Luke 16:19 - 31
19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. What is Abraham's side? Why Abraham?
2. What is Hades?
3. Should the concepts of Abraham's side and/or Hades be taken at all seriously in this parable?
4. How was the rich man able to call out to Abraham?
5. Does Hades have flames that torment people?
6. Does having good things in this life put one in Hades? Does being poor and destitute put on in Abraham's side?
7. If there is a great chasm, how is the rich man able to talk to Abraham at all?
8. Why would someone not listen to the dead returning to life, if they don't listen to Moses and the prophets?
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-19.htm says:
ReplyDeleteChrist never treats outward conditions as having the power of determining either character or destiny. What a man does with his conditions settles what he is and what becomes of him. Nor does the parable teach that the use of wealth is the only determining factor, but, as every parable must do, it has to isolate the lesson it teaches in order to burn it into the hearers.
It is to be especially noticed that, in doing so, He adopts the familiar Rabbinical teaching as to Hades. He does not thereby stamp these conceptions of the state of the dead with His assent; for the purpose of the narrative is not to reveal the secrets of that land, but to impress the truth of retribution for the sin in question. It would not be to a group of Pharisaic listeners that He would have unveiled that world.
He takes their own notions of it-angel bearers, Abraham’s bosom, the two divisions in Hades, the separation, and yet communication, between them. These are Rabbis’ fancies, not Christ’s revelations. The truths which He wished to force home lie in the highly imaginative conversation between the rich man and Abraham, which also has its likeness in many a Rabbinical legend.
----
There was a certain rich man - Many have supposed that our Lord here refers to a "real history," and gives an account of some man who had lived in this manner; but of this there is no evidence. The probability is that this narrative is to be considered as a parable, referring not to any particular case which "had" actually happened, but teaching that such cases "might" happen. The "design" of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation. He had taught the danger of the love of money Luke 16:1-2; the deceitful and treacherous nature of riches Luke 16:9-11; that what was in high esteem on earth was hateful to God Luke 16:15; that people who did not use their property aright could not be received into heaven Luke 16:11-12; that they ought to listen to Moses and the prophets Luke 16:16-17; and that it was the duty of people to show kindness to the poor. The design of the parable was to impress all these truths more vividly on the mind, and to show the Pharisees that, with all their boasted righteousness and their external correctness of character, they might be lost. Accordingly he speaks of no great fault in the rich man - no external, degrading vice - no open breach of the law; and leaves us to infer that the "mere possession of wealth" may be dangerous to the soul, and that a man surrounded with every temporal blessing may perish forever.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-20.htm says:
ReplyDeleteNamed Lazarus - The word Lazarus is Hebrew, and means a man destitute of help, a needy, poor man. It is a name given, therefore, to denote his needy condition.
It is not affirmed that the rich man was unkind to him, or drove him away, or refused to aid him. The narrative is designed simply to show that the possession of wealth, and all the blessings of this life, could not exempt from death and misery, and that the lowest condition among mortals may be connected with life and happiness beyond the grave.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-21.htm says:
The question has been raised whether this touch is meant to intensify the sufferings of the beggar, or to contrast the almost human sympathy of the brute with the brutal apathy of the man.
---
The only dogs in the East are the wild and neglected Pariah dogs, which run about masterless and are the common scavengers.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-22.htm says:
Was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.—Of the three terms in common use among the Jews to express the future state of blessedness—(1) the Garden of Eden, or Paradise; (2) the Throne of Glory; (3) the bosom of Abraham—this was the most widely popular. It rested on the idea of a great feast, in which Abraham was the host. To lie in his bosom, as St. John in that of our Lord’s (John 13:23), was to be there as the most favoured guest.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-23.htm says:
And in hell.—The Greek word is Hades, not Gehenna; the unseen world of the dead, not the final prison of the souls of the lost.
---
It must be observed, that both the rich man and Lazarus were in hades, though in different regions of it. Our Saviour adapts this circumstance of the parable, says Lightfoot, to the popular opinion of the Jews. The rabbins say, that the place of torment and paradise are so situated, that what is done in the one may be seen from the other. “Because the opinions, as well as the language, of the Greeks,” says Dr. Macknight, “had by this time made their way into Judea, some imagine that our Lord had their fictions about the abodes of departed souls in his eye when he formed this parable: but the argument is not conclusive. At the same time it must be acknowledged, that his descriptions of those things are not drawn from the writings of the Old Testament; but have a remarkable affinity to the descriptions which the Grecian poets have given of them.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-23.htm continued:
ReplyDeleteIn hell - The word here translated hell ("Hades") means literally a dark, obscure place; the place where departed spirits go, but especially the place where "wicked" spirits go. See the Job 10:21-22 notes; Isaiah 14:9).
