Luke 16:20
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayGuzikHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
(20) And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus.—The word for “beggar,” it may be noted, is the same as the “poor” of Luke 6:20. The occurrence in this one solitary instance of a personal name in our Lord’s parables, suggests the question, What was meant by it? Three answers present themselves, each of which is more or less compatible with the other two. (1) There may have been an actual beggar of that name known both to the disciples and the Pharisees. (2) The significance of the name, the current Greek form of Eleazar (=“God is the helper”), may have been meant to symbolise the outward wretchedness of one who had no other help. (3) As that which seems most probable, the name may have been intended as a warning to Lazarus of Bethany. He was certainly rich. We have seen some reason to identify him with the young ruler that had great possessions. (See Notes on Matthew 19:18.) In any case he was exposed to the temptations that wealth brings with it. What more effectual warning could be given him than to hear his own name brought into a parable, as belonging to the beggar who was carried into Abraham’s bosom, while his own actual life corresponded more or less closely to that of the rich man who passed into the torments of Hades? Was he not taught in this way, what all else failed to teach him, that if he wished for eternal life he must strip himself of the wealth which made it impossible for him to enter the Kingdom of God? It may be noted that almost every harmonised arrangement of the Gospel history places the parable almost immediately before the death and raising of Lazarus (see Note on John 11:1), while in some of them the question of the young ruler comes between the two. The combination, in either case, suggests the thought of a continuous process of spiritual education, by which the things that were “impossible with men” were shown to be “possible with God” (Matthew 19:26). First the picture of the unseen world drawn in symbolic imagery, so as to force itself upon his notice, then an actual experience of the realities of that life; this was what he needed, and this was given him.

Laid at his gate, full of sores, . . .—Literally, at his porch, or gateway. The Greek word for “full of sores” is somewhat more technical than the English one; literally, ulcerated, one which a medical writer like St. Luke would use to express a generally ulcerous state of the whole body. The description led, in course of time, to the application of the leper’s name to those who suffered from leprosy, as producing an analogous condition, and so we get the terms, lazar, lazar-house, lazaretto. In the Italian lazzaroni the idea of the beggary is prominent without that of the sores.

Luke 16:20-21. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus — According to the Greek pronunciation; or Eliazar, according to the Hebrew; a name very proper for a person in such a condition, signifying, the help of God; or if, as some think, the word be derived from לא עזר, lo azer, a helpless person. Which was laid at his gate full of sores — He was so diseased and decrepit that he could not go himself to the rich man’s gate, but he was carried by some compassionate hand or other, and laid there; he was so naked that his ulcers lay uncovered and exposed to the weather; and so poor, that he desired to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. This expression, επιθυμων χορτασθηναι απο των ψιχιων, as Dr. Campbell observes, does not afford any foundation for supposing that he was refused the crumbs, the word επιθυμων, rendered desiring, not implying so much in the Scriptural use of it, and the other circumstances of the story not being consistent with such an opinion. For when the historian says, that he was laid at the rich man’s gate, he means not, surely, that he was once there, but that he was usually so placed, which would not probably have happened if he had got nothing at all by being laid there. The other circumstances concur in heightening the probability. Such are, the rich man’s immediately knowing him; his asking that he might be made the instrument of the relief wanted; to which may be added, that, though the patriarch upbraids the rich man with the carelessness and luxury in which he lived, he says not a word of inhumanity; yet, if we consider Lazarus as having experienced it so recently, it could hardly, on this occasion, have failed to be taken notice of. Can we suppose that Abraham, in the charge he brought against him, would have mentioned only the things of the least moment, and omitted those of the greatest? “Much injury,” adds the doctor, “has been done to our Saviour’s instructions, by the ill-judged endeavours of some expositors to improve and strengthen them. Many, dissatisfied with the simplicity of this parable, as related by the evangelist, and desirous, one would think, to vindicate the character of the Judge from the charge of excessive severity, in the condemnation of the rich man, load that wretched sinner with all the crimes which can blacken human nature, and for which they have no authority from the words of inspiration. They will have him to have been a glutton and a drunkard, rapacious and unjust, cruel and hard-hearted, one who spent in intemperance what he had acquired by extortion and fraud. Now, I must be allowed to remark that, by so doing, they totally pervert the design of this most instructive lesson, which is, to admonish us, not that a monster of wickedness, who has, as it were, devoted his life to the service of Satan, shall be punished in the other world; but that the man, who, though not chargeable with doing much ill, does little or no good, and lives, though not perhaps an intemperate, a sensual life; who, careless about the situation of others, exists only for the gratification of himself, the indulgence of his own appetites, and his own vanity, shall not escape punishment. It is to show the danger of living in the neglect of duties, though not chargeable with the commission of crimes; and particularly the danger of considering the gifts of Providence as our own property, and not as a trust from our Creator, to be employed in his service, and for which we are accountable to him. These appear to be the reasons for which our Lord has here shown the evil of a life, which, so far from being universally detested, is at this day but too much admired, envied, and imitated.” Thus also Henry: “It is not said that the rich man abused Lazarus, forbid him his gate, or did him any harm; but it is intimated that he slighted him, was under no concern for him, took no care about him. Here was a real object of charity, and a very moving one, which spoke for itself, and was presented to him at his own gate. The poor man had a good character, and a good carriage, and every thing that could recommend him. A little thing done for him would have been considered as a great kindness; and yet the rich man took no cognizance of his case; did not order him to be taken in and lodged in his barn, or one of his outbuildings, but let him lie there. Observe, reader, it is not sufficient not to oppress and trample upon the poor: we shall be found unfaithful stewards of our Lord’s goods, in the great day, if we do not succour and relieve them. The reason given for the most fearful doom is, I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat. I wonder how those rich people, that have read the gospel of Christ, and say they believe it, can be so unconcerned, as they often are, in the necessities and miseries of the poor and afflicted.” Moreover — Or rather, yea even, as αλλα και should be rendered, (for the circumstance is undoubtedly mentioned as an aggravation of the poor man’s distress,) the dogs came and licked his sores — In this manner did Lazarus, a child of God, and an heir of heaven, laid at the rich man’s gate, drag out an afflicted life, pining away with hunger, and cold, and painful disease; while the great man within, though a child of wrath, and an heir of hell, spent every day in the highest luxury of dress and table: the former, according to the opinion of the world, being a remarkable instance of the greatest misery, and the other of the most consummate felicity.

