LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN By O. Khodjo Welcome to mis-translations and mis-interpretations Unfortunately, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man has become a sort of theological passport to the annihilation of hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture. Next to the gross error in translating the Greek aion (a period of time with a beginning and an end) into an English eternity (no time at all, neither having a beginning nor an ending), I know of no greater misrepresentation of any section of Scripture than this parable. I will be using both the KJV and the Concordant Literal New Testament when quoting Scripture in this paper. Can those who teach that Luke 16 is not a parable, prove their position? No, they cannot. Can it then be proved by the Scriptures that this is a parable? Yes, it can. Quite easily, I might add. PARABLE DEFINED Let me give you a technical definition of a parable followed by a more simple definition: (1) "Parable: [Greek, para bole’= BESIDE CAST]--A statement ‘cast beside’ or parallel to its real spiritual significance, a figure of likeness in action." GREEK-ENGLISH KEYWORD CONCORDANCE p. 216. (2) "A short and simple tale based on familiar things meant to convey a much deeper and profound moral or spiritual truth," WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY. In Old English it was called a "near-story." Jesus spoke in parables throughout His whole ministry. In Matthew 13 we are given seven different parables. No parable is literal or historical. The second we make a parable literal, it ceases to be a parable. Jesus spoke ONLY in parables (not true life or historical stories) among the masses of people who followed Him wherever He went. I am going to some length to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of teaching this parable of Lazarus or any other parable as a literal and historical event. PARABLES MAY MENTION IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS Is Luke 16:19-31 a "parable?" Many in orthodoxy say that it absolutely is not a parable because a person is mentioned by name and identified as a specific and particular person. This is NONSENSE, IS A TWIST OF DOCTRINE. The mention of an identifiable person is not, however, the test of a parable. They are saying is not a parable in order for the doctrine of burning in hell to stand, but that is another big lie, Besides other parables do mention identifiable persons, but they are still parables:
JESUS SPEAKS TO THE MASSES IN PARABLES ONLY Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and multitudes in parables: "And He begins to speak to them in parables." (Mk. 12:1). Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables ONLY: "All these things Jesus speaks in parables to the throngs, and apart from a PARABLE He spoke nothing to them..." (Mat. 13:34). Jesus spoke in parables so that his listeners would not understand Him: "Wherefore art Thou speaking in parables to them? ... To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those it has NOT been given." (Matt.13:10-11). Not even the apostles understood these parables (Lk16:14)! Jesus had to explain their meaning to them in private (Mat. 13:18, 36), (Mat. 15:15), etc. The fact that Jesus spoke to the masses in parables only, ought to be sufficient Scriptural evidence to anyone that Lazarus and the Rich man is indeed a parable. There are, however, many many more proofs. A FIVE-PART PARABLE What is the setting of this Lazarus parable? Actually it is part of a five-part parable beginning in Chapter 15 of Luke. Here is the reason for these five parables in a row: "Now ALL the tribute collectors and sinners were coming near Him to be hearing Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying that ‘This man sinner is receiving, and is eating with them!" (Luke 15:1). Vs. 2: "Now He told them [the tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes] THIS PARABLE, saying..." Jesus then gives them FIVE parables, one after the other. The phrase "THIS parable" certainly is not limited to the next, one, parable only! These are ALL parables and most scholars recognize them as parables. My Oxford KJV even has at the top of the page over the parable of the prodigal son, these words: "The parable of the prodigal son." The text does not call it a parable, but certainly it follows that it IS the THIRD PART of a five-part parable. Notice the transition that Jesus uses between the lost sheep and the lost coin? He says, "Neither..." Some translations have "Or..." This word certainly connects it to the previous parable! Now notice Chapter 16 first verse, "And He said ALSO unto his disciples..." "Also" refers back to all that went before in this five-part parable, and now Jesus is continuing with the same train of thought with the fourth of this five-part parable. Notice next the introduction of the third, fourth, and fifth parables: "A CERTAIN MAN..." (15:11) "There was A CERTAIN RICH MAN..." (16:1). "There was A CERTAIN RICH MAN..." (16:19). Again, it is clear that these are THREE parables of a five-part parable! PARABLES MUST ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED Parables are not to be taken literally, but "Literal where and when possible." They are to be understood "figuratively." The real meaning is not in what they literally say, but in what the symbols and figurative language represent. That’s why they are called "parables." This is axiomatic! Let us turn to some parables for proof of this point: The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:32) "...thy brother was dead..." Comment: He wasn’t literally "dead." He came home again "alive." God did not resurrect him from the dead. The Resurrection is yet future. So the prodigal was NOT literally dead, but from the perspective of his father, he was as good as dead or he could have been considered Spiritually dead. Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-23) "And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side; and the fowls came and devoured them up." Comment: This parable isn’t teaching horticulture. It’s about "the word of the kingdom" and how different people receive it! Birds don’t literally devour the words of God. Sowing Ideal Seed (Matt. 13:24) "Yet, while the men are drawsing, his enemy came and sows darnel..." Comment: The enemy "came." Past tense. Is this, therefore, an historical fact? No. Read verse 39: "Now the harvest is the conclusion of the eon." This eon hasn’t come to an "end" yet. And the "harvest" is people not grains and vegetables. Parable of mote in brother’s eye (Lk. 6:39-42). "Now why are you observing the mote in your brother’s eye, yet the beam in your own eye your are not considering?" Comment: A beam is a long piece of timber. How is it possible to have a long piece of timber in one’s eye? I know people who could fit it into their mouth, but eye, never. This parable is about morality, not body organs and building materials. Is it not obvious that the literal, physical language in all parables must be interpreted as a higher, spiritual lesson? If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic, but also literally hundreds of plain verses of Scripture. People are taught that the parables are real stories that Jesus told to help the people understand His teaching better. That’s partly due to the fact that with many of the parables we are also given the INTERPRETATION! How many would understand these parables if we were not given the interpretation of them? Who would have known Who the sower of seed is? Who would know what the stony places are? Who would understand what the birds represent? Who would know what the good soil represents? Sure, it’s easy now, Jesus TOLD US THE ANSWERS! But He ONLY told His disciples the answers, NOT THE MULTITUDES to whom He spoke! THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN According to the popular teaching of this parable, the Rich man is in an eternal Hell of torture and Lazarus is in eternal Heavenly bliss. Well let’s be sure then to pay special attention to those traits of character that have separated these two individuals into two entirely different realms. Below is listed in each column the exact "literal" facts regarding each man’s character, virtue and deeds that is the reason for a supposed fate of either eternal Hell or eternal Heaven:
Examine these two columns closely. Is it not obvious that what is literally revealed here does not lend itself to an eternal life of torture for the Rich man or an eternal life of heavenly bliss for the poor man? Where else in Scripture do the character traits in the left column come under eternal condemnation? And where else in Scripture do the character traits in the right column bring a promise of salvation in Heaven? Seriously, WHERE? From what is literally stated about these two individuals it is hard to find condemnation or praise for either party. We know for sure that the Rich man is in a state of condemnation and that Lazarus is in a state of consolement, but there is nothing in the narrative to tell us why this is so. If taken literally, this parable consists of statements that are illogical, unscriptural, contradictory, and impossible. But, when we understand the symbolism of this parable, it opens up our understanding to God’s dealing with all peoples on earth! We must know the real identity of these two individuals before we can know that their treatment is a just treatment based on their lives and based on God’s grace. The Rich man received "good things" in life and Lazarus received "evil things" in life. That is obviously true. However, neither of those is Scriptural grounds for either being rewarded or condemned. Where? Present a Scripture. Christ said that it is difficult for a rich man to inherit the Kingdom, for example, and that certainly is true. But it is not the fact of being rich that makes this so, but rather the power that wealth has over the soul to keep one from pursuing spiritual things. Some people are "rich" and are right with God. Other people are "rich" and are not right with God. But the bottom line is how God has constituted the person himself that makes the difference, not the fact that he is wealthy. Don’t suppose that I am siding with the Rich man at the expense of Lazarus. I am not. I am merely showing how ludicrous it is to insist that this parable is "literal." A VERSE BY VERSE ANALYSIS Verse by verse now we will see if this parable can possibly be taken literally. Luke 16:19: DOES A WELL-DRESSED WEALTHY MAN SPELL SIN? "Now a certain man was rich..." Many reading these words immediately conclude that being rich must be a sin. This is the one outstanding feature of this man--he is RICH. Is that a sin? Abraham, just talking distance away here, was very rich (Gen. 13:2). Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Joseph was rich, David (a man after God’s own heart) was rich. Job was the richest man in all the East (Job. 1:3). And it was God Who blessed them, that’s why they were rich. Being rich is no character flaw or sin. Besides, the Scriptures say: "...God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall be reaping also..." (Gal. 6:7) And "...who is sowing sparingly, sparingly shall be reaping also, and who is sowing bountifully, bountifully shall be reaping also..." (II Cor. 9:6-7). "...he dressed in purple and fine linen (cambric) [Gk bussos = COTTON] probably of a fine quality, perhaps a cloth with cotton in the warp and flax in the woof. Why should we care what color or what fabric of clothing he wore? Fine clothing are not a sin. What does that have to do with a man’s character, virtue, or deeds? If taken "literally," nothing. But since this is "symbolic" it then is THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE WHOLE PARABLE! The description of the Rich man’s clothing and the position of Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom are the two vital keys in understanding this whole parable. "...daily making merry [Gk. cheerful & glad] splendidly..." Is having a cheerful and glad spirit a sin? I don’t think so. Paul says: "...that I may be of good cheer..." (Phil. 2:19). David’s heart was "glad" (Acts 2:26). And the angels dressed "splendidly" (Acts 10:30). IS POVERTY AND SICKNESS A VIRTUE? "Now there was a certain poor man..." Being poor is no virtue! In fact the Scriptures have a lot to say about poverty: "...a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come..." (Prov. 6:10-11). "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand..." (Prov. 10:4). "...The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing..." (Prov. 13:4). Many Scriptures show poverty to be the direct result of sin. Again, Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7. It is God Who makes both rich and poor (I Sam. 2:7). "...named Lazarus..." [Heb: helpless] Why should we know his name if this is literal? Lazarus was a common name. And who would ever want to be named "Helpless?" We are not given the name of the Rich man. What does it matter one way or the other what his name is if this is a literal story and we don’t know which Lazarus this was anyway. Ah, but since this is a "parable" it does matter, and we CAN know which Lazarus this really is and who the rich man really is. "...who had been cast at his portal (gate)..." Being thrown out into the street is no virtue. "...having sores [Gk. elkos = DRAWER] (ulcers) ..." Being sick and diseased is not a virtue. Diseases associated with "the botch, open sores, boils and ulcers" are very often a direct curse from God in the Scriptures. See: Ex. 9:2, Job 2:7, Deut. 28:27, 35, Rev. 16:2, and many others. "...yearning to be satisfied from the scraps (not crumbs) [Gk. psichion = SCRAPS--A particle of food which is left over after eating] which are falling from the rich man’s table." It is no virtue to be begging for bread. "Crumbs falling from a table" is an idiom, not literal. Rich people do not eat like pigs! A few "crumbs," is possible, but crumbs are not enough to feed a hungry ant, let alone a grown man. Besides, if Lazarus is a godly man why is he begging food? Read ….. Psa. 37:25: "...Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, NOR HIS SEED BEGGING BREAD"! There is absolutely nothing in the description of Lazarus that would indicate he was a godly man. But when we identify him, there is much to show that he was a godly man, and that his poverty and sickness was not that of a literally diseased beggar in the street. "But the curs (wild dogs) also, coming, licked his ulcers." It is a dog’s nature to "lick sores," but they didn’t come to this man’s house for that purpose. They came there to get "scraps" of food as well. However, think for a moment. What does this bit of information add to our understanding of this story if it is to be taken "literally?" Nothing! I mean Jesus could have told us that, "the sky was cloudy" or "the cock was crowing" or "there were holes in the street." So what? What do "wild dogs" add to our understanding, if it’s literal? But we learn in Scripture that "dogs" represent something totally different from four-legged animals that bark and bite. Here is a real clue as to who Lazarus and his dog companions really represent. And as this is a parable it was not physical scraps of literal food that Lazarus and the dogs desired. Who then is this Rich man, who being tormented, nonetheless, possessed and disseminated (albeit it small portions) of life-giving food to the poor? The Rich man, regardless of his character or lack thereof, was obviously blessed of God: "The Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods..." (Deut. 28:11) And "...bless all the work of thine hand" (Vs. 12) As he sewed, so he reaped (Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7) He got "good things in life" and the Scripture plainly tells us that "Every GOOD gift is from above..." (Jas. 1:17). Lazarus was obviously cursed of God: "...thou shalt. not prosper" (Deut. 28:16) The "botch and scab" (Vs. 27 & 29). He obviously sewed sparingly and reaped even more sparingly. When one is homeless, hungry, and diseased in the street; it doesn’t get much worse than this. CONTRADICTIONS OF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION If this parable is taken literally, we will find more than a few hundred major problems with the rest of God’s revealed Word. One will have to use a black marker or cut from the Bible most verses dealing with spirit, soul, body, death, resurrection, immortality, grave, hades, sheol, sin, punishment, chastisement, firstfruits, rewards, justification, reconciliation, prophecy, grace, salvation and the sovereignty of God, just to name a few! All of these contradict the idea that this parable can be literal. All of them. "Now the poor man came to die and he is carried away by messengers into Abraham’s bosom." Impossible. This statement if taken literally is neither historical nor Scriptural. Many say this represents Lazarus in Heaven. How, pray tell, could Lazarus be in Heaven while his Lord was still on the earth? "Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the firstfruit of those who are reposing (a state of rest or inactivity)." (I Cor. 15:20) Abraham wasn’t the "firstfruit." Lazarus wasn’t the "firstfruit." JESUS CHRIST WAS THE FIRSTFRUIT OF THEM THAT SLEPT! The latter fruit, Paul tells us, "are [still] reposing." Jesus plainly said, not only had David NOT ascended into the heavens, but that "NO MAN has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."(John 3:13). Teaching that this parable is a literal historical fact makes Christ out to be a liar. When our Lord was alive on this earth giving us this parable, He said: "...NO MAN HAS ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN..." So how can it be said that at the same time our Lord was telling us that no man has ascended up to heaven, that Lazarus and Abraham are already up in heaven?. THIS IS ABSOLUTE, INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT WHEN JESUS GAVE THIS PARABLE THERE WAS NO MAN NAMED LAZARUS LIVING IN HEAVEN WITH ABRAHAM OR ANYONE ELSE!! So here then is just one of the hundreds of problems with the Scriptures if we insist this parable is literal. There are many Scriptures that tell us where a person goes when he "dies." The Scriptures say he "returns" from where he "came." So if he goes to Heaven, then he "came" from Heaven; if he goes to Hell, then he "came" from Hell. But Scriptures do not teach that people "RETURN" to heaven or hell when they die…The soul always DIE "...till you return [Hebrew, shub] unto the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and unto dust shall you RETURN" (Gen. 3:17-19). "Remember I pray you that as clay you did make me, and unto dust you will cause me to RETURN" (Job 10:9) "You cause man to return unto dust..." (Psa. 90:3). "His spirit [the Hebrew word here is ruach, spirit, not neshamah, breath] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa. 146:3-4) what does KJV says here? "...you gather in their spirit [Hebrew ruach, spirit] they expire [Hebrew gava, breathe out, gasp, expire], and return to their dust" (Psa. 104:29) what does KJV says here? "For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; ... as the one dies, so dies the other; yea, they have all one spirit; and man has no preeminence above the beasts [in death]: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust again" (Eccl. 3:18-21). Will one contend that BEASTS return to either heaven or hell when they die? Have we not just read in Eccl. 3:18-21 that "ALL [both men and beasts] go unto ONE PLACE?" And aren’t "heaven AND hell" TWO PLACES rather that "ONE PLACE?" For sure our Saviour’s words are so true--the babes in Christ (minors) can understand these spiritual things, but the wise in the wisdom of this world cannot understand them. Here is irrefutable Scriptural proof that when a person dies he returns to the dust. Messengers or angels don’t take dead people anywhere when they die. If this is literal, then they would have had to carry a "dead" Lazarus into the ancient cave of a "dead" Abraham. The "resurrection" is yet future (I Thess. 4:16:18). Remember how Paul told us of Hymeneus and Philetus who "...swerve as to truth, saying that the resurrection has ALREADY OCCURRED [as defenders of a literal interpretation also contend] subverting the faith of some." (II Tim. 2:18)? Lazarus was carried (in the parable) into Abraham’s bosom. Abraham’s bosom is not the reward of the saved. Abraham’s bosom is not Heaven. Furthermore, no more than one person could fit into Abraham’s bosom. It’s a parable. When Jesus gave this parable was Abraham alive in heaven or dead in his grave? First notice what Gen. 25:8-9 says: "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died ... and his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in a cave..." When Jesus was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. "Abraham IS DEAD" (John 8:52)! After Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection (nearly 30 years after) Abraham was still dead. "By faith Abraham ... sojourns in the land of promise ... he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God ... In faith DIED ALL THESE [Abraham included], being not requited with the promises ... for He [God] makes ready for them a city" (Heb. 11:8,9,10,13,16). Abraham had not yet as of the writing of the book of Hebrews received the promises God made to him. Besides Abraham was not promised Heaven, but this earth along with King David (Jer. 30:9) and the Twelve Apostles who will be ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel on this earth (Rev. 5:10). And the "City," New Jerusalem, comes down from heaven to the New Earth. By the way, after Christ’s resurrection, we read that King David as well was also still dead. "...David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day..." "For David is NOT ascended into the heavens..." (Acts 2:29 & 34). So consider: At the time Christ taught this parable, Abraham was STILL DEAD, David (a man after God’s own heart) was STILL DEAD and the Scripture specifically tells us that David DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN. To remove all speculation regarding heaven, Christ plainly stated that, "NO MAN HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN!" Which part of the word "NO" is it that Theologians and Pastors do not understand? "Now the rich man also died, and was entombed. And in the unseen [Gk: hades], lifting up his eyes..." (Vs. 23) Impossible. He died, was entombed, and lifted up his eyes? Where did he get a body in hades, seeing that they just sealed his body in a tomb? Have you never heard of exhuming a body from a grave? Six days, six months, six years after death, when they open a grave, the body is still there. And it’s usually rotten and the "eyes" are decayed away. "...was entombed...and in the unseen [hades], lifting up his eyes..." Theologians teach that the grave is one place and hades is another place, then no man can have his body "entombed" while at the same time the eyes of his body can be lifted up in a place called "hades." And we know his body was still in the tomb, so how can he be simultaneously in hades with a new body? – Full of Nonsense!!! And how could this man "literally" lift up his eyes in "hell" seeing that hell is the translation of the Greek word hades which means the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE? To "see" one can’t be in the UNSEEN, nor can it be a place of NO perception. The parable says that he "died" and was entombed, but that he "lifts up his eyes" in hades. He can’t be literally dead and literally alive at the same time and in two different locations. Think people of God, holy ghost babies! Hades is a Greek word (and is synonymous with Sheol in the Hebrew O.T.) and it has a meaning. The elements are "UN-PERCEIVED." It can be properly translated into English as "unseen" or "imperceptible." Now how can one "see" in the unseen?" It’s very very ridiculous. How can anyone have "perception" in the "imperceptible?" The dead. can’t "see," It’s a parable There is no consciousness in [Heb: Sheol] or [Gk: Hades] (Psa. 146:4) none. "Sheol" and "Hades" are synonymous in Scripture. In Acts 2:27 hades is translated from the Hebrew word sheol. "His spirit [hebrew=ruach] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa. 146-3-4). And "...there is no works, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol where you go" (Eccl. 9:10). "Device" [Heb. mchesh- bown--contrivance, intelligence, reason]. Do these two verses in Ecclesiasties sound like "dark sayings?" or "tricky proverbs?" or "difficult parables?" or "deep mysteries?" They are plain, simple statements of facts that any child can understand! But notice how they absolutely contradict the "consciousness in hades" theory. One more Scriptural proof on this point. "And it came to pass, that the beggar DIED ... the rich man also DIED..." (Luke 16:22). So from verse 22 onward, the beggar and the rich man are IN DEATH! Now Psalm 6:5 "For IN DEATH THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE OF THEE [The LORD], in THE GRAVE who shall give thee [The LORD] thanks?" So, is it possible to take this parable literally without violating Scripture after Scripture after Scripture? I think not. WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN HADES (KJV=hell)?
In the center column we have seeing, feeling, hearing, talking, and reason. In the right column we have nothing. The center column is based on one parable that should never be taken literally while the right column is quoted right from the Scriptures. DEATH IS LIKE SLEEP I have heard many jeer the idea that souls "sleep" in death, Although the phrase "soul sleep" itself is unscriptural; the idea that the dead are "sleeping" is most Scriptural. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers..." (Deut. 31:16). "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou [David] shalt sleep with thy fathers. (II Sam. 7:12). "David slept with his fathers..." (I Ki. 2:10). "Solomon slept with his fathers..." (I Ki. 11:43). Job said, "...for now shall I sleep in the dust..." (Job 7:21). Get this one: David said "...lest I sleep the sleep of DEATH..." (Psa. 13:3). "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep [are dead]" (I Cor. 11:30). "Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep ... the dead shall be raised..." (I Cor. 15:51-52) "...the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep" (I Thes. 4:14). "...My daughter is even now dead ... the maid is not dead, but sleepeth." (Mat. 9:18 & 24). "For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption." (Acts 13:36). It is said even of our own Lord: "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruit of them that slept" (I Cor. 15:20), etc, etc. Now I believe all of these Scriptures. Either Abraham is dead, buried and sleeping with his fathers, just as Moses, David, etc., or these Scriptures can’t be trusted. By the way, where do we read of "heaven" in this parable? There is not the slightest hint of the word heaven in this parable! Abraham’s "bosom" is no more heaven than my bosom is heaven. Interestingly, not only did all these patriarchs go to sleep, but they went to sleep with their fathers, and many of their fathers were idolaters! So there we have a dozen Scriptures stating that God likens death to sleep. In what way is being conscious and tortured in the flames of Hell analogous to "sleep?" God says death is "sleep." Now in what way is conscious torture in Hell fire analogous to "sleep?" In what way is a blissful life in Heaven analogous to "sleep?" Well, of course, it’s not analogous at all. Yet God plainly says, many times, that death is "sleep" God awakens dead people out of sleep. Let me give you a Scripture that will "lay to rest" this issue once and for all. What happens after one dies: "If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change comes. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands." (Job 14:14-15). When a person dies, he must: WAIT ... FOR APPOINTED TIME ... TILL CHANGE COMES ... GOD CALLS ... WE LIVE AGAIN... When Jesus taught this parable there were no Greek Scriptures. So when this "rich man died" he went to Sheol [Heb. the unseen or imperceptible, the abode of the dead, the grave] It’s the same sheol that Christ’s soul went to at death: Psalm 16:10--"For Thou will not leave my soul in the unseen [Sheol]." This verse is quoted in the New Testament Greek: Acts 2:27--"For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [Gk. Hades]." Sheol and Hades are synonymous. The Old Testament says Christ’s soul went to "Sheol," the New Testament says His soul went to "Hades." We know that Christ was the "firstfruit" of them that slept (I Cor. 15:20, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, I Thes. 4:16-18). The "dead in Christ" are now "ASLEEP" according to the Scriptures. YET STILL THEY ARE UNCONSCIOUS OF WHAT GOES ON IN HADES(KJV=HELL) OR REAL LIFE (THE LIVING) WHERE DID CHRIST GO WHEN HE DIED? Read 1Cor. 15 again. "Christ died for our sins," "He was buried," "He rose again the third day." All right, let’s be Scripturally exact.
Now, back to the parable: NOT ALL PAIN IS PHYSICAL "...being in torments..." What are these "torments" that the Rich man is experiencing? Is it physical pain from having his skin burned off of his body by real flames of fire? What a marvelous thing it is that we can have access to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which our modern language bibles have been translated. We can check every word that has been translated into our English bibles. And now, we shall do just that. In Vs. 23 we have the word "torments" In Vs. 24 and 25 we have the word "tormented." These words are not translated from the same Greek word, however. And there is a great reason why. This one point alone will demolish any such theory that this Rich man is actually and literally having his flesh burned by real fire. Let us now see if Jesus gives us any indication whether or not this Rich man will ever come out of this place of torments and what these torments really are: The Greek word translated "torments" in Vs. 23 is basanos. From Friberg’s Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, we are told that basanois which is a form of the noun basanos, means, "strictly, a touchstone for testing the genuineness of metals by rubbing against it..." In secular Greek literature this word (basanois) was used figuratively to extract information from a person by torture or punishment. From the Greek-English Keyword Concordance we read this, torment, literally a touchstone, used to test metals for alloys, [and] then the examination of persons by torture (Page 307). Though the Rich man may, indeed, be suffering discomfort or pain, it is not from fire burning his flesh, but rather from being tested and proved through chastisement. . It is an interesting fact of Scripture that except for Paul "punishing" the church, there is only ONE SCRIPTURE in the whole new testament that uses the word "punishment." All others use the word "chastisement" which always carries the connotation of correction and bringing things back to what is right again. Chastisement by it’s very definition CANNOT be eternal. There is always a purpose and goal in mind with the use of the word chastise. In Vs. 24 and 25 we will likewise see that the word translated "tormented" does by no means carry a meaning of being physical pained or physically tortured. "...he is seeing Abraham from afar..." Impossible. The man is enveloped in "flames" and can clearly identify two personalities from "afar" across a great chasm? Not with human eyes. "And he shouting, said..." Impossible. Proof: Psalm 31:17--"...let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [Heb. SHEOL]. There it is! There is no talking and no shouting in sheol. If anyone can literally "shout" in hades or sheol they make God a liar. I NEED SOME THEOLOGIANS AND PASTORS AND BIBLE TEACHERS TO TELL ME AM WRONG WITH PROVES FROM THE BIBLE AND I WILL AGREE. "...send Lazarus that he should be dipping the tip of his finger in water and cooling my tongue..." Impossible. If someone were in a literal fire they would not be asking for a drop of water for their tongue. Their skin and eyes would be in much greater pain than their tongue! The tongue is at least somewhat protected in the mouth cavity. Now if anyone DARE as to debate me on this issue, let them jump into a fire and see for themselves which burns most--the eyes and skin or the tongue? Besides a drop on the tip of one’s finger would be less than useless. It would have no effect. None. It's a parable. This language is figurative. "...I am tormented [pained] in this flame." Impossible. Yes, it is possible to be "tormented [pained] in flame," however, it is impossible to calmly talk about it while it is happening! If his body were human so as to have a nervous system and feel pain, then of necessity that same body would burn up. It is the destruction of the skin cells that is causing the pain. Within seconds the skin no longer pains (it’s dead). Now it is the deeper flesh that pains. But by then the man would pass out and soon die. These are things that people completely unversed in the Scriptures understand. It is not literal fire that is causing him this pain or torment. What kind of "torment" is God talking about in this parable? Is this physical pain from the flames burning his flesh as is taught in Christendom? Not at all! Note that he does not say "flames," but rather "flame," singular! The Greek word translated "tormented" in verses 24 and 25 is a totally different Greek word than is used for "torments" in verse 23. The Greek word here is odunao and it means to be sorrowful or pained, but not physically, but rather EMOTIONALLY! We can easily see how the Holy Spirit of God used this word in Scripture. Adunao is used only two other times in all Scripture and both times it has absolutely nothing to do with physical torture, but rather with emotional sorrow or pain.
Now then, does anyone believe that they were physically tortured when Paul departed? Does anyone believe the parents of Jesus were physical tortured in their flesh while they searched for Jesus? King James has lied lots of times with translation of words. Had the KJV translators been consistent they should have translated Luke 16:24 & 25 the same way. He was emotionally "pained" or "sorrowed" and not physically tormented or tortured! The same word cannot mean both "emotionally sorrowed" and "physically tortured." IMPOSSIBLE!! The Rich man was emotionally pained or sorrowed by the flame (the testing and trials), not tortured, and that’s why, as we shall see later, he wanted a drop [a symbolic drop of water] for his tongue and not a barrel of water to cool his body. Let’s not be guilty of adding to the Rich man’s woes. "Now Abraham said, Child, be reminded that you got your good thing in your life, and Lazarus likewise evil things." If this Rich man is really being pictured literally in a hellhole of eternal torture, why then didn’t Abraham say to him something like this: "Scoundrel, be reminded that you were a liar, cheat, robber, blasphemer, drunkard, murderer, ungodly, unholy, unrepentant, incorrigible, piece of slime in your life, so burn in Hell forever." But no, the Rich man is accused of no such things. Most governments do not sentence people to cruel and unusual punishment for minor crimes. Christian theologians would sentence this Rich man to all eternity in Hell fire and I don’t see where according to what this parable "literally says" he did anything bad. He lived a life of "good things!" In the literal language of this parable no sin is attributed to him. Not ONE! The rich man got good things, and for that we are told he will have his flesh barbecued with real fire in an eternal hellhole of insane torture? Lazarus got evil things, and for that we are told he will spend eternity in Heaven? Is anyone in this parable said to be literally good or bad?
So we are to take this parable literally? As an historical fact? Okay then, what does it "literally" say? Not what we might think it means but what it actually SAYS:
Quite frankly neither one is a pretty picture. That’s because this is figurative and symbolic language, so of course it doesn’t make sense literally! It’s a parable. Here then is the bottom line of the Christian interpretation of this parable: Live a life of good things now, blessed of God, and you’ll burn in the flames of Hell forever. Live a life of evil things now, cursed of God, and you’ll live forever in Heaven. Doesn’t make much sense when we look at it literally, does it? You know, if this parable is literal, Abraham is on the wrong side! Abraham possessed many more of the qualities of the rich man than he did of Lazarus (not actually, but if we take this parable literally)! Abraham was very rich, loved his family, was concerned for the welfare of others, provided for his servants, was respectful of authority (especially of God), was tremendously blessed of God and had a life of many good things. According to the majority of Christendom’s interpretation of this story, Abraham should be in Hell! Actually Abraham is in hades (sheol), as are all the "fathers." And all the dead ungodly people are there as well. They don’t know it, however. It’s very quiet in hades, no thoughts, no praise, no anything--it’s "imperceptible" and "unseen." Back to the parable: "Yet now here he is being consoled, yet you are in pain [adunaoI]." Lazarus is "consoled." This word in Greek is used in conjunction with someone who is "in distress." So Lazarus is being "consoled in his distress." Doesn’t sound like much of a Heaven to me, And the rich man is "in pain." Why? It doesn’t say he did anything wrong, or evil, so why is he in pain? Who judged him? When? For what? THE RICH MAN IDENTIFIED There is only one man who Scripturally fits all the descriptions of the "rich man" in this parable. Only one person who "personifies" all of the symbols and identifying clues given of this rich man. And that man is: “JUDAH!” But not just Judah as an historical individual, but collectively. All Israel under the headship of Judah, the Jews. And the Jews were "rich." Beginning back in Gen. 15:14 God prophesied that Abraham’s descendants were to be very rich. "And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance." "Therefore the Lord established the kingdom in his hand and all Judah brought to Jehoshaphat presents; and he had riches and honour in abundance" (II Chron. 17:5) "...and he built in Judah castles, and cities of store" (Vs. 12) Jerusalem had a standing army of 860,000 men! (II Chron. 17:13-18). And that didn’t even include the fortified cities in Judah. (Vs. 19) Hezekiah (King of Judah): "...had exceeding much riches and honour; and he made himself treasures for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones...all manner of pleasant jewels; storehouses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil, and stalls for all manner of beasts ... he provided him cities, possessions of flocks and herds in abundance; for God had given him substance very much" (II Ch 32:27-29). So yes, Judah was rich. And who to this day are universally known for having money and being successful in the financial world? The Jews. However, these were just some of Judah’s material possessions. Judah was rich in another way--very rich. Judah possessed something far more valuable than all of these possessions. God bestowed on Judah a treasure greater than any other on the face of the earth, in the history of the world. "What, then is the prerogative of the Jew, or what the benefit of circumcision? Much in every manner... For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the ORACLES of God" (Rom. 3:1-2). Prerogative is translated from [Gk. perisson’ EXCESS, SUPERABUNDANTLY] Who has a diamond collection, an art collection, a string of corporations, or fifty Swiss Bank accounts that could begin to approach the value of the oracles of God? "For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things..." (Deu. 4:7). "He sheweth His WORD unto Jacob, his statutes and His judgment unto Israel" (Psa. 147:19) "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for SALVATION is of the Jews" (Jn 4:22) So not only was Judah rich materially, but God bestowed on Judah His very word and through Judah the very salvation of the world. Who but Judah possessed such wealth? "...and he dressed in purple..." Imagine Christ asking His disciples: "Oh, by the way, would you fellows be interested in knowing what color clothing this Rich man was wearing just before he went to Hell?" Ridiculous nonsense! But what is nonsense in the literal is the symbolic sign of this man’s real identity! Purple is: "A color used in garments of a bluish red, by a dye obtained from a shell fish, purpura. It denotes rank of royalty" (Greek-English Keyword Concordance p. 236). Purple was worn by Kings (Judges 8:26). Even the Caesars of Rome wore Purple as a symbol of their royalty. And who was to carry the royal line in Israel...? JUDAH. "The scepter [a symbol of rulership and power] shall not depart from Judah, now a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come..." (Gen. 49:10). David was of the Tribe of Judah and was anointed King of Judah. Our Lord was of the line of Judah (Mat. 1:2), and will be not only King of Judah, but King of Kings over all the world. During our Lord’s ministry, Judea was under Roman rule, however, there were still rulers in Judea--The Jews. There were Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests. Jesus said they had power and authority from God. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do..." (Mat. 23:2-3). God has always elevated Judah above the other Tribes. In I Chron. 2:1-3 we read: "These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. The sons of Judah;..." Notice Judah was the third born to Israel [JACOB] and is listed third, but when God gives their children’s names He starts first with Judah. To show Judah’s dominance in Rulership, when the Tribes of Israel are enumerated in Revelation 7:4, Judah is put first at the head of the list. He was not, however, the firstborn! "...and cambric (fine linen) …" The Rich man didn’t just dress in "Purple," but "Purple and Cambric." He wore both. Cambric or Fine Linen is symbolic of the clothing that the priests wore (Ex. 28:5, 25:4). And of the interior decorations of the Tabernacle itself (Ex. 26:1). Our Lord would not have told us that the Rich man wore these two specific types of garments except that they have great symbolic value in identifying who this man personifies. But if "Purple" symbolizes "Royalty" and "Fine Linen" symbolizes "Priesthood," how can the same man wear both? Only our Lord is both, King and Priest. Remember, the Levites and the priests were loyal to Judah through their long history. When they got the opportunity, they went with Ezra and Nehemiah back to Jerusalem--back to Judah. They were part of Judah. They were called Jews. Only one, had both the Scepter and the Priesthood: JUDAH. Notice this Scripture carefully "Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites ... God had raised, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem." (Ezra 1:3). There it is! JUDAH had both the ROYALTY and the PRIESTHOOD. And all these leaders of Judah, BENJAMIN, and LEVI, became who were known in Christ’s time as "the Jews." And that’s why, although the Apostle Paul was of the Tribe of Benjamin, nonetheless, he said of himself, that he was "a Jew." Yes he was!! In JUDAH were both the Royal Scepter (purple) and the Priesthood (fine linen). And that’s the reason Christ took the time to tell us what the Rich man was wearing! And no other personality in Scripture has both these designations along with all the other identifying features attributed to the Rich man! Father Abraham "...Child, be reminded..." Judah could therefore legitimately call Abraham, "Father." Abraham was Judah’s Great Grandfather. Abraham could legitimately call the Rich man, "Child." Judah was Abraham’s Great Grandchild. "They have Moses and the Prophets..." The Kingdom of Judah did have "Moses and the Prophets." They were the protectors and scribes of those very documents till the time of our Lord’s ministry, when Jesus said that they "sit in Moses’ seat." Judah was the very depository for The Law (Moses), The Prophets, and the Writings. Remember the Oracles were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:1-2). The Rich man said: "I have five brothers..." There’s a rule of Scripture study that is very sound, and I believe is applicable here. It goes like this: "Literal where and when possible." Most of this parable cannot be taken literally. Why? Because for one, it often contradicts the laws of science and physics. And two, it would contradict hundreds of other plain verses of Scripture. It’s the "parable" that cannot be taken literally. That does not mean that certain facts contained "in" the parable are not "literal." Abraham is, undoubtedly, "literally" Abraham. Moses and the prophets are, undoubtedly, "literally" Moses and the prophets. They obviously represent themselves, not someone else. With that in mind, who was it who had literally five brothers? Not that these "five brothers" cannot represent something else in the Scriptures. For example, there were five spheres where there were "Jews" who heard Christ proclaimed after His resurrection:
At first glance, you might think Judah can’t be this "Rich man." Didn’t Judah have eleven brothers? Yes and No. True, there were twelve sons of Israel, one of which was Judah, but not all by the same mother. Judah’s Mother, Leah, had
So who had five brothers? JUDAH. That Judah (the Jews), is here personified in this Rich man, there can be little doubt! But who then is this "Lazarus?" ABRAHAM’S BOSOM The answer is not far to find when we see where he is: "in Abraham’s bosom." Being in someone’s bosom shows a very close emotional relationship and position of honor. Christ likens Himself as being in the "bosom" of His Father (Jn 1:18). And John, likewise, who was very fond of Jesus leaned back into Jesus’ bosom (Jn 13:23). To be in the bosom of Abraham, or the bosom of Christ, or the bosom of the Father, are certainly positions of great honor. The Jews coveted that relationship with Abraham. They were so proud of their Father Abraham. They knew that God thought highly of their Father Abraham, and they wanted to be connected to that lofty position themselves. However, they did not come even close to qualifying for such an honor. They loved to say: "We have Abraham for our father!" But as Christ told them, they didn’t do the works of faith that their Father Abraham did. So Judah is not in the bosom of Abraham, but Lazarus is. Why? Who is this "Lazarus" that he should have such a lofty position of honor with the Father of the faithful? I said earlier that the Jews, undoubtedly, understood who Christ was referring to in both the Rich man and Lazarus. Remember that the Jews of Jerusalem knew Hebrew. Their scriptures were written in Hebrew. And they were a lot closer to these symbols and the Hebrew language than we are today. "And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this ELIEZER of Damascus? And Abram said "Behold, to me thou hast given no seed; and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir." (Gen. 15:2-3). In chapter 13 God had already promised great land and possessions to Abram’s seed. But Abram had no seed! Abram told God that since he had no son, his chief steward, ELIEZER, would be his heir and inherit all that was his. ELIEZER was so faithful a steward to Abraham that he was planning to make him his heir and give Eliezer all his possessions and inheritance. ELIEZER would have been wealthy. He would have inherited the "promised land." He would have received the "oracles of God" Ah, but no, God had different plans, it wasn’t the will of GOD. Abraham would have a son Isaac who would continue the Abrahamic line. It appears that ELIEZER will be left out. He lost his one big claim to fame. Now he’s just a Gentile from Damascus. All his generations will be Gentiles (DOGS). ELIEZER knew he would inherit all of Abraham’s possessions one day. And now, that’s all gone. But he remains faithful. ELIEZER had ample opportunity to do away with Isaac on any number of occasions, but he remained faithful to Abraham. He even took a journey to get a wife for Isaac. Every step of faith and obedience that ELIEZER took removed him just that much further from the inheritance he always thought would be his. He did all that a faithful steward should do. But every step of faithful obedience to Abraham caused his inheritance to slip further away. Imagine just how faithful and trustworthy a steward would have to be for Abraham to leave ALL his possessions to him. Abraham was extremely rich. Why look for "another" to pass these blessings onto? ELIEZER has already proved himself faithful. Abraham had already concluded that ELIEZER was the only logical heir: "This ELIEZER of Demascus ... born in my house IS MINE HEIR" (Gen. 15:2-3) It appears that either ELIEZER becomes Abraham’s heir, or he receives nothing. Absolutely no spiritual promises or possessions were ever made by God to ELIEZER If he is not to get Abraham’s inheritance, which included all that Abraham already had plus all that God is about to bless him with on top of all his other possessions, then ELIEZER is going to be poor as far as spiritual blessings are concerned. As a Gentile, all he can ever hope for are the spiritual "crumbs" that fall from the Rich man’s table. Not to fear: Through faith God works many miracles. FAITH OF THE GENTILES "Now the woman was a Greek, a native of Syro-Phoenicia [A Gentile], and she asked Him that He should be casting the demon out of her daughter. Yet Jesus said to her, ‘Let first the children [The Jews] be satisfied, for it is not ideal to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.’ Yet she answered and is saying to Him, ‘Yes, Lord, For the dogs also, underneath the table, are eating the scraps from the little children.’ And He said to her, ‘Because of this saying, go. The demon has come out of your daughter.’" (Mk. 6:27-29). So clearly this Syro-Phoenician woman was not asking for a small portion of food (crumbs or scraps), but rather a small portion of Christ’s spiritual blessing. And clearly, Lazarus does not represent a street beggar in need of a small portion of food. He personifies something much greater than one single beggar in the street. When Christ entered Capernaum a centurion [a Roman, a Gentile] asked Christ to heal his boy. Christ said He would come. The Centurion said He need only to "say the word" and he would trust Christ for the healing! "When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to them that followed, ‘Verily I say unto you I have not found so GREAT FAITH no, NOT IN ISRAEL’" (Mat. 8:5-10). Why then, are the Gentiles relegated to "dogs?" Not in all Israel did our Lord find such faith as in these GENTILE "DOGS!" But "Judah" gets all the blessings while the "Gentile" dogs get the crumbs? Ah, just when we think things are going bad and God isn’t fair, He shows us His strange and marvelous wisdom! " What was Christ’s response to this marvelous exhibition of faith by the Centurion? "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and the west [Gentiles], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of Heaven, but the children of the kingdom [Judah--the Jews] shall be cast into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mat. 8:11-12). We can still see the rich man in this context…amazing Christ is NOT telling us that "Jews" from the East and "Jews" from the West will sit down with Abraham, but that the "Jews" shall be cast out." That’s contradictory. It’s the "Jews" who are the "CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM" who are "cast out." And those from the East and West are "GENTILES." Christ is telling us who these "many" are because He is commenting on the faith that God has given to this Centurion GENTILE. LAZARUS IDENTIFIED |
Christ rarely spoke of the Gentiles in His ministry. But He did speak of them. And, although, He said He was sent only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, in His human ministry, He nonetheless, was making provisions for the Gentiles, as in this prophetic statement.
As Christ’s disciples were to be like "SALT" to the earth, this Syro-Phoenician woman, Cornelius of the Italian squadron, the Roman Centurion, the Samaritan woman at the well, and others were certainly like "SALT" among the Jews. The very first sermon of Christ’s ministry foretold the calling of the Gentiles, and it nearly cost Christ His life, lets read
(Luke 4:14-30)NIV
“.......................18The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,..................
27 And there were many in Israel with leprosyf in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.
29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff.
30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.”
When it comes to God’s blessings, faith is thicker than blood. God has not "CAST OFF" the GENTILES! So we find "Lazarus" [Gk: helpless] begging scraps from a rich man’s table. Can "helpless" find "help?" Will God have mercy on him just as He did the Syro-Phoenician woman and the Centurion? Yes! "LAZARUS" IS "ELIEZER"!! Isn’t this wonderful? The Greek "Lazarus" is from Lazaros [Heb. HELPLESS]. But in Hebrew "Lazarus" is Elazar or "Eliezer" from el [God] and azar [HELP]! If Lazarus knew his Hebrew name, he would have known that help was on the way. The "God of Help" had already planned this whole marvelous drama from the time of Abraham. Just as the Jews can look to their ancient "father" Abraham as a sterling example of faith in God, so now, likewise, can the Gentiles Look to Abraham’s Steward, Eliezer as a "father" of rare faith. Truly there is no partiality with God--it only appears that way when we let the RELATIVE get in the way of the ABSOLUTE. It is the Gentiles that God is primarily dealing with today! Paul says there is to be only a "remnant" of Jews. His calling was to the nations. However, Paul knew that God was still calling a "few" of the Jews. "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh [Jews], and might save some of them" (Rom. 11:14). For nearly two thousand years now God is calling primarily the Gentiles.. GOD’S CALL IS NOW TO THE GENTILES Lazarus [Eliezer] was: "...cast at his [Rich man’s] gate [portal]..." It was the "Gentiles" who were NOT ALLOWED into the Royal and Priestly House of Judah. They could go no further than "The court of the Gentiles." Any blessings they received had to come to them from inside where they were never allowed to go! Though designated as "proselytes [new converts]," they were, nonetheless, like "dogs" who only got the "crumbs" or scraps! Hence we find Lazarus cast "at the gate." Little could these Jews hearing this parable realize that in just a few short years all this would change. "Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you [Gentiles], who once are far off, are become near by the blood of Christ. For He is our Peace, Who makes both one, and razes the central wall of the barrier [middle wall of partition] ... He brings the evangel of peace to you [Gentiles] ... for through Him we both [Jews and Gentiles] have had the access, in one spirit to the Father" (Eph. 2:13-18). And so today, the Gentiles don’t have to stand outside the gate, or be separated by a barrier, or stay in their own court, and wait for handouts. They have direct access to God. Can someone shout amen to this! And who has been preaching the Evangel for the past two thousand years? The Jews? Hardly. It has been the Gentiles that have translated the Scriptures into nearly every language on earth. It is those called of the Gentiles that are accepting Christ Jesus as their Savior, not the Jews. It is really a rare thing to find Jews accepting Christ as the Messiah. And that’s why we find Lazarus [ELIEZER--THE GENTILES] in the bosom of Abraham, and the Rich man [THE JEWS] engulfed in flame of Anti-Semitism for the past two thousand years. "...having ulcers [full of sores]..." Lazarus is not full of sores in Abraham’s bosom. He has been healed. In fact, that’s what "salvation" meant in New Testament times. "Salvation" is a beautiful sounding Latin word; however, it was never part of the New Testament Greek Vocabulary. Not until six or eight centuries ago did the word "salvation" come into translations. Before that time it was "HEALTH" that was one’s salvation. And all of the very oldest Anglo-Saxon Scriptures translate it "HEALTH" not "salvation." So for Lazarus "HEALTH" in the bosom of Abraham was SALVATION! Lazarus doesn’t represent materialistically poor Jews, but spiritually poor Gentiles. That’s the whole point here in the parable. Judah was rich and knew it! They were like the Laodiceans who said: "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:17). "...Father Abraham, be merciful to me, and send Lazarus that he should be dipping the tip of his finger in water..." In figurative and symbolic language the Rich man asks for a drop of water on the tip of Lazarus’ finger. How appropriate! Who was it that refused to help the "poor" with so much as their little finger? "For they [Judah] bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their FINGERS" (Mat. 23:4). "...and spake unto Rehoboam [King of Judah], saying, ... make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. But he forsook the counsel of the old men ... My little FINGER shall be thicker than my father’s loins ... my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions" (I Kg. 12:7:11). Now Judah begs the assistance of a FINGER from a poor man! And not just a poor man, but a poor Gentile! It was custom for pious Jews to cut a section of their garment off if it were so much as touched by the FINGER of a Gentile. Now the rich and lofty personification of God’s chosen people begs for the assistance of a Gentile FINGER. These are deep secrets unfolding, you won’t hear this from the pulpit. "God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall he be reaping also" (Gal. 67). "...and cooling my tongue..." It isn’t his flesh that he wants cooled from this flame, but his tongue. This man is frightened. When people are petrified from fear their tongue dries and swells. That’s why some inexperienced speakers often need a whole glass of water just to get through a 10 minute speech. (this is my own thinking not scriptural though but a fact) Well, God brought Judah back from Babylon to Jerusalem, but Judah didn’t have the same heart as King David. He failed to remember. David said: "...let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ... if I forget to remember Jerusalem." It was because of Judah’s "tongue" that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first place: "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen; because their TONGUE and their doings are against the Lord..." (Isa. 3:8). So in the parable we find Lazarus (Eliezer--a Gentile) in the bosom of Abraham, and Judah, who should be there, on the other side asking for mercy. But Lazarus can’t come over to the Rich man even if he wanted to, because of this "chasm." "And in all this, between us and you a great chasm [gulf] has been established." THE RICH MAN’S SIN "And in the unseen [hades], lifting up his eyes, existing in torments..." Judah [the Jews] proved to be totally unworthy of their high calling. Their heart’s turned from the declarations of God. Claiming Abraham as their father did not exonerate them either. "‘Our father is Abraham.’ Jesus answered them, ‘If you are children of Abraham, did you ever do the works of Abraham? Yet now you are seeking to kill me, a Man Who has spoken to you the truth..." (John 8:39-20)! Not only were they no longer "...of the faith of Abraham," but they had, in fact, utterly corrupted themselves. After King David, Solomon broke God commandments and covenant (I Kg 11:11). King Rehoboam said: "And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke; my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions" (I Kg. 12:10-11). "...Judah kept not the commandments of the Lord..." (II Kg. 19:17) And King Manasseh, of Judah, went from bad to worse: "...he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord after the abominations of the heathen ... he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed ... he built altars in the house of the Lord ... he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he made his sons pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealeth with familiar spirits and wizards; he wrought much wickedness ... Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed..." (II Kg. 21:2-9). "Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the holiness of the Lord which He loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god." (Mal. 2:11). HISTORIC AND PROPHETIC JUDAH According to a "literal" teaching of this parable, the Rich man did nothing to deserve his torment. But once we identify this Rich man, however, we find a mountain of sins and evils that are attributed to him: When John the baptist saw these same descendants of the Jews, the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptisms, he remarked: "progeny [offspring] of vipers." Our Lord used the most derogatory [offensive] language possible in describing the Jews of the first century: "O GENERATION OF VIPERS, how can ye, being EVIL, speak good..." (Mat. 12:34)! "And EVIL and ADULTEROUS GENERATION seeketh after a sign..." (Mat. 12:39)! "Why do ye also TRANSGRESS the commandment of God..." (Mat. 15:3)! "O FAITHLESS and PERVERSE GENERATION..." (Mat. 17:17)! "...John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not..." (Mat. 21:32)! "Why tempt ye me, Ye HYPOCRITES?" (Mat. 22:17)! "But all their works they do for to be seen of men..." (Mat. 23:5)! "But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! (Vs. 13)! "...ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Vs. 13)! "...for ye DEVOUR widows’ houses..." (Vs. 14). "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of GEHENNA(KJV=HELL) than yourselves" (Vs. 15). "Woe unto you, ye BLIND GUIDES..." (Vs. 16). "Ye FOOLS and BLIND..." (Vs. 17). "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye pay tithe of the mint and the anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith..." (Vs. 23). "Ye BLIND GUIDES, which strain AT (PROPERLY TRANSLATED OFF) a gnat and swallow a camel. (Vs. 25)….KJV. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! ... whited sepulchres ... full of dead men’s bones, and of all UNCLEANNESS" (Vs. 27) "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which KILLED the prophets. Ye SERPENTS. Ye GENERATION OF VIPERS..." (Vs. 22-23) "I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your Synagogues, and persecute them from city to city; That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth..." (Vs. 34-35). God Will Help Us To Understand In Jesus Name. |
I am MRS NATASHA, i will like to let every know that there is still a true and real spell caster out there and he has helped me in so many way just a few days since i came in contact with him through the help of my mother who introduced me to him. wow!! this man has brought back the joy in my life that was stolen and now i live a better and sound life. he is true to his word and he is here in the world to help mankind. he is the realest of all spell caster online. he is HIGH PRIEST OZIGIDIDON. you can get in touch to him via email: highpriestozigididon@gmail.com. and i swear a trial will convince you.
ReplyDelete