DIVES. — The Latin adjective for 'rich,' com- monly employed as a j^easi-proper name for the rich man in our Lord's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk W--^). This use of the word Dives, derived, no doubt, from the Vulgate, is common in English literature, and can be traced back at least to the time of Chaucer, who, in The Somnour's Tale, lines 169, 170, says : ' Lazar and Dives liveden diversly, And divers guerdon hadden they ther-by.' Compare also Piers the Plowman, passus xvi. lines 303, 304 : ' And Dives in his dcyntes lyuede • and in douce uye ;
And now he buyeth hit ful bitere • he is a beggere of helle.'
Although we are not concerned in this article with the interpretation of the parable as a whole, we may yet appropriately refer to the various opinions which have been held as to who was in- tended by our Lord under the figure of the rich man.
The noticeable circumstances that in this alone of all His parables our Lord names one of the characters, i.e. Lazarus, while the other chief char- acter, the rich man, is significantly nameless, and that the parable has no prefatory introduction, such as ' He spake another parable,' or the like, have given rise to the conjecture that this is not a parable pure and simple, but that it is either a narrative of facts, or that persons more or less known are alluded to in the story.
1. Some, as Tertullian and Schleiermacher, have supposed that in Dives allusion was made to Herod Antipas, and that Lazarus represents John the Baptist, who is refeiTcd to in v.'*, cf. also v."*, where our Lord speaks about adulterj'. This, however, is surely an extravagant notion which scarcely needs refutation.
2. Another equally improbable suggestion, put forward by Michaelis, is that Dives represents Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, and that Lazarus is Christ ; and so the five brethren of the rich man are explained as the five sons of Annas (Jos. Ant. XX. ix. 1).
3. Closely connected with this opinion is another which lius the support of Ambrose, Anuustiuf, Teelman (quoted by Trench, Parahlcs). and olhers, according to which, wliile Lazarus is Christ, Dives is the Jewish people who despised and rejected
Him wlio for their sakes was poor and afflicted. Tliis, ImwcNcr, is an allegorizing of the parable which, though attractive at first sight, will not bear close examination.
4. Another interpretation, supported by Aph- raates, Augustine (as an alternative), Gregory the Great, and Theophylact, and widely held in all sections of the Universal Chui-eh, is, that Dives represents, as in the last case, the Jewish jjcople, but that Lazarus represents the Gentiles. Rleek, Godet, and Alford reject this view, the two latter saying that the very name Lazarus (i.e. a Jewish
e) is against it. Yet, though not the primai-y, _"" ■ " " - able,: ■ not lightly to be set aside.
this may be a true application of the para
and
5. According to a tradition alluded to by Theo- phylact and Euthymius Zigabenus, Dives and Lazarus were actual persons known at the tune, and our Lord, while honouring the poor man by naming him, passes over the guilty rich man's name in merciful silence.
6. The interpretation which best suits all the facts of the case is that the rich man is a tyjncal instance of the religious leaders of the people, Pharisees and Sadducees, and tiiat Lazarus is a reijresentative of the despised publicans, or of the neglected 'common people.' If this is the ])rimary significance of Dives and Lazarus, tlirn \\u (■.■ni sec, as stated above, that interpretjition 1 i^ nnl, li'^litly to be set aside; for if Pharisees :iuil SMilcliicues despised and neglected those of their u\\ n nation, much more would they contemptuously overlook ' sinners of the Gentiles. ' Under this head it has been debated whether Dives is a typical Pliarisee or a Sadducee. Didon (Life of Christ), Moslieim, and Wetstein hold that he is a Sadducee, since the Pharisees were not characterized by luxurious living or by unbelief ; but if, with the majority of expositors, who say that the connexion of the parable \\ith wh:i( precedes requires it, we hold him to !"■ II riiaii^ee, he is at least a Pharisee who, as Slier says, • lives as a Sadducee.'
As to the special sin of Dives, opinions have ditt'ered. All, however, concur in pointing out that he is not accused of any positive crime, — his sin is negative. It may be, indeed, that our Lord in the parable glances back at what is said in yy_u-i6 . yg(; Dlvcs' clilef slu most evidently was that he left undone the things which he ouglit to have done. He is an instance, in fact, of one who did not make to himself friends of the nuimmon of unrighteousness. Doubtless the cause of this was his virtual unbelief in a kingdom of God here implying a brotherhood of all men, and a kingdom of God hereafter implying a retribution.
Euthymius says that i
asserted that, according to
Tid Tisl
idorf
Version adds to the mention of the wasNineue.' It has, however, been Expositor, March 1900) that this nai from the words 'hie dives,' or *en ci ancient piolori.il representation of th liowL'Vcr, has thought that the word