried to get Jesus on the horns of a dilemma with theirtrick questions. Now they found the tables turned on them. For if they answered:”Yes, it is lawful”, what possible criticism could they then make of Jesus? And if “No”, it would be an open hurt to their afflicted friend sitting there. In any case, how could they reconcile their own self-indulgence on this sabbath with an unwillingness even to see aid brought to this sufferer? So they took refuge in an embarrassed hostile silence.

Thereupon Jesus took hold of the dropsical man, and lifted him to his feet. The gospel mentions no word of authority, but simply that the man was healed. His flabby face took on a healthy normality, his swollen body subsided, his elephantine legs and puffy feet became like those of a young man. He stood there, attempting to stammer out his delighted thanks, whilst the Pharisees stared at him in incredulity and disgust. Then, to save him from assaults on his faith by these unbelievers, Jesus forthwhile sent him away. The Greek word seems to imply that he did not want to stay, anyway.

Good works on the Sabbath

As they now began to take their places at table, the Lord stifled the sleeping volcano of their objections with a simple argument: ‘If your son or your ox falls into a pit on the Sabbath, there isn’t one of you who will not take steps to haul him out—and without losing a minute-even though it be the sabbath day. Or is there?’ But not one present was willing to contend against this reasoning. Yet it implied Christ’s personal possession of and authority over the life of the man just healed, and therefore just as much over the lives of these Pharisees.

The saving of a son or an ox was an action with a certain element of selfishness in it, but not so this healing of the dropsy. Then how much less objection could there be to such an action? (1 Cor. 9:9,10).

The fact is that the precepts of the rabbis actually forbade such a rescue on the Sabbath. The case had already been legislated for: “Supply food, but do nothing further till the sabbath is past.” Yet Jesus knew he was on safe ground with this illustration, for these Pharisees, dominated by self-interest, kept their own commandments only when it was convenient: “they say, and do not” (Mt. 23:3). So there was no answer to either miracle or argument-only red faces.

A parable of place-seeking

And these became redder as Jesus noted and reproved the small-minded way in which they manoeuvred to get what were deemed to be the places of prestige at table. He quoted them the proverb: “Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king (thus, indirectly, declaring himself to be the King), and stand not in the place of great men: for better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen”(Pr. 25:6,7).

Then he turned it into a parable: Invited to a marriage feast, show no eagerness to appropriate one of the best seats. You may be humiliated by being told to move to the bottom of the table. So instead choose the humblest place there is, and leave it to the host to promote you, and so enhance your reputation before all the rest—that is, if your worth as a friend (philos) warrants it! (“that he may say unto thee…”).

This was not just a rebuke of Pharisaic pride. It was a parable. Jesus had better things to do than spend time giving lessons in social behaviour.

The “marriage feast” can hardly represent “the marriage supper of the Lamb,” for it is difficult to imagine any jostling for priority or shaming of the self-assertive in that time of blessedness. But see it as a betrothal feast (which would be similarly described-see Study 7), and there is no difficulty. This corresponds to the present union of the believer with Christ-his acceptance into the ecclesia.

       

It is important also to note the distinction (very easily missed) between the servant who conveys (lie invitation and who also somewhat brusquely sets the proud guest in a lower place, and the host who is providing the betrothal feast. He comes in later, picks out the humble guest deserving of greater prominence, and— greeting him as a specially close friend—insists on his exaltation to a better seat (s.w, Ex. 19:23 LXX).

Thus Jesus taught the sinfulness of pride and self-seeking in the ecclesia (1 Tim. 3:6). The lesson needed to be learned specially by the better type among these Pharisees who, impressed by the works and teaching of Christ, were hesitating whether or not they should throw in their lot with him. The parable reminded such that, once out of the synagogue, and into the ecclesia, their right and proper place for a good while to come must needs be in a position of humility and subjection. Authority must be conceded to men like the twelve, who in education and in religious and social standing were very much their inferiors.

The lesson was not well learned in the early church. “A great company of priests were obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6:7). These were trained teachers of the Law and accustomed to instruct and to exercise authority, for “a priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they (the people) should seek the law at his mouth” (Mal. 2:7). Naturally, such men —in spite of the warning given here by Jesus—would consider themselves to be specially qualified as teachers in the ecclesia. There is reason to believe that it was men of this character who later brought the infant church near to disaster with their ill-informed emphasis on the continuing authority of Moses. And James’s trenchant exposure of possible evils arising from “the tongue’—that is, the teacher in the ecclesia (see Jas. 3:1RV)— shows that in the earliest days the danger was a very real one.

The same lesson may still go unlearned. More than one distressing example has been known of the glamour of advanced education or social standing or wealth resulting in an ill-advised exaltation to eminence, responsibility and spiritual leadership for which as yet there was no adequate qualification.

“For whomsoever exalteth himself shall be abased (Is. 14:13-15); and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted (Phil. 2:5-11).” The importance of this two-fold lesson may be gauged from the fact that the Lord spoke it on three separate occasions (18:14; Mat. 23:12).

The etiquette of heaven

The present situation justified another parable of this character, even more relevant to the company at table—this was about whom to invite to a party. Not friends, whom it is pleasant to entertain; not relations, though there is a certain seemliness about such an invitation; not the rich, though this may be advantageous. But, instead, the poor and afflicted who are in no position to offer hospitality in return (1 Tim. 6:17-19).