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-24.htm says:
The Jews supposed that departed spirits might know and converse with each other. See Lightfoot on this place. Our Saviour speaks in conformity with that prevailing opinion; and as it was not easy to convey ideas about the spiritual world without some such representation, he, therefore, speaks in the language which was usual in his time. We are not, however, to suppose that this was "literally" true, but only that it was designed to represent more clearly the sufferings of the rich man in hell.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/16-31.htm says:
ReplyDeleteIf they hear not Moses and the prophets.—We are accustomed, rightly enough, to look on our Lord’s own Resurrection as leading to the great fulfilment of these words. We should not forget, however, that there was another fulfilment more immediately following on them. In a few weeks, or even days, according to the best harmonists, tidings came that Lazarus of Bethany was sick (John 11:1). In yet a few days more that Lazarus did “rise from the dead;” cured, we may believe, of whatever love of this world’s good things had checked his spiritual growth, a witness of the power of Christ to raise, as from the shadow-world of Hades, so also from the darkness of spiritual death to newness of life. And yet that wonder also brought about no repentance, Scribes and Pharisees, and Sadducees and priests simply took counsel together that they might put Lazarus also to death (John 12:10).
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-16-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of eternal punishment, though unpopular and frightening, is said to be part of the confession of every branch of the historic Christian church. However in re-reading the ancient Christian Creeds, I was surprised to discover that the Apostle's Creed (the "Creed of Creeds") does not actually have the word "hell" but has one line which says of Christ "He descended to the dead." The Nicene Creed (325 AD) has "He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." There is nothing in the Nicene Creed about where the "quick and the dead" go after judgment! The Symbol of Chalcedon, from 451 A.D. has nothing about judgment to come or Hell.
----
The question arises as to why has hell suffered such a decline in "popularity?"
(1) Of course, the most obvious answer is that hell is not a fun subject on which to preach or teach. There is a natural aversion all of us to this doctrine and so it not surprising that Hell is not a popular preaching or teaching topic.
(2) Another answer is that some of the decline in preaching and teaching on hell reflects the horrible non-Biblical descriptions by some writers and preachers. For example, Venerable Bede described a man in hell with "flames of fire gushed out from his ears and eyes and nostrils and at every pore."
(3) The doctrine of Hell is often neglected because it is difficult to reconcile hell with the love of God. As one liberal theologian writes "In a universe of love there can be no heaven that tolerates a chamber of horrors; no hell for any which does not at the same time make it hell for God." One man said that he would not want to be in heaven with a God who sends people to hell. His preference was to be in hell so that he could live in defiance of such a God. In other words many feel that the punishment of hell does not fit the crime.
(4) Attacks on the historic doctrine of hell that used to come from outside the church are now coming from within, from such well known evangelical theologians as Clark Pinnock, Philip Edgcombe Hughes,John Wenham, Basil Atkinson. In 1988, the prominent evangelical John Stott constructed an argument for annihilationism.
---
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-16-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteAs you begin this section remember that Jesus is directing this parable about a poor man (Lazarus) and a rich man (unnamed) to the Pharisees (cf Lk 17:1 where He turns to address His disciples) who were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). The Pharisees had a theology which accommodated their health and wealth doctrines, for they believed (as did most of the Jews of that time) that the more wealth one possessed, the greater he was blessed by God! In short, the Pharisees had the contorted belief that loving and pursuing money was equivalent to loving God and pursuing blessing. It follows that the Pharisees would (at least initially) readily identify with the rich man, who to them was a symbol of a life richly blessed by God! They would see the poor man as one who was in his condition (to which they were indifferent and uncaring, cf Lk 15:1-2-note), because he was not blessed by God.
---
Ray Stedman - There are two frequent reactions to this story of the rich man and Lazarus. The first one is that it rather pleases the old Adam in us to see this bloated rich man get his comeuppance in the next life. Many feel that this is what heaven and hell are for, to compensate for what happens in this present life, to square accounts for what we have to go through down here. But if that is the way we feel about it, then, of course, we are quite wrong. But we must understand that the rich man was not in hell because he was rich any more than that Lazarus was in heaven because he was poor. Heaven and hell are not a compensation for what you go through here. The second reaction to this story is to recoil from this picture of the afterlife especially from the thought of hell, with its flames and its torments.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-16-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteNote however that the Bible does not teach that wealth per se is evil, but to use it only for self-gratification without a genuine, practical concern for the needs of others is evil. As Christians we need to constantly remember that it all belongs to God and we are temporary stewards of His wealth.
In the ancient Jewish culture, if one was rich, he was viewed as being blessed by God and thus he was envied and honored by those who were not rich. Clearly this man is portrayed as not just rich, but extravagantly rich, "filthy rich" as we would say today, and thus he would be seen by the populace as a man who was extravagantly blessed by God. God's hand was surely on this man's life for good not bad! The Pharisees who were lovers of money would view this man as a "hero," as one "touched by God!"
---
Wiersbe asks "Why is one man wealthy and another man poor? Had the Jewish people obeyed God's commandments concerning the Sabbatical Year and the Year of Jubilee, there would have been little or no poverty in the land, for the wealth and real estate could not have fallen into the hands of a few wealthy people (see Lev. 25, and note Ex. 23:11; Deut. 14:28-29). The Old Testament prophets denounced the rich for amassing great estates and exploiting the widows and the poor (Isa. 3:15; 10:2; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 5:11-12; 8:4-6; Hab. 2:9-13). In Jesus' day, Palestine was under the rule of Rome, and life was very difficult for the common people."
---
‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.(Rev 3:17-20)
---
MacArthur on the dogs - the rich man has this big feast. The people are eating, taking the bread they needed to cleaning, throwing it under there. The dogs were coming and eating it; and the poor man would have given anything if he could have moved himself under the table with the dogs … to get some of that dirty bread. Such a humiliating and destitute situation. The poor man "road kill" so to speak. He’s being treated as if he’s dead by the rich man. That’s how the Pharisees would treat him also.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-16-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteThat said, in the OT Hades was used most often to describe the region of ALL departed souls. Everyone who die, whether righteous or unrighteous, is described as departing to Hades. But as we move into the NT, we see the progressive revelation of the term, so that Hades gains a more restricted sense and refers not to the place of ALL who die (believers and unbelievers as in the OT) but only to the abode of unbelievers. In other words, in the NT Hades comes to be synonymous with what we refer to as Hell. But to confuse the picture a little, you must realize that even in this sense of meaning "Hell" Hades is only a "temporary holding tank" so to speak, because as shown in Rev 20:14 (see below) Hades ceases to exist for it is thrown into the Lake of fire.
(Reply from one of the readers of this blog):
DeleteI disagree with the way Progressive Revelation is used here. This selection says that in the OT it meant ALL went to "Hades" but in the NT it ALL do NOT go to "Hades". That is not progressive (or further illumination) but a clear disagreement. Progressive Revelation offers more information but shouldn't disagree with what was offered earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_(Christianity)#:~:text=Progressive%20revelation%20is%20the%20doctrine,be%20able%20to%20handle%20it.
Now, in all truth, we should probably move away from using the words Hell and Hades as the actual Hebrew and Greek words behind them do not necessarily correspond to one another and are sometimes better translated as different words. Still, I just wanted to make this comment about PR as I've seen it used as a bandaid to cover up disagreements between the testaments or doctrines when the explainer doesn't have a better answer.
(Relating comments from one of the readers of this blog):
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the idea that departed spirits could "know and converse with each other" was the "prevailing" opinion. But it certainly seems to be one of several opinions as some Pharisees at least seem to have held to it. Remember the Sadducees seemed not believe in any kind of afterlife. Martha (and Jesus it could be argued) in John 11 seems to assume Lazarus has no consciousness during death, only that he would rise again at the resurrection. In the OT Ec 9:5 says the dead don't know anything and Ps 146:4 says the thoughts of the dead perish.
Here is a section from the Wikipedia article on Christian Mortalism about Jewish beliefs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism#Judaism ) -
Modern scholars believe the concept of an immortal soul going to bliss or torment after death entered mainstream Judaism after the Babylonian exile[60] and existed throughout the Second Temple era, though both 'soul sleep' and 'soul death', were also held.[61][62][63]
Mortalism is present in certain Second Temple period pseudepigraphal works,[64][65][66]4 Ezra, 7:61[67][68][69] later rabbinical works,[70][71] and among medieval era rabbis such as Abraham Ibn Ezra (1092–1167),[72] Maimonides (1135–1204),[73] and Joseph Albo (1380–1444).[74]
Some authorities within Conservative Judaism, notably Neil Gillman, also support the notion that the souls of the dead are unconscious until the resurrection.[75]
Traditional rabbinic Judaism, however, has always been of the opinion that belief in immortality of at least most souls, and punishment and reward after death, was a consistent belief back through the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Traditional Judaism reads the Torah accordingly. As an example, the punishment of kareth (excision) is understood to mean that soul is cut off from God in the afterlife.[76][77]
My 2 cents:
ReplyDeleteI use Precepts Austin as one of my sources for this blog. I use them because they normally have good application lessons for scripture. However, I warn you that the people they quote are not scholars, but teachers - many of whom are wrongfully opinionated and rather weak on hermeneutics.