16:19-31 Here the spiritual things are represented, in a description of the different state of good and bad, in this world and in the other. We are not told that the rich man got his estate by fraud, or oppression; but Christ shows, that a man may have a great deal of the wealth, pomp, and pleasure of this world, yet perish for ever under God's wrath and curse. The sin of this rich man was his providing for himself only. Here is a godly man, and one that will hereafter be happy for ever, in the depth of adversity and distress. It is often the lot of some of the dearest of God's saints and servants to be greatly afflicted in this world. We are not told that the rich man did him any harm, but we do not find that he had any care for him. Here is the different condition of this godly poor man, and this wicked rich man, at and after death. The rich man in hell lifted up his eyes, being in torment. It is not probable that there are discourses between glorified saints and damned sinners, but this dialogue shows the hopeless misery and fruitless desires, to which condemned spirits are brought. There is a day coming, when those who now hate and despise the people of God, would gladly receive kindness from them. But the damned in hell shall not have the least abatement of their torment. Sinners are now called upon to remember; but they do not, they will not, they find ways to avoid it. As wicked people have good things only in this life, and at death are for ever separated from all good, so godly people have evil things only in this life, and at death they are for ever put from them. In this world, blessed be God, there is no gulf between a state of nature and grace, we may pass from sin to God; but if we die in our sins, there is no coming out. The rich man had five brethren, and would have them stopped in their sinful course; their coming to that place of torment, would make his misery the worse, who had helped to show them the way thither. How many would now desire to recall or to undo what they have written or done! Those who would make the rich man's praying to Abraham justify praying to saints departed, go far to seek for proofs, when the mistake of a damned sinner is all they can find for an example. And surely there is no encouragement to follow the example, when all his prayers were made in vain. A messenger from the dead could say no more than what is said in the Scriptures. The same strength of corruption that breaks through the convictions of the written word, would triumph over a witness from the dead. Let us seek to the law and to the testimony, Isa 8:19,20, for that is the sure word of prophecy, upon which we may rest, 2Pe 1:19. Circumstances in every age show that no terrors, or arguments, can give true repentance without the special grace of God renewing the sinner's heart.Beggar - Poor man. The original word does not mean "beggar," but simply that he was "poor." It should have been so translated to keep up the contrast with the "rich man."