Once again,Jesus’ main intention was not to give lessons in etiquette. This is a parable, calling for interpretation.

The issuing of invitations to a meal is readily seen to correspond in these days to the personal duty of preaching the gospel of the Kingdom. As in the next parable (verse 21), the poor, maimed, lame, and blind who cannot give a recompense are those who know their own need and are glad enough to accept an invitation to the divine feast. The others—friends, kinsmen, well-off neighbours—are those already in the family of God who are able to make a spiritual return for the fellowship and ministration of the Word which they themselves enjoy.

Of course, Jesus was not shutting the door against extending one’s ministrations and fellowship to those in the ecclesia (Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; Heb. 13:2)-the Greek verb implies “do not habitually call. . .” But he was stressing the special importance of effort on behalf of those out of the way of salvation.

In modern times there is particular need to observe this principle, for after all, this is what God Himself does (v.16,21; Mt. 25:34,35,40). Lack of response to the call of the gospel has had a discouraging effect on many would-be preachers. It has also served to divert into other channels much energy which would be more happily and more profitably employed in preaching, thankless though the task may seem. Today the ecclesias are suffering from a kind of spiritual inbreeding. Content to exist as a separate little world, they are content also to “strengthen the things that remain” with-a round of Fraternal Gatherings and social meetings of all kinds. “These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone”!

Resurrection and recompense

As on some other occasions (e.g. Lk. 16:31; Mt. 25:13; 20:16), Jesus ended this little parable with words not at all parabolic: “Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” Clearly this was necessary because the parable itself contains nothing that can answer to the Final Recompense, even though there be a certain satisfaction in a consciousness of doing what is right and, maybe, in the thanks of those receiving the benefit. In that Day neither the satisfying memory of zealous labour nor the gratitude of those brought into the family of God through those labours will compare with the unspeakably greater blessing of being with Christ and invited by him to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

This expression: “the resurrection of the just,” has been mistakenly read as implying that at the Lord’s coming just and unjust will be raised separately. Indeed, on the strength of this passage, some would put back the resurrection of the unjust to the end of Messiah’s millenial reign. This isolated phrase is too small a peg to carry such a heavy conclusion. It needs to be recognized that not infrequently in the New Testament “resurrection” is used in the sense of “resurrection to everlasting life” (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:21,42,52; Ph. 3:11;Mt. 22:30). Inany case, there are too many places where the Bible plainly couples together the resurrection of both classes (e.g. Dan. 12:2; Jn. 5:29; 12:48; Mt. 13:41,49).

At this meal to which Jesus had been invited, so far everything had tended to create a tense atmosphere. It is not unlikely, then, that with the idea of provoking more harmonious thoughts one of the guests gave voice to a pious platitude: “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.” He obviously thought that he would be there, or he wouldn’t have said it. Even so, is it possible to imagine such a remark being made at a meal-table today? And, pious platitude or not, Jesus quotes this man in Revelation (19:9),

The allusion was, maybe, to the “feast of fat things” promised in one of Isaiah’s finest Messianic prophecies (25:6).

The rejoinder of Jesus was as sombre as anything he had yet spoken in that house. That it should be so is a measure of the intense depression of spirit which lay on him because of i the many discouragements he encountered and the wearing abrasive criticism he had to put up with from Pharisees.

A parable of excuses

The parable he now told-lately well-named “the Parable of Excuses” (Leon Morris)—was designed to make these self-righteous men, so confident of their good standing in the sight of heaven, aware of the near certainty that they would not eat bread in the kingdom of God.

A man planned an evening dinner on a sumptuous scale for many of his friends. At the appropriate time he sent a servant with a reminder—this according to the custom of the time (cp. Esth. 5:8; 6:14). Instead of preparedness and pleasant anticipation, the servant met with one excuse after another; literally: “they all with one (voice) began to ask off” (general NT. usage of this verb is much stronger than this). It reads here as though they had agreed among themselves to evade attending the function.

One man had bought a farm and was going to inspect it—at supper time! Another had bought five yoke of oxen, and was going to try them out-at supper time! (contrast 1 Kgs. 19:19). Were these two really such fools as to invest an appreciable amount of capital without first making sure that the investment was worthwhile? Or is it that they were not averse to slighting their would-be host with trivial excuses which insulted his intelligence?

To evade attendance a third fell back one gross misapplication of the Law of Moses. It was laid down that a newly-married man should have exemption from military service and any arduous responsibility (Dt. 24:5-7; and note v.8). On the strength of this, his excuse, spoken out quite brazenly, was: “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come” (note v.26). He treated the invitation as though it were conscription! And he turned the Law’s permission into an imperative. Yet all three of them had evidently accepted the invitation when it was first given and so were under a moral obligation to keep that evening free from other preoccupations.

These three were examples (like the three servants mentioned in the parable of the Pounds) of what was found to be true for all the rest (17:26-28; Mt. 22:5).

When the servant reported back to his master, very naturally it made him extremely angry-not an explosion of wrath (thumos), but a settled deliberate hostility (orgizo). “Lose no time ot all,” he now instructed. “Go out into the city, and gather together any you find, whether poor, maimed, halt, or blind; and bring them for supper at my house” (cp. Acts 13:46).

So this was done. The poor, who could expect an invitation from no one; the maimed, who would probably never have a chance to marry; the blind, who could not see to inspect a farm; and the lame, who were useless with a team of oxen— these were brought in, instead. Even such people were not too disreputable. They needed the supper, but to be a success the supper also needed them. And what fellowship it would foster among them!

Yet still the banqueting hall was not full (14:22,23).

‘Then go outside the city, and bring people in from the main roads and country lanes. Use every strong persuasion you can exercise to get them here’-for God’s gospel, like His nature, abhors a vacuum. The servant was bidden use constraint to overcome the inevitable incredulity of these waifs and outsiders.

At this point the parable breaks off — far a reason which is not difficult to discern

Interpretation

The man in the parable is God Himself. The supper is the gospel of salvation intimated beforehand through His servants the prophets. Those invited were the chosen race. At the right time the servant (who surely represents Jesus himself; cp. 13:7) gave notice that now was the time for the great occasion of fellowship. But instead of joyful acceptance there was evasion of that which the nation had long declared itself to be eager for. That all made excuse is an expression of Christ’s depressing conclusion that oil the privileged classes in Israel had turned their backs on him and would continue to do so. Therefore he had made his appeal to the despised sections of the community—the poor ana uneducated, the publicans and harlots. They had responded to a surprising extent (5:29). But the grace of God had room for many others as spiritually destitute as they. So the parable of Jesus prophesied that the divine invitation would also go to those outside, the Gentiles (Acts 13:46), and that their acceptance of the gospel would make up for the crude Jewish refusal.

The principle of the parable still applies. Today men still “ask off”, pleading the claims of another field (Mt. 13:44), another yoke (Mt. 11:29), another betrothal feast (2 Cor. 11:2).

Expressing himself with very strong feeling, Jesus rounded off with a peremptory decision couched in terms of his almost self-evident parable: “I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper” (cp. Dt. 1:35). It was a further prophecy of the rejection of Israel. And how justified it was! Jesus had now made his appeal to every part of the nation. Nevertheless in Jerusalem and in every corner of the country he had been rejected—Galilee, Decapolis, the extreme north, Samaria, Perea, Judea. “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God”! Few of the nation showed any inclination to share that blessing.

The only one who came away from that meal-table in good spirits was the man who had been healed of his dropsy. The rest had been made gloomy and uneasy and maybe resentful by the severe words they had heard. And Jesus left that house dispirited and sick at heart that by neither word nor miracle could he make any impression on their armour-plated prejudices.

Notes: Lk. 14:1-24

1.	On the sabbath day. The earlier sabbath day healings were: 1. The demoniac at Capernaum (Mk. 1:21). 2. Peter’s mother-in-law (Mk. 1:29). 3. Thewithered hand (Mt. 12:9). 4. The paralytic at Bethesda (Jn. 5:10). 5. The man born blind (Jn. 9:14). 6. Thewoman 18 years bowed down (Lk. 13:14). There were also: Matthew 12:1; Mark 1:21-31.
2.	A certain man before him. The entire episode took place before the meal began: v.7.
4.	Held their peace. In OT (LXX) this word usually means rest from war.
5.	An ass (RV: son) or an ox. On manuscript evidence there is little to choose between AV and RV. And in Gk. and ‘son’ are markedly similar. If AV, was Jesus alluding to Dt. 5:14?
12.	Lest. A touch of irony here; You are risking being invited back—and so the process goes on.
16.	A great supper. There is nothing of this kind more important than the Love Feast.
19.	I go to prove them implies: I’m just setting off.
21.	Being angry. Cp. the anger of God in other parables: Mt. 18:34;22:7.
	The halt and the blind Note 2Sam.5:8;but also 9:13.
22.	And yet there is room. A different answer from 13:23, and yet not inconsistent with it.
23.	Compel them. Of course this had to be moral constraint. Could one servant drive a crowd of such recruits, to make them come to the feast?
24.	I say unto you. This can be read as the sponsor of the feast expressing his indignation to those who have already been brought in.
	Those men. The first lot. The Gk. word implies men of consequence and privilege.

At this point in his narrative, and with no apparent connection with what had gone before, Luke brings together three self-contained sections about Christ’s coming again:

1. 17:20,21. The Pharisees’enquiry about the coming of the Kingdom,
2. 17 :22-37. Details, nearly all of them paralleled in the Olivet prophecy, given to the disciples about the second coming,
3. 18 :l-8. Prayer for the second coming.

Since by this time the claims of Jesus had split the Pharisees into two parties—those bitterly hostile, and those vaguely and tentatively sympathetic—the question: “When does the Kingdom of God appear?” can be taken in two quite different senses. The first group would certainly put their enquiry in a mocking cynical spirit. The others would be sincere enough, even though not altogether convinced.

Happily this ambiguity does not affect seriously the meaning of the Lord’s answer, which in its own right is problematical enough.

These Pharisees asked: “When is the kingdom coming?”, their present tense indicating a real excitement or feigned scepticism about the possibility that Jesus would at any time now proclaim himself king of the Jews.

“With observation”

The Lord’s immediate answer asserted baldly: ‘There is to be no kingdom of that sort now—”The Kingdom of God is not coming (i.e. just now) with observation.”

But what did Jesus mean by that expression “with observation”? There is more than one possibility here:

1. “As you look eagerly for it.”
2. “Accompanied by signs provoking eager observation.”
3. “As you look for it in critical and hostile spirit.”

The second of these gets some support from the Greek preposition meta. The third is suggested by the use of the verb pamtereo in a hostile sense (in five passages out of six; Lk.6 :7; 14 :1; 20 :20; Mk.3 :2; Acts 9 :24).

