Download 8737.Lenski - Luke 16 19

Lenski – Luke 16:19-32
Now there was a rich man, and he constantly put on himself purple and fine linen,
making merry day by day splendidly. Moreover, a beggar, by name Lazarus, had been
thrown at his portal, suffering from ulcers and longing to be filled from the things falling
from the table of the rich; yea, even the dogs coming kept licking his ulcers.
Like living pictures, the two men are distinctly flashed on the screen. But this is preliminary,
the main scene is to follow. We have τίς twice which is used like our indefinite article. We
construe: “A rich man there was,” not: “A man was rich,” although either construction is
possible. His being rich is nothing that could be reckoned against him, for Abraham, too, was
rich and appears in this very parable. Jesus gives this man no name; when we call him “Dives,”
that means “Rich.” One is struck by the fact that he appears without a name while the poor man
is given one. His name was not known in heaven.
We still read discussions as to whether these were two actual men whom Jesus knew and
used for this parable, or whether, as in other parables, notably in the one preceding, these were
imaginary persons. The question answers itself—the main part of the parable is placed into the
other world, these are figures that are used only in a parable. Nor need we disturb ourselves as to
whether this is a real parable or not and puzzle about the definition of a parable.
Nor was this rich man a Sadducee, many of whom were, indeed, rich and ostentatious. Those
who hold this view refer to some actual person like Caiaphas. But Sadducees denied the
resurrection, and this man believed in it (v. 30). Could he have been a Pharisee when Pharisees
did not live so voluptuously? And is Jesus not speaking to Pharisees so that this man ought to be
one? The question is pointless, for the parable does not turn on the fact of being rich or poor but
on unbelief which is exhibited in heartless selfishness in this life and in open contradiction in the
hereafter.
We regard ἐνεδιδύσκετο as a middle (not as a passive), for it was his own doing that “he put
on himself” (whether by the aid of a valet or not) “purple,” such as kings and nobles wore, in the
form of a magnificent long robe, “and byssus,” the finest of linen, in a tunic next to the body.
Both are named together in Esther 1:6 and Rev. 18:12. The point is that he wore such garments
all the time as the imperfect states—he moved in constant splendor. Likewise, “making merry
day by day (distributive κατά) splendidly”—his whole life was one gorgeous celebration. The
parable concerns him, hence the fact that he had a great following of friends who admired him
and basked in his favor is not added. All the parables are drawn with chaste simplicity.
20) We now have the complete opposite, but it is at once connected with the other. Πτωχός is
more than “poor”; it is derived from the verb “to crouch or cringe,” as a noun it means “beggar,”
as an adjective “beggarly,” which is exactly what Lazarus was. Jesus has, however, ennobled the
word (as he did in 6:20, etc.); and here, too, this “beggar” shines with a nobler splendor than the
rich man.
In one of the regular ways, with the dative ὀνόματι, his name is stated: “Lazarus”
(nominative). It is as if Jesus had looked into the book of life and found his name there but failed
to find the other man’s name. It is this naming of the beggar that leads many to think that both
men were real. Although it is exceptional in a parable, this common name seems to be
symbolical, “God a help.” It is shortened from Eleazaros and, stated right at the start, marks this
man as being one who put all his trust and faith in God.
And now we have the connection of these two men: “he had been thrown, dumped, at his
portal,” the grand, wide entrance through the wall that opened into the spacious courtyard of the
rich man’s palace; had been dumped and was now lying there. He could not move himself even
on crutches and those who carried his diseased body just dropped it down regardless of the groan
of pain they caused. Through that portal the rich man and his friends had to pass, had to see him
in his wretchedness, had to hear his quavering, begging voice as he stretched out his hand. That
is why he was put there—a golden opportunity for alms and for more than alms. “Disgusting!”
thought the rich man. Not one of the Old Testament statements about helping the helpless even
entered his mind, and his following imitated him. One word, a perfect participle, thus describing
his present state, explains the dumping at this place: “suffering from ulcers,” loathsome,
festering, painful, untended sores.
21) The present participle ἐπιθυμῶν, “longing to be filled,” etc., leaves unsaid whether his
longing was satisfied or not; and many feel certain that it was not. But why did he then remain
here and not seek another station? “The things falling from the table of the rich man” were,
indeed, the “off-falls,” waste to be thrown away into the street for the scavenger dogs to devour.
Not by any desire or order on the part of the rich man did the beggar receive any of these scraps
but by the kindness of some slave boy who was sent out to dispose of them.
The ἀλλά is not adversative: “but even the dogs,” etc. Our versions have the correct feeling
when they avoid “but” and translate “moreover” (A. V.) and “yea” (R. V.). This is the copulative
ἀλλά (R. 1186) which merely carries the description forward by adding a striking detail. This is
the fact that the dogs kept coming and licking the ulcers. These are the ownerless dogs that roam
the city and act as general scavengers and are known in all Oriental cities where they have not
been abolished.
There is a dispute as to whether this licking of the ulcers was an affliction or an alleviation. It
marks the abject state of this beggar, it was so low that such dogs were his only friends. The
views that they aggravated his ulcers, and that he was too weak to fend them off; or that they
treated him as almost being a carcass, reveal lack of dog knowledge. These dogs licked the
beggar’s sores as they would have licked their own, to clean and to ease them with their soft
tongues. Dogs did that, no one else would.
22) The main part of the parable begins. Now it came to pass that the beggar died and was
borne away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham; moreover, there died also the rich
man and was buried.
The accusative with the infinitives is the subject of ἐγένετο, compare 6:1. The beggar’s
disease killed him. Nothing is said about his burial; his body was ignominiously dumped into an
obscure grave; but his soul was borne into the bliss of heaven by God’s own angels. Tissot has a
wonderful painting of two glorious angels with six wings bearing the beggar’s soul into the
empyrean. The view that this was his body needs only to be mentioned in order to be rejected.
“Abraham’s bosom” is a Jewish designation for heaven. Abraham is the father of believers
who stood at the head of the old covenant. When the soul goes where he is, that means entrance
into heaven. “Bosom” does not refer to a feast at which the guests recline on the left elbow on
broad couches so that the person next to Abraham, on turning back, would let his head rest
against Abraham’s bosom. “Borne into Abraham’s bosom” conveys the idea of a child being laid
on Abraham’s bosom and being embraced by him. The expression is figurative, not only for
being in heaven where Abraham is, but as being in the most intimate association with the father
of believers, accepted and acknowledged as a son of Abraham (19:9). So all true believers are
borne into Abraham’s bosom.
“Borne by the angels into Abraham’s bosom”—these words have made an indelible
impression on all Christendom, and all the interpretation of learned exegetes who try to disturb
the honest faith which humbly accepts these words as they read has never succeeded in shaking it
in the least. In spite of everything I truly believe that God’s angels will stand around my
deathbed and will carry my soul into Abraham’s bosom!
We here meet the simple way in which Jesus speaks about the souls or spirits of the dead. All
conceptions of time and space, succession and distance, must be removed for the other world.
We know that they do not exist there. But our finite minds are inexorably fettered to these
mundane concepts and are unable to think in terms of the supernatural world. Hence the
Scriptures, even as Jesus here, condescend to us and use earthly terms to convey something of
the heavenly realities to us. If Jesus should speak in the terms of that world, no human mind
would understand a thing.
Two facts follow. We can only receive and accept what is thus told us and can do no more. It
is folly to rationalize, speculate, draw conclusions with our finite minds beyond what is so
inadequately conveyed to us. This extends to the spirits of the dead. Abraham has a bosom, the
rich man eyes and a tongue, yet as disembodied spirits they have neither. For us on earth no other
way of speaking about human or angelic spirits in the other world exists. To argue from this
language that these spirits have some kind of an impalpable body is unwarranted. To go farther
and to say that God creates these bodies for men as they die one by one, or that these bodies
already now await us is to increase the confusion of thought.
Whether sooner or later—it makes no difference—the rich man also died. The same word is
used with reference to both: each died. They were alike in this regard. “And was buried” means
far otherwise than the beggar was buried. That is why the word is used—vast mourning,
hundreds of friends, great display and honor. But no angels. How, then, did this man’s soul get to
hell? They know who get there!
23) And in hades, having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he sees Abraham from
afar and Lazarus in his bosom. And he, calling out, says, Father Abraham, have mercy on
me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water! and cool my tongue,
because I am anguished in this flame!
The fact that the rich man’s soul went to hell needed not to be stated. It is a master touch in
the parable to take that for granted. See 10:15 on the etymology of hades. The commentators are
divided on this word, and especially its use in this parable. First there is a group which sees only
an accommodation to the current Jewish views in all that Jesus says about the other world; then
there are those who reduce everything to their conception of the Old Testament sheol; finally
there are those who make this passage their sedes doctrinæ for the view that there are at least
four places in the other world and regard “hades” as being the Totenreich, the realm of the dead
which has two compartments, an upper and a lower. The latter is developed so as to make
possible a conversion for those who in this life remained without the gospel, and the borders
between this idea and the Catholic purgatory become very dim.
Other views are added such as that the soul of Jesus also entered this realm of the dead and
remained there until his resurrection, and that his descent into hell meant that he went into this
realm of the dead and released from its upper part the souls of the old covenant saints and took
them with him in triumph to heaven. So this part of the realm of the dead is now vacant. The
Scriptures and Jesus know nothing of this speculation but contradict it at every point.
The Biblical facts are these. Sheol is used in the Old Testament as a general and an
indeterminate term, somewhat but not exactly like our “beyond” or “hereafter.” All that makes
departure from this life sad such as death, the grave, parting from the dead, etc., including also
the godly dead, is thus connected with sheol. This broad view justifies the translation “grave” in
certain connections, namely where only the general idea of removal from this life obtains. Those
who deny the reality of hell use this translation for all the Old Testament passages that have
sheol; all are referred only to “grave,” and so hell as the eternal abode of the damned is erased.
But the Old Testament uses sheol also in a specific sense with reference to the wicked alone,
who go down in terror to sheol; and in these passages the translation “hell” should be used. But
we should keep in mind the broad meaning of sheol, literally, “a place into which one goes
down, comparable to a belly and according to Ps. 139:8, etc., the direct opposite to heaven,” E.
Koenig, Hebraeisches und aramaeisches Woerterbuch 474. Thus it is always described as
“down,” never as being at the borders of the world.
Neither the Greek, the English, nor the German has an exact equivalent for sheol. The Greek
used “hades,” the unseen place, for sheol in the sense of the abode of the damned. It was the best
the LXX could do. “Hades” is narrower than sheol but serves well enough in the New Testament
with its clearer revelation about the other world and always means “hell,” the abode of the
damned. The linguistics regarding the term are of help only when all the contexts are considered;
thus also in the New Testament the terrible descriptions of “hades,” which, whatever its name, is
always the same place of terror.
The Scripture and Jesus are a unit in revealing the existence of only two places in the other
world, heaven, the abode of God and of the angels and the saints, and hell, the abode that has
been especially prepared for the devil and his angels, to which also all those who follow the devil
are consigned. Why the Scriptures speak of both as being places we have explained above, also
why our ideas of space are absolutely inadequate for the understanding of the other world; look
at Rev. 21:16: heaven, the Holy City, “the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal,”
“foursquare,” a perfect cube, which is beyond mundane conception. The Scriptures speak of
places, abodes (μοναί, John 14:2), not merely of conditions, and with that we must be content in
our present thinking. All speculation which claims the discovery of a third or intermediate abode
treads the outworn paths of Romanism and merely modifies the Catholic views.
“And in hades (the unseen place) having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he sees
Abraham from afar,” etc., is thought to mean that Abraham and Lazarus, too, were “in hades,”
and this statement is thus regarded a sedes for the intermediate place. All the dead are placed
there, saints and damned; all are in hades, but this is divided into an upper and a lower part—for
did the rich man not “lift up” his eyes? Although the parable does not say so, the upper place is
called Paradise whereas no special name is given to the lower. This sedes loses its validity the
moment we note that in the sentence the phrase “in hades” is removed as far as possible from
“Abraham.” “From afar” refers to the gulf that is mentioned in v. 26, ἀπό being idiomatic, the
Greek measuring from the far place to the beholder, not as we do from the beholder to the far
place. Abraham is pictured as being in heaven, the rich man as being in hell. What is gained by
inventing a second kind of heaven (Paradise) and a second kind of hell and by uniting them with
a gulf between them into a realm of the dead when we already have the real heaven and Paradise
and the real hell, both properly divided? The entire Scripture analogy is against this alleged
intermediate place.
“Being in torments” certainly states the condition of the souls in hell—or is there a difference
between the torments in hell and those suffered by the rich man? The statement is made that
Jesus has already placed the rich man “in hell” (realm of the dead) and must add “being in
torments” in order to indicate that he is in the lower and not in the upper part of it. This is
answered when we note that according to this assumption Jesus should certainly have indicated,
first of all, in what part of this realm of the dead Abraham was. The rich man is in hell, the abode
of the damned, and Abraham is in the heaven of God, and “being in torments” is added, not so
that we may properly locate these persons in an alleged realm of the dead, but to explain what
seeing Abraham and Lazarus meant to this tormented rich man. The plural κόλποι is merely
idiomatic (R. 408) and is used interchangeably with the singular (v. 22).
24) The question of the propinquity of the rich man and Abraham and of the great chasm that
divided them is answered when we remember that our ideas of space do not apply to the other
world, and that what applies there cannot be put into human language. Thus any argument for
hades as being a realm of the dead that is based on the nearness of the persons and the fact that
they are in one place over against a far wider separation of heaven and hell, is met in the same
way. All arguments regarding the other world that are based on our ideas of physical space are
inadequate, that world is spaceless as it is timeless. The real question is whether the blessed and
the damned are able to see and to speak with each other as that is here represented. The answer is
negative. The conversation that is put into this parable is placed there for its own sake—so
Abraham, the father of believers, (note: not Lazarus or any other saints) would answer every
unbeliever in hell and justify God’s judgment on the blessed and on the damned. The very
frankness of the parable ought to keep us from drawing false conclusions.
Luke uses αὐτός and its plural freely as subjects with little or no emphasis. How did the rich
man know Abraham when he saw him now for the first time? Exactly as Peter, James, and John
knew Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. No introductions are needed in the
other world.
Do not ask what kind of fire caused the flame by which the rich man was anguished. Physical
fire as we know it on earth does not determine anything about the fire and the burning which are
constantly predicated of hell beyond its power to produce the intensest pain. That fire torments
the devils who have no bodies, the spirits of the damned before they are reunited with their
earthly bodies, and finally also their bodies. Is that not effect enough without prying into the
nature of that fire? Much is made of the fire, nothing whatever of the water into which Lazarus
was to dip the tip of his finger. When Jesus speaks of things incomprehensible in comprehensible
language, let us therewith rest content. It is the languague of a parent to a child about things that
are beyond the child’s comprehension. The parent must either be silent or descend to onesyllable baby words.
“Father Abraham!” cries he who all his life disowned Abraham. Yes, he was a physical
descendant of Abraham who had no further relation to Abraham exactly as were the Jews who
are mentioned in John 8:39–42. Exactly in the same sense Abraham addresses him as “child.” He
who knew not the quality of mercy nor its exercise when human need called out to him day after
day at his own portal, now himself cries out for mercy: “mercy me,” the Greek verb being
transitive.
The fact that the entire conversation is intended to teach an underlying thought to the hearers
of the parable and is not a report of an actual conversation should need no proof. All mercy is
ended in hell. Even the least mercy as when a mere drop of water is asked for a tongue that is
burned to a crisp; R. 495 makes the genitive ὕδατος one of place; C.-K. 172 regards it as being
due only to the verb. This very request shows plainly that the conversation is only a vehicle for
something that underlies it. He whose tongue daily tasted the finest wines and the most
delectable cooling drinks now burns with ceaseless flame. Pitiless are the final judgments of
God, and this is the illustration. Let men ignore them or rave against them now and say they
cannot believe in such a God, the facts stand as they are depicted here.
25) But Abraham said: Child, remember that thou didst get in full thy good things in
thy life, and Lazarus likewise the bad things; but now here he is being comforted while
thou art anguished. And in connection with all these things between us and you a great
chasm has been fixed in order that those wanting to cross from here to you may not be
able, nor that they may pass over from there to us.
All his life the rich man had forgotten, and he still forgets, and Abraham must tell him to
remember; all his life he thought the impossible possible, that, although living the life he did, he
might pass into heaven, and he still thinks impossible things possible, that Abraham might send
Lazarus from heaven to hell to cool his fiery tongue. The damned do not learn even in hell.
’Από in ἀπέλαβες adds the idea of getting what is “due” so that one can ask for no more; and
the rich man certainly had no more coming to him. Abraham states only the facts, that the
conditions of the rich man and of Lazarus are now reversed—that and no more. Why they are
reversed is not stated—that comes later. Let it sink in that God’s judgment so decides, and that
settles the matter eternally.
It would be wrong to take this statement to mean that because a man has good things in this
life therefore he is anguished in hell, and because a man has good-for-nothing things (κακά) in
this life, therefore he is comforted in heaven. Abraham does not say this, nor would it be true.
But when a man in hell asks for mercy, or when living men think hell ought to be changed by
even a drop of water, they may think on this reminder to the rich man in hell. Hence also
Abraham says “thy good things,” those the rich man alone thought good, while he cared nothing
for spiritual and heavenly treasures and showed that his life was bare of these by his lack of
mercy; but not “his bad things,” for these were only trials that were sent to Lazarus to refine his
faith and to make his trust rest on God alone. Regarding good things as the rich man did, he had
them all, no more were coming to him; having spurned all others, he must now do without.
Patiently taking and bearing the bad things God sent Lazarus, keeping his faith under them all
and his hope in God, the good things of heaven were now his.
26) “Besides all this” renders the sense of the phrase which means literally “in connection
with these things” (not: “through all these regions,” Robertson’s translation), i. e., in connection
with the reversal which God made in his judgment he has also separated heaven and hell forever.
The Greek always names the first person before the second: “between us and you”; not as we do:
“you and us.” The perfect passive ἐστήρικται has the present connotation of being fixed so now
and ever. “Those wanting to cross from here to you” does not mean that there will be such
although one may well suppose that those in hell would like to cross over to heaven. The sense
of the statement is that death decides forever, it is either heaven or hell. This is not stressed by
those who believe in the realm of the dead and make room for conversions in its lower part and
thus a transfer into the higher part.
27) However, he said: I then request thee, father, that thou send him to my father’s
house—for I have five brothers—in order that he may thoroughly testify to them lest they,
too, come into this place of torment.
The rich man is presented as seeing and dealing with Abraham and Lazarus only, and they
only with him. So also the request is made of Abraham and not of Lazarus, the latter is treated as
Abraham’s servant who would do what Abraham ordered. All these features, plus the conversing
of the rich man with Abraham, are means which the parable uses for bringing out first, the
finality of the judgment at death (v. 23–26), second, the all-sufficiency of the Word. So the rich
man is not presented as asking Abraham to warn the brothers but to send Lazarus; and we are not
to ask whether Abraham’s going to them would not have been more effective than sending only a
beggar like Lazarus. The rich man uses a respectful tone when he says, ἐρωτῶ, “I request,” but
what he requests is as bad as his complete disregard of Moses and the prophets, yea, also of
Abraham’s faith, during his earthly life. Οὖν, “then,” intends to say that if the other request
cannot be granted, he would ask this. He still calls Abraham “father”; the Pharisees who are
listening to this parable are to note that Abraham has such “sons.”
28) The rich man seems to have great concern for his five brothers since he wants them to go
to heaven and not to hell. They evidently lived much as he had lived during his earthly life. But
this man fails to see even in hell that his unbelief brought him to hell. He does not repent of that
unbelief. He invents a new means of grace for his brothers, one that God should have applied
also in his case but did not apply. His plea for his brothers is a covert accusation of God who
could have prevented his arriving in hell by a simple means but failed to use that means. If the
rich man had been warned as he now proposed to have his brothers warned he would not be in
this place of torment. Yes, he is more concerned about his brothers than God is, knows better
than God how to save them, and blames God for his terrible fate.
29) But Abraham says: They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them! He,
however, said: No, father Abraham! On the contrary, if one shall go to them from the dead,
they will repent. But he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, not even if
one rose up from the dead will they be persuaded.
This is the climax of the parable; for this reason the rich man and Abraham converse in the
parable. Abraham knows all about Moses and the prophets who lived and labored long after
Abraham was dead. Abraham is in full accord with them, for they all preached the same faith in
which he lived and died. To have Moses and the prophets is to have the Old Testament Word.
Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch; the prophets, in the broad sense of that term, wrote all the
other books of the Old Testament. This Word is the all-sufficient means of salvation. It is more,
far more, than Abraham had in his life. We have Jesus and the apostles in addition.
“Moses and the prophets” takes us back to “the law and the prophets” mentioned in v. 16,
“the law” being the Torah. “Moses and the prophets” contain the divine law which convicts of
sin and the heavenly gospel which provides and imparts release from sin and thus saves from hell
and brings to heaven. “Let them hear them” is the effective aorist: actually hear them so as to
receive in the heart what they say—not merely learning and learning and never coming to a
knowledge of the truth. To hear effectively is to believe. This is exactly what the rich man had
not done; his heartless selfishness, his whole fleshly life were evidence of that fact.
The Jews made much of Moses, do so still, and even decorated the graves of the prophets
whom their fathers had killed, and are still proud of those prophets (11:47); they neglected only
one thing as Jesus pointed out already in v. 16, they did not hear them effectively. The supreme
proof of that was their rejection of Jesus of whom Moses and all the prophets testified (John
5:46). It was because the rich man refused to hear Moses and the prophets that he was now in
hell; the same end awaited the Pharisees who now listened to Jesus unless they heeded the
warnings addressed to them.
30) Οὐχί is the sharper Greek “no.” The most direct contradiction of unbelief persists even in
hell: “No! father Abraham”; and the vacuous “father, father,” too, persists. Abraham is
contradicted in what he says, and that is a contradiction of Moses and the prophets and of their
Word as the means of salvation. Although the rich man sees Abraham in heaven, knows that
Moses and the prophets are there likewise, he says “no” to all for which they stood, to all that
brought them to heaven. Even the fires of hell bring no unbelievers to repentance and faith, and
that is why they are in hell forever—where else could they be?
That strong “no” is re-enforced by the equally strong ἀλλά, which here, after a negative,
means “on the contrary.” This adversative draws a line of cancellation through the entire Old
Testament as a means of salvation and substitutes a new means, one that was invented in hell
instead of in heaven. The condition is that of expectancy, and ἐκ νεκρῶν, like many such
phrases, is considered definite without the article (R. 791) and should be translated “from the
dead.” The rich man pictures one from the dead going to his wicked brothers who would then
repent. A hellish repentance that would be, scaring them by a threat of the fires of hell.
He uses the verb “repent” but has no conception of its true meaning, bowing to God in
contrition and accepting his pardon by faith (see 3:3). Did the rich man think of a resurrection of
Lazarus like that of the actual Lazarus in Bethany whom Jesus called out of the tomb? Or of
some ghostly return of only the soul of Lazarus? Decidedly the former as Abraham’s reply
shows: “even if one rose up from the dead.” The idea that Abraham’s answer overtops the rich
man’s assertion, that the latter spoke only of a spirit’s appearance, Abraham of a complete
resurrection, is without warrant in the words or in the thought.
31) Abraham does not reply that Lazarus cannot possibly rise from the dead, the ἐάν clause
implies the contrary. But such a resurrection return and testimony would not accomplish
anything in the case of men who constantly refuse to hear (οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, the durative present)
in the sense of take to heart the divine testimony of Moses and the prophets, they would not even
persuade such unbelievers. “They will not even be persuaded” (passive), i. e., persuaded that the
man has really risen from the dead. Think of the answer he would get on the part of unbelievers
today. A thousand proofs would be offered that he was not dead in the first place, that someone
was impersonating him if he were dead, that he must a priori be a fake, etc.
Was Abraham thinking of the resurrection of Jesus himself, or did Jesus place these words in
Abraham’s mouth as foretelling his own resurrection and its failure to persuade the Jews? This
cannot be the intention because the risen Jesus never appeared to any but his own disciples as his
chosen witnesses, and the parable speaks of Lazarus’ going πρὸς αὐτούς, “to the five brothers.”
The proposition is general as it stands: “if anyone rise up from the dead,” and only so does it
include Jesus, not as saying in any way that he will arise. The Word is the all-sufficient and
therefore the only means of salvation. God not only furnishes no other means, he had no stronger
means to furnish, or, as we may surely say, he would have furnished it. They who now resort to
other means produce no saving faith, in fact, intend to reach heaven without such faith.
The parable has reached its end, for the great fact it intends to teach is presented fully. It has
been allegorized in what is an astonishing way. We need waste no time in presenting this
allegory and in showing the impossibility of such an interpretation. The Pharisees have their
warning which is complete in every way.