Named Lazarus - The word Lazarus is Hebrew, and means a man destitute of help, a needy, poor man. It is a name given, therefore, to denote his needy condition.

Laid at his gate - At the door of the rich man, in order that he might obtain aid.

Full of sores - Covered with ulcers; afflicted not only with poverty, but with loathsome and offensive ulcers, such as often are the accompaniments of poverty and want. These circumstances are designed to show how different was his condition from that of the rich man. "He" was clothed in purple; the poor man was covered with sores; "he" fared sumptuously; the poor man was dependent even for the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table.

The dogs came - Such was his miserable condition that even the dogs, as if moved by pity, came and licked his sores in kindness to him. These circumstances of his misery are very touching, and his condition, contrasted with that of the rich man, is very striking. It is not affirmed that the rich man was unkind to him, or drove him away, or refused to aid him. The narrative is designed simply to show that the possession of wealth, and all the blessings of this life, could not exempt from death and misery, and that the lowest condition among mortals may be connected with life and happiness beyond the grave. There was no provision made for the helpless poor in those days, and consequently they were often laid at the gates of the rich, and in places of public resort, for charity. See Acts 3:2. The gospel has been the means of all the public charity now made for the needy, as it has of providing hospitals for those who are sick and afflicted. No pagan nation ever had a hospital or an almshouse for the needy, the aged, the blind, the insane. Many heathen nations, as the Hindoos and the Sandwich Islanders, destroyed their aged people; and "all" left their poor to the miseries of public begging, and their sick to the care of their friends or to private charity.

20, 21. laid—having to be carried and put down.

full of sores—open, running, "not closed, nor bound up, nor mollified with ointment" (Isa 1:6).

See Poole on "Luke 16:19"

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,.... By whom is designed, not any particular beggar in the times of Christ, that went by this name; though there were such persons in Israel, and in the times of our Lord; as blind Bartimaeus, and others: nor David, in the times of Saul, who was poor and needy; and who sometimes wanted bread, and at a certain time went to Abimelech for some: nor the godly poor in common, though the heirs of the heavenly kingdom are, generally speaking, the poor of this world; these receive Christ and his Gospel, and have their evil things here, and their good things hereafter; they are now slighted and neglected by men, but shall hereafter have a place in Abraham's bosom, and be for ever with the Lord: nor are the Gentiles intended; though they may be said to be poor and helpless, as they were without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, and without hope and God in the world; and were despised and rejected by the Jews, and not suffered to come into their temple, and were called and treated as dogs; though, as the Syrophenician woman pleaded, the dogs might eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table; and who, upon the breaking down of the middle wall of partition, were called by grace, and drawn to Christ, and were blessed with faithful Abraham, and made to sit down with him in the kingdom of heaven: but our Lord Jesus Christ himself is here meant; as appears from the cause and occasion of this parable, which was the derision of Christ by the covetous Pharisees, who, though high in the esteem of men, were an abomination to God; and from the scope and design of it, which is to represent the mean and despicable condition of Christ in this world, whilst the Pharisees, his enemies, lived in great pomp and splendour; and the exaltation of Christ hereafter, when they would be in the utmost distress; and also the infidelity of that people, who continued in their unbelief, notwithstanding the resurrection of Christ from the dead: the name Lazarus well agrees with him. The Syriac version calls him "Loozar", as if it signified one that was helpless, that had no help, but wanted it, and so a fit name for a beggar; and well suits with Christ, who looked, and there was none to help, Isaiah 63:5 nor did he receive any help from men; though rather, the word is the contraction of Eleazar, and so the Ethiopic version reads it here; and it is easy to observe, that he who is called R. Eleazar in the Babylonian Talmud, is in the Jerusalem called, times without number, , R. Lazar (h); and R. Liezer, is put for R. Eliezer: it is a rule given by one of the Jewish writers (i), that

"in the Jerusalem Talmud, wherever R. Eleazar is written without an "aleph", R. Lazar ben Azariah is intended.''