For this last section of scripture, I have two major issues with what certain people are saying. I mention this because both of their "teachings" are widely believed today.
First, Issue #1: Many of their articles opined that preachers don't talk about hell the way they used to. Well, I remember those days. There was an awful lot of damage done! Preachers used to plead with people to avoid hell, used to frighten people about hell, etc. What this accomplished was that it filled churches with people who wanted to avoid hell, but had no love for Jesus (which, ironically, meant they were still going to hell). I remember being in the midst of people at church who did not reflect God's character and love. I DO NOT want to go back to those days. Should we talk about hell? Yes, but that also assumes that we have actually studied the Bible on what it says about Hell as opposed to learning it from Looney Tunes (see next note).
Issue #2: There were quite a few articles in Precepts that conflate a certain view of hell with the Gospel. This is a very dangerous mistake! For on thing, actual Bible scholars (in whom Precepts Austin do not quote most of the time) disagree on the nature of hell. When there is that level of disagreement, we should be taking notice, and especially not ascribing disputed doctrines to the status of Gospel. I think it's really bad on Bible teachers when they don't communicate what the scholars agree on, and what they disagree on.
Coming up: A rather long article about what the Bible says about hell and an analysis.
My 2 cents:
ReplyDeleteAt last, the long article promised concerning what happens when we die:
http://soulguardian.info/bible/bible%20study/AfterDeath.pdf
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. What is Abraham's side? Why Abraham?
The Pharisees whom Jesus was speaking to believed that when they (the good followers of the covenant) died, they would go to be where Abraham was. The Greeks came up with the concept of Hades in their ancient mythology, believing in a paradise and torture side of Hades. I don't know how much these Greek concepts creeped into the Pharisees thinking, but it's possible they did.
2. What is Hades?
Hades is a concept that came from ancient Greek mythology and gained popularity in certain Jewish circles during the second temple period. Before that, Israelites thought that all people would go to the "grave" and live a shadowy existence. Since people are resurrected when Christ comes back, many ask the question of what happens to people after they die and before then. Hades is one option, and since the New Testament writers make some reference to an afterlife (whether or not they are referring to the resurrection after Jesus comes back), people latch onto the concept of Hades.
3. Should the concepts of Abraham's side and/or Hades be taken at all seriously in this parable?
Most likely, Jesus was setting his parable in the current beliefs of the afterlife of his audience (the Pharisees). I think it's a mistake in the extreme to take anything about the afterlife from this parable as fact. Like every other parable, we should concentrate on the main point. If you take a look at other parables, some of the specific details of the parable were purposely silly to draw more attention to the main point. I think it's very possible that this parable was doing the same thing. Examining the specific details of this parable, I think it's much more likely that Jesus was making fun of the Pharisees' belief than actually describing how Hades works.
4. How was the rich man able to call out to Abraham?
I think this is one of those "silly points" in the parable. If you do take this parable as an accurate description, that means that Abraham sits there all day listening to what everyone is saying on the "torture side" of Hades. I feel for the guy!
5. Does Hades have flames that torment people?
Greek Mythology says so. I don't remember any specific claims of that in the Bible.
6. Does having good things in this life put one in the bad side of Hades? Does being poor and destitute put one in Abraham's side?
Rewording it: Does being poor and destitute let you into the kingdom of God and/or does being rich exclude you. The short answer is "No". The longer answer is that only those who are "poor in spirit" enter the kingdom of God. We see our own destitution and desire to take Jesus up on His offer to save us. It is true that being rich in this world potentially distracts us from seeing our own poverty. It's also true that the poor can be filled with envy and chase a life that leads to riches.
7. If there is a great chasm, how is the rich man able to talk to Abraham at all?
Abraham must have really good hearing. Once again, I think this is one of the silly items in Jesus' parable that helps jar us so that we will listen more closely to the main point.
8. Why would someone not listen to the dead returning to life, if they don't listen to Moses and the prophets?
Our human nature allows us to go to great lengths to justify our own viewpoint. Nothing can shake our belief or lack of belief unless our hearts are prepared for the switch. When our hearts are ready, it doesn't take much to convince us. Seeing a bonafide miracle isn't going to change anyone's mind anymore than something much less potent.
Conclusion: We really don't know anything about the nature of hell, Hades, and what happens to dead humans before Judgement Day. I personally encourage people to speculate and advance theories - as long as it's clearly stated as such. Teachers who make definitive extra-Biblical statements about Hades, Hell, the afterlife, etc., are ignorant at best and are false teachers at worst.