Lucas 16
William Barclay · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 16
Barclay says that “if only the Christian was as eager and ingenious in attaining goodness as the man of the world is in his drive to attain money and comfort.” What the Bible teaches - In application, our use of means to minister to the needy, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, nurse the sick, further the work of the Lord is a "making friends" of mammon that if merely spent in self indulgence would fail and leave us with nothing. The proper use of the mammon gives it eternal value through the people who have been blessed by it. (What the Bible teaches – Luke) Stein clarifies that "The giving of alms to the poor does not bring about eternal life, but the life of repentance and faith that gives alms out of a love for God and neighbor does. The use of one’s possessions described here does not bring about God’s mercy and grace (to earn “grace” is a contradiction of terms) but is itself brought about by God’s mercy and grace." (See Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition)
Lucas 16
Barclay - Jesus said to his disciples, “There was a rich man who had a steward. He received information against the steward which alleged that he was dissipating his goods. There was a rich man Mt 18:23,24; 25:14-30 who had a manager, Luke 8:3; 12:42; Ge 15:2; 43:19; 1 Chr 28:1; 1 Cor 4:1,2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pe 4:10 this manager was reported to him as squandering his possessions Luke 16:19; 15:13,30; 19:20; Pr 18:9; Hosea 2:8; James 4:3 Luke 16 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 16:1-13 How to be Truly Rich - Steven Cole Luke 16:1-13 Investing Earthly Finances with an Eternal Focus - John MacArthur Related Passages: Luke 6:24+ “But woe to you who are rich (plousios), for you are receiving your comfort in full. Luke 12:16+ And He told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich (plousios) man was very productive. Luke 14:12+ And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich (plousios) neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. Luke 16:19, 21-22 Now there was a rich (plousios) man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich (plousios) man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich (plousios) man also died and was buried. Luke 18:23+ But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich (plousios). Luke 18:25+ “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich (plousios) man to enter the kingdom of God.” Luke 19:2+ And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich (plousios). Luke 21:1+ And He looked up and saw the rich (plousios) putting their gifts into the treasury. THE UNRIGHTEOUS STEWARD Although Jesus does not specifically label this story a parable, many commentators assume it was a parable (which has one central point/teaching) and entitle it the "Parable of the Unjust Steward." It is not the easiest story to understand, but when one does grasp Jesus' intent, it gives us a powerful principle we can apply practically. Keep reading and don't be frustrated as their is "a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow!" That may not be the best idiomatic phrase as most dictionaries state it is something one longs for or hopes to get but is unlikely to achieve or receive. There is some truth in that regarding this parable for it does describe something every believer hopes to receive but which not every believer will receive, i.e., unless they seek to practice the principle which Jesus teaches (you will have to read the full parable to fully understand this somewhat enigmatic statement!) One of the main problems for interpreters is they see Jesus seeming to praise an unrighteous manager (steward). However the text does not say he praised his dishonesty, but because he "had acted shrewdly." (Lk 16:8+) Furthermore, it is not Jesus Who is praising the unrighteous manager, but the manager's master as we shall see. John MacArthur gives us some background information to help set the stage for Jesus' teaching in Luke 16 - Jesus gave us just shy of forty parables. They are included in the gospel record. One out of three — or about a third — deal with money in some way. That is not surprising that money should have a dominant role in the teaching of Jesus, since it has such a dominate role in our lives. We spend, according to statistics, more of our waking time thinking about money than not thinking about money, how to acquire it, how to acquire more of it, how to spend it, how to save it, how to invest it, how to borrow it, counting it, sometimes giving it away, loaning it. Money and possessions, wealth are so much a part of this world's experience that they actually dominate, define, and determine an inordinate, if not a consuming, portion of our lives. If you were to be, say 85 yo, statistics say that you would have spent nearly fifty years of your waking time thinking about money! That's too much. Sadly, all that thinking