And Christ may very well be called by this name; since this was the name of one of his types, Eleazer the son of Aaron, and one of his ancestors, who is mentioned in his genealogy, Matthew 1:15 and especially as the name signifies, that the Lord was his helper: see Exodus 18:4. Help was promised him by God, and he expected it, and firmly believed he should have it, and accordingly he had it: God did help him in a day of salvation: and which was no indication of weakness in him, who is the mighty God, and mighty to save; but of the Father's regard to him as man, and mediator; and of the concern that each of the divine persons had for, and in man's salvation: and on account of his circumstances of life, he might be called a "poor man", as he is in 2 Corinthians 8:9 and frequently in prophecy; see Psalm 34:6 Zechariah 9:9 and though by assuming human nature, he did not cease to be God, or to lose the riches of his divine nature and perfections, yet his divine perfections, and the glory of them, were much hid and covered in his state of humiliation; and he was much the reverse of many of them in his human nature; in which he was exposed to much outward poverty and meanness: he was born of poor parents; had no liberal education; was brought up to a trade: had not a foot of ground to call his own, nor where to lay his head: and lived upon the ministrations of others to him; and when he died, had nothing to bequeath his mother, but left her to the care of a disciple: and he is further described, by his posture and situation,

which was laid at his gate; that is, at the "rich man's", as is expressed in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions: this was the place where beggars stood, or were laid, and asked alms; hence is that rule with the Jews (k), and in many other places the following phrase;

"if a man dies and leaves sons and daughters---if he leaves but a small substance, the daughters shall be taken care of, and the sons, , "shall beg at the gates."''

This denotes the rejection of Christ by the Jews; he came to them, and they received him not; he had no entrance into their hearts, and was admitted but into few of their houses; they put those that confessed him out of their synagogues; and caused him himself to depart out of some of their cities; they delivered him up unto the Gentiles that were without; and at last led him without the gate of Jerusalem, where he suffered:

full of sores; so Nahum Gamzu (l) is said to have his whole body, , "full of ulcers": sometimes the Jewish phrase, which answers to the word here used, is , "one plagued with ulcers" (m); and this by the commentators (n), is explained of a "leprous" person; so one of the names of the Messiah is with the Jews (o), which signifies "leprous", in proof of which, they produce Isaiah 53:4. "Surely he hath borne our griefs", &c. By these "sores" may be meant, sins; see Psalm 38:5. Christ was holy and righteous in himself, in his nature, life, and conversation; he was without both original, and actual sins, yet he was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was reproached and calumniated by men as a sinner; and had really and actually all the sins of his people on him, by imputation; and was made even sin itself, for them; so that in this sense he might be said to be full of them, though in himself he was free from them: they may also intend the temptations of Satan, those fiery darts which were flung at him, and by which he suffered; as also the reproaches and persecutions of men, which attended him more or less, from the cradle to the cross; together with all his other sorrows and sufferings, being scourged, buffeted, and beaten, and wounded for our sins, and bruised for our transgressions; of which wounds and bruises he might be said to be full.

(h) T. Hieros. Biccurim, fol. 63. 3, 4. & 64. 1. & 65. 3, 4. & Sheviith, fol. 36. 3. & passim. (i) Juchasin, fol. 81. 1.((k) Misn. Bava Bathra, c. 9. sect. 1. & T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 140. 2. Piske Tosaph. in Cetubot, art. 138, 372. (l) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 21. 1.((m) Misn. Cetubot, c. 3. sect. 5. & 7. 10. (n) Maimon. & Bartenora in lb. (o) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2.

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Luke 16:20-21. In view of the significance of the name, we can the less conclude, with Calvin and others, following Tertullian, that this is an actual history, since even at so early a period Theophylact describes the occurrence of the circumstances as ἀνοήτως.[208] ΛΆΖΑΡΟς, i.e. לַעְזָר, abbreviated for אֶלְעָזָר, Deus auxilium, as frequently also among the Rabbins. See Lightfoot on John 11:1. Not: לֹא עֶזֶר, auxilio destitutus (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others). But that any kind of confusion with the Lazarus from Bethany had arisen (de Wette) is a quite arbitrary conjecture. Just as groundless, moreover, is it either to doubt of the historical reality of the Lazarus of the fourth Gospel and his resurrection, because of the Lazarus of the parable being fictitious; or, on the other hand, to support this historical character by the assumption that Jesus in the parable referred to the actual Lazarus (Hengstenberg). The two men called Lazarus have nothing to do with one another. The name which the Lazarus of Bethany actually bore is here a symbolically chosen name, and how appropriate it is!

