Luke 16:19

King James Version (KJV)

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Adam Clarke
Bible Commentary

There was a certain rich man - In the Scholia of some MSS. the name of this person is said to be Ninive. This account of the rich man and Lazarus is either a parable or a real history. If it be a parable, it is what may be: if it be a history, it is that which has been. Either a man may live as is here described, and go to perdition when he dies; or, some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the torments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in whichsoever of these lights it is viewed. Let us carefully observe all the circumstances offered hereto our notice, and we shall see - I. The Crime of this man; and II. His Punishment.

There was a certain rich man in Jerusalem. Provided this be a real history, there is no doubt our Lord could have mentioned his name; but, as this might have given great offense, he chose to suppress it. His being rich is, in Christ's account, the first part of his sin. To this circumstance our Lord adds nothing: he does not say that he was born to a large estate; or that he acquired one by improper methods; or that he was haughty or insolent in the possession of it. Yet here is the first degree of his reprobation - he got all he could, and kept all to himself.

He was clothed with purple and fine linen. Purple was a very precious and costly stuff; but our Lord does not say that in the use of it he exceeded the bounds of his income, nor of his rank in life; nor is it said that he used his superb dress to be an agent to his crimes, by corrupting the hearts of others. Yet our Lord lays this down as a second cause of his perdition.

He fared sumptuously every day. Now let it be observed that the law of Moses, under which this man lived, forbade nothing on this point, but excess in eating and drinking; indeed, it seems as if a person was authorized to taste the sweets of an abundance, which that law promised as a reward of fidelity. Besides, this rich man is not accused of having eaten food which was prohibited by the law, or of having neglected the abstinences and fasts prescribed by it. It is true, he is said to have feasted sumptuously every day; but our Lord does not intimate that this was carried to excess, or that it ministered to debauch. He is not accused of licentious discourse, of gaming, of frequenting any thing like our modern plays, balls, masquerades, or other impure and unholy assemblies; of speaking an irreverent word against Divine revelation, or the ordinances of God. In a word, his probity is not attacked, nor is he accused of any of those crimes which pervert the soul or injure civil society. As Christ has described this man, does he appear culpable? What are his crimes? Why,

He was rich.

He was finely clothed. And

He feasted well.

No other evil is spoken of him. In comparison of thousands, he was not only blameless, but he was a virtuous man.

But it is intimated by many that "he was an uncharitable, hard-hearted, unfeeling wretch." Yet of this there is not a word spoken by Christ. Let us consider all the circumstances, and we shall see that our blessed Lord has not represented this man as a monster of inhumanity, but merely as an indolent man, who sought and had his portion in this life, and was not at all concerned about another.

Therefore we do not find that when Abraham addressed him on the cause of his reprobation, Luke 16:25, that he reproached him with hard-heartedness, saying, "Lazarus was hungry, and thou gavest him no meat; he was thirsty, and thou gavest him no drink, etc.;" but he said simply, Son, remember that thou didst receive thy good things in thy lifetime, Luke 16:25. "Thou hast sought thy consolation upon the earth, thou hast borne no cross, mortified no desire of the flesh, received not the salvation God had provided for thee; thou didst not belong to the people of God upon earth, and thou canst not dwell with them in glory."

There are few who consider that it is a crime for those called Christians to live without Christ, when their lives are not stained with transgression. If Christianity only required men to live without gross outward sin, paganism could furnish us with many bright examples of this sort. But the religion of Christ requires a conformity, not only in a man's conduct, to the principles of the Gospel; but also a conformity in his heart to the spirit and mind of Christ.

Was this helpful?

Albert Barnes
Notes on the Whole Bible

There was a certain rich man - Many have supposed that our Lord here refers to a “real history,” and gives an account of some man who had lived in this manner; but of this there is no evidence. The probability is that this narrative is to be considered as a parable, referring not to any particular case which “had” actually happened, but teaching that such cases “might” happen. The “design” of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation. He had taught the danger of the love of money Luke 16:1-2; the deceitful and treacherous nature of riches Luke 16:9-11; that what was in high esteem on earth was hateful to God Luke 16:15; that people who did not use their property aright could not be received into heaven Luke 16:11-12; that they ought to listen to Moses and the prophets Luke 16:16-17; and that it was the duty of people to show kindness to the poor. The design of the parable was to impress all these truths more vividly on the mind, and to show the Pharisees that, with all their boasted righteousness and their external correctness of character, they might be lost. Accordingly he speaks of no great fault in the rich man - no external, degrading vice - no open breach of the law; and leaves us to infer that the “mere possession of wealth” may be dangerous to the soul, and that a man surrounded with every temporal blessing may perish forever. It is remarkable that he gave no “name” to this rich man, though the poor man is mentioned by name. If this was a parable, it shows us how unwilling he was to fix suspicion on anyone. If it was not a parable, it shows also that he would not drag out wicked people before the public, but would conceal as much as possible all that had any connection with them. The “good” he would speak well of by name; the evil he would not “injure” by exposing them to public view.

Clothed in purple - A purple robe or garment. This color was expensive as well as splendid, and was chiefly worn by princes, nobles, and those who were very wealthy. Compare Matthew 27:28. See the notes at Isaiah 1:18.

Fine linen - This linen was chiefly produced of the flax that grew on the banks of the Nile, in Egypt, Proverbs 7:16; Ezekiel 27:7. It was especially soft and white, and was, therefore, much sought as an article of luxury, and was so expensive that it could be worn only by princes, by priests, or by those who were very rich, Genesis 41:42; 1 Chronicles 15:27; Exodus 28:5.

Fared sumptuously - Feasted or lived in a splendid manner.

Every day - Not merely occasionally, but constantly. This was a mark of great wealth, and, in the view of the world, evidence of great happiness. It is worthy of remark that Jesus did not charge on him any crime. He did not say that he had acquired this property by dishonesty, or even that he was unkind or uncharitable; but simply that he “was a rich man,” and that his riches did not secure him from death and perdition.

Was this helpful?

Matthew Henry
Concise Bible Commentary

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.

Was this helpful?

SDA Bible Commentary (limited)
Volume 1-7

19. A certain rich man. [The Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31. On parables see pp. 203-207.] For what little is known concerning the circumstances under which this parable was spoken see on vs. 1, 14. The parable was evidently addressed to the Pharisees in particular (see chs. 15:2; 16:14), though the disciples (ch. 16:1), the “publicans and sinners” (ch. 15:1), and without doubt a large audience also (see on chs. 12:1; 14:25; 15:1), were present.

In this parable Jesus continues the lesson set forth in the parable of the Dishonest Steward (ch. 16:1-12), that the use made of the opportunities of the present life determines future destiny (see on vs. 1, 4, 9, 11, 12). That parable had been addressed particularly to the disciples (see on v. 1), but in v. 9 Jesus had turned from the disciples to the Pharisees present (see on v. 9). The Pharisees refused to accept Jesus’ teachings on stewardship and sneered at Him (see v. 14). Jesus then pointed out that they might be honored by men, but that God read their hearts like an open book (see on v. 15). They had had sufficient light; they had long enjoyed the instruction of “the law and the prophets,” and since the ministry of John the added light of the gospel had been theirs (see on v. 16). In vs. 17, 18 Jesus affirms that the principles set forth in “the law” are immutableâ€”God has not changedâ€”and gives an example of this sublime truth. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is then given to show that destiny is decided in this present life by the use made of its privileges and opportunities (see COL 260). In the first place, the “certain rich man” represents all men who make a wrong use of life’s opportunities, and, in a collective sense, it represents also the Jewish nation, which, like the rich man, was making a fatal mistake (see COL 267). The parable consists of two scenes, one representing this life (vs. 19-22), and another the next (vs. 23-31). The parable of the Dishonest Steward approached the problem from the positive point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who did make preparations for the future. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus approaches the same problem from the negative point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who failed to make such preparation. The rich man erred in thinking that salvation is based on Abrahamic descent rather than upon character (cf. Eze. 18).

Like all other parables, that of the Rich Man and Lazarus must be interpreted in harmony with its context and with the general tenor of Scripture. One of the most important principles of interpretation is that each parable was designed to teach one fundamental truth, and that the details of the parable need not necessarily have significance in themselves, except as “props” for the story. In other words, the details of a parable must not be pressed as having a literal meaning in terms of spiritual truth unless the context makes clear that such a meaning is intended. Out of this principle grows anotherâ€”that it is not wise to use the details of a parable to teach doctrine. Only the fundamental teaching of a parable as clearly set forth in its context and confirmed by the general tenor of Scripture, together with details explained in the context itself, may legitimately be considered a basis for doctrine. See pp. 203, 204. The contention that Jesus intended this parable to teach that men, whether good or bad, receive their rewards at death violates both of these principles.

As clearly set forth in the context (see above), this parable was designed to teach that future destiny is determined by the use men make of the opportunities of this present life. Jesus was not discussing either the state of man in death or the time when rewards will be passed out; He was simply drawing a clear distinction between this life and the next and showing the relationship of each to the other. Furthermore, to interpret this parable as teaching that men receive their rewards immediately at death clearly contradicts Jesus’ own declaration that “the Son of man shall Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ reward every man according to his works” when He “shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels” (see on Matt. 16:27; 25:31-41; cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-55; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Rev. 22:12; etc.). It is one of the most important rules of interpretation that figurative expressions and narratives are to be understood in terms of the literal statements of Scripture concerning the truths referred to. Even those who attempt to force this parable into a pattern of interpretation that teaches contrary to the immediate context and to the general tenor of Christ’s teachings concede that many of the details of the parable are figurative (see on vs. 22-26).

It may then properly be asked, “Why would Jesus introduce into a parable figurative illustrations that do not accurately represent truth as clearly set forth elsewhere in the Scriptures, and particularly in His own literal statements?” The answer is that He was meeting people on their own ground. Many in the audienceâ€”without the least OT Scriptural reason for doing soâ€”had come to believe in the doctrine of a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection (see COL 263). This erroneous belief, which does not appear in the OT, pervades post-exilic Jewish literature in general (see pp. 83-102), and like many other traditional beliefs, had become a part of Judaism by the time of Jesus (see on Mark 7:7-13). In this parable Jesus simply made use of a popular belief in order thereby to make forcibly clear an important lesson He sought to plant in the minds of His hearers. It may also be noted that in the preceding parable, that of the Dishonest Steward (Luke 16:1-12), Jesus neither commended nor approved of the dishonest steward’s course of action, although that action constitutes the main part of the story (see on v. 8).

Even the modernist International Critical Commentary comments as follows on v. 22: “The general principle is maintained that bliss and misery after death are determined by conduct previous to death; but the details of the picture are taken from Jewish beliefs as to the condition of souls in Sheol [see on Prov. 15:11], and must not be understood as confirming those beliefs.”

Sometimes attention is called to the fact that Jesus does not state that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, at least apparently in so far as Luke’s account goes (although one ancient manuscript [D] does call it a parable), whereas, elsewhere parables are usually so labeled (Matt. 13:3, 24, 33, 44, 45, 47). But it should be pointed out that although Jesus usually introduced a parable either by stating that it was a parable or by saying that the kingdom of heaven was like a person or a thing in the specific circumstances He then proceeded to relate, He did not always do so (see Luke 15:8, 11; 16:1 for examples). The same is true of various OT parables such as those of Judges 9:8-15 and 2 Kings 14:9, yet no one professes to believe that because these parables are not clearly labeled as such they are to be taken literally. The fallacy of such an argument is rendered obvious by a mere reading of the few references cited.

In this “rich man” Jesus undoubtedly intended the Pharisees to see themselves, and in the unhappy experience of the “rich man” to picture their own hapless fate (see on v. 14). Compare this “rich man” with the one of the preceding parable (v. 1). The translation of the Gr. plousios, “rich,” by the Latin dives in the Vulgate, has given rise to the popular tradition that the man’s name was Dives. A variety of names appear in various other versions, probably as a result of the feeling that if the poor man of the parable was named, the rich man should be also.

Purple. Gr. porphura, “a purple fabric,” or “a garment made from purple cloth”; here it probably refers to the costly outer garment, the “cloak,” or “mantle” (Gr. himation; see on Matt. 5:40), dyed a royal purple color. Purple was the color of royal dignity. Originally, porphura referred to a species of shellfish common in the Mediterranean, the murex, from which a purple dye was extracted. Then the term, or its equivalent, came to be applied to cloth so dyed or a garment made from that cloth (see Mark 15:17, 20; Acts 16:14; Rev. 17:4; etc.). This dye came in three shades, which might be described as purple, crimson, and blue.

Fine linen. Gr. bussos, “flax,” or “linen,” the cloth made from it; here it probably refers to the under garment, the “coat,” or “tunic” (Gr. chitÅÂn; see on Matt. 5:40), made of Egyptian flax. At first bussos referred to the flax itself, and then came to be applied to linen cloth made from the flax. As “purple” was the color of royal dignity, so “fine linen” was the fabric of luxury (see Rev. 18:12; 19:8, 14).

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Great Controversy, 385

Has not the same process been repeated in nearly every church calling itself Protestant? As the founders, those who possessed the true spirit of reform, pass away, their descendants come forward and “new-model the cause.” While blindly clinging to the creed of their fathers and refusing to accept any truth in advance of what they saw, the children of the reformers depart widely from their example of humility, self-denial, and renunciation of the world. Thus “the first simplicity disappears.” A worldly flood, flowing into the church, carries “with it its customs, practices, and idols.” GC 385.1

Alas, to what a fearful extent is that friendship of the world which is “enmity with God,” now cherished among the professed followers of Christ! How widely have the popular churches throughout Christendom departed from the Bible standard of humility, self-denial, simplicity, and godliness! Said John Wesley, in speaking of the right use of money: “Do not waste any part of so precious a talent, merely in gratifying the desire of the eye, by superfluous or expensive apparel, or by needless ornaments. Waste no part of it in curiously adorning your houses; in superfluous or expensive furniture; in costly pictures, painting, gilding.... Lay out nothing to gratify the pride of life, to gain the admiration or praise of men.... ‘So long as thou doest well unto thyself, men will speak good of thee.’ So long as thou art ‘clothed in purple and fine linen,’ and farest ‘sumptuously every day,’ no doubt many will applaud thy elegance of taste, thy generosity and hospitality. But do not buy their applause so dear. Rather be content with the honor that cometh from God.”—Wesley, Works, Sermon 50, “The Use of Money.” But in many churches of our time such teaching is disregarded. GC 385.2

A profession of religion has become popular with the world. Rulers, politicians, lawyers, doctors, merchants, join the church as a means of securing the respect and confidence of society, and advancing their own worldly interests. Thus they seek to cover all their unrighteous transactions under a profession of Christianity. The various religious bodies, re-enforced by the wealth and influence of these baptized worldlings, make a still higher bid for popularity and patronage. Splendid churches, embellished in the most extravagant manner, are erected on popular avenues. The worshipers array themselves in costly and fashionable attire. A high salary is paid for a talented minister to entertain and attract the people. His sermons must not touch popular sins, but be made smooth and pleasing for fashionable ears. Thus fashionable sinners are enrolled on the church records, and fashionable sins are concealed under a pretense of godliness. GC 386.1

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
Christ's Object Lessons, 260-71

This chapter is based on Luke 16:19-31.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Christ shows that in this life men decide their eternal destiny. During probationary time the grace of God is offered to every soul. But if men waste their opportunities in self-pleasing, they cut themselves off from everlasting life. No afterprobation will be granted them. By their own choice they have fixed an impassable gulf between them and their God. COL 260.1

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, 539-40

If men fail to render to God that which He has lent them to use to His glory, and thus rob Him, they will make an entire failure. He has lent them means which they can improve upon by losing no opportunity to do good, and thus they may be constantly laying up treasure in heaven. But if, like the man who had one talent, they hide it, fearing that God will get that which their talent gains, they will not only lose the increase which will finally be awarded the faithful steward, but also the principal which God gave them to work upon. Because they have robbed God, they will not have laid up treasure in heaven, and they lose their earthly treasure also. They have no habitation on earth, and no Friend in heaven to receive them into the everlasting habitation of the righteous. 1T 539.1

Christ declares: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon”—cannot serve God and your riches, too. “The Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided Him.” Mark the words of Christ to them: “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men [which is riches acquired by oppression, by deception, by overreaching, by fraud, or in any other dishonest manner] is abomination in the sight of God.” Then Christ presents the two characters, the rich man who was clothed with purple and fine linen, and who fared sumptuously every day, and Lazarus, who was in abject poverty and loathsome to the sight, and who begged the few crumbs which the rich man despised. Our Saviour shows His estimate of the two. Although Lazarus was in so deplorable and mean a condition, he had true faith, true moral worth, which God saw, and which He considered of so great value that He took this poor, despised sufferer and placed him in the most exalted position, while the honored and ease-loving man of wealth was thrust out from the presence of God and plunged into misery and woe unutterable. God did not value the riches of this wealthy man, because he had not true moral worth. His character was worthless. His riches did not recommend him to God nor have any influence to secure His favor. 1T 539.2

By this parable Christ would teach His disciples not to judge or value men by their wealth or by the honors which they received of others. Such was the course pursued by the Pharisees, who, while possessing both riches and worldly honor, were valueless in the sight of God and, more than this, were despised and rejected of Him, cast out from His sight as disgusting to Him because there was no moral worth or soundness in them. They were corrupt, sinful, and abominable in His sight. The poor man, despised by his fellow mortals and disgusting to their sight, was valuable in the sight of God because he possessed moral soundness and worth, thus qualifying him to be introduced into the society of refined, holy angels and to be an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ. 1T 540.1

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

More Comments

Jesus' Ministry in Galilee and Journey to Jerusalem

BibleTools.info

Bible Verse Explanations and Resources

Luke 16:19