“The kingdom within you”

But then followed one of the Lord’s most mysterious sayings: “The kingdom of God is within you.” Modern interpreters nearly all take this to mean the rule of Christ in men’s hearts. But is it conceivable that Jesus would say this to Pharisees of any type?

An alternative, made to depend entirely on a phoney reading in the Emphatic Diaglott is; “God’s royal majesty (in the person of Jesus) is in the midst of you.” Here “in the midst of” is distinctly possible but not inevitable. But “royal majesty” (for “kingdom”) is quite without adequate support.

Then what was Jesus saying? Possibly this- that just as Israel at Sinai was called God’s kingdom (Ex. 19:5,6), so now the Lord’s disciples, the New Israel, were the kingdom of God in the midst of a Jewry which did not recognize them as such.

Alternatively, this saying can be read as a striking example of the dramatic present. This idiom (in such passages as Acts 10 :11; Jn.12:8; Mt. 10:20; 26:2; 24:20 Gk; Mk. 9:2) imparts a degree of urgency or sense of suddenness into a statement where normally a past or future tense would be used. In that case the idea is: ‘All at once, when you are not aware, the kingdom is here, it has come to the complete surprise of people like yourselves, but not catching my disciples unawares (v.22-37).’

“Pray and not faint”

A very impressive idea binds together the various parts of this 18th chapter of Luke: that it is not the self-righteous Pharisee (v. 11) whose plea is heard, but those who persist in prayer (v.1-8), and such as the humble publican (v.l3 and babies (v. 15) and the blind (v.35) and those who are ready to leave all (v.22)—these are the people who have God’s ear.

Only rarely do the gospels explain, either in the words of Jesus or by way of commentary the aim and purpose of the Lord’s parables. This parable about the widow is an outstanding exception. Jesus told it “to the end that that ought always to pray and not to faint.” But this is only half the explanation, for at its conclusion Jesus provided an even more pointer application.

This parable is also an exception in another respect. Jesus quarried many of his parables from the Book of Proverbs, but this one comes from the Apocrypha! —Ecclesiasticus 35 :17-19 Quite half a dozen of the Lord’s phrases are traceable there.

“Pray always,” he said. How often is that? Jesus defined this incessant prayer as “crying flight and day unto God.” The lesson of the Law of Moses regarding this is clear and plain. Incense was to be burned morning and evening in the Holy Place before the Lord (Ex.30 :7,8). Daniel and David prayed three times a day (Dan.6 :10; Ps.55 :17). But by “always” Jesus also meant never abandoning this pertinacious seeking of help from God. And since this parable is about the Second Coming (as will be seen by and by) there is surely an implication here that the Lord’s return could happen (could have happened) at any time (note Lk.21 :36; Mk.l3:33).

The parable also describes the quality of the prayer—not the flat uninspired repetition of routine phrases, but an earnest intense persistence like that of this poor woman who knew her own need and who was convinced that help could come from one person and from him only.

It is necessary (Gk: dei) that disciples of Jesus pray like this. And it is equally necessary that they never flag or become discouraged. The antithesis: “to pray and not to faint,”’ is a plain declaration that prayer is strength, (cp. v.39,42), and non-prayer is weakness, fainting. The examples provided by the Canaanitish woman and by blind Bartimaeus show that importunity is more than just psychological in its value and power.

Unjust Judge

How well the character of this hard unprincipled judge is sketched in a mere few words. The judges of Israel were bidden remember that “ye judge not for man, but for the Lord … Wherefore let the fear of the Lord be upon you.” There must therefore be “no respect of persons” (2 Chr. 19:6,7). But this unscrupulous fellow feared neither God nor man; and he took pride in the fact. In truth he could hardly have been less suitably qualified for his judicial office. This comes out even more dearly in his soliloquy. His reason for at last taking notice of the poor widow’s plea was neither compassion nor devotion to the principles of justice but sheer personal dislike of the ceaseless pestering he was subject to: “Because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me’—a strange form of ‘respect of persons’! The expression he used so very sardonically really means: “give me a black eye” (same word: 1 Cor. 9:27; and for idea, cp. Mt. 15:23), but was probably intended figuratively, rather like the more modern word “browbeat.”

But this wearing down of the judge’s indifference was not easily achieved. The Greek verbs imply that the widow kept on coming to him, and he kept on turning her away. None would be more surprised than the widow and her adversary at the judge’s sudden willingness to put the case through. It has been well observed that, by contrast, the Righteous Judge is “wearied only when we are silent.” (For other examples of importunity, see Lk. 18:39,42; Mt. 9:27-29; 15:22-28; Mk. 4:38, but also 2 Cor. 12:8).

Second Coming

The conclusion of the parable makes very plain that the Lord designed it not with general reference to any and every personal need presented before God with importunity, but with special application to certain special circumstances—the suffering and need of God’s people in the Last Days. The discourse leading up to this parable (17 :20-37) is all about the Lord’s second coming; the parable itself is introduced with the phrase: “And he went on to say . . .”; and fts conclusion is this: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” So the primary reference of this vivid little parable must be to a situation at the end of this age. And since Jesus meant to teach that “men ought always to pray” for Messiah’s coming, he implies that the Lord’s return could have happened, and yet can happen, at any time, and not just at some predetermined calendar date (cp. “always” in 21:36).

It is usual to emphasize that in telling this story Jesus was using the argument a fortiori (as in Mt.7 :11). If ceaseless importunity can cause even a hard selfish unprincipled judge to take notice, how much more readily will the counsels of heaven be influenced in the last great hour of need by intense persistent pleading to ‘he gracious God of heaven!

Reference to Israel

This approach is hardly adequate. Certain Old Testament passages show that Jesus deliberately framed the details to provide a marvellously appropriate picture of God’s relations with the people of Israel. “A judge of the widows is God in his holy habitation” (Ps.68 :5). And Israel cast off is described by the prophets as a widow: “How is Jerusalem become as a widow, she that was great among the nations and princess among the provinces” (Lam.l :1). And in the time of her restoration she is comforted: “Thou shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more” (ls.54 :4).

More than this, throughout the long period of Israel’s casting off and scattering among the Gentiles, the God who made His rich promises to the fathers must have seemed to generations of persecuted Jews rather like a judge with the power to “avenge them of their adversaries” but who has nevertheless almost cynically held off from sending the help due to them. To them he has appeared not to follow His own declared principles of fair and kindly judgment; an unjust judge, in fact (cp. Mk.4 :38).

The language of the bewildered prophet Jeremiah as he appealed to God to fulfil the early assurances of immunity from disaster is almost an anticipation of the Lord’s parable and of Israel’s calamitous experiences among the nations: “O Lord . . . remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy longsuffering (that is, God’s toleration of the prophet’s wicked adversaries) … thou hast filled me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a deceitful vision, and as waters that are not sure (a mirage in the desert)?” (15:15,18).

In the parable the widow’s plea: “Avenge me of mine adversary,” has baffled the commentators, so that in desperation they (and quite a few modern translators with them) have tried to make the word mean: “do me justice.” But in truth this Greek root means “avenge”, and nothing but that, in fifteen other New Testament passages.

It may be doubted, with some justification, whether the Jews have at any time in their tragic history bombarded heaven with importunate prayers for help, like the widow in the parable. That time is still to come, in the last days, when a stricken Israel, beaten to her knees by the terror and triumph of a host of enemies, will turn in desperation from an age-long self-reliance to a pitiful agonizing plea to the God of Abraham. Then, and not till then, will God really “avenge his elect, which cry day and night unto him (cp. Acts 26 :7), though he is longsuffering (with the God-less nations) regarding them” (cp. Is.40 :27; Ps.68 :5). And then, He will avenge them speedily (2 Pet.3:9). There is a seeming contradiction between this word “speedily” and the widow’s sustained importunity, for clearly she did not get a response at first asking. In the application of the parable to Jewry in the Last Days the difficulty evaporates. Through the centuries there has been long drawn-out Jewish need, apparently ignored, But when there is repentance in Israel, if only in a minority, then God will act speedily (Mt.24 :22; see “The Time of the End”, HAW, Ch.2).

Isaiah has two powerful passages which chime in perfectly with this interpretation: “Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off … Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. . . therefore his arm brought salvation … he put on garments of vengeance for clothing . . . fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies…” (59 :14-18). “Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth . . . say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh” (62:4,6,7,11).

Yet there is something very wistful about Christ’s last comment on his own parable: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith in the Land?” —as who should say: “If there is a faithful remnant among the chosen people in that day, it will surely be onlya remnant!”

Notes: Lk. 18:1-8

3.	Avenge me. But judges do not dispense vengeance. Here is another instance of a parable not being true to life.
4.	For a while. Lit: upon a time. The same sort of “time” as in Dan. and Rev.? Note again the application of this parable to Jewry.
	Afterward. Lit: after these things. What things? The events of ch. 17?
5.	This widow troubleth me. Here prayer has effect because it is urgent; in the next parable (v.13), because it is humble.
	She weary me. The Just Judge is wearied only when His people are silent. Other examples of God’s desperate for help: 2 Pet.3 :9,15; Rev. 6 :10; Ps.74 :10; 94 :3; Jn.ll :4; Mt.14 -.24,25.
7.	Which cry unto him. A loud cry of need: Jas.5 :4;Gen.4 :10.
	Longsuffering. A word used always in a good sense; 2 Pet.3 :9; Ecclesiasticus 35 :22 (and context).

The spirit of Pharisaism existed in Jewry long before the time of Jesus. Indeed, in human nature of a certain sort it is endemic. “There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up” (Pr.30 :12,13; and cp.28 :13). And Isaiah pilloried those “which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me: for I am holier than thou” (65 :5). These area smoke in God’s nose, and not sweet incense. “They trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (v.9) is very close to the LXX text of Ez. 33:13; “if he trust in his own righteousness,” a passage which has a marked contrast (in v.14-16) appropriate to redemption in Christ.

Jesus feared the growth of this self-righteous spirit in his disciples and in a short parable of matchless incisiveness he warned them against it.

Portrait One

First, there is the picture of the Pharisee who goes into the temple court and there strikes an attitude which will impress others whether they hear the tenor of his prayer or not. The Lord’s phrase provides a withering exposure: “he prayed with (more exactly, towards) himself.”

The opening words of his prayer are a formality: “God, I thank thee . . .” He is really thanking God for nothing. Nay, he is rather cong^ratulating God on having such a fine servant as himself. Indeed he seems almost to pity the Almighty for being so short of worshippers as faithful as himself.

“I thank thee that I am not as other men, not as the rest.” Thus he proudly divides into two categories all who are there in the temple court to worship—himself, and the others (Pharisee means separatist). How different is the spirit of men like Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah who, although actually untarnished by the wickednesses of their people, nevertheless confessed these sins as though they were their own (Dan.9 :3-15; Neh.l :5-7; Ezra 9 :6). But the Pharisee has no word about his own sins. Instead he happily writes his own testimonial and lays it confidently before the Lord of all. With what zest does he catalogue the sins of others—’extortioners, unjust, adulterers . . . this publican.” That last phrase shows that he had noticed the publican at prayer and therefore must have been aware of the man’s contrition. But he censures him none the less! He is serenely sure that in the evils he has mentioned with such relish he himself is blameless. It does not dawn on him, poor fool, that he has other sins which God abhors just as much.

Thus everything about him is deception. His parading of a life of righteous formality deceives others, he succeeds in deceiving himself (about himself), and consequently assumes that even the Almighty will be taken in.

This spirit of censure of others, which makes up an integral part of his prayers, is ever a danger signal! The reprobation of “this publican” (intended to be heard by him?) expresses the creed of the separatist. He speaks as though God needs the help of such as himself if the results of the Day of Judgment are to work out right. Yet he must have noticed the evident sincerity of the publican’s self-reproach. Eager to have himself taken at face value by other men, he is unable or unwilling to do the same for others.

Next comes a proud mention of his own positive virtues: “I fast twice in the week”— every Monday and Thursday, although the Law of Moses specified only the Day of Atonement for men to “afflict their souls” (Lev.16 :29). “I give tithes of all that I get,” even down to the trivialities of garden herbs (Mt. 23 :23; contrast Dt.14 :22). Thus he would outdo even his great forefathers, Abraham and Jacob (Gen.14 :20; 28:22).

There is no honour to God in prayer and worship of this sort, but only to himself. And of course that is the intention behind all he says and does.

Portrait Two

The contrast with the publican could hardly be greater. In all generations who has more practice than the tax-gatherer at the c 1 of reading the plausibility and deceitfulness of human nature? Yet this publican, although shrewd enough to see through the hypocrisy of the Pharisee, censures only himself, as he chooses a remote corner of the temple court and there continues to beat his breast in remorse for the life he has lived. Yet though he stands “afar off”, “the Lord is nigh unto him that is of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit” (Ps.34:18).

This man does not even wish to lift up his eyes to heaven (Ps.40 ;12), but only to prostrate himself in spirit before God.

Crashaw’s version of this parable is excellent:

“Two men went to pray: oh, rather say,

One went to brag: th’other to pray.

One stands up close, and treads on high,

Where th’other dares not send his eye,

One nearer to God’s altar trod,

The other to the altar’s God.”

And with what a prayer!: “God, be merciful to me the sinner” (cp. Lk.15 :18; Ps.32 :5; and contrast and compare the Pharisee Paul; 1Tim. l:15). He sees himself as the special sinner for whom the smoke of the altar offering rises up.

This idea comes out forcefully in the word he employs: “be propitiated to me.” Its meaning, very precisely, is that of reconciliation through sacrifice (see Heb.2 :17; Rom.3 :25; 1 Jn.2 :2; 4:10). So here is no flash-in-the-pan repentance of a religiously ignorant Salvation Army convert. This publican is one who understands and appreciates the principles of the forgiveness of sins through a God-appointed sacrifice. And, in consequence, he goes down to his house justified, not having done anything by which to be justified except to offer a fervent prayer for forgiveness, firmly believing that through the efficacy of sacrifice such forgiveness is there for the asking.

But the self righteous Pharisee is not reckoned righteous before God. The idiom “justified compared with the other” means: “and not the other” (Hab.2 :4). See the examples listed in Study 35.

For disciples, not Pharisees

This parable of contrast was not spoken by Jesus to Pharisees. Had he done so, would they have greatly resented the picture of themselves, or would they have seen nothing amiss in such a cartoon? Actually, the lesson was for the benefit of his own disciples in danger of becoming tainted with the Pharisaic spirit: “certain which trusted in themselves because they were righteous, and despised the rest.” It is also likely that the Lord looked ahead to a further reference of this parable to the Jews, the Pharisee nation.

And since Luke was guided to associate this parable closely with the preceding one (which clearly has special reference to the last days), there is some ground for believing that this spirit of Pharisaic self-satisfaction is to be looked for in the ecclesias of Christ near the time of the Lord’s coming. This finds some confirmation in the parable’s conclusion: “Everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (cp.14 :11: Pharisaism again). The words might well be the judicial pronouncement of Christ in the day when he separates sheep from goats.

Notes: Lk. l8:9-14

9.	Trusted, This perfect participle might imply: they had been in the habit of thinking in this way, and now (in spite of Christ’s teaching) they still thought so. In themselves. Gk: epi, depending on themselves.
10.	The other: Gk: heteros, one very different. In v. 14 Jesus applies the same word to the Pharisee.
12.	All that I possess. More exactly: get. The Hebrew equivalent goes back to the name Cain. The Pharisee does not attribute what he has gotten to the kindness of God, but to his own powers.

Jesus had raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, and he had done it before a great crowd of witnesses, many of whom were influential Jews from Jerusalem. It was a deliberate challenge to the leaders of the nation to face the unshakeable truth that he was “the Messiah, the Son of God, the Coming One” (11 :27). It was on appeal to them to yield him the loyalty he had a right to command.