ἐβέβλητο] not: was laid down (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius), but pluperfect, had been thrown down. The poor sick man had been cast down there in order to procure for him what fell from the rich man’s table. Even in Matthew 8:6; Matthew 9:2, the idea is not merely that of lying, but of being cast down.

πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα] there at the gate (see on Matthew 26:71), which led from the ΠΡΟΑΎΛΙΟΝ into the house. The form ΕἹΛΚΩΜΈΝΟς (Lachmann, Tischendorf), afflicted with ulcers (from ἑλκόω), is convincingly attested, and that in opposition to the usage elsewhere (Eur. Alc. 878: ἭΛΚΩΣΕΝ; Plut. Phoc. 2 : τὰ ἡλκωμένα); but it was probably formed by Luke, according to the analogy of the augment of ἕλκω and ἑλκύω (Lobeck, Paral. p. 35 f.).

Luke 16:21. ἘΠΙΘΥΜῶΝ] desiring, craving after it. Whether he received of what fell or not is left undecided by the expression in itself, and de Wette (comp. Bleek) leaves the matter as it is, there being, as he thinks, nothing at all said about what was done or not done, but only about a lot and a condition. But the following ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ Κ.Τ.Λ. shows that the craving was not satisfied, which, moreover, presents itself a priori according to the purpose of the description as the most natural thing. The addition borrowed from Luke 15:16 : καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ, in min. and vss., after πλουσίου, is hence (comp. Luke 15:16) a gloss correct in sense.

ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΟἹ ΚΎΝΕς Κ.Τ.Λ.] but, instead of being satisfied, even still (ΚΑΊ, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134) the dogs came, etc. An aggravation of the misery, and that too not merely as depicting the negative evil of neglect (ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔρημος τῶν θεραπευσόντων, Theophylact; comp. Euthymius Zigabenus), but also positively: the unclean beasts and their licking (ἐπέλειχον) aggravating the pain of the helpless creature! According to others (Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Wetstein, Michaelis, and others, including Kuinoel, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek), even the dogs appeared to have compassion upon him. So also Klinckhardt, super parab. de hom. divite et Lazaro, Lips. 1831. But the idea of contrast which ἈΛΛΆ must introduce would not thus be made prominent, nor the accumulation which καί indicates, nor would the whole strength of the contrast between Luke 16:21-22 remain. According to Bornemann, the meaning is: οὐ μόνον ἐχορτάσθηἀλλὰ καὶ κ.τ.λ., “egestati ejus micae de divitis mensa allatae, vulneribus succurrebant canes.” This is opposed to the purpose of the doctrinal narrative, to which purpose corresponds rather the unmitigated greatness of the suffering (Luke 16:25; moreover, the rich man’s suffering in Hades is not mitigated).

[208] Nevertheless, the houses of the rich man and of Lazarus are still shown to this day on the Via dolorosa (Robinson, I. p. 387).

Luke 16:20. Λάζαρος gives the impression of a story from real life, but the name for the poor man is introduced for convenience in telling the tale. He has to be referred to in the sequel (Luke 16:24). No symbolic meaning should be attached to the name.—πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα αὐτοῦ: Lazarus is brought into relation with the rich man. This favours the view that the moral is the folly of neglecting beneficence. If the story were meant to illustrate merely the reversals of lot, why not describe Lazarus’ situation in this world without reference to the rich man? Is he placed at his door simply that he may know him in the next world?—εἱλκωμένος: covered with ulcers, therefore needing to be carried to the rich man’s gate; supposed to be a leper, hence the words lazaretto, lazar, etc.

20. named Lazarus] Lazarus is not from lo ezer, ‘no help,’ i.e. ‘forsaken,’ but from Eli ezer, ‘helped of God,’ Gotthilf. It is contracted from the commoner Eleazar. This is the only parable in which a proper name occurs; and the only miracles of which the recipients are named are Mary Magdalene, Jairus, Malchus, and Bartimaeus. Whether in the name there be some allusive contrast to the young and perhaps wealthy Lazarus, brother of Martha and Mary, as Prof. Plumptre has conjectured, is uncertain. From this parable come the words—lazaretto, lazzarini, a lazar, &c.

at his gate] Not a mere putt but a pulon—a stately portal.

