The Pulpit Commentary — Luke — Volume 2 — Section 109

The p0or, indceJ, with all their trials, stand also there may have been rea.sons for sup- fairer for the ldngdom thn,n do their envied pressing in the reoorde n name which wa.s richer hr0thers 11nd sisters. familiar to the na.rra.tor. Whnt if the young Yer. 25.-For it is euier for a oamel to ruler were Lazarus himself? The pointa go through a needle's eye, than for a rioh of agreement are sufficiently numerous to man to enter into the kingdom of God. warrant the conjecture. The household of This simile. taken in its plain and obvious Lazarus, as the spikenard ointment shows, sense, appears to many a.n oxsggerated one, were of tbo wealthier class. The friends and various explanations have been sng• who came to comfort the bereaved sisters gested to soften it down. The best is found were themselves, in St. John's la1wuage in Lord Nugent's • Lands Classical and 'of the Jews,' i.e. of the chief rulers (Joh~ Sacred,' who mentions that in ~ome modern xi. 19). Tbe young ruler was obviously a Syrian towns the narrow gate for foot- Pharisee, and the language of Marthe. ( J obn pa.ssc,ngers a.t the side of the larger gate by id. 24) shows that she, too, believed in eter- which waggons, camels, and other beasts of nal life and the resurrection of the dead. burden enter the city, is 1.-nown as the The answer to the yow1g ruler, • One thing "needle's eye." It is, however, very uncer- thou Jackest' (a.s given by St. Mark e.nd tain whether this term for the little gate St. Luke), is almost identical with tbe.t to wa.s known in ancient times. But the simile Martha,• One thing is needful' (eh. x. 42). was evidently a. common one among the In such a oase, of oourse, nothing can be Jews. The Talmud, for instance, gives us attained beyond conjecture.I inference: but the para.lie! phrase of an elephant passing the present writer must a.vow bis belief that through a needle's eye. The Kornn repeats the coincidences in this ce.se are such e.s to the wry words of the Gospel. It is the carry the evidence to e. very high point of obje,-t of the proverb to express hume.n probability." impossibility. Ver. 26.-A.nd they that heard it said, " I would ride the camel, Who then oan be saved t This hard saying Yea leap him fl.)ing, through the needle's appeared to the disciples to be terriblyoom- eye prebeneive iu its scope; the longing t.o be A.Ji easily as euch a pampered aoul rich was confined to no one class or order, it Coulcl paaa the narrow gate." wa.s the universal passion. Were they guilt- less here ? Were they not looking for riches (Southey.) and glory in the Messianic kingdom of the It seems strange that the three evangelists, immediate future? And of all peoples the SS. Matthew, Mark, e.nd Luke, who tell this Jews in every age have been credited with story of the young questioner and the the blindest devotion to this idol, wealth. Master's conversation with him, do not In St. Mark (x. 24) we find certs.inly an mention his name. And yet he mUBt have explanatory statement: "How be.rd is it been a conspicnoUB personage in the society for them that trwt in riches to enter into of the time. First of all, l.ri.s riches were the kingdom of God I " But this explana- evidently remarkable. One account tells 11B tory and softened statement is not found in that he wa.s " very rich." Two of the Gospels the older authorities : these read instead, in mention his " great possessions." St Luke Mark x. 24, simply the words, " How hard tells UB that he was "a ruler." He was, is it to enter the kingdom of God I " Hard then, certainly a. very wealthy Jew holding alike, the Master meant, for rich e.nd poor, a high official position, not improbably a though harder for the former. member of the Sanhedrin council. Why is Ver. 27.-A.nd he said, The things whioh he nameless in the three Gospels ? Dean a.re impossible with men are po1&ible with PlWilptre has a most interesting theory that God. Yes, impossible, the Divine Teacher the young wealthy ruler was Lazarus of repeated, from a man's point of view; im- Bethany. He bases his bypothesis upon the possible from the platform of legal obedience following data: He begin:! by stating that on which the young ruler (ver. 21) be.d " there is ou'l other case in the first two taken his stand, or the Pharisee in his Gospels which JJreeents similar phenomena. prayer (vers. 11, 12); but it was not im- In the narrative of the supper e.t Bethany, possible with God. He might give this St. Matthew and St. Mark record the pas- salvation as a perfectly free gift, utterly sionate affection which expressed itself in undeserved, perfectly unmerited, as he did pouring the precioUB ointment of spikene.rd to the prodigal son when he returned, or t.o upon our Lord'a head as the a.et of ' e. the publican when he beat hie bree.st iu woman' (Me.tt. :uvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3), almost voiceleBB mourning, or still more leaving her unnamed. In John xii. 3 we conRpicuonsly, not many duys later, to the find that the woman was Me.ry, the sister of peniu;nt thief dying on the cross. Laznrns. The traiu of thought thus sug- Ver. 28.-Then Peter said, Lo, we have gested points io the suppotiition that Lere left all, and followed thee. Again tLo q UOlj- OH, xvm. 1-43.J 'fRE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE. 118