RELATION OF 'SPIRITUAL' AND 'SECULAR.' tried in a small matter;' which is illustrated by the history of Moses and of David, who were both called to rule from the faithful guiding of sheep.a 275 CHAP. XVIII Shem. R., ed. Warsh. p. 7 b, about the xvi. 10 Considering that the Jewish mind would be familiar with such modes of illustration, there could have been no misunderstanding of middle the words of Christ. These converted publicans might think-and so may some of us-that theirs was a very narrow sphere of service, one of little importance; or else, like the Pharisees, and like so many others among us, that faithful administration of the things of this world (the Mamon of unrighteousness') had no bearing on the possession of the true riches in the next world. In answer to the first difficulty, Christ points out that the principle of service is the same, whether applied to much or to little; that the one was, indeed, meet preparation for, and, in truth, the test of the other. He St. Luke that is faithful—or, to paraphrase the word (TIσTÓS), he that has proved himself, is accredited (answering to p)—in the least, is also faithful [accredited] in much; and who in the least is unjust is also in much unjust.' Therefore, if a man failed in faithful service of God in his worldly matters-in the language of the Parable, if he were not faithful in the Mamon of unrighteousness— could he look for the true Mamon, or riches of the world to come? Would not his unfaithfulness in the lower stewardship imply unfitness for the higher? And-still in the language of the Parable— if they had not proved faithful in mere stewardship, in that which was another's,' could it be expected that they would be exalted from stewardship to proprietorship? And the ultimate application of all was this, that dividedness was impossible in the service of God. ver. 13 It is impossible for the disciple to make separation between spiritual matters and worldly, and to attempt serving God in the one and Mamon in the other. There is absolutely no such distinction to the disciple, and our common usage of the words secular and spiritual is derived from a terrible misunderstanding and mistake. To the secular, nothing is spiritual; and to the spiritual, nothing is secular: No servant can serve two Masters; ye cannot serve God and Mamon. xvi. 14-31 II. The Parable of Dives and Lazarus.-Although primarily a St. Luke spoken to the Pharisees, and not to the disciples, yet, as will presently appear, it was spoken for the disciples. The words of Christ had touched more than one sore spot in the hearts of the Pharisees. This consecration of all to God as the necessary condition of high spiritual service, and then of higher spiritual standing—as it BOOK IV were 'ownership'-such as they claimed, was a very hard saying. It touched their covetousness. They would have been quite ready to hear, nay, they believed that the 'true' treasure had been committed to their trust. But that its condition was, that they should prove themselves God-devoted in the unrighteous Mamon,' faithful in the employment of it in that for which it was entrusted to their stewardship, this was not to be borne. Nor yet, that such prospects should be held out to publicans and sinners, while they were withheld from those who were the custodians of the Law and of the Prophets. But were they faithful to the Law? And as to their claim of being the owners,' the Parable of the Rich Owner and of his bearing would exhibit how unfaithful they were in the much as well as in the little, in what they claimed as owners as well as in their stewardship—and that, on their own showing of their relations to publicans and sinners: the Lazarus who lay at their doors. Thus viewed, the verses which introduce the second Parable (that of Dives and Lazarus) will appear, not 'detached sayings,' as some commentators would have us believe, but most closely connected with the Parable to which they form the Preface. Only, here especially, must we remember, that we have only Notes of Christ's Discourse, made years before by one who had heard it, and containing the barest outline-as it were, the stepping-stones-of the argument as it proceeded. Let us try to follow it. As the Pharisees heard what Christ said, their covetousness was touched. It is said, moreover, that they derided Him-literally, turned up their noses at Him.' The mocking gestures, with which they pointed to His publican-disciples, would be accompanied by mocking words in which they would extol and favourably compare their own claims and standing with that of those new disciples of Christ. Not only to refute but to confute, to convict, and, if possible, to convince them, was the object of Christ's Discourse and Parable. One by one their pleas were taken up and shown to be utterly untenable. They were persons who by outward righteousness and pretences sought to appear just before men, but God knew their hearts; and that which was exalted among men, their Pharisaic standing and standing aloof, was abomination before Him. These two points form the main subject of the Parable. Its first object was to show the great difference between the before men' and the 'before God;' between Dives as he appears to men in this world, and as he is before God and will be in the next world. Again, the second main object of the Parable was to illustrate that their Pharisaic standing and standing aloof-the PREFACE TO THE PARABLE OF DIVES AND LAZARUS. bearing of Dives in reference to a Lazarus-which was the glory of Pharisaism before men, was an abomination before God. Yet a third object of the Parable was in reference to their covetousness, the selfish use which they made of their possessions-their Mamon. But a selfish was an unrighteous use; and, as such, would meet with sorer retribution than in the case of an unfaithful steward. But we leave for the present the comparative analysis of the Parable to return to the introductory words of Christ. Having shown that the claims of the Pharisees and their standing aloof from poor sinners were an abomination before God, Christ combats these grounds of their bearing, that they were the custodians and observers of the Law and of the Prophets, while those poor sinners had no claims upon the Kingdom of God. Yes-but the Law and the Prophets had their terminus ad quem in John the Baptist, who 'brought the good tidings of the Kingdom of God.' Since then 'every one' had to enter it by personal resolution and 'force.'a Yes-it was true that the Law could not fail in one tittle of it. But, notoriously and in everyday life, the Pharisees, who thus spoke of the Law and appealed to it, were the constant and open breakers of it. Witness here their teaching and practice concerning divorce, which really involved a breach of the seventh commandment. Thus, when bearing in mind that, as previously stated, we have here only the heads,' or rather the stepping stones,' of Christ's argument-from notes by a hearer at the time, which were afterwards given to St. Luke-we clearly perceive, how closely connected are the seemingly disjointed sentences which preface the Parable, and how aptly they introduce it. The Parable itself is strictly of the Pharisees and their relation to the 'publicans and sinners' whom they despised, and to whose stewardship they opposed thoughts of their own proprietorship. With infinite wisdom and depth the Parable tells in two directions: in regard to their selfish use of the literal riches their covetousness-and in regard to their selfish use of the figurative riches: their Pharisaic righteousness, which left poor Lazarus at their door to the dogs and to famine, not bestowing on him aught from their supposed rich festive banquets. On the other hand, it will be necessary in the interpretation of this Parable to keep in mind, that its Parabolic details must not be exploited, nor doctrines of any kind derived from them, either as to the character of the other world, the question of the duration of future punishments, or the possible moral improvement of those in Gehinnom. All such things are foreign to the Parable, which is 277 CHAP. XVIII a Sce St. Matt. xi. 12, and other remarks on the passage b St. Luke xvi. 16, 17 e ver. 18 BOOK IV avv. 16-22 only intended as a type, or exemplification and illustration, of what is intended to be taught. And, if proof were required, it would surely be enough to remind ourselves, that this Parable is addressed to the Pharisees, to whom Christ would scarcely have communicated details about the other world, on which the Lord was so reticent when speaking to the disciples. The Parable naturally falls into three parts. a 1. Dives and Lazarus before and after death, or the contrast between before men' and 'before God;' the unrighteous use of riches-literal and figurative; and the relations of the Pharisaic Dives to the publican Lazarus, as before men and as before God: the 'exalted among men' an abomination before God.' And the application of the Parable is here only the more telling, that alms were so highly esteemed among the Pharisees, and that the typical Pharisee is thus set before them as, on their own showing, the typical sinner. The Parable opens by presenting to us a rich man'clothed in purple and byssus, joyously faring every day in splendour.' All here is in character. His dress is described as the finest and most costly, for byssus and purple were the most expensive materials, only inferior to silk, which, if genuine and unmixed-for at least three kinds of silk are mentioned in ancient Jewish writings-was worth its weight in gold. Both byssus-of which it is not yet quite certain, whether it was of hemp or cotton-and purple were indeed manufactured in Palestine, but the best byssus (at least at that time 1) came from Egypt and India. The white garments of the HighPriest on the Day of Atonement were made of it. To pass over Jer. Yoma exaggerated accounts of its costliness, the High-Priest's dress of Pelusian linen for the morning service of the Day of Atonement was said to have cost about 36l.; that of Indian linen for the evening of the same day about 24l. Of course, this stuff would, if of Jer. Kidd. home-manufacture, whether made in Galilee or in Judæa,a be much cheaper. As regarded purple, which was obtained from the coasts of Shabb. 26 a Tyre, wool of violet-purple was sold about that time by the pound? at the rate of about 31. the Roman pound, though it would, of course, considerably vary in price. b Yoma iii. 6,7 iii. 6 62 c 1 Chel. xxix. 4 Quite in accordance with this luxuriousness-unfortunately not uncommon among the very high-placed Jews, since the Talmud (though, no doubt, exaggeratedly) speaks of the dress of a corrupt In later times Palestinian byssus seems to have been in great repute. See Herzfeld, Handelsgesch. p. 107. DIVES AND LAZARUS ON EARTH. 279 CHAP. XVIII iii. 6 High-Priest as having cost upwards of 300l.a—was the feasting every day, the description of which conveys the impression of company, merriment, and splendour. All this is, of course, intended to set Jer. Yoma forth the selfish use which this man made of his wealth, and to point the contrast of his bearing towards Lazarus. Here also every detail is meant to mark the pitiableness of the case, as it stood out before Dives. The very name-not often mentioned in any other real, and never in any other Parabolic story-tells it: Lazarus, Laazar, a common abbreviation of Elazar, as it were, 'God help him!' Then we read that he was cast' (Béẞnto) at his gateway, as if to mark that the bearers were glad to throw down their unwelcome burden.2 Laid there, he was in full view of the Pharisee as he went out or came in, or sat in his courtyard. And as he looked at him, he was covered with a loathsome disease; as he heard him, he uttered a piteous request to be filled with what fell from the rich man's table. Yet nothing was done to help his bodily misery, and, as the word 'desiring' (Ovμav) implies, his longing for the 'crumbs' remained unsatisfied. So selfish in the use of his wealth was Dives, so wretched Lazarus in his view; so self-satisfied and unpitying was the Pharisee, so miserable in his sight and so needy the publican and sinner. 'Yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores'—and it is not to be understood as an alleviation, but as an aggravation of his ills, that he was left to the dogs, which in Scripture are always represented as unclean animals. 3 So it was before men. But how was it before God? There the relation was reversed. The beggar died—no more of him here. But the Angels carried him away into Abraham's bosom.' Leaving aside for the present the Jewish teaching concerning the after death,' we are struck with the sublime simplicity of the figurative language used by Christ, as compared with the wild and sensuous fancies of later Rabbinic teaching on the subject. It is, indeed, true, that we must not look in this Parabolic language for Christ's teaching about the 'after death.' On the other hand, while He The better reading of ver. 20 is that adopted in the Revised Version: And a certain beggar named Lazarus '-only that we should render was cast.' 2 I cannot understand why Dean Plumptre should imagine that the name Lazarus had been chosen with special reference to, and as a warning to, the brother of Martha and Mary. If Lazarus of Bethany was thus to be warned in regard to the proper use of his riches, his name would have been given to Dives, |