The immediate effect of the miracle was to intensify that division amongst the Pharisees which had been evident when the blind man was healed (9 :16). For some it meant conviction and a decision, taken with reluctance (12 :42), that the claims of Jesus were true. But the majority with growing hostility, were driven into alliance with their enemies the Sadducees.

Now, for the first time, the Sadducee chief priests were seriously concerned by the activities of this Nazarene—and for very good reason: the raising of Lazarus had shattered one of their chief dogmas, that there is no resurrection.

“What do we?” they kept on asking with a rather pathetic stubborn bewilderment, “for this man doeth many signs.” By calling the Lord’s miracles “signs” they admitted to one another what nothing would have constrained them to confess in public. The husbandmen were even now saying: “This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours” (Lk.20:14). Or were they falling back on the Scripture (Dt.13 :l-32) which bade Jewish rulers discard the man whose “signs” seemed indisputable but whose moral teaching was palpably wrong? As though that could give them any comfort regarding Jesus! Yet the command there (v.5) to put such a miracle-worker to death evidently became the springboard for their next decision about Jesus (v.53). The irony of it!—for if that Scripture had been properly applied, what would have happened to them? (cp. also Ps.28:4,5).

Amid their puzzlement one thing was clear: action of some kind must be taken against Jesus of Nazareth: “If we let him thus alone (contrast Acts 5 :38), all men will believe on him. And the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” The “place” they spoke of was the temple (see Notes). Both it and the people of Israel were theirs, forsooth, to minister to their self-importance and pride!

They feared that the rising fervour of the people regarding Jesus might lead to insurrection against the Romans. This in turn would bring repressive measures and the temple, the centre and focus of all their influence and power, would be destroyed.

All this was alarmist, for they knew right well that if violence did flair up it would be in spite of and not because of Jesus. And when, during the next three months the Barabbas insurrection took place (Lk. 23 :19), there was violence and bloodshed (Lk.13 :l-5?) but no holocaust.

Or these men may have contemplated the possibility of Herod and themselves being removed from power so that the Romans might use Jesus, the son of David, as a puppet king of the Jews. To give the people a king descended from David would be a very popular move. It is not unlikely that the Roman authorities, knowing the pacific character of Jesus, had considered using him in this way. But if the Jewish rulers had such fears, they were ill-founded. Is it possible to imagine Jesus co-operating in such a scheme?

The prophet Caiaphas

The Sadducee high priest, Caiaphas (Cephas), addressing himself to a Sanhedrin which was predominantly Pharisee, broke into the perplexed discussion with a rough hectoring speech: “Ye know nothing at all, nor consider (s.w. Is.53 :4) that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” (cp. Ps.140 :9; 57 :6). These words “people, nation” were specially appropriate. In LXX the former means “Israel, God’s own people”, and the latter means “Gentiles.” Thus the prophet Caiaphas unconsciously referred to those, for whom Christ was to die, as the elect, and the Jews as a cast-off Gentile race.

“It is expedient for us”— no charge against Jesus was possible, but only this expediency, the policy of the politician in every generation. Here was Caiaphas, a shrewd, far-sighted man (humanly speaking), putting the alternatives before them with stark realism: either this Jesus dies or he will bring the whole of Jewry crashing down in indescribable disaster.

This is what he meant, but John the apostle, whose spiritual insight into the meaning of events is for ever taxing the power of his purblind readers, saw it differently: “This spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.” On this Wordsworth comments: “Jewish prophecy expires with a prophecy of Jesus on its lips”.

Clearly, to John the death of Jesus “for that nation” meant something much more profound than it did to Caiaphas. John’s interpretation was right, for the crucifixion of Jesus meant assurance, security, life for any of that nation who had the faith to accept him as such. And Caiaphas was wrong. For Jesus died as Caiaphas planned that he should, and as a direct consequence of that the Romans did come and take away their “place” (the temple) and their nation.

Pilate’s policy of expediency worked out the same way. “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend.” So he did not let this Jesus go, and as a result today the Nazarene is heir to the throne of Caesar. And it made things no better for Pilate. His term of office ended in disgrace—he was not Caesar’s friend. Thus “He that sitteth in the heavens” handles human scheming, and unregenerate men never learn the lesson.

But John had learned, and—perhaps unconscious of the unerring guidance behind his pen—he wrote of the unerring guidance in the tongue of Caiaphas: “being high priest that year he prophesied!”.

As God used the wilful Balaam to speak forth words of truth and soberness, so He could equally well make Caiaphas ben Machiavelli the mouthpiece of an inspired oracle.

There need be no difficulty here, for not infrequently God has used men to speak His truth without their being aware of it. Caiaphas’s rending of his high-priestly robes; Pilate’s notice affixed to the cross of Jesus; the words of Darius to Daniel about to be thrown to the lions: “Thy God … He will deliver thee” (Dan. 6 :16); Rabshakeh’s warning against Jewish reliance on Egypt (2 Kgs. 18 :21)— true prophecies, all of them!

High Priest that year

The difficulty still remains as to what connection this might have with Caiaphas being high-priest that year! It cannot be for nothing that John writes the fact three times.

A prophet is one who communicates the will of God to the people. The only prophecy that Caiaphas could make as high priest was the duty which fell to him that year, as it did each year by virtue of his office—the decision on the Day of Atonement, by casting lots, which goat should be slain as the sin offering for the people (Lev,16:8).

Thus John bids his readers see Jesus identified by God’s high priest as the true sacrifice for the sins of the people, and through that sacrifice the end of the temple and also the end of Israel as a people of special privilege. But he is not content to stop there: “And not for that nation only but also that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

One scrutinises the words of Caiaphas in vain for some pronouncement capable of bearing this kind of meaning to the insight of the apostle, The high priest may have added in his speech something else to this effect: ‘The death of this Jesus is in the interests of both parties-Pharisees and Sadducees; and of course by it our brethren dispersed through the empire will be saved also (because it is the temple that holds them together); also there will be a smile of favour from the Romans because through our prompt action upheaval throughout the country has been avoided. In this way the whole nation will not perish (at the hands of the Romans, but instead through one man’s death Jews and Romans can be friends together).’ On reflection this seems to be a fairly obvious argument for Caiaphas to add in his attempt at persuading the Council to unite in decisive action against Jesus.

Such an argument would be immediately susceptible of the very different kind of interpretation which John implies in his comment: “gathering together in one both Jews and Gentiles.”

But how could this link up with Caiaphas’s work of prophecy as high priest that year? The answer appears to be supplied by an important detail in the Law of Moses: the Day of Atonement ritual, and in particular the fast which was its outstanding feature, was binding upon all, “whether it be one in your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you (Lev. 16:29).

Thus the Day of Atonement sacrifice “gathered together in one” both Jews and Gentiles, and the one sacrifice picked out by prophecy of the high-priest sufficed to cover (the sins of all.

Ephraim ministry

Very differently, evil men in Jerusalem who should have been humbling themselves before Jesus, coolly decided that to suit their self-interest he must die. It was a situation which had arisen directly from the raising of Lazarus. Thus, with beautiful symbolism, close connection is made between the death of Christ and the resurrection of his friends.

And Jesus knew of their scheming, either through the wisdom and insight that was in him, or because warning reached him from some secret sympathiser in the Sanhedrin. So he withdrew from Jerusalem to a remote place beyond the Jordan (or, as some think, 13 miles north of Jerusalem). And apparently he took Lazarus with him, for his life was now under threat also (12 :10,11—and note that v.9 implies his absence until Passover week).

In the way in which John reports this move to the country it is possible to see his symbolic mind still at work: “Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews (the withdrawing of Jewish opportunity to hear the gospel), but he went thence into the (Gentile) wilderness, into a city called Ephraim (“Fruitful”), and there he continued with his disciples.” The allusion to Ephraim is specially significant as recalling the prophecy which the patriarch Jacob made concerning Joseph’s younger son, foreshadowing the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s chosen people: “the younger brother shall be greater, and his seed shall become the fulness of Gentiles” (Gen.48 :19; Rom. 11 -.25). Ephraim was also the beginning of the end for those who rejected David’s right to be king in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 18 :6).

There is a gap of some two or three months between verses 54, 55, and then comes more of this symbolism. John paints a brief but vivid picture of the build-up of excitement in Jerusalem (11:55,56) when “the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand.” Moses had taught them to call it: “the Lord’s passover” (Lev. 23 :2,5), but the rejection of Jesus meant the rejection of their devotions (Is. l :24).

The Passover pilgrims who were early in the holy city to ensure their ceremonial cleansing before the feast talked eagerly in the crowd about Jesus. They were quite sure in themselves (Gk. ou me) that after what had happened he would not risk coming to Jerusalem, the more so since there had been public proclamation that any man knowing of his whereabouts must lay information with the rulers. This policy may have been the chief priests’ plan to scare Jesus away from the capital. On the other hand, one scholar has suggested that Jesus had been formally condemned to death in absentia and that by the time Passover came round the legal period of forty days (according to the Talmud) for making a rebuttal of the charge had expired. This interesting suggestion lacks full support, and is not easy to harmonize with the insistence on a full legal trial of Jesus when he was arrested.

The remarkable thing is that although there was now a price on the head of Jesus no one did betray him until at last his own familiar friend handed him over to his enemies.

Notes: Jn. 11:45-57

45.	The Jews which come to Mary. Why to Mary and not Martha?
47.	What do we? Not: What should we do? The implication is: See what amazing things he does; and we do nothing.
48.	Thus seems to allude back to 10 :39, when they had allowed (sic!) Jesus to escape them.
	All men will believe on Him. They speak as though this would be the crowning disaster.
	Place. Compare the common Old Testament usage of “place” (maqom) for “sanctuary” or “altar”; e.g. Gen.22 :3,4,9,14; 28 :11-19; Dt.12 :11-21; Ps.24 :3; 26 :8; 132 :5; ls.60 :13; 66 :1 etc. Also, Acts 6 :14; 7:33,49;21 :28.
49.	One of them. This unusual and emphatic Gk. phrase is really a Hebraism meaning: the outstanding man among them.
50.	One man should die. Gk: mello means either (a) ‘is about to’, or (b) ‘he is destined to’, i.e. this is the will of God— another detail in this unconscious prophecy.
51.	He prophesied. And so also did Isaiah, concerning this very situation: 28 :14-22 (some of the details are difficult).
52.	Gather together . . . scattered. Consider here the remarkable fitness of Hos.l :11: “gathered together . . . scattered;” Is.49 :5,6; “Israel not gathered . . . Gentiles;” cp. Rom.9 :26.
54.	Jesus therefore. This makes a definite link with v.53.