[geocentrism] Re: expelled

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jack Lewis 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:22 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: expelled


  Bernie,
  I would challenge this. The story of Lazurus and the rich man is not a 
parable. All other parables do not mention the names of people and can 
therefore can be allegorical. However however both Lazurus and Abraham are 
mentioned by name. So if this description of hell is wrong what does that make 
Jesus?

  Jack



    Now, this article by Steven Cox is about the best explaination of the 
parable Ive seen, certainly shows how much there is to Jesus parables rather 
than the simple stories they seem to be.


    The Rich Man, Lazarus, and Abraham
    by Steven Cox  Luke 16:19-31
          Introduction
          A unique story
          Bible teaching on death
          Understanding Parables
          The Parable of the Weeds
          The Parable of the Great Banquet
          The Parable of the Lost Son
          The Parable of the Dishonest Manager
          The Rich Man and Lazarus
          The Bosom of Abraham
          Why Did Jesus Use the Pharisee's Doctrine?
          Conclusions
          Questions
         



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Luke 16:19-31 


      19.. There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and 
lived in luxury every day. 

      20.. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores, 

      21.. and longing to eat what fell from the Rich Man's table. Even the 
dogs came and licked his sores. 

      22.. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to 
Abraham's side. The Rich Man also died and was buried. 

      23.. In Hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far 
away, with Lazarus by his side. 

      24.. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send 
Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am 
in agony in this fire'. 

      25.. But Abraham replied, 'Son remember that in your lifetime you 
received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is 
comforted here and you are in agony. 

      26.. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been 
fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone 
else cross over from there to us.' 

      27.. He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's 
house, 

      28.. for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not 
also come to this place of torment. 

      29.. Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen 
to them.' 

      30.. 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to 
them, they will repent.' 

      31.. He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets 
they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead' (NIV) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Introduction 

    Sometimes in the Bible it is obvious when a parable is a parable, and when 
real events are real events. Sometimes the reader can easily distinguish 
between things to be taken literally and things to be taken figuratively. 

    But this is not always so simple. Many times when Jesus spoke in parables 
people misunderstood and took him literally. For example, Jesus once said, when 
visiting the temple in Jerusalem, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it 
again in three days". Those listening all thought he was speaking literally 
about the real temple and objected "It has taken forty-six years to build this 
temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?". Yet the Gospel writer 
notes "But the temple he had spoken of was his body" (John 2:20). In other 
words he was talking figuratively, in a kind of parable. 

    Even Jesus' own disciples were often confused by his figurative speech and 
parables. For example on another occasion he told his disciples to "be on your 
guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" and they 
misunderstood, thinking that he was reproaching them for having forgotten to 
buy bread. Then he explained to them that he was talking figuratively; the 
yeast was the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:6-7,11-12). 

    It is easy to smile at these mistakes by the people of Jesus' day, and 
forget that we are reading the account including the explanation! Without the 
explanation we would probably be just as confused as those to whom Jesus first 
spoke the words. 

    A unique story 

    The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is one of the best known in the Bible 
because it is unique in several ways. 


      1.. Firstly, it is unique because, although its style resembles a 
parable, and also it comes immediately after a series of four other parables 
(parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, prodigal son, dishonest manager), it 
certainly is not a usual parable. The parables of Jesus normally concern 
nature, everyday life, customs and society, not startling visions of the 
underworld, complete with fire and chasms. 

      2.. Secondly, this parable, if we can properly call it a parable, is the 
only one in which real people - Abraham, Lazarus - are named. 

      3.. Thirdly, it is unique because the teachings in this story clearly 
contradict the rest of the Bible's teaching about what happens after death. For 
example no other support can be found anywhere in the Bible for the idea that 
'souls' live on after death, or that the 'souls' of good and wicked go to 
different places. Or that Abraham is waiting to welcome the dead. This may 
surprise some readers, but popular ideas about souls going to heaven or hell, 
and so on, are not taught in the Bible. In fact they are repeatedly denied in 
both Old and New Testaments. Elsewhere in the Bible "the dead know nothing". 
(More on this subject in a moment). 

      4.. Finally, Jesus uses various phrases (such as "the Bosom of Abraham") 
and images (such as the chasm separating the underworld in two) which are only 
found outside the Bible. In fact these terms are only found in 1st Century 
Jewish mythology. (More on this subject also). 
    Bible teaching on death 

    Before looking at Luke 16:19-31 in detail it is probably necessary to 
support the assertion made above that the Bible teaches that "the dead know 
nothing". 

    That phrase is actually a quote from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 9:5). Similar 
comments can be found in Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 and 9:10. These verses are so 
clear, and so clearly contradict popular church teaching about the 'immortal 
soul' (a phrase never found in the Bible), that many modern Christians reject 
the book of Ecclesiastes as being 'the work of a man without faith'. This is 
extremely short sighted as it is not only Ecclesiastes but almost every book in 
the Bible which contains this teaching. If someone rejects Ecclesiastes, 
because they find its teaching unpalatable, they will eventually have to do so 
with the entire Old Testament and then the New Testament as well. 

    It is not going to be possible to cover the entire subject of life, death, 
and the nature of man in a few lines. If you are not sure what the Bible 
teaches on this subject it would be better to write to the address on the back 
cover for a copy of the leaflet Life After Death. However the main points of 
Bible teaching are as follows: 

    1. Man's 'soul' is made up of two parts - dust and breath: 

    See Genesis 2:7(where "living soul" is the same Hebrew phrase as "living 
creatures" in Genesis 1:21,24, 9:10,12,15,16 etc.) Job 27:3, 33:4-6, Psalm 
104:30, 1Corinthians 15:45 (where the "soul" of Adam is the same Greek word 
psyche as "life" or "lives" in Matthew 2:20, 6:25, 10:39, 20:28, Acts 15:26, 
20:10,24, 27:10, John 10:11, 15,17, 13:37,38, Romans 11:3, Philippians 2:30, 
1John 3:16, Revelation 8:9 etc.). 

    2. When man dies the breath returns to God who gave it, and man returns to 
dust: 

    See Genesis 3:19, 6:3, 18:27, Job 7:21, 21:26, 34:14-15, Psalm 37:20, 
49:10-14, 55:23, 76:12, 88:5, 90:3-6, 103:14, 104:29, 112:10, 140:10, 146:4*, 
Ecclesiastes 3:19-20*, 12:7*, Isaiah 26:14, 43:17, 51:39, Ezekiel 18:4, Nahum 
3:18, John 6:49, Romans 5:12-14, James 2:26. (* in the asterixed verses English 
Bibles have "spirit" but the Hebrew has the same word ruakh as the "breath" in 
the animals of Genesis 6:17, 7:15 etc. The word ruakh does not mean a conscious 
spirit). 

    3. Those who have known God 'sleep in the dust' - meaning that they rest 
unconscious until Christ returns: 

    See 2 Samuel 7:12, (and likewise 1 Kings 2:10, 11:43, 14:20, 31, 15:8, 24, 
16:6, 28, 22:40, 50 etc. etc.), Job 10:21, 13:12-15, 14:21, Psalm 6:5, 13:3, 
30:9, 31:17, 49:17-20, 88:10-11, 115:17, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6, 10, Isaiah 38:18, 
John 3:13, 11:11-13, Acts 2:29,34, 13:36, 1 Corinthians 15:51. 

    4. Only then will man rise from the dust to be judged, and, if accepted, 
live forever in Christ's Kingdom on earth. 

    See Job 33:25, Psalm 22:29, 37:11,22,29,34, 49:15, 116:15, Isaiah 26:19, 
57:1, Jeremiah 23:5, Ezekiel 21:27, Daniel 12:2-3, Matthew 5:5, 6:10, 8:11, 
22:23-32, 23:39, 25:34, Mark 13:32, 14:25, Luke 1:33, 17:24, 20:35-38, John 
5:21-22, 28-30, 6:39-40,44,54, 11:24-25, 14:6, Acts 1:6-7,11, 4:2, 17:18,32, 
23:6, 24:15,21, 26:6-8,23, Romans 2:16, 4:17, 6:5, 14:10, 1 Corinthians 6:14, 
15:12-14,20-23, 49-55, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Philippians 3:11, Colossians 3:4, 1 
Thessalonians 4:13-16, 5:23, 2 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 11:13,19,39-40, Revelation 
5:10. 

    There are some complications to the simple explanation above because of the 
way that Bible translations sometimes reflect church traditions rather than the 
literal text. So a phrase which conflicts with traditional beliefs such as "do 
not go near a dead soul" (Numbers 6:6) is translated as "do not go near a dead 
body". When Joshua "struck all the souls with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 
10:28,30,32,37,39) it is translated "people". And so on. 

    One solution to this problem is a concordance (such as Young's, Wigram's, 
or Strong's), but in many countries these cost more than a month's wage. 
Alternatively some readers use two Bibles, a modern one for general reading, 
and an older version for checking difficult passages. Either way it is worth 
noting in the margin of one's Bible the literal meaning of the text, so that it 
can be remembered the next time it is read. 

    Back to Luke 16.... 

    So the picture of the afterlife given in the story of the Rich Man and 
Lazarus contradicts all the Bible verses given above. 

    Something that is even stranger, given the popularity of Luke 16 in the 
churches as a proof text on heaven and hell, is that it also contradicts church 
traditions. 

    If Abraham is really in a place where one can communicate across a chasm 
with the wicked, burning in another part of the underworld, then he is not in 
heaven. Luke16:22-26 clearly has nothing to do with the popular picture of 
heaven. 

    Some churches have attempted to get round this by saying that the Bosom of 
Abraham was under the earth when Jesus spoke but is in heaven now. Apart from 
the lack of any Bible support for such an idea, what exactly does it achieve? 

    Understanding Parables 

    If we are going to understand Luke 16:19-31 we have to do so in the context 
of the rest of the Bible. 

    But first, it is worth noting that the Parables of the New Testament are 
not simple stories like the fairy tales that we tell children. They can be, and 
were intended to be, difficult to understand: 

    "This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing they do not see, 
though hearing they do not understand'" (Matthew 13:13) 

    "Although I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will 
no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly". (John16:25) 

    The explanation of Luke 16:19-31 which will follow requires a little 
thought, but then God gave us brains that we might use them: 

    "Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16) 

    "Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but 
in your thinking be adults." (1Corinthians 14:20) 

    Here is an example of a parable that is more than just a simple 'story': 

    The Parable of the Weeds 

    In Matthew 13:24-30 there is a parable about a farmer who finds weeds 
growing in his field. The interesting thing about this parable is that it is 
one of very few where Jesus later (13:36-39) explained the meaning to the 
disciples: 

    The sower= Christ
    The field = the world
    Good seeds = good people
    Bad seeds = bad people
    The enemy = the Devil
    The reapers = the angels
    The harvest = the end of the age 

    There is no confusion here because Jesus himself gave the identification of 
the characters in the parable. We now turn to some of the parables in Luke 
which lead up to that of the Rich Man and Lazarus: 

    The Parable of the Great Banquet 

    In Luke 14:16-24 Jesus tells a parable about a man sending out invitations 
to a feast. But the invited guests are too busy with business to accept the 
invitation. The host then becomes angry and invites the poor and outsiders 
instead. 

    It is easy to see that the characters in the parable are all real people, 
or groups of people: 

    Host of the banquet = God
    Servant sent to call guests = Christ
    Guests who make excuses = the rich Jews
    The poor and sick of the town= the poor Jews
    Those from outside the town = the Gentiles 

    Also it was based on real life circumstances. When he told this parable 
Jesus was actually present at a banquet (see 14:1), and his audience included 
exactly the kind of people who were excluded in the parable (14:7). 

    The Parable of the Lost Son 

    In Luke 15:11-16 we have another parable. The mention of the far country 
and pigs in v.15 suggests the same subject: 

    The father = God
    Older son = Jews
    Younger son = Gentiles 

    Again, real people, real local circumstances. 

    The Parable of the Dishonest Manager 

    In Luke 16:1-13 we have a much more complex subject. This parable is often 
misread as teaching that churches should imitate the world when handling money. 
But Jesus makes it clear that he is talking about "the Pharisees who were 
lovers of money" (v.14). When they laughed at the parable he turned to them and 
said "You are the ones!" (v.15). 

    The master = God
    The dishonest manager = the Pharisees
    The debtors = the people 

    Instead of the bills being literally money owed to God, the Pharisees were 
reducing what the people owed to God in terms of worship and righteousness 
(v.17). It appears that Jesus particularly had in mind the Pharisee practice of 
selling letters of divorce (v.18). 

    This information allows us to reconsider why the master had "commended" his 
servant for conspiring with his creditors to cheat him (v.8). What master in 
real life would do this? This cheated master can only be speaking with bitter 
irony. Certainly, in the next verses, Jesus had nothing good to say about the 
dishonest manager (vs.10-13). 

    The key to understanding this strange 'commendation' (v.8) is in the Old 
Testament. The "eternal dwellings" (v.9), refer to the "eternal home" of the 
grave (Ecclesiastes 12:5). And the so-called "friends" waiting there, are those 
already dead (Psalm 49:11-14). Therefore: 

    The master's bills = God's laws
    Eternal dwellings = the grave 

    Again, the parable concerns real people, real local problems and 
contemporary issues. And, most importantly, the key to the answer was in the 
Old Testament. 

    The Rich Man and Lazarus 

    We now come to the last of the parables in this section of Luke, the one 
with which we are concerned. One important point: there is no break between the 
"You are the ones!" (Luke 16:15) spoken to the Pharisees and the Lazarus 
parable. This suggests that the Pharisees were the audience of this parable as 
well. 

    Who are the characters? 

    The Rich Man = ?
    His father = ?
    His five brothers = ?
    Lazarus= ?
    Abraham = ? 

    It seems easiest to start where there is likely to be most agreement, that 
Abraham is the Abraham of Genesis. 

    Next easiest is Lazarus. There is only one person of this name found in the 
Bible, namely Lazarus of Bethany, the brother of Mary and Martha who was raised 
from the dead by Jesus in John 11:1-44. Comparing the parallel accounts of the 
anointing in Bethany in John 12:3 and Matthew 26:6 we find that Lazarus' other 
name was Simon, and that he had been a leper. The leprosy must have been healed 
when Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, but he was still known as "Simon the 
Leper". 

    This explains why the Lazarus in the parable was "full of sores" (Luke 
16:20). The begging had nothing to do with poverty, it was because he was 
unclean. According to the Law of Moses, Simon would have been ceremonially 
unclean and could not enter his own house in Bethany; "he must live outside the 
camp" (Leviticus 13:46). 

    So we have two men, both Jews, both called Lazarus, both beggars, both 
lepers, both of whom died, and both of whom would not convince people by their 
resurrection (compare Luke 16:30-31 and John 12:10). 

    This is too many coincidences for them not to have been the same person. 
So: 

    Abraham= Abraham
    Lazarus = Lazarus 

    This would lead us to expect the Rich Man is also someone known to the 
audience of the parable. 

    Who was the Rich Man? 

    Reading through the story we can find the following clues to the identity 
of the Rich Man: 

      1.. he was rich (vs.19) 
      2.. dressed in purple and fine linen (vs.19) 
      3.. lived in luxury every day (vs.19) 
      4.. in his lifetime he received good things (vs.25) 
      5.. he had five brothers (vs.28) 
      6.. they lived in his father's house (vs.27) 
      7.. they had Moses and the Prophets (vs.25) 
      8.. but they did not listen to them (vs.29) 
      9.. they would not be convinced even if someone were to rise from the 
dead (vs.31) 
    It is not obvious to the modern reader who this Rich Man is. But it should 
be clear that the picture is much too detailed to simply be 'a representative 
of all rich men'. 

    But the Pharisees listening would have known immediately whom Christ was 
referring to. There was not any chance of their mistaking it, because only one 
man in Israel dressed in purple and fine linen. A man who fitted exactly all 
the clues which Jesus gave as to the identity of the Rich Man. 

    As in Luke's previous parable of the Dishonest Steward, the key to the 
meaning lies in the Old Testament. In Exodus 28 we find the instructions given 
to Aaron for making the high priest's garments; "blue, purple, and scarlet yarn 
and fine linen" (note Exodus 28:5-8,15,31,39). The Pharisees could not fail to 
understand that the man dressed in purple and fine linen was the Jewish high 
priest. 

    The Name of the Rich Man 

    The high priest when Jesus spoke this parable was Caiaphas. We know from 
the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote a detailed account of the period in 
Antiquities of the Jews, that Caiaphas met all 4 of the first qualifications of 
the Rich Man of Luke 16: 

    1. he was rich (v.19) 

    2. dressed in purple and fine linen (v.19) 

    3. lived in luxury every day (v.19) 

    4. in his lifetime he received good things (v.25) 

    (see Antiquities, XIII: 10:vi:p.281, XVIII:1:iv:p.377, also Wars of the 
Jews 11:8:xiv: p. 478) 

    His Father's House 

    In Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 we meet the other high priest who served with 
Caiaphas, Annas, who was "father-in-law to Caiaphas" (John 18:13). Josephus 
also records that Caiaphas served as high priest 18-35AD at the time of Jesus' 
ministry. Annas had been removed from his office by the Romans for openly 
resisting them, but behind the scenes he retained his authority and position. 
This is why in John 18:13-24 Jesus is first tried by Annas, and only afterwards 
sent to Caiaphas (v.28), but then Caiaphas, not Annas, sends Jesus to Pilate 
(v.29). 

    Five Brothers 

    In case anyone listening did not understand who He meant, Christ was even 
more specific: The "five brothers" Christ mentions are the five other high 
priests, who were in fact his five brothers-in-law, the five sons of Annas. The 
historian Josephus records: 

    "Now the report goes, that this elder Annas proved a most fortunate man; 
for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, 
and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never 
happened to any other of our high priests. . ." (Antiquities, Book XX, chapter 
9, section i, p.423) 

    The years they served are as follows: 

    Eleazar 16-17AD
    Jonathan 36-37AD
    Theophilus 37-41AD
    Matthias 41-43AD
    Annas the Younger 62AD 

    As mentioned above, the years 18-35AD between Eleazar and Jonathan were 
occupied by Caiaphas. Between 43-62AD the high priests were taken from other 
families than of Annas. Finally in 70AD the temple was destroyed and the high 
priesthood along with it. 

    This confirms the list of coincidences between the Rich Man and Caiaphas: 

    5. he had five brothers (v.28) 

    6. they lived in his father's house (v.27) 

    7. they had Moses and the Prophets (v.25) 

    8. but they did not listen to them (v.29) 

    The final coincidence is confirmed when after the resurrection of Simon of 
Bethany, we read that "the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 
for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting 
their faith in him" (John 12:10) 

    9. they would not be convinced even if someone were to rise from the dead 
(v.31) 

    John 12:10 also confirms another coincidence between the Lazarus of the 
parable and Simon Lazarus of Bethany. The resurrection of both was rejected by 
Annas and his five sons. 

    Summary so far 

    We have established the identity of all the characters: 

    Abraham = Abraham
    Lazarus = Simon the Leper of Bethany
    The Rich Man = Caiaphas
    His father = Annas
    His 5 brothers = Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Annas the Younger 

    But what does the parable mean? 

    At the Rich Man's Gate 

    "At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores, and 
longing to eat from the Rich Man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his 
sores." (vs. 20-21) 

    As we noted in considering the real Lazarus, when a Jew contracted a 
disease they became 'unclean'. They were at most allowed only into the outer 
court of the temple. This meant the unclean were no longer allowed to eat from 
the sacrifices offered in the inner court. In this way Simon of Bethany was 
barred from eating at the table of Caiaphas in Jerusalem. 

    There is similar language in Matthew 15 when the Canaanite woman (who was a 
'Gentile dog' as far as the Pharisees were concerned) said to Jesus "Even the 
dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their master's table" (Matthew 15:27). 

    It may be that before he died Simon the Leper literally did beg outside the 
temple. But the meaning here is deeper than begging for food. Jesus is saying 
that the weak, the unclean, and the poor, were all denied spiritual food by the 
ruling caste of high priests. 

    The Bosom of Abraham 

    "The time came when the beggar died, and the angels carried him to 
Abraham's side" (v.22 NIV). 

    Now this is where the story starts to become difficult. Nowhere else in the 
Bible does it say that when men die they go to Abraham's side. In older Bibles 
it reads "bosom of Abraham", meaning the lap of Abraham. 

    Today there are a hundred and one different theories about death. Many 
people seriously believe when they die they will go up to the gates of Heaven, 
to be met by the Apostle Peter. Others believe other things. But the idea that 
the dead go to sit 'in the lap' of Abraham is something that nobody today 
believes. 

    But people did believe it in Jesus' day. Mentions of "the bosom of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob" have been found in burial papyri (cf. papyrus Preisigke Sb 
2034:11). In early Rabbinical legends "the Bosom ofAbraham" was where the 
righteous went. (cf. Kiddushin 72b, Ekah 1:85). It is not in the Bible of 
course, but it was popularly believed. 

    While the NIV has "to Abraham's side", the literal AV rendering "to the 
bosom of Abraham" is better as the 'Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob', was a 
specific concept in contemporary popular belief. 

    Another source showing what Jews of Jesus' day believed is a book called 4 
Maccabees, which was probably written by Jews in Egypt about a generation after 
Christ. In this work of fiction Abraham, Isaac and Jacob receive and welcome 
Jewish martyrs into the world of the dead: 

    "After our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us 
and all our forefathers will praise us" (4 Maccabees 13:17). 

    Again, this is not Bible teaching, only popular superstition. 

    The Rich Man in Hell 

    The story becomes even more difficult when we read the next verse: 

    "The Rich Man also died and was buried. In Hell where he was in torment he 
looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus in his bosom. So he called to 
him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his 
finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire'." (vs. 
23-24) 

    Even with the most fertile imagination it is difficult to believe that from 
Hell one can see people in Heaven and talk to them. But the story gets stranger 
still: 

    "But Abraham replied. 'Son remember that in your ilfetime you received your 
good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here 
and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm 
has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can 
anyone else cross over from there to us". (vs. 25-26) 

    Nothing else in the Bible prepares us for this description of Hell. Again 
the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus turns out to be unique. 

    Which Hell? 

    We need to clarify what the word 'Hell' means here, as in English Bibles 
(unlike many Asian Bibles) two words have been confused into one. 

    'Hell' in the English Bible can be one of two words in the original Greek 
text: 

    1. Hades, the grave, the pit, the place where the dead sleep. In the Old 
Testament known as Sheol (Genesis 37:35, 42:38, 44:29, Job 14:13, Psalm 6:5, 
16:10, 139:8, Ecclesiastes 9:10, Matthew 16:18). In the Bible all people go to 
Hades to await the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:55, Revelation 1:8, 20:13). 
Even Jesus was in Hades for 3 days and 3 nights (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:27,31). 

    2. Gehenna, originally the name of the valley Gehenna on the south side of 
Jerusalem. In the Old Testament the valley was known as Ben Hinnom (Jeremiah 
7:31). In the New Testament the name is associated with the fire in which the 
rejected will be destroyed at the last judgement (Matthew 5:22,29,30, 18:9, 
23:15,33, Mark 9:43,45,47, Luke 12:5, James 3:6) 

    The problem is that in Luke 16:23 the 'Hell' described does not fit either 
of these Bible definitions. In fact the word is Hades, but it clearly does not 
fit with the Hades of "silence" (Psalm 31:17), where Jesus was laid (Acts 
2:25-28 quoting Psalm 16:8-11). There are 9 other mentions of Hades in the New 
Testament, 50 in the Old. All these other references present Hades as the 
grave. Luke 16:23 is the odd one out. 

    The source for the unusual Hades in Luke 16:23, as with the source for the 
'Bosom of Abraham' itself, lies outside the Bible in the myths of the 1st 
Century. Many Jewish myths survive today (eg. in the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, 
Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, etc.). In these works a variety of fantastic pictures 
of Hades are given that have no connection with the Old Testament. One of the 
closest to the picture given in Luke 16:23-24 is in a work called The 
Apocalypse of Zephaniah. 

    False Beliefs about Hades 

    It needs to be said that The Apocalypse of Zephaniah has nothing to do with 
the Zephaniah who wrote the book of that name in the Bible. The real Zephaniah 
lived in the days of King Josiah about 620BC. The so-called Apocalypse of 
Zephaniah on the other hand, was written by an unknown Jewish author, and 
probably a Pharisee, some time around150AD. In other words, the book is a fake. 

    It is interesting however because the myth shows us what many Jews in 
Jesus' day believed. The details are not exactly the same as in Luke 16:23-24; 
for example in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah the chasm between the fiery part of 
Hades and the part given to Abraham has a giant river running through it. In 
fact the author recounts the fictional Zephaniah's journey across the river in 
a boat steered by an angel: 

    "You have escaped from the abyss and Hades, you will now cross over the 
crossing place... then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely Abraham, Isaac, 
Jacob, Enoch, Elijah and David" (Apoc. Zeph. 9:2). 

    Another difference is that in Luke 16 only Abraham is mentioned. In the 
Apocalypse of Zephaniah all three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are in 
the side of the underworld reserved for the righteous, along with Enoch, Elijah 
and David. 

    But the differences are minor, and there are enough common points, and more 
in many other Jewish myths, to suggest that the content of the Rich Man and 
Lazarus parable has some relation to contemporary Jewish ideas, and in 
particular to popular Pharisee teachings. 

    The Pharisees and the 'Sinners' 

    We have established above that the picture of Hades, the Bosom of Abraham, 
and the chasm between them, represents the Pharisees' teaching, or at least 
popular Jewish belief, rather than Jesus' own teaching. 

    All this is, however, only half of the Pharisees' teaching. The other half 
concerns the Pharisees' ideas about exactly who would go to be with "Father 
Abraham" (Luke 3:8), and who would go to the fiery side of Hades. 

    According to the Pharisees all the 'sinners', meaning publicans, 
tax-collectors, the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame, lepers, people 
with other skin diseases, the insane, and, of course, Gentiles and Samaritans, 
would burn in the fire. 

    Only those who followed all the rules of the Law, as did the "righteous" - 
meaning the rich and respectable, the scribes, the experts in the Law, the 
rulers of the synagogues, the priests and high priests, and of course the 
Pharisees themselves - would depart to be with "Father Abraham". "Our father 
Abraham" is a common phrase in the Jewish Mishnah (e.g. Aboth 3:12; 5:2,3,6,19; 
6:10; Taanith 2:4,5) 

    What the Pharisees did NOT teach 

    But note that the Pharisees did not teach that the righteous went to 
Heaven. Even they knew that "no man has ascended into Heaven" (John 3.13). 
Heaven was for God alone (Psalm 115:16) and to teach otherwise would have been 
blasphemy. 

    The Pharisees also did not teach that Abraham's Bosom was the final 
destination of the righteous. The Pharisees taught a resurrection and judgement 
on earth. Abraham's Bosom was only a waiting station. 

    With the above in mind it is surprising that so many people quote the story 
of the Rich Man and Lazarus as proof of the doctrine of heaven going. Not only 
does the story not mention the word heaven once, this description of Abraham's 
Bosom bears no resemblance to any ideas about Heaven taught anywhere. 

    Why Did Jesus Use the PHARISEE'S DOCTRINE? 

    We have shown that the teaching about Hades and Abraham's Bosom is not from 
the Bible, but from contemporary Jewish superstition. This helps us on the 
fundamental principle that the Bible does not contradict itself - but creates 
an even bigger problem: Surely Jesus would not approve false teaching?! - the 
idea itself is abhorrent. 

    The answer: "Well, it was only a parable" solves nothing. Even in a parable 
we would expect consistent teaching. It would have been equally possible for 
Christ to have told the parable in a way that fits with Old Testament teaching. 
Christ certainly did not need to refer to Hades, the great chasm, Abraham's 
Bosom, and "Father Abraham". 

    So we have to conclude that Christ had a good reason to do so. 

    An Unacceptable Solution 

    Another answer is: "Christ was accommodating himself to his listeners to 
get the message across". But this also will not do. Admittedly there are 
examples of Christ speaking to the poor and the simple in terms that they would 
understand. But never to the disciples, and certainly not to the Pharisees, did 
Christ 'accommodate' his words to false teachings in order to make other points 
understood. 

    Neither would his disciples. Paul even specifically warns about the various 
Jewish books, such as Apocalypse of Zephaniah, which circulated in the first 
Century: 

    "Pay no attention to Jewish myths" (Titus 1:14) 

    Yet we still have to explain why the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is 
so badly at odds with the rest of the Bible. 

    If I drive out demons by Beelzebub... 

    The answer may be in observing how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees on an 
earlier occasion. In Matthew 12:22 Jesus heals a demon possessed man who was 
blind and mute. But when the Pharisees heard this they said: 

    "It is only by Beelzebub, the Prince of demons that this fellow drives out 
demons" (v.24). 

    Now Jesus could have responded to this slander in several ways. He could 
have quoted Exodus 4:11 to show that it is God who makes man blind or mute, not 
demons. He could equally have quoted 1 Kings 18:27 and 2 Kings 1:3 to show that 
Baal-Zebub, the God of Ekron, had failed to prove his existence in the days of 
Elijah. But he didn't. Instead Jesus counters with irony: 

    "If I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? 
So then they will be your judges". (Matthew 12:27) 

    The comment "so then they will be your judges" is a powerful rebuke. In 
saying this Jesus threw the falseness of the Pharisees' teaching right back at 
them. Back in the days of the prophet Elijah, his way of dealing with the 
prophets of Baal was not much different (see 1 Kings 18:27). Elijah mocked them 
to show Israel how false they were. 

    So if Jesus makes use of Pharisee beliefs in the parable of the Rich Man 
and Lazarus we need to ask; 'Does Jesus confirm them, or ridicule them?' 

    Jesus contradicts the Pharisees' beliefs 

    The first contradiction has already been mentioned. In the Jewish myth 
Zephaniah was able to cross by angelic boat from one side of Hades to another. 
Jesus contradicts this: 

    "a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to 
you cannot, nor can anyone else cross over from there to us" (v.26) 

    Another contradiction is that in the myth Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 
intercede for those in torment in Hades. 

    "As they looked at all the torments they called out, praying before the 
Lord Almighty saying, 'We pray you on behalf of those who are in all these 
torments so you might have mercy on all of them.' And when I saw them, I said 
to the angel who spoke with me, 'Who are they?' He said 'Those who beseech the 
Lord are Abraham and Isaac and Jacob". (Apoc. Zeph. 11:1-2). 

    But Jesus contradicts this. Instead he has Abraham refusing to help relieve 
the Rich Man's suffering: 

    "now he is comforted and you are in agony" (v.25) 

    Another contradiction is that in other Jewish myths Abraham is credited 
with the ability to do what the Rich Man asks (v.27) and resurrect the dead. 
For example in the 1st Century Jewish fiction The Testament of Abraham the 
patriarch Abraham pleads for the dead and returns 7,000 to the living. 

    "Then Abraham arose and fell upon the earth, and [the Angel of] Death with 
him, and God sent a spirit of life into the dead and they were made alive 
again." (Testament of Abraham 'A' 18:11). 

    But Jesus again contradicts the myths, and has Abraham refusing to raise 
Lazarus: 

    "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them" (v.29) 

    This reflects Jesus' own condemnation of the Pharisees in John 5:39. 

    Jesus Ridicules False Teaching 

    There is only one solution left that will explain why Jesus should 
deliberately choose to tell a parable drawn from the Pharisees' superstitions. 
This is that Jesus was showing the teaching to be false by exposing it. 

    And how? By making the main characters in this parable real people: 
Caiaphas and Simon of Bethany. 

    According to the Pharisees' view of the universe, Simon, as a leper (and 
therefore a "sinner") should after his death at Bethany have descended to be 
tormented in the fiery part of Hades. Caiaphas on the other hand, would, as 
high priest, at the very top of the Jewish religious hierarchy, be guaranteed a 
pleasant welcome by Abraham on the other side of the underworld. 

    And yet Jesus told them a version of their teaching which had the beggar 
Lazarus received by Abraham, while the wealthy high priest, clