Luke 16:20

Cut off from compassion and care, he would have gladly gathered the worthless morsels that fell from the rich man's table to satisfy his hunger. A severe and incurable disease also tormented him. Yes, it says that even the dogs licked his sores and did not injure him yet sympathized with him and cared for him. Animals relieve their own sufferings with their tongues, as they remove what pains them and gently soothe the sores. The rich man was crueler than the dogs, because he felt no sympathy or compassion for him but was completely unmerciful.

(ut sup.) But a parable is that in which an example is given, while the names are omitted. Lazarus is interpreted, "one who was assisted." For he was poor, and the Lord helped him.

Or else, Lazarus is poor in this world, but rich to God; for not all poverty is holy, nor all riches vile, but as luxury disgraces riches, so holiness commends poverty. Or is there any Apostolical man, poor in speech, but rich in faith, who keeps the true faith, requiring not the appendage of words. To such a one I liken him who oft-times beaten by the Jews offered the wounds of his body to be licked as it were by certain dogs. Blessed dogs, unto whom the dropping from such wounds so falls as to fill the heart and mouth of those whose office it is to guard the house, preserve the flock, keep off the wolf! And because the word is bread, our faith is of the word; the crumbs are as it were certain doctrines of the faith, that is to say, the mysteries of the Scriptures. But the Arians, who court the alliance of regal power that they may assail the truth of the Church, do not they seem to you to be in purple and fine linen? And these, when they defend the counterfeit instead of the truth, abound in flowing discourses. Rich heresy has composed many Gospels, and poor faith has kept this single Gospel, which it had received. Rich philosophy has made itself many gods, the poor Church has known only one. Do not those riches seem to you to be poor, and that poverty to be rich?

This seems rather a narrative than a parable, since the name is also expressed.

The first mode of mendicancy is from the necessity of nature; and this mode is when someone begs not only because he is poor, but also because he has infirmity, or weakness, or both. This mode, however, is pitiable and tolerable, but through good patience …

(in Hom. 40. in Ev.) Lazarus then full of sores, figuratively represents the Gentile people, who when turned to God, were not ashamed to confess their sins. Their wound was in the skin. For what is confession of sins but a certain bursting forth of wounds.

And whom does Lazarus full of sores figuratively represent, if not the Gentile people? For when he turned to God and was not ashamed to confess his sins, he had a wound on his skin. For in a wound of the skin, poison is drawn from the inner parts and bursts forth outward. What then is the confession of sins, if not a kind of breaking open of wounds? For the poison of sin is healthfully opened in confession, which was festering within the mind. For wounds of the skin draw the fluid of corruption to the surface. And in confessing sins, what else do we do but open the evil that lay hidden within us?

But we must note especially how great is the order of narration in the mouth of Truth concerning the proud rich man and the humble poor man. For behold it is said: "There was a certain rich man"; and immediately it is added: "And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus." Certainly among the people the names of the rich are usually known more than those of the poor. What is it, therefore, that the Lord, speaking of a poor man and a rich man, tells the name of the poor man and does not tell the name of the rich man, except that God knows and approves the humble, and does not know the proud? Hence also to some who are proud of the power of their miracles He will say at the end: "I know you not whence you are: depart from me, all you workers of iniquity." But on the contrary, to Moses it is said: "I know you by name." Therefore He says of the rich man: "A certain man." He says of the poor man: "A beggar, named Lazarus." As if He openly said: I know the humble poor man, I do not know the proud rich man. The one I hold as known through approval, the other I do not know through the judgment of reprobation. We must also consider with what great consideration our Creator dispenses all things. For one thing is not done for one purpose alone. For behold, Lazarus the beggar, full of sores, lies before the gate of the rich man. From this one circumstance the Lord fulfilled two judgments. For the rich man would perhaps have had some excuse if Lazarus, poor and ulcerous, had not lain before his gate, if he had been far away, if his poverty had not been troublesome to his eyes. Again, if the rich man had been far from the eyes of the ulcerous poor man, the poor man would have endured less temptation in his soul. […]

(Moral. 1. c. 8.) We must observe also, that among the heathen the names of poor men are more likely to be known than of rich. Now our Lord mentions the name of the poor, but not the name of the rich, because God knows and approves the humble, but not the proud. But that the poor man might be more approved, poverty and sickness were at the same time consuming him; as it follows, who was laid at his gale full of sores.

(ubi sup.) By one thing Almighty God displayed two judgments. He permitted Lazarus to lie before the rich man's gate, both that the wicked rich man might increase the vengeance of his condemnation, and the poor man by his trials enhance his reward; the one saw daily him on whom he should show mercy, the other that for which he might be approved.

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus. Certainly in the populace it is more common for the names of the rich rather than the poor to be known. Why is it then that the Lord, when making a parable about a poor man and …

And He mentions the poor man by name, for the names of the righteous are written in the book of life. It is said, according to the tradition of the Hebrews, that at that time there was in Jerusalem a certain Lazarus who was in …

And there was a certain beggar etc. After the cause of mercilessness, the Evangelist here introduces the guilt of mercilessness, which he shows to be reprehensible from a threefold circumstance, namely on the part of the poor man, which rendered him worthy of mercy and …

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, (according to the Greek pronunciation) or Eleazer. By his name it may be conjectured, he was of no mean family, though it was thus reduced.

10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?

quarantine:scripture (2026-07-29) — verbatim-scripture

): There was a certain beggar, named Lazarus. A beggar of that name, eminently devout, and in great distress, was probably well known among good people at that time: a beggar, suppose such a one as Eleazar, or Lazarus. Some think Eleazar a proper name for any poor man, for it signifies the help of God, which they must fly to that are destitute of other helps.

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — leading-punctuation+unbalanced-parens

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,....

There was a certain beggar named Lazarus - His name is mentioned, because his character was good, and his end glorious; and because it is the purpose of God that the righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance. Lazarus, לעזר is a contraction of the word אלעזר Eliezar, which signifies the help or assistance of God - a name properly given to a man who was both poor and afflicted, and had no help but that which came from heaven.

The parable we have now read, in one respect stands alone in the Bible. It is the only passage of Scripture which describes the feelings of the unconverted after death. For this reason, as well as for many others, the parable deserves especial attention. We learn, firstly, from this parable — that a man's worldly condition is no test of his state in the sight of God. The Lord Jesus describes to us two men — of whom one was very rich, and the other very poor. The one "fared sumptuously every day."

The parable we have now read, in one respect stands alone in the Bible. It is the only passage of Scripture which describes the feelings of the unconverted after death. For this reason, as well as for many others, the parable deserves especial attention. We learn, firstly, from this parable — that a man's worldly condition is no test of his state in the sight of God. The Lord Jesus describes to us two men — of whom one was very rich, and the other very poor. The one "fared sumptuously every day." The other was a mere "beggar," who had nothing that he could call his own. And yet of these two, the poor man had grace — and the rich man had none. The poor man lived by faith, and walked in the steps of Abraham. The rich man was a thoughtless, selfish worldling — dead in trespasses and sins. Let us never give way to the common idea that men are to be valued according to their income, and that the man who has most money is the one who ought to be the most highly esteemed. There is no authority for this notion in the Bible. The general teaching of Scripture is flatly opposed to it. "Not many wise, not many mighty, not many noble — are called." (1 Corinthians 1:26.) "Let not the rich man glory in his riches. But let him who glories glory in this — that he knows and understands me." (Jeremiah 9:24.) Wealth is no mark of God's favor. Poverty is no mark of God's displeasure. Those whom God justifies and glorifies — are seldom the rich of this world. If we would measure men as God measures them — then we must value them according to their grace. We learn, secondly, from this parable — that death is the common end to which all classes of mankind must come. The trials of the "beggar," and the sumptuous faring of the "rich man" — alike ceased at last. There came a time when both of them died. "All go to one place." (Ecclesiastes 3:20.)

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 Act 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. […]