Luke 16:20. Ὀνόματι, by name) Lazarus was known by his own name in heaven; whereas the rich man is not designated by any name (is not accounted worthy of any name or reputation marked by a name), Luke 16:25 [‘Son’], but has merely a genealogy in the world, Luke 16:27-28. [This is not due to the parabolic nature of the narrative, for] Even in a parable a proper name has place: Ezekiel 23:4 [Aholah and Aholibah]. However that there was really at Jerusalem at that time such a person, named Lazarus, is recorded by Theophylact from the tradition of the Hebrews.—ἐβέβλητο, was lying)[175] disabled in his limbs. His hunger and nakedness is opposed to the sumptuous fare and fine clothing of the rich man. The character which marked the soul of Lazarus is to be gathered in part from his own external condition, and in part from the opposite character of the rich man.—πυλῶνα, gate) that of a great house: the poor man was removed to a distance from the rich man, at such a distance however, as that the rich man might have been moved to compassion, and Lazarus at the same time might see his table. The antithesis is “Abraham’s bosom,” [κόλπον, Luke 16:22], Comp. note Acts 12:13 [πυλὼν is more spacious than πύλη, and may include the adjoining hall or uncovered entrance].

[175] Rather, he had been laid by others, not being able to move himself.—E. and T.

Verses 20, 21. - And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. In striking contrast to the life of the rich man, the Master, with a few touches, paints the life of the beggar Lazarus. This giving a name to a personage in the parable occurs nowhere else in the evangelists' reports of our Lord's parabolic teaching. It probably was done in this case just to give us a hint, for it is nothing more, of the personal character of the poor sufferer who in the end was so blessed. The object of the parable, as we shall see, did not include any detailed account of the beggar-man's inner life; just this name is given him to show us why, when he died, he found himself at once in bliss. Among the Jews the name very often describes the character of him who bears it. The Greek name Lazarus is derived from two Hebrew words, El-ezer ("God-help"), shortened by the rabbis into Leazar, whence Lazarus. He was, then, one of those happy ones whose confidence, in all his grief and misery, was in God alone. Well was his trust, as we shall see, justified. The gate at which he was daily laid was a stately portal (πυλών). Lazarus is represented as utterly unable to win his bread. He was a constant sufferer, covered with sores, wasting under the dominion of a loathsome, incurable disease. This representative of human suffering has taken a strange hold on the imagination of men. In many of the languages of Europe the name of the beggar of the parable appears in the terms "lazar," "lazar-house," and "lazaretto," "lazzaroni." Unable himself to walk, some pitying friend or friends among the poor - the poor are never backward in helping others poorer than themselves, thus setting a noble example to the rich - brought him and laid him daily close by the splendid gates of the palace of Dives. The crumbs signify the broken fragments which the servants of the rich man would contemptuously, perhaps pityingly, toss to the poor helpless beggar-man as he lay by the gate. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. These were the wild, homeless pariah dogs so common in all Eastern cities, who act as the street-scavengers, and are regarded as unclean. This mention of the dogs clustering round him does not suggest any contrast between the pitying animals and pitiless men, but simply adds additional colour to the picture of the utter helplessness of the diseased sufferer; there he lay, and as he lay, the rough homeless dogs would lick his unbandaged wounds as they passed on the forage. Luke 16:20Beggar

See on poor, Matthew 5:3.

Lazarus

Abbreviated from Ἐλεάζαρος, Eleazar, and meaning God a help. "It is a striking evidence of the deep impression which this parable has made on the mind of Christendom, that the term azar should have passed into so many languages as it has, losing altogether its signification as a proper name" (Trench).

Was laid (ἐβέβλητο)

Lit., was thrown: east carelessly down by his bearers and left there.

Gate (πυλῶνα)

The gateway, often separated from the house or temple. In Matthew 26:71, it is rendered porch.

Full of sores (εἱλκωμένος)

Only here in New Testament. The regular medical term for to be ulcerated. John uses the kindred noun ἕλκος, an ulcer (Revelation 16:2). See next verse.

Links
Luke 16:20 Interlinear
Luke 16:20 Parallel Texts


Luke 16:20 NIV
Luke 16:20 NLT
Luke 16:20 ESV
Luke 16:20 NASB
Luke 16:20 KJV

Luke 16:20 Bible Apps
Luke 16:20 Parallel
Luke 16:20 Biblia Paralela
Luke 16:20 Chinese Bible
Luke 16:20 French Bible
Luke 16:20 German Bible

Bible Hub






Luke 16:19
Top of Page
Top of Page