- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 12 2009,00:02) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 11 2009,14:15) Hi CON,
Do you think paradise is heaven?
Or is it the bosom of Abraham?The thief died under the old covenant of course.
Nick do you know what is the difference between the two covenants?Only a small thing was changed between the two, it is a great thing but it is a small thing.
And yes Paradise is in heaven at this moment, but it will be on earth when the New Jerusalem descends from heaven.
Let the scriptures decide where and what Paradise is:He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Revelation 2:7
1 ) What is in the midst (middle) of the “Paradise” of God?
2 ) The “Tree of Life”, is in the middle of “Paradise” of God.
See that? Scriptures do not lie. The Tree of Life is in the middle of Paradise. Do not forget it.
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations. Revelation 22:1-2
1 ) Now here is the “Throne of God”. Correct?
2 ) What is coming out of the “Throne of God?”
The River of Life. We have two facts here, God's Throne and the River of Life proceeding from it.
3 ) What was on the side of the “River of Life?”
The Tree of Life is by the River! So now we have three facts here now, We have God's Throne and the River of Life proceeding from it with the Tree of life on its banks.
4 ) What did the first verse say? The Tree of life is in the middle of Paradise, which is where? next to the River of Life, proceeding out of God's Throne. Correct?
There is no hint of Abrahams Bosom here, Nor anything about a New or Old Covenant.
This is the reward that is in Heaven that Jesus is bringing with hin when he comes.
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Revelation 22:12
Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Revelation 22:14
==============================================
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 2Corinthians 12:4
Caught “UP” into Paradise, Not down into Hell.
==============================================
The “LATER” Jews believed in Romes teaching of Paradise handed down by the Platoist's of the times, which evolved into the Roman Catholic teaching of Paradise (Purgatory). The “FIRST” Jews all the way up to Jesus and the Apostles knew Paradise was with God.
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) presents a series of problems for the interpreter. First, it is unique to Luke, denying the interpreter a potentially helpful synoptic parallel. Second, it names one of the characters. Third, it presents a scenario that is completely removed from day-to-day life in that the primary action is in the intermediate state. Finally, one of the characters is taken to the kolpon Abra'am , an understood term which is hapax .
Is it a parable?
Because one of the characters is given a name, something that never happens in any other parable, some have denied that it is a parable.(1) MacLeod explicitly argues that it is not a parable. Rather, Jesus has “(drawn) back the curtain on the existence of people in the afterlife.”(2) Bock splits lexical hairs by calling this an “example story” while denying that it is a parable.(3) Others object because it lacks an introduction that explicitly identifies it as a parable.
In favor of it being a parable, “form-critical analysis shows that it contains the characteristics of a parable (earthiness, brief plot, comparison of the situation to kingdom realities).”(4) This argument bears considerable weight, since the story closely resembles many generally accepted parables with these formal characteristics.
Countering the second objection, others note that the two story parables that precede it also lack a parabolic identifier. They begin instead with anqrwpoj tij (“a certain man”) exactly as the Rich Man and Lazarus does. The anti-parable interpreters do not use this linguistic cue against the parabolic nature of those stories, leading one to suggest that the argument is special pleading. It also appears that those who disallow the parabolic nature of this story generally do so to further the exposition of their systems related to the intermediate state. This appears to be question begging, and is similarly unconvincing.
Dramatis personae
History does not inform us of the origin of the Pharisees.(5) They may have evolved out of the reform efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah after the return from Babylonian exile.(6) In Jesus' day, they were generally regarded as authoritative interpreters of Torah.(7)
The Pharisees were not a monolithic group, and it appears there may have been several subsects. Nicodemus is noted to have spoken in Jesus' defense (John 7:50), and Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple (Matt. 27:57). Others warned Jesus of Herod's plots (Luke 13:31). Brad Young even goes so far as to intimate that Jesus may have been a Pharisee himself!(8) Even if He was, the bulk of the Pharisees were clearly His opponents, being from different subgroups.
As the self-ordained keepers of orthodoxy, the Pharisees had “built a fence around Torah”(9) by creating an immense body of additional rules beyond the 613 mitzvoth in Torah.(10) These were called “the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:5), and were used to regulate daily activity.
They were enamored of ritual purity (Matt. 15:1-2). They falsely thought they were truly the proper interpreters of Torah (Matt. 15:14, John 7:49). They avoided contact with “tax collectors and sinners,” two groups they thought to be irretrievably lost (Matt. 9:11), most likely to avoid defilement. They fasted frequently (Matt. 9:14). They had arbitrary rules about the Sabbath (Matt. 12:2).
The Pharisees developed a mindset that by following their rules, they would build up a stock of good deeds that would outweigh any bad deeds, thus guaranteeing immediate individual post-mortem compensation.(11) Confident in their rewards, they “justified themselves in the sight of men” (Luke 16:15). Almost every time Jesus gathered a crowd, they were in the mix, checking on what He had to say, often speaking up to “test' him (Luke 10:25).
The Rich Man was a Jew educated in Torah. We know this because he had five brothers (Lk 16:28) who “had Moses and the Prophets” (Luke 16:29). His clothing and continual feasting (Lk 16:19) indicate great wealth, which would have been seen by the Pharisees as a sign of divine favor (cf. Prov. 10:22). He probably avoided contact with Lazarus to maintain ceremonial purity, because if defiled he could not go to the Temple to pray (Luke 18:10). His characteristics thus suggest he may have been a Pharisee.
“Lazarus” is derived from Eliezer, which means “Whom God Helps.” His condition rendered his name apparently non sequitur . He was completely destitute, having been “cast” (lit. Gk.) on the rich man's doorstep so that he would have a chance to have table scraps for food (Luke 16:20). This abandonment suggests he had no friends. To add insult to injury, he was covered in sores that stray dogs, unclean animals, licked, rendering him ceremonially unclean. He was so powerless he couldn't keep them away.
Lexical issues:
Hades , the destination of the rich man, is the term used in the LXX for sheol , the Hebrew word for the place of the dead. In the Old Testament, “the abode of the dead is pictured as a place beneath the earth to which one “goes down” (Gen. 42:38; Prov. 15:24; Ezek. 26:20) and as a place of gloomy darkness (Job 10:21-22), silence (Pss. 94:17; 115:17), and forgetfulness (Ps. 88:12). God is not remembered there and his praises are never sung (Pss. 6:5; 30:9; 115:17). Even God himself, it was believed, does not remember those who are there (Ps. 88:5, 11; Isa. 38:18). The dead were seen as permanently cut off from contact with the Lord and from participating in his activity in history.”(12) There is no hint of reward or punishment in sheol .(13)
The concept of sheol did not remain static. By the time of Christ, the idea that sheol was divided into regions had become established. This progression of thought came even though there was no prophetic voice for about 400 years.(14)
And thence I went to another place, and he showed me in the west another great and high mountain of hard rock. And there was in it four hollow places. Then Raphael. said unto me: 'These hollow places have been created. that the spirits of the souls of the dead should assemble therein. And these places have been made to receive them till the day of their judgment.' Then I asked. 'Why is one separated from the other?' And he answered. These three have been made that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And such a division has been made for the spirits of the righteous, in which there is the bright spring of water. And such has been made for sinners. Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain till the great day of judgment. (1 Enoch 22:1-12, partial)
People who died were thought to go to various regions based on their merits, with the wicked suffering in fire. The source of this belief is uncertain. It did not arise from the Old Testament, since there is no hint of either reward or punishment within the canonical literature. Various authors suggest syncretistic sources for the belief. Pagan Greek conceptions of death seem to have had the greatest influence.(15)
Kolpon Abra'am , the “bosom of Abraham,” is hapax. Jesus used it as an understood term, and it is clear that the disciples and Pharisees understood it, since no editorial explanation appears in the text (cf. John 2:19-21). Several authors note that the visual image is similar to the Last Supper where John is described as “reclining on Jesus' breast” (John 13:23).(16) This presents the idea of rest as an honored guest at a meal, but unfortunately tells us nothing about where this event occurs.
Unlike words where we can extrapolate etymologically, this is an obscure cultural term. This has led some authors to suggest that it refers to a region within sheol , as suggested in 1 Enoch.(17) Others have identified it as h
eaven, perhaps because the rich man “lifted up his eyes” and saw Lazarus (Luke 16:23).(18) These identifications are speculative, since very few authors state a reason for their choice.Contemporary non-canonical literature has proven to be no help, since no such extant work identifies the kolpon Abra'am . Several of the ante-Nicene fathers gloss the term, suggesting that their readers understand it. The only known ancient author who clearly expounds the meaning of this term is Hippolytus (ca. 170-236). He explains kolpon Abra'am as a locale within hades/sheol where “the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham's bosom.”(19) He also notes that, “the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained” in hades/sheol awaiting the final judgment. We must be cautious, however, since this is about two centuries after Christ, and could represent a late development.
Hippolytus' explanation concurs with 1 Enoch, which is also in agreement with Josephus' comments about the Pharisees:
They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.(20)
Thus, it appears that the only identifiable direct evidence, however limited, identifies the kolpon Abra'am as a region within the place of the dead, not a location in heaven.
At this point, we must be careful. We are not developing a system of the intermediate state. In no way are we attempting to definitively identify the exact destination of those who die. We are limiting our discussion at this point to the identification of the “Bosom of Abraham” as understood by the Pharisees . As we will see shortly, there is adequate reason to question whether the Pharisees were correct in their beliefs regarding the intermediate state. But for purposes of interpreting the parable, we must understand the term as they did.
Some authors have taken “lifted up his eyes” as an indication that the rich man was in sheol while Lazarus was in heaven.(21) As already discussed, this is not what the Pharisees believed, but the phrase is worth exploring. This expression is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In every case, it expresses the act of redirecting one's gaze, but without indicating a gaze toward heaven. In three cases, the object sighted is above the ground, but none of these are “heavenward.” Thus, this expression should merely be taken to indicate a change from local to distant focus. An alternate form, “lift up your eyes” is used seventeen times in the Old Testament, and unless specifically stated, the object of interest is again at ground level. The only time we see the expression used to indicate a view of heaven is in Psalm 123:1 where we read, “To Thee I will lift up my eyes, O Thou who art enthroned in the heavens!” The heavenward direction is not intrinsic to the expression, but is supplied by the remainder of the passage.
Finally, a “chasm” is a wide space between two locations on generally the same level. Its primary effect is to create an impassible barrier. By way of illustration, consider the Grand Canyon. The North and South Rims are about the same elevation, and travel directly between them is a practical impossibility.
Caveats:
Some have argued that the description of hades/sheol and the Bosom of Abraham is literal and accurate, instructing us in the nature of the intermediate state.(22) Others caution against attempting to develop systematic theology from elements of parables that are not central to the message of the parable.(23) When we examine this parable several facts become clear.
First, the description of the intermediate state in the parable is different from any found in the Old Testament. In particular, no Old Testament passage indicates any form of punishment in sheol . Flames (Luke 16:24) are conspicuously absent. Second, the uniform metaphor for death in the both Testaments is “sleep” (1 Kings 2:1, 11:21; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:6; 1 Thess. 4:14-15, etc.).(24) This strongly suggests that death is an unconscious state consistent with Ecclesiastes 9:10.
Next, when we examine the story of Adam's creation, we find that when God breathed the breath of life into his body, Adam “became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). He did not acquire a soul, he became one. If we back up to Genesis 1, we discover that fish, other marine creatures, “cattle,” “creeping things,” and “beasts of the earth” are all “souls” as well (Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, lit. Heb.). When we look toward the end of time, during the second Bowl judgment all those marine “souls” die (Rev. 16:3, lit. Gk.). Finally, Jesus declared that the burning of the wicked would happen “at the end of the age” (Matt. 13:30, 40-42), which He identified as His parousia (Matt. 28:20). These lines of evidence, as well as others too voluminous for this paper indicate that at the very least, there is a prima facie case that the picture of the intermediate state in the parable is not correct.
Curiously, we need not believe in soul sleep to reach this conclusion. Most modern Christians believe that the soul of the saint goes to heaven at death. If this is the case, since the Bosom of Abraham was understood by the Pharisees to be a region in sheol , not a place in heaven, the modern conception of the intermediate state is also in tension with them. Thus, both modern conceptions conflict with the Pharisaic understanding of the Bosom of Abraham.(25)
As a result, the parable should not be used to develop a system of the intermediate state. Such an effort will only create difficulties, and, if the parable is understood according to Pharisaic beliefs, it will contradict virtually all modern beliefs regarding the intermediate state. This raises a different question. “In teaching, would Jesus use an erroneous belief without correcting it?” Chafer argues that if the description of the intermediate state is not exact, Jesus is lying.(26)
In Matthew 10:28 is instructive. There, Jesus gave His disciples an advertising message. The people were not to fear the Romans who could “destroy the body but not the soul.” They were to fear God who could “destroy body and soul in hell.” Based on the discussion of soul sleep immediately above, this call appeals to a popular belief, but is theologically incorrect.
If we adhere to the belief in immortality of the soul, we have a different, but parallel theological problem. Jesus' appeal contradicts this popular modern belief, since He declares that He can “destroy. the soul in hell.” In either case, the passage leaves a popular error uncorrected.
The point of advertising is not to correct misconceptions. It is to attract the audience. That is all that is important. If Jesus were to try to correct theological errors while advertising, He would destroy its effect. His focus would be directed away from the primary message. So in Matthew 10:28, Jesus ignored possible theological errors. Instead, He drove the message directly to His main point.(27)
In the parable of the Treasure Found in the Field (Matt. 13:44), a good case can be made that the man who found the treasure acted immorally. Yet Jesus implicitly commended the man who found the treasure. The theological error was not central to the message and correcting it would have destroyed the illustration. Other examples could be proffered.
Since Jesus tolerated a theological error at face value in more than one place, there is no reason that He shouldn't be able to tolerate a different error in another place. His major point was that the Pharisaic belief system
s were false because the Pharisees were not listening to God's prophets. To get to His conclusion, an argument contradicting their belief about the intermediate state would have been a distraction at best. At worst, it would have completely destroyed the thread of His argument. Therefore, he treated their system regarding the intermediate state as if true in order to press the more important message.Context:
The pericope in which the parable is found begins in Luke 14:1 where Jesus went “into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread.” The guests included “lawyers and other Pharisees” (Luke 14:2). When a man with dropsy is brought, Jesus confronted them. “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” (Luke 14:3). Hearing no objection, He healed the man and sent him away (Luke 14:4). Jesus followed this with a challenge about pulling out an ass or an ox that had fallen into a well on the Sabbath (Luke 14:5). When no response came, Jesus continued into a series of stronger challenges. And He shifted from asking direct questions to creating hypotheticals via parables.
With the parable of the Wedding Feast, Jesus subtly suggested that in the kingdom those with high opinions of themselves would be brought low, and the low elevated (Luke 14:11). Next, in the parable of the Great Supper, He implied that any who refused His call would be excluded from “my supper” (Luke 14:24). This Messianic banquet is a major theme of the Old Testament prophets (cf. Isa. 25:6-8), and it is difficult to imagine that the Pharisees did not understand that Jesus was implying they'd be shut out of the Messiah's kingdom.
In response to deafening silence, Jesus continued into the Parables of the Tower Builder and Warring King, advising the Pharisees that answering His call would require “all that they had” (Luke 14:33). The Parable of Salt ends these challenges with a veiled inference that the Pharisees would become worthless.
At this point Jesus bolstered His challenge with, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Luke 14:35). This exhortation, recorded eight times in the synoptics, is an echo of the Shema , the foundational statement of Jewish faith. “Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:4). In making this call, Jesus claimed to be no less than a prophet of Moses' stature. After all, He was demanding no less adherence to His pronouncements than to those of Moses, the greatest prophet before the Messiah (cf. Deut., 18:15, 18; John 1:21, 7:40). His words were to be a “sign” on their hands, foreheads, and houses (Deut. 6:6-9).
We must not stop here. As “the Prophet” (Matt. 21:11, John 1:21), Jesus was not claiming to merely have the prophetic oracles. The Prophet would speak face-to-face with God, just as Moses did (Deut. 34:10). Jesus had made that very claim earlier with many witnesses (John 6:17-20). The listeners recognized it was a claim to be the Messiah. If true, nothing less than radical obedience was acceptable. If false, the pretender must be killed (Deut. 18:20).
It is not entirely clear whether chapter 15 is a chronological continuation of chapter 14 or an editorial juxtaposition for thematic effect. In any case, the Pharisees noted that “tax collectors and sinners” were Jesus' common dinner companions (Luke 15:1-2). Their “grumbling” led Jesus to tell the Parables of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10), showing God's joy when one lost person repents. These parables more directly challenged the Pharisees, since they regarded “tax collectors and sinners” as people who were beyond repentance and redemption, deserving only condemnation and contempt. Any association with them was defiling.
Answering this objection, Jesus continued with the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32). There, a son who had committed the “unpardonable” sin of wishing his father dead had squandered his inheritance. Out of options, he worked with pigs, defiling himself. In this defiled state he returned home, unworthy to be even a servant. But his father welcomed him with the finest he could provide. In the context of the preceding parables, Jesus was saying that Pharisaic beliefs linking ritual purity and acceptance by God were totally wrong. Forgiveness was available to all.
Moving strongly forward, Jesus presented the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13). This man administered usurious loans. To avoid the prohibited practice of charging interest (Exod. 22:25; Deut. 23:19-20), Pharisees would include the interest as part of the principal. The steward also appears to have been embezzling. When threatened with firing for his embezzlement, the steward went to the debtors and reduced the notes to the proper amounts, bringing them in line with the Mosaic prescriptions. This brought in enough money to result in commendation. Jesus concluded with a strong command regarding faithfulness in all things. This was difficult, since the Pharisees were “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14).
Now Jesus moved to direct accusation. The Pharisees “justify themselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts!” (Luke 16:15) He hammered home the idea that the Pharisees were trying to force themselves into the kingdom instead of listening to the graceful God of the Law and the Prophets. They divorce at will (Luke 16:18). And finally He delivered the coup de grace.
Interpretation:
Lazarus was the poorest of the poor. In conventional Jewish thought, this was evidence of his unworthiness. He had no friends, and was defiled by the dogs. But his unclean state was unimportant to God, who sent His angels to “carry him to Abraham's Bosom” when he died (Luke 16:22). His pitiful life status was completely reversed, as he entered a place of repose and reward. His name was proved true. He has no further direct involvement in the story.
The rich man was presumably a Pharisee, ritually pure, and “blessed by God” as evidenced by his extreme wealth.(28) He had lived a life of command. He did not work, and had servants and employees to take care of everything. Almost certainly he was “Torah-observant” in the manner of the Pharisees. He did all the “required” formal acts of piety, and probably did many “works of the law” (Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16). We may properly expect that he made all the proper sacrifices and prayers at the Temple. But he ignored God's commands to care for the poor. He knew Lazarus' name, confirming that he knew Lazarus' plight before death. This left him without any excuse for his failure to be merciful to Lazarus. He was buried (Lk 16:22) in proper form, avoiding the curse of not being buried (Deut 21:22-23).
The fates of both men were fixed at death. No change was possible, and the rich man seemed to recognize this since he made no attempt to repent. He initially maintained his imperious stance, apparently believing at first that his state was improper or a mistake. He certainly expected that fates would be reversed at death, but to him this meant that the oppressed Jews would be rewarded while the oppressing Romans would suffer.(29)
In torment (Lk 16:24), the rich man commanded Abraham to send Lazarus to comfort him. Lazarus had water, and the rich man, an “observant” Jew, obviously “deserved” some. Abraham rebuffed his directive, noting that the rich man had received his rewards during life while Lazarus had not (Lk 16:25). Further, there is a “fixed” impassible barrier, implying that the rich man's status is irreversible (Lk 16:26). Recognizing the authority of the patriarch, the rich man moderated his attitude and asked for Lazarus to warn his brothers (Lk 16:27-28).
Abraham's response is instructive. The brothers already have “Moses and the prophets” (16:29), but by implication are not listening to them. They have ignored the Shema , and have written their own words on their foreheads and hands rather than the words of G
od. Their thoughts and deeds were far from God (cf. Isa 29:13). They were physically sons of Abraham (Lk 16:25), but they were not doing the deeds of Abraham (cf. Jn 8:39).The written words of God in the Tanakh are a sufficient guide for salvation (2 Tim 3:15). If God's voice there is not enough, it won't matter if someone returns from the dead. His voice won't be heard, either (16:31). The Pharisees were a “wicked generation (that) seeks for a sign” (Luke 11:29), but “no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah.” Jesus would return from the dead on the third day in fulfillment of prophecy, but that sign would be ignored.
The reversal of status in this parable is a powerful literary tool to gain the attention of the audience, in part because it is the “wrong” reversal. Jesus presented a series of challenges to the Pharisees. In each case he showed that their interpretation of scripture served their own aggrandizement, not God's mission to the lost. Using the Shema, Jesus challenged them to listen to His voice as the prophetic voice of God. They continued to resist, “grumbling” (Luke 15:2) and “scoffing” (Luke 16:14). Instead of the Romans ending in flames, the Pharisee whose life was based on honoring himself who found himself in torment.
Jesus fired a final salvo at the self-important false interpreters of scripture. They were focused on externalities, but God looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). Instead of listening to God, they were listening to themselves. They had been circumcised outwardly in their flesh, but not in their hearts (Deut. 30:6, Rom. 2:28-29). They were not part of true Israel (cf. John 3:3, Exod. 12:48, Deut. 6:4). Unless they were willing to listen to the voice of God in the Tanakh, as presented by its very author, they wouldn't listen to Him giving the same message after the resurrection (cf. Luke 24:25-27). Indeed, they sent their own to persecute God's people (Acts 22:3-6). They had “hardened their hearts” (Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7).
God gave many instructions in the Tanakh. They are summed up in one statement.
He has told you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. (Mic. 6:8)
Jesus summed up the Pharisees in another succinct passage.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices – mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” (Matt. 23:23 NIV)
——————————————————————————–
1. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Gospel Preaching,” Bibliotheca Sacra 95 (1938): 361, J. R. Mantey, “”Is Death the only Punishment for Unbelievers?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 112 (1955): 342, Millard J. Erickson, “Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995): 142, L. Richards, The 365 day Devotional Commentary . (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1990), 743.
2. David J. MacLeod, “The Sixth “Last Thing”: The Last Judgment and the End of the World, (Rev. 20:11-15),” Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000), 316.
3. Darrell S. Bock, The IVP New Testament Commentary: Luke (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1994), Luke 16:19-31.
4. Grant R. Osborne, “Historical Criticism and the Evangelical,” Journal of the Evangelical Society 42, (1999): 205.
5. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, I. H. Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 609.
6. L. Ryken, J. Wilhoit, T. Longman, et al. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 639.
7. Josephus, Wars of the Jews ii. 162, 3.
8. Brad Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). Young does not directly state his belief that Jesus was a Pharisee, but hints at it throughout the book in the way he describes Jesus using Pharisaic argument in both content and style.
9. Pirke Aboth i.l.
10. David Noel Freedman (ed.), Eerdman's Bible Dictionary , “The Traditions of the Elders” [in Logos Library ], (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
11. David Powys, 'Hell': A Hard Look at a Hard Question (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1997), 214.
12. W. A. Elwell, & P. W. Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001), 364.
13. Philip. S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2002), 73.
14. Josephus, Against Apion i, 41.
15. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Phillipsburg, N. J., Presbyterian and Reformed: 2003), 833.
16. Kenneth L. Barker, John R. Kohlenberger III, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol 8. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 991-992., P. J. Achtenmeier, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco, Harper & Row: 1985), “Abraham's Bosom.”
17. 1 Enoch 22:1-13.
18. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335-394) “On the Soul and Resurrection” Fathers of The Church 58:232-234 (Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America Press: 1947), in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture , Luke 16:23-26, Logos Electronic Edition., Bock, op. cit., John Calvin, Commentaries (Luke 16:19), Galaxie Software, Matthew Henry, (Luke 16:19-31), A. Knowles, The Bible Guide . (Minneapolis, Augsburg: 2001), 488, Simon Kistemaker, The Parables (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2005), 196.
19. “An Extract Out of Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades” in William Whiston's translation of The Works of Josephus as quoted in Ed Christian, “The Rich Man and Lazarus, Abraham's Bosom, and the Biblical Penalty Karet (“Cut Off”)”, presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 13, 2003.
20. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews , 18.1.14, in William Whiston, The Complete Works of Josephus (Peabody, Hendrickson: 1987).
21. Christopher W. Morgan, et. al., Hell Under Fire (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 2004), 139.
22. Chafer, op. cit.
23. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol 8. , 991-992.
24. BibleWorks identifies 36 passages in the NAS Old Testament where “(X) slept with his fathers” is used as a metaphor for the death of the person.
25. Curiously, if we consider the Roman Catholic dogma of Purgatory, we have a third doctrine contrary to the Pharisaic belief.
26. Chafer, op. cit.
27. This conclusion is consistent with the comments of Green, et. al. (Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1992), 311) and Powys (op. cit., 289).
28. Powys, 226.
29. The Pharisees believed in a reversal of fates after death, but this reversal generally dealt with rewards for oppressed Jews while the oppressing Romans suffered penalties. See The IVP Background Commentary, New Testament , Craig S. Keener, Editor (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1993), Luke 16:24-26.
Hi CON,
Personally I believe the description of Hades and the 'bosom of Abraham 'Jesus gave.
None of us has been there to improve on his words.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 12 2009,01:54) Hi CON,
Personally I believe the description of Hades and the 'bosom of Abraham 'Jesus gave.
None of us has been there to improve on his words.
Then you are a Platoist by Roman Theology.THE TWO COVENANTS CONTRASTED:
“What Has Become of the Satisfaction You Felt?”
Everyone who has ever had any acquaintance with the Lord knows that in accepting Him there is joy. It is always expected that a new convert will have a beaming countenance and a joyful testimony. So it had been with the Galatians. But now their expressions of thanksgiving had given way to bickering and strife. The first joy and the warmth of the first love was gradually dying away. This was not as it should have been. “The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Proverbs 4:18, KJV. The just live by faith. When men turn from the faith or attempt to substitute works for it, the light goes out. Jesus said, “These things have I spoken unto you, that My joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.” John 15:11, KJV. The fountain of life is never exhausted. The supply is never diminished. If therefore our light grows dim and our joy gives place to a dull, monotonous grind, we may know that we have turned aside out of the way of life.
Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son f the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these two women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she was Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one that dost not bear;
break forth and shout, thou who art not in travail;
for the desolate hath more children
than she who hath a husband.” Verses 21-27.How many there are who love ways that everybody but themselves can see are leading them directly to death. With their eyes wide open to the consequences of their course, they persist, deliberately choosing “the pleasures of sin for a season,” rather than righteousness and length of days. To be “under the law” of God is to be condemned by it as a sinner, chained and doomed to death. Yet many millions besides the Galatians have loved the condition and still love it. If they would only hear what the law says! There is no reason why they should not, for it speaks in thunder tones. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15.
It says, “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman,” Verse 30. It speaks death to all who take pleasure in the “beggarly elemental spirits” of the world. “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.” Galatians 3:10. The poor slave is to be cast out “into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 25:30, KJV.
“For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” Therefore, “Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.” Malachi 4:1, 4, KJV. All who are “under the law,” whether they be called Jews or Gentiles, Christians or heathen, are in bondage to Satan–in the bondage of transgression and sin–and are to be “cast out.” “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house forever; the son continues forever.” John 8:34, 35. Thank God, then, for “adoption as sons.”
False teachers would persuade the brethren that in turning from wholehearted faith in Christ and trusting to works which they themselves could do, they would become children of Abraham and so heirs of the promises. “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Romans 9:8, KJV. Now, of the two sons of Abraham, one was born after the flesh, and the other was by “promise,” born of the Spirit. “By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.” Hebrews 11:11.
Hagar was an Egyptian slave. The children of a slave woman are slaves, even though their father is free. So Hagar could bring forth children only to bondage.
But long before the servant-child Ishmael was born, the Lord had plainly signified to Abraham that his own free son, born of his free wife Sarah, would inherit the promise. Such are the workings of the Almighty.
“These Women Are Two Covenants”
The two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent the two covenants. We read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, “bearing children for slavery.” Just as Hagar could bring forth only slave children, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, cannot beget free men. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. “The law brings wrath,” “since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 4:15; 3:20. At Sinai the people promised to kept the given law. But in their own strength they had no power to keep the law.
Mount Sinai “bore children for slavery,” since their promise to make themselves righteous by their own works was not successful and can never be.
Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin. They had no power to break their chains. And the speaking of the law made no change in that condition. If a man is in prison for crime, he does not gain release by hearing the statutes read to him. Reading to him the law that put him there only makes his captivity more painful.
Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage? Not by any means, since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and therefore was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them (and us) from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin.
So, when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done and then said, “Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine.” Exodus 19:5, KJV. To what covenant did He refer? Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a “peculiar treasure” unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for them all that He had promised.
The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves does not prove that God had led them into making that covenant.
If the children of Israel who came out of Egypt had but walked “in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Romans 4:12, KJV), they would never have boasted that they could keep the law spoken from Sinai,
“for the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” (Romans 4:13, KJV). Faith justifies. Faith makes righteous. If the people had had Abraham's faith, they would have had the righteousness that he had. At Sinai the law, which was “spoken because of transgression,” would have been in their hearts. They would not have needed to be awaked by its thunders to a sense of their condition. God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai, and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt “that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws.” Psalm 105:45, KJV. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them through faith in Him.The Two Covenants Parallel
The apostle when speaking of Hagar and Sarah says: “These women are two covenants.” These two covenants exist today. The two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he cannot be bound under the old covenant, thinking that its time has passed. The time for that is passed only in the sense that “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lust, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.” 1 Peter 4:3, KJV.
The difference is just the difference between a free woman and a slave. Hagar's children, no matter how many she might have had, would have been slaves while those of Sarah would necessarily be free. So the covenant from Sinai holds all who adhere to it in bondage “under the law,” while the covenant from above gives freedom, not freedom from obedience to the law, but freedom from disobedience to it. The freedom is not found away from the law but in the law. Christ redeems from the curse, which is the transgression of the law, so that the blessing may come on us. And the blessing is obedience to the law. “Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord.” Psalm 119:1. This blessedness is freedom. “I shall walk at liberty; for I have sought Thy precepts.” Psalm 119:45.
The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results. But in the second instance we have the law “in the hand of a Mediator.” In the one case it is what we can do. In the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.
Bear in mind that there is not the slightest question in the whole letter to the Galatians as to whether or not the law should be kept. The only question is: How shall it be kept? Is it to be our own doing, so that the reward shall not be of grace but of debt? Or is it to be God working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure?
Mount Sinai vs. Mount Zion
As there are the two covenants, so there are two cities to which they pertain. Jerusalem which now is pertains to the old covenant—to Mount Sinai. It will never be free but will be replaced by the City of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven. Revelation 3:12; 21:1-5. It is the city for which Abraham looked, the “city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” Hebrews 11:10. Compare Revelation 21:14, 19, 20.
There are many who build great hopes—all their hopes—on the present Jerusalem. For such “to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted.” 2 Corinthians 3:14. They are in reality looking to Mount Sinai and the old covenant for salvation. But it is not to be found there. “For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; . . . but ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, . . . and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” Hebrews 12:18-24, KJV. Whoever looks to the present Jerusalem for blessings is looking to the old covenant to Mount Sinai, to slavery. But whoever worships with his face toward the New Jerusalem, he who expects blessings only from it, is looking to the new covenant, to Mount Zion, and to freedom; for “Jerusalem above is free.” From what is it free? Free from sin; and since it is our “mother,” it begets us anew so that we also become free from sin. Free from the law? Yes, certainly, for the law has no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
But do not let anyone deceive you with vain words, telling you that you may now trample underfoot that law which God Himself proclaimed in such awful majesty from Sinai. Coming to Mount Zion, to Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, we become free from sin, from transgression of the law. The basis of God's throne in “Zion” is His law. From the throne proceed the same lightnings and thunderings and voices (Revelation 4:5; 11:19) as from Sinai, because the selfsame law is there. But it is “the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16), and therefore in spite of the thunders we come to it boldly, assured that from God we shall obtain mercy. We shall also find grace to help in time of need, grace to help us in he hour of temptation to sin, for out of the midst of the throne, from the slain Lamb (Revelation 5:6), flows the river of water of life bringing to us from the heart of Christ “the law of the Spirit of life.” Romans 8:2. We drink of it, we bathe in it, and we find cleansing from all sin.
Why didn't the Lord bring the people directly to Mount Zion, then, where they could find the law as life, and not to Mount Sinai where it was only death?
That is a very natural question, and one that is easily answered. It was because of their unbelief. When God brought Israel out of Egypt, it was His purpose to bring them to Mount Zion as directly as they could go. When they had crossed the Red Sea, they sang an inspired song, of which this was a part:
“Thou in Thy mercy hast led forth the people which Thou hast redeemed: Thou hast guided them in Thy strength unto Thy holy habitation.” “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in, in the sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established.” Exodus 15:13, 17, KJV.
If they had continued singing, they would very soon have come to Zion. For the redeemed of the Lord “come to Zion with singing, with everlasting joy upon their heads.” Isaiah 35:10. The dividing of the Red Sea was the proof of this. See Isaiah 51:10, 11. But they soon forgot the Lord and murmured in unbelief. Therefore the law “was added because of transgressions.” Galatians 3:19. It was their own fault—the result of their sinful unbelief—that they came to Mount Sinai instead of to Mount Zion.
Nevertheless, God did not leave Himself without witness of His faithfulness. At Mount Sinai the law was in the hand of the same Mediator, Jesus, to whom we come when we come to Zion. From the rock in Horeb (which is Sinai) flowed the living stream, the water of life from the heart of Christ. See Exodus 17:6; 1 Corinthians 10:4. There they had the reality of Mount Zion. Every soul whose heart there turned to the Lord would have beheld His unveiled glory, even as Moses did, and being transformed by it would have found the ministration of righteousness, instead of the ministration of condemnation. “His mercy endureth forever,” and even upon the clouds of wrath from which proceed the thunders and lightnings of the law shines the glorious face of the Sun of Righteousness and forms the bow of promise.
Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the salve and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.Verses 28-31.
Here is comfort for every soul! You are a sinner, or at best trying to be a Christian, and you tremble in terror at these words, “Cast out the slave.” You realize that you are a slave, that sin has a hold upon you and you are bound by the cords of evil habits. You must learn not to be afraid when the Lord speaks, for He speaks peace even though it be with a voice of thunder! The more majestic the voice, the greater the peace that He gives. Take courage!
The son of the bondwoman is the flesh and its works. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” 1 Corinthians 15:50. But God says, “Cast out the slave and her son.” If you are willing that His will shall be done in you “as it is in heaven,” He will see that the flesh and its works are cast out from you and you will be “delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Romans 8:21, KJV. That command which so frightened you is simply the voice commanding the evil spirit to depart and to come no more into you. It speaks to you victory over every sin. Receive Christ by faith, and you have the power to become the son of God, heir of a kingdom which cannot be moved, but which with all its people abides forever.
E. J. Waggoner
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 12 2009,01:54) Hi CON,
Personally I believe the description of Hades and the 'bosom of Abraham 'Jesus gave.
None of us has been there to improve on his words.
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man and Abraham's BosomThe parable of Lazarus and the rich man is often presented as Bible “proof” that good people go to heaven and bad people go to a “hell” where they are tormented by fire.
It is tempting to jump to this conclusion, but the parable actually has a different meaning or message altogether. First, here is the text of the parable, as found in Luke 16:19-31:
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21. And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23. And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28. For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Note that nothing was said about Abraham being in heaven: people often just assume that Abraham is in heaven in the parable, but the parable does not say so.
In fact Jesus said in John 3:13 that “no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man…”
Actually all of the Old Testament faithful, including Abraham, Moses, David and the prophets are still in their graves.
The apostle Peter mentioned this in regard to David, saying: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day… For David is not ascended into the heavens…” (Acts 2:29 and 34). Other verses such as Daniel 12:2, Acts 13:36, Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 and Job 3:13-19 give further evidence that the Old Testament “saints” are not in heaven but remain in their graves, awaiting their resurrection.
If we assume the parable shows that Abraham is in heaven, then the Bible would seem to be contradicting itself.
On the other hand, if Abraham is still in his grave as the other scriptures indicate, then what is the parable about?
Fortunately some of the details provided in the parable give clues to its true meaning. In the parable Abraham called the rich man his son, and the rich man had five brothers.
Now these might seem to be meaningless details, but they are not: they help identify who the rich man represents in the parable.
When Jesus gave the parable He was speaking to the Pharisees.
The Pharisees were Jews, who were the descendants of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob from whom issued the twelve tribes of Israel.
Judah was descended from – therefore a son of – Abraham by Isaac and Jacob… and Judah had five brothers by Jacob's first wife Leah. Genesis 35:22-26 lists the five brothers, and the other six half-brothers:
… Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: 23. The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun: 24. The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: 25. And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: 26. And the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.
So we see that the rich man could symbolize Judah – the Jews – in the parable.
If that's the case, then do the other points in the parable make any sense?
For example, why was the rich man rich?
And who was Lazarus, and why was he in poverty outside the rich man's gates?
And why did they change places?
And what was the significance of Lazarus going to Abraham's bosom, while the rich man was in torments?
And what was the message of the parable?
Why was the rich man – symbolizing the Jews – rich?
The Jews had something no other people had: a covenant with God, with the special promises – blessings – which that covenant provided.
That covenant was originally made with all twelve tribes of Israel; in Jesus time only the Jews remained in the covenant.
No other people had the covenant and blessings available to them.
The original blessings are listed in Deuteronomy 28, which begins with the following description:
And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: 2. And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God. 3. Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. 4. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. 5. Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store…
So we see that the Jews were “rich” because they had a covenant with God, with promised blessings.
Who does Lazarus symbolize in the parable?
Lazarus symbolizes the Gentiles, who were excluded from the covenant.
The Gentiles were in poverty, relatively speaking, owing to the fact that God's covenant and blessings were not available to them… yet.
They were outside the rich man's “gate,” so to speak, “desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.”
The covenant and its blessings were only available to the “rich man” – the Jews – to whom Jesus addressed the parable.
When Lazarus died in the parable, he next appeared at Abraham's bosom, meaning that he became a very close or special friend of Abraham.
To lean on another's chest or bosom was, in their time, indicative of a close friendship.
An example of this was the relationship between the apostle John and Jesus: John 13:23 recounts that “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
Now, what was the significance of the death of Lazarus, and his appearance as a special friend of Abraham?
Lazarus' death signified a change in the Gentiles' status with God: a covenant was made available to them, made possible by the sacrificial death and resurrection to eternal life of Jesus.
The terms of the new covenant are summarized in John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believe
th in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Why are the Gentiles (those who are true Christians) shown in the parable to be bosom friends of Abraham?
Because they have the same belief or faith in God that Abraham had.
Through faith the Gentiles can attain the righteousness of Abraham; they spiritually have bosom closeness with Abraham as indicated in the parable.
The apostle Paul described Abraham's faith, and showed that Christians are righteous because they have faith like Abraham's:
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21. And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:20-25)
We have seen that Lazarus' death symbolized a change in the Gentiles' relationship with God: a covenant was made available for them.
The rich man's death also signified a change for the Jews: the parable showed that their covenant with God would be put aside, leaving them “in torments,” seeing “Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”
The Jews would no longer be a special nation to God, “on high above all nations of the earth.”
The Gentiles who had faith would be God's people instead.
In the parable Abraham reminded rich man saying “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.” “Tormented” in this verse is translated from the Greek word odunao, which means mentally grieved or anguished: the opposite of “comforted.”
It does not mean physical pain, as many assume.
The apostle Paul wrote about the Jews', and all Israel's, fall from their covenant with God: “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?
God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy” (Romans 11:11).
The Jews “stumbled” owing to their disobedience and disbelief.
That stumbling made way for a covenant to be established with the Gentiles; Paul wrote to the Romans: “For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief” (Romans 11:30).
What was the “great gulf” that was between Lazarus and the rich man – between the Gentiles and the Jews?
Physically, one who was born a Jew could not become a Gentile, and vice versa.
Spiritually, it is faith that separates the Jews from the believing Gentiles.
Without faith the Jews could neither attain the righteousness of Abraham nor adhere to the covenant made available by Christ.
Furthermore a spiritual “blindness” has fallen over the Jews until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Paul commented on this several times. Here are examples:
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:25)
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. 15. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. (2 Cor. 3:14,15)
The parable concludes with Abraham telling the rich man “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
Here Jesus was telling the Pharisees that their disbelief in the scriptures would not change even if they saw someone rise from the dead, as the scriptures promised would happen.
Jesus was, of course, referring to His own promised resurrection: Psalm 16:10 prophesied that His soul – His body or self – would not be left in hell – the grave:
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Jesus used the parable of Lazarus and the rich man to show that the Jews were about to lose their place as God's chosen people, and be replaced by those who had not been favored before: the Gentiles who believed.
Unfortunately many have assumed the parable is a message about good people going to heaven and the wicked going to a hell where they are tormented by fire… even though heaven, good, evil and judgment are not even mentioned in the parable.
The final setting for the rich man, in a hell where he was tormented by fire, was purposely taken from the popular and pagan beliefs of the time.
Jesus knew the Pharisees would recognize this and then look for a deeper, symbolic meaning in the parable.
Paradoxically, most professing Christians today do not recognize the setting as pagan because so many pagan beliefs have been assimilated into modern “Christian” doctrine.
Jesus gave numerous other parables on the same theme, showing that the Jews were about to lose their place to the Gentiles who would believe.
Here is one of the other parables:
There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41. They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet. (Matthew 21:33-46)
Hi CON,
Your assumptions that the rich man in Lk 16 was a religious pharisee seems unlikely. Satan offered Jesus all the riches of earth and Jesus did not deny he could have fulfilled such a promise. Beyond service to God the Jews were blessed for giving alms and even in the NT such men were praised[the centurion]. So it seems to me that the rich man was outside of the promises given to Israel through faith and was also outside of the hope of mercy because he did not show mercy.Thence the description of Hades and the waiting place of the living I leave to Jesus.
Applying labels to those who believe is unhelpful.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 12 2009,10:50) Hi CON,
Your assumptions that the rich man in Lk 16 was a religious pharisee seems unlikely. Satan offered Jesus all the riches of earth and Jesus did not deny he could have fulfilled such a promise. Beyond service to God the Jews were blessed for giving alms and even in the NT such men were praised[the centurion]. So it seems to me that the rich man was outside of the promises given to Israel through faith and was also outside of the hope of mercy because he did not show mercy.Thence the description of Hades and the waiting place of the living I leave to Jesus.
Applying labels to those who believe is unhelpful.
It is not a label, but a belief system.Many who claim to have come out, carry alot of baggage from the original house.
Whore: Original Church
Harlots: Offshoot Churches that have not left ALL alone.Then you have Christians who left the Harlots but yet still carry some beliefs and traditions.
Then you have some that left all.
A bitter pill but helpful.
Hi CON,
The words of Jesus are anathema to you?
The apostles did not understand everything but they clung to the one who had the words of eternal life.CT…………..I agree many have not totally left the false teachings of the Whore Church they were taught in completely, and get stuck in her false teachings, hindering their growth.
I also agree many think they are being saved by their own obedience to the law, rather then realizing the GOD produces that obedience in us. AS it says the gentiles who have (NOT) the letter of the law, but (DO) the things contained there in , shows the law written on their (HEARTS by GOD). This is a major problem for many, is it a work of GOD that saves them or their own so-called (FREE WILL) Choices working through fear and trembling that saves them. If its by FAITH in GOD then it a work of GOD.
peace and love to you and yours……………………………gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 12 2009,12:58) Hi CON,
The words of Jesus are anathema to you?
The apostles did not understand everything but they clung to the one who had the words of eternal life.
Why would his words be anethema to me?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 12 2009,14:28) G,
But God does not give men gnostic teachings to add to those of Jesus does He?
Nothing Gnostic in what I have shown.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
