The passage
      v14-15. Jesus has just finished making the point that it is not possible to stand in the face of the coming kingdom and "serve the things of this world." Foolish as it may seem, this is exactly what "the children of light" do. The Pharisees ("who loved money" - Luke's comment) react with cynicism. Jesus' response is straight to the point. They may have some righteous standing in the sight of their religious cronies, but in the eyes of God their status is nothing; they should beware!
      v16. The Old Testament ("The Law and the Prophets") dispensation comes to an end in the ministry of John the Baptist. Standing at the end of the old and the beginning of the new, John is privileged to announce the coming of this new dispensation (covenant), the era of the long-promised kingdom of God, of God's eternal reign in Christ. As the kingdom bursts into the world in the life and teachings of Jesus, the Pharisees, in fact, all people "are being forced up against it", and in this confrontation many will be broken. So, be warned.
      v17-18. To make the point that the kingdom of God is indeed "at hand", Jesus points out how the ethic of the dawning kingdom has already transcended the Law of Moses, and it must be remembered that to alter even the minutest element of God's Law is an anathema. Yet, this is exactly what is happening, for the Mosaic Law on divorce is being replaced by a new "utopian" ethic. Although the Mosaic Law allowed divorce, the radical demands of the kingdom dictate the opposite. So then, the "fulfilling" (the perfect completing) of Mosaic law illustrates that a new age has dawned and anyone with even the slightest understanding of the Old Testament would know it.
      v19-31. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus does not represent Jesus' teaching on the hereafter. The description, in the parable, of Hades and of souls at death going into the underworld for punishment, is not part of New Testament teaching. The parable serves to illustrate two points alluded to by Jesus in the sayings recorded in verses 16 to 18: First, in the dawning of the kingdom of God there is a great reversal, the "righteous" are set aside, the "poor" are blessed. So, beware! Second, the Old Testament clearly points to the dawning of the kingdom of God in Christ. If a person cannot see the evident signs in the Old Testament, then nothing will be clear to them. So, look and believe.

Divorce
      We have all been touched by divorce. We have watched as a friend, or family member, has gone through a marriage break down. Some of us have actually gone through a divorce ourselves. So, we all know the pain.
      In touching the topic of divorce, I don't want to suggest it's the main point of our passage. Jesus simply touches on the issue of divorce to make a point to the Bible students of his day. The Mosaic Law allowed for divorce, and remember, God's Law is unchangeable, yet Jesus now announces that, as far as God is concerned, divorce is as good as adultery - it's not on. Jesus, in a sense, is "fulfilling" the Law, completing it in perfection. A person with even the slightest understanding of the Old Testament couldn't help but read the significance. God's eternal reign is upon us; repent and believe.
      I should also point out that theologians are divided on what Jesus is actually saying. Is he saying divorce is adultery, or is he saying that remarriage is adultery? I think divorce constitutes adultery; remarriage is simply the usual consequence.
      We cannot avoid the horror of Jesus' words here. So much so that we join with the apostles who once commented, given the perfection of this demand, "it's better that a person not marry", because marriages do break down. Yes, they do break down, and how will we face the shame and guilt if it happens to us?
      I'm sorry to say, the church doesn't help us much on this one. In my church, the Anglican church, the remarriage of a divorcee is not permitted, unless of course your royalty (I know, I shouldn't by cynical). Each diocese applies the rule differently; in my diocese, if you are willing to label your partner as an adulterer you can be remarried in the church, or better, if you show yourself to have a lively faith in Jesus your remarriage will be approved. The logic here is beyond me. Surely, the greater the faith the greater the responsibilities.
      To those of us whose marriages have failed, who stand condemned before the Judge of the universe, I remind you, as I remind myself, that if you stand with Jesus, the Judge sees nothing but the perfection of his obedient Son. His mercy covers every sin. To those whose marriage has not failed, I remind you that we are all adulterers, we have all left our partners in spirit, if not in deed, at some time or other. So, before we condemn others, let us remember we all stand condemned before the Judge of the universe.
      Marriages do break down, so let us work at respect and consideration toward our partners. And if that cold hand should touch you, remember that even in the depth of despair there is one who sees you as the apple of his eye.