about money may not be wise. We can be so foolish when it comes to money. Our Lord redirects our attitude toward money in the parable. (Luke 16:1-13 Investing Earthly Finances with an Eternal Focus) Bruce Goettsche - This morning we are going to look at a parable that describes a man of the world. I’m going to tell you up front that you probably aren’t going to like this guy. He’s like a scam artist that is out to steal your identity and empty your bank account. However, Jesus draws some lessons from this guy that we need to hear. Lessons that could change the entire complexion of our church, and if embraced widely, could change the focus of the church as a whole. (ED: I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE - IF WE WOULD LET JESUS' WORDS IN THIS PARABLE REALLY SINK IN, THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RADICALLY CHANGE OUR LIFE NOW ON EARTH AND OUR LIFE LATER IN HEAVEN AND FOR ALL ETERNITY!) (Taking a Lesson from the World) Now (kai) He was also saying to the disciples (mathetes) there was a rich man (plousios) who had a manager (oikonomos - a steward) - Now (kai) is a coordinating conjunction and suggests a connection this the previous parable in Luke 15:1-32 (but not everyone agrees). In any event the "lost and found" in Luke 15 now turns to possessions/money in Luke 16. In Luke 15 the message was more "evangelistic" and directed especially at the prideful, legalistic Pharisees and scribes who desperately needed to recognize that they were (spiritually) lost so that they might be found by God. Now Jesus shifts to His disciples and while clearly the Pharisees are listening (Lk 16:14), this message is more of a discipleship lesson, on how disciples are to live their lives although it clearly ends with a warning to the Pharisees in the death and fate of a very rich man (Lk 16:19-31+). Now keep in mind that although Jesus is addressing "the disciples," this group is not necessarily all saved individuals. As explained below, disciples were followers and probably most of those who were following Jesus at this time were interested in His teaching and His miracles but had not yet placed their faith in Him as their Messiah and Redeemer. For example in John 6:66 we see the response to His teaching the disciples that He was the Bread of life and "As a result of this many of His disciples (mathetes) withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." In other words they were not truly disciples, truly believers as defined by Jesus in John 8:31-32 (“If you continue [remain, abide] in My word, then you are truly [alethos] disciples of Mine"). They did not abide with Jesus but withdrew from Him! They enjoyed eating the bread He supplied, but not His word that He was the "living Bread" (life giving Bread) which they were to eat in order to live forever! (John 6:51) Steven
Lucas 16
Barclay - “The steward had followed a career of embezzlement.”
Lucas 16
Barclay - Originally mammon was not a bad word at all. The Rabbis, for instance, had a saying, “Let the mammon of thy neighbor be as dear to thee as thine own.” That is to say, a man should regard his neighbor’s material possessions as being as sacrosanct as his own. But the word mammon had a most curious and a most revealing history. It comes from a root which means to entrust; and mammon was that which a man entrusted to a banker or to a safe deposit of some kind. Mammon was the wealth which a man entrusted so someone to keep safe for him. But as the years went on mammon came to mean, not that which is entrusted, but that in which a man puts his trust. The end of the process was that mammon came to be spelled with a capital M and came to be regarded as nothing less than a god. The history of that word shows vividly how material possessions can usurp a place in life which they were never meant to have. Originally a man’s material possessions were the things which he entrusted to someone else for safe-keeping; in the end they came to be the things in which a man puts his trust. Surely there is no better description of a man’s god, than to say that his god is the power in whom he trusts; and when a man puts his trust in material things, then material things have become, not his support, but his god… One thing emerges from all this—the possession of wealth, money, material things is not a sin, but it is a grave responsibility. If a man owns many material things it is not so much a matter for congratulation as it is a matter for prayer, that he may use them as God would have him to do. (Matthew 6 Commentary) R Kent
Lucas 16
Barclay - In the eyes of Jewish law a woman was a thing. She could divorce her husband only if he became a leper or an apostate or if he sexually assaulted a virgin. Otherwise a woman had no rights whatever and no redress, other than that the marriage dowry must be repaid if she was divorced. The law said, 'A woman may be divorced with or without her will; a man only with his will.' The Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:1) said, 'Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce.' The bill of divorce had to be signed before two witnesses and ran, 'Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt.' Divorce was as simple and easy as that. The matter turned on the interpretation of the phrase some indecency in the Mosaic regulation. There were two schools of thought. The school of Shammai said that meant adultery and adultery alone. The school of Hillel said it could mean 'if she spoiled a dish of food; if she spun in the street; if she talked to a strange man; if she was guilty of speaking disrespectfully of her husband's relations in his hearing; if she was a brawling woman', which was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next house. Rabbi Akiba went so far as to say that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman who was fairer than she. Human nature being what it is, it was the school of Hillel which prevailed, so that in the time of Jesus things were so bad that women were refusing to marry at all and family life was in danger. Jesus here lays down the sanctity of the marriage bond. The saying is repeated in Matthew 5:31-32 where adultery is made the sole exception to the universal rule. We sometimes think our own generation is bad, but Jesus lived in a generation where things were every bit as bad. If we destroy family life, we destroy the very basis of the Christian life, and Jesus here lays down a law which we relax only at our peril. (Luke 16) Here is an entry related to the loose rules for divorce from the Mishnah 9:10 A The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, B “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Dt. 24:).” C And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything. E R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she, F “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Dt. 24:1).” ILLUSTRATION (Respect for Authority of Jesus) - In 1881, the wild western town of Cranberry Gulch, California needed a teacher for its one-room school. The last three teachers had not been able to deal with the rowdy students. One lay in the graveyard, another lost his eye, and the third left before noon on his first day. A slender-built man named Harry Floto applied for the job. The person doing the hiring doubted that he would fare much better than the others, but there wasn’t a flood of applicants, so he got the job. Word spread and the students were relishing how they would get rid of this new victim. The first day he showed up carrying a traveling bag. One 18-year-old tough joked that he came prepared to take off when he found out that they were too much for him. Ignoring them, Floto went inside. The students followed, curious to see what he’d do next. He opened his bag, took out a belt, and buckled it around his waist. Next, he put three Colt revolvers there, and a Bowie knife. While the students watched, Floto tacked a white card to the wall opposite his desk. Crossing the room, he drew a revolver from his belt and fired six bullets into a spot the size of a silver dollar. While the pop-eyed students stared, the schoolmaster walked half way across the room, Bowie knife in hand, wheeled, and threw it so that it stuck, quivering, in the center of the card. Leaving it there as a reminder, Floto took two more knives from his bag and stuck them in his belt. He then reloaded his smoking revolver. He then ordered the 18-year-old to ring the bell to signal the start of class; he did so without a word. After the students were all seated, Floto cocked a revolver and announced, “We will arrange the classes.” Then he heard a whisper behind him. Whirling, Floto drew his gun and roared, “No whispering allowed in here!” “I’ll not do so any more,” the boy said. “See that you don’t,” Floto barked. “I never give a second warning.” Within a month, Floto put away his weapons and his pupils learned to love as well as to respect him. He stayed for two years. (Reported in The San Francisco Chronicle, 1881.) Just as those students learned to respect the authority of that teacher, so we need to respect the absolute authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is God’s King, and we dare not scoff at Him or His Word that tells us how we should live. There is an entire movement in the evangelical camp devoted to promoting the nonsense that it is possible to accept Jesus as Savior, and yet not live under His lordship. I hope that you see that to question Jesus’ authority in any way is a most risky thing to do! He is King; we must submit to Him, even on the thought level. (Steven Cole Scoffing or Submitting?) Related Questions on Divorce: What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? Is remarriage after divorce always adultery? What does Malachi 2:16 mean when God says, “I hate divorce”? What are biblical grounds for divorce? Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians? What does Deuteronomy 24 teach about divorce? Does the Bible say that abandonment is a valid reason for divorce and remarriage? Why does God hate divorce? What does the Bible say about remarriage if a divorce occurred before salvation? Is abuse an acceptable reason for divorce? What does “what God has joined together, let no one separate” mean? What is the exception clause? I am divorced. Can I remarry according to the Bible? Does the Bible support the Catholic practice of a marriage annulment? Questions about Marriage Can a couple who has gotten divorced get remarried? Is a man who divorced and remarried before coming to Christ eligible to pastor a church? What does the Bible say about prenuptial agreements? What does the Bible say about an unhappy marriage? What does the Bible say about a trial separation in a marriage? Luke 16:19 "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. KJV Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: Now there was a rich man Luke 12:16-21; 18:24,25; James 5:1-5 habitually dressed Luke 16:1; 15:13; Job 21:11-15; Ps 73:3-7; Ezek 16:49; Amos 6:4-6; Rev 17:4; Rev 18:7,16 purple and fine linen Judges 8:26; Esther 8:15; Ezek 16:13; 27:7; Mark 15:17,20 Luke 16 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Jesus' View of Eternal Punishment (Mt 25:31-46 - Robert L. Thomas - 31 pp Hell: Never, Forever, or Just for Awhile - Richard Mayhue - 16 pp Paul’s Concept Of Eternal Punishment - James Rosscup - 24 pp Eternal Punishment In John’s Revelation - Trevor P Craigen, 13 pp A Kinder, Gentler Theology Of Hell? - Larry D. Pettegrew, 17 pp Luke 16:19-31 A Great Chasm Fixed - Steven Cole Luke 16:19-31 A Testimony of One Surprised to be in Hell, Part 1 - John MacArthur Luke 16:19-31 A Testimony of One Surprised to be in Hell, Part 2 - John MacArthur Luke 16:19-31 A Testimony of One Surprised to be in Hell, Part 3 - John MacArthur Luke 16:19-31 A Testimony of One Surprised to be in Hell, Part 4 - John MacArthur Luke 16:19-31 A Testimony of One Surprised to be in Hell, Part 5 - John MacArthur INTRODUCTION PARABLE OR TRUE STORY - There is debate about whether Luke 16:19-31 is a (true) story or a parable, but most commentators consider this to be a parable even though it is not called a parable by Jesus (as in Lk 8:4; 12:16, 41; 13:6; 15:3; 18:9). The major argument for this not being a parable is that the poor man has a specific name Lazarus. Note that the KJV begins this section with "a certain rich man" which is also a characteristic way Jesus began his parables - see Lk 10:30, Lk 13:6, Lk 14:16, Lk 15:11, Lk 19:12KJV, as well as other parables outside of the Gospel of Luke. The only problem with that argument regarding the use of "certain man" as a "marker" (or identifier) of a parable is that is also appears in other texts that are clearly actual events and people! For example "a certain man suffering from dropsy." (Lk 14:2). John writes "a certain man was there who had been 38 years in his sickness." (Jn 5:5). John even identifies another Lazarus as "a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany." (Jn 11:1+). In Acts Dr Luke uses the phrase certain man in a number of true events - for example, "a certain man who had been lame from his mother's womb." (Acts 3:2KJV and NAS77), "a certain man named Ananias" (Acts 5:1KJV and NAS77) and "a certain man named Simon." (Acts 8:9KJV and NAS77), "a certain man named Aeneas" (Acts 9:33KJV and NAS77), "a certain man at Caesarea," (Acts 10:1KJV and NAS77), "there was sitting a certain man" (Acts 14:8KJV and NAS77), etc. Here is the point - one cannot use the fact that Lk 16:9 begins with the designation "certain man" to prove the argument that Lk 16:19-31 is a parable. The fact is that this same designation is used more often to begin non-parabolic stories! I think Warren Wiersbe has one of the more balanced comments writing "Luke did not say that this narrative was a parable; perhaps it was an actual occurrence." (Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the New Testament - borrow) Most authorities agree that a parable usually has one primary spiritual truth which in this case would probably be the truth that the rich man was surprised to end up in Hell (i.e., many people will be shocked when they take their last breath! cf Mt 7:21-23+) and that the Law and Prophets (the Word of God) give us the truth (cf Ge 15:6+) to allow one to escape the horrible shock of hell and eternal punishment. But as you listen to sermons and read commentaries, it is interesting that even those who believe this is a parable (which we emphasize has one main truth and the details of which should not be "pushed" too far) devote considerable attention to the details of this story and even use those details to propose "doctrinal" truths about the fate of all souls who are lost because they rejected the free gift of salvation graciously offered by the Lord Jesus Christ (Ro 6:23+). The point is that many say it is a parable, but they exposit it as if it were a true story. Interesting! That said, I will refrain from being dogmatic about whether it is a parable or is a true story about real people.