v14
      uJparconteV (uJparkw) pres. part. "who loved money" - being [lovers of money]. The participle is probably attributive, modifying "the Pharisees", as NIV, or possibly causal, "the Pharisees ...... sneered at Jesus because they loved money (there are those who argue that in NT. Greek a participle is always adverbial unless it can be proved otherwise). The present tense possibly indicating "a permanent characteristic", Plummer. "The Pharisees were fond of money", Moffatt, or stronger "avaricious", TH.
      hkouon (akouw) imperf. "heard [all this]" - was hearing [all these things]. The imperfect is durative, expressing the fact that the Pharisees had been listening all along to Jesus' teaching, namely, that the "children of light" were foolish to think that it was possible to be loyal to God, and at the same time dabble in this worlds things.
      exemukthrizon (ekmukthrizw) imperf. "were sneering" - they were ridiculing, mocking, deriding. Imperfect is again durative, as NIV. Lit. "turn up the nose." A fairly strong reaction, but understandable, particularly for those who see wealth as a blessing from God and who also understand the impossible nature of Jesus' "utopian" ethic. "Jeered at him", NJB.

v15
      oiJ dikaiounteV "[you are] the ones who justify" - the ones justifying. The articular participle is functioning as a predicate adjective asserting a truth about "you", the substantive. The verb to-be is supplied and "you" is emphatic, as NIV. "The ones' = "those characterized by the fact that", TH. The present tense possibly expresses attempted action, so "trying to justify yourselves", or simply "claim to be / present as, just", TH. They strive to maintain a high moral standing, primarily before their fellows. Creed is probably right to put it in the context of the use of money, particularly almsgiving; "you do indeed give alms, but you only do so to justify yourselves before men", Creed.
      enwpion prep. "in the eyes of [men]" - before. "You are always making yourselves look good", CEV.
      oJti "-" - for, because, since. Usually expressing cause/reason. Marshall is probably right by noting that "knows your hearts" carries the implicit consequence "and judges them". So, "God knows what you are like [and holds you accountable], for there is nothing more loathsome to God than human pride", Barclay. Another possible implicit thought is: "I can make this complaint because the things that people exalt are an abomination before God", Bock.

v16
      This verse is usually linked to verses 17 and 18, or verse 17, or left to stand as an independent saying, but rarely linked to verses 14 and 15. Yet, it does seem likely that this verse, with its dominant judgment theme, sits better with v14 and 15. The Pharisees, with their flawed righteousness, are like a stricken ship being driven upon a rocky shore; they are about to come to grief in the face of the kingdom's coming.
      oJ nomoV kai oiJ profhtai "the Law and the Prophets" - Obviously = "the Old Covenant" = "the law with it's blessings and cursings."
      "were proclaimed" - The verb must be supplied with some direction from the preposition "until" = "up to" and a little more direction from the parallel "the kingdom of God has been preached" So, "were proclaimed", NIV is a reasonable guess. The NJB and REB take the conservative path and go with the verb to be; "we had", Berkeley. Other contenders are "were enough till John", Rieu; "continue up to John", Johnson; "lasted till John", Moffatt; "were the supreme revelation up to John", Barclay. There is much to be said for "were in force", Phillips, given that both the law and the gospel are messages that require response. So, "God wanted the people to live by the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets. But ever since John came ...", NCV, or "until the time of John the Baptist people had to obey the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets. But since ...", CEV.
      mecri "until" - up to. Can be taken to mean "up to", or "up to and including." The division is the beginning of the ministry of John, so "up to John", since his message was the same as that of Jesus, namely "the kingdom of God is at hand." Like Jesus, John preached the kingdom. Of course, his preaching aside, John stands at the end of the Old Covenant era, at the end of the era of the Law and the Prophets, even though his message concerns the coming of the new.
      "The good news of /concerning" has become a folk-law tack-on, but of course, for those who do not believe the message it is "bad news." Best dropped.
      euaggelizetai (euaggelizw) pres. pas. "[the kingdom of God] is being preached" - is being communicated. The present tense is durative, where the action begins in the past and continues in the present. The verb serves to express the action of communicating an important message, here the message concerning the coming kingdom of God, the message concerning the long promised inauguration of God's reign in Christ. "From then onwards the kingdom of God has been preached", NJB.
      paV "everyone" - all, every, the whole. Possibly "anyone", the kingdom is open to all, so "anyone presses in", Manson. "Everybody" is more likely, not "all the Jewish authorities", but "everyone."
      biazetai (biazw) pres. pas "is forcing his way" - is being violently forced [into it]. The present tense is possibly tendential, expressing attempted action, "trying to", although more likely durative, where the action begins in the past and continues in the present. The action of the verb primarily describes the application of a strong force, although some argue for a less violent constant pressure. This action may be positive or negative. The preposition eiV can mean "into" or "to/toward = against", even possibly representing an Aramaic preposition not required in Greek, so "everyone oppresses it", Leaney. Finally, the verb here takes either the middle or passive voice: active, "to force"; middle, "to make use of force"; passive, "to be forced." The middle voice is accepted by most commentators so the choice is between everyone trying to force their way into the kingdom, "storm his way into it", Barclay, as NIV, along with most translations, or everyone is acting violently against / striving against the kingdom, "but every man treats it with violence", Torrey. The problem is, not "everyone" uses force to get in the kingdom, or to oppose the kingdom. The passive voice is more likely. The passive is usually taken to mean "everyone is urged to enter the kingdom", although there is much for the sense, "everyone is forced up against the kingdom", ie. The kingdom is bursting in on the world and everyone is being forced up against it. Confronted with this reality, a person must either resist and be condemned, or believe and be blessed. Note Matthew 11:12 for a different slant on a very similar saying.

v17
      Verses 17 and 18, together serve as an evidence of the kingdom's coming. Note the point of the argument. It is not that "the moral elements of the Law are indestructible", Plummer, but the exact opposite. The Mosaic Law is being set aside ("fulfilled") because of the arrival of something greater. To touch even the smallest bit of the law is an anathema, yet we see in verse 18 that this is exactly what is happening.
      de "-" - but. Here best taken as a connective rather than adversative, contrastive, or continuative. Best untranslated, as NIV.
      eukopwteron (eukopoV) com. adj. "[it is] easier" - Comparative adjective. "It is an easier thing for heaven and earth to pass away than for one comma of the Law to be deleted", Rieu.
      parelqein aor. inf. "to disappear" - to pass away, come to an end, disappear. "Cease to be", Barclay. The infinitive, with it's own subject, "heaven and earth" (accusative infinitive construction), is functioning as the subject of the verb to-be "is [easier]", "heaven and earth to disappear is easier ...."
      h] "than" - Forming a comparative clause, usually with the verb in the indicative mood, although here an accusative infinitive construction.
      mian keraian acc. "the least stroke of a pen" - one small stroke. The jot or tittle, a small stroke mark of a pen to distinguish certain letters of the Hebrew alphabet, eg. d, r, h.
      pesein (piptw) aor. inf. "to drop" - to fall. Again, an accusative infinitive construction, where the subject of the infinitive, "one small stroke", takes the accusative case, "than one small stroke to drop from the law. "It's easier for the world to disappear than for the law to become invalid", TH.

v18
      This seemingly incongruous saying demonstrates that the Mosaic Law has indeed been turned on its head. Such an impossible event must herald the inauguration of God's long-promised reign through His messiah. The Mosaic law "is superseded by a higher and prior demand under which all now stand", Ellis.
      It is fascinating how this classic example of Jesus' "utopian" ethic has been applied in the life of the Christian church. We have taken what is an ideal and turned it into a rule to be obeyed. We are right to aim at the ideal, for indeed, it does give direction to the Christian life. Yet, obedience in all its forms, physical, emotional, intellectual, is another thing. In the face of marriage failure the church has, too often, either excluded a brother, or practiced reductionism where church law has skirted around divorce, eg. for Anglicans, allowing divorce and remarriage if they profess faith and/or are the innocent party, or for Catholics, allowing divorce and remarriage by annulling the first marriage. The truth is, Jesus' "utopian" ethic serves a much higher purpose. The Mosaic Law is fulfilled / completed in the ethic of the kingdom, an ethic which defines the perfection of an acceptable son of God, a perfection that only Christ has lived. Before such perfection we can only but bow our heads in repentance and seek in Jesus, that one faithful man, a righteousness bestowed as the gift of a gracious God. Note in Matthew an exception on the basis of sexual immorality, Matt.5:32, 19:9, an exception which runs counter to the argument above. Note also Paul's exception, 1Cor.7:10-14, although at this point Paul is using the law as a guide to the Christian life, not as an instrument to expose our state of sin and thus drive us to God for mercy.
      paV oJ apoluwn (apoluw) pres. part. "anyone who divorces" - all the ones divorcing, sending away. Participle as a substantive, translated as a relative clause; "any man who divorces his wife", Barclay.
      gamwn (gamew) pres. part. "[and] marries [another]" - The present tense here is gnomic, expressing a timeless truth. The participle is probably substantive, "and who marries another", but also possibly final, expressing purpose, he divorces his wife "in order to marry another woman", see Nolland. Given the idealistic nature of this instruction, it is more likely that divorce itself is adultery, irrespective of whether remarriage takes place. See below. The syntax is somewhat against this view given that only "divorcing" takes an article thus making "divorcing and remarrying" a single act.
      moiceuei (moiceuw) pres. "commits adultery" - violates the one flesh bond of marriage. The man who divorces and remarries commits adultery, presumable, against his first wife. Note Matthew where the idea is that by divorcing the first wife, the husband has forced her into another relationship for her survival and therefore her first husband is responsible for placing her in an adulterous, or potentially adulterous, situation. This seems to be the idea behind the second clause. The man who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery against her first husband. As Marshall notes, in these instructions, Jesus is "going beyond Jewish law."

v19
      Interpretations of this parable are many, eg.: It serves to condemn "conspicuous consumption", such people "will discover in Hades the bitter truth of the implications of their disregard for the basic demands of the law and the prophets. Those who live so, despite all pretense of piety, will not mend their ways even if one should rise from the dead to bring them warning", Nolland. We are best to follow Ellis who argues that the parable illustrates the two truths revealed in the introductory sayings, namely i] the present reality of "the coming messianic age", illustrated in the parable by "the reversal of one's status", ii] which reality is demonstrated by the "superseding" of the Mosaic law "as a pointer [that] the law stands fulfilled", illustrated in the parable by "the abiding witness of the Old testament message as sufficient basis for believing the kingdom of God message. No miraculous sign would be more persuasive." Note that there is strong evidence that this story was a popular folk tale and that Jesus has simply used it here as an illustration. Allegorizing the story, or using it as a source of propositional revelation, is very unwise.
      de "-" - but, and, now. "Now there was a rich man."
      enedidusketo (endiduskw) imperf. "who was dressed" - was clothing himself. The imperfect is iterative expressing repeated action: "it was his custom to dress in the finest cloths."
      eufrainomenoV (eufrainw) pres. pas. part. "lived" - [a rich man ... was] being merry, glad, rejoicing (often used of feasting) [extravagantly every day]. A periphrastic imperfect, possibly emphasizing his ongoing enjoyment; "he enjoyed himself in luxury every day", TNT.

v20
      ebablhto (ballw) pluperf. pas. "was laid" - [a certain poor man by name Lazarus] had been laid. Pluperfect expressing the fact that he had been laid there and was still there.
      eilkwmenoV (elkow) perf. pas. pat. "covered with sores" - having been covered with sores, ulcerated. The participle serves as an attributive adjective describing the man; "a beggar named Lazarus, who was covered with sores, was laid ..."

v21
      epiqumwn (epqumew) pres. part. "longing [to eat]" - desiring. The participle is adjectival, further describing the man, "he was a man who longed to eat from the rich man's table."
      cortasqhnai (cortazw) aor. pas. inf. "to eat" - to be filled. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the participle "longing", "he longed to satisfy his hunger", Barclay.
      twn piptontwn (piptw) pres. part. "what fell" - [from] the things falling. Participle as a substantive, "from what fell"; "he was happy to eat the scraps that fell from the rich man's table", CEV.

v22
      egeneto de + inf. "the time came" - and it happened to be carried ...... [and to be carried]. Typically Lukan form, best treated as a temporal clause, "then the poor man died and was carried by the angels", TNT. As noted above, using this verse to support an immediate resurrection at death, as opposed to a resurrection of the dead at the return of Christ, is unwise. This applies to the following images of hell, etc.

v23
      tw/ aJdh/ "in hell" - in hades. The place of the dead; "the netherworld", NAB. "From among the dead", Phillips.
      uJparcwn (uJparcw) pres. part. "he was [in torment]" - being [tormented], existing [in a state of torment]. Possibly temporal, "while he was being tormented."
      eparaV (epairw) aor. part. "he looked up" - having lifted up [the eyes]. Attendant circumstance participle identifying action accompanying the main verbal phrase "being in torment"; "he looked up."

v24
      fwnhsaV (fwnew) aor. part. "so he called [to him]" - [and he/this one] having called [said]. Attendant circumstance participle identifying action accompanying the main verb "he said." Redundancy produces "he shouted", Barclay.
      iJna + subj. "to [dip]" - that [he may dip]. Forming a purpose clause, "in order that he may dip."
      oJti "because" - that. Expressing cause/reason, as NIV.
      bayh/ (baptw) aor. subj. "[to] dip" - he may dip. Note that the verb takes the accusative of the thing dipped, ie. "the finger", and the genitive of that into which it is dipped, ie. "the water."

v25
      ta agaqa "good things" - the good. The rich man had "the good life", while Lazarus did it rough.
      odunasai (odunaw) pres. pas. "[you] are in agony" - are suffering. Describing the "great reversal" at the day of judgment. As noted above, an actual reversal of rich and poor at the great assize, of the rich suffering and the poor comforted, is neither true, nor the point of the parable. Attempts at contextualizing / spiritualizing the "agony", eg. "the spiritual torture of remorse", Hauck, ignores the fact that the parable is just an illustration. The picture of "reversal" in the parable serves only to illustrate Jesus' teaching in v14-16. In the introductory sayings Jesus reveals that the day of judgment is impacting on the "righteous" (the self-righteous Pharisees whose wealth is obviously read as a blessing from the Lord), an impact caused by the coming of the kingdom - the "righteous" are being judged and the "humble" (repentant) blessed. It is a mistake to use the parable to expand on this message.

v26
      kai en pasi toutoiV "and besides all this" - and in [addition] to all these things. "And in any case."
      oJpwV + subj. "so that .... cannot" - in order that .... [are not able]. Forming a purpose clause.
      oiJ qelonteV (qelw) pres. part. "those who want" - the ones wanting. The participle is adjectival forming a relative clause, as NIV.
      diabhnai (diabainw) aor. inf. "to go" - The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of "want." "No one from either side can cross over", CEV.

v29
      "They have the written word of God read and expounded in the synagogue", TH. If the parable is a folk-tale, from this point on Jesus is certainly putting his own twist to it. These final verses illustrate the teaching of verses 17 and 18, namely, that scripture, particularly the unchangeable law, is being superseded by a new word from God. There can be no greater witness to the present reality of the coming kingdom - more substantial than "a messenger even from death's realm", Fitzmyer.

v30
      ean + subj. "if" - Conditional sentence, 3rd. class, where the condition is regarded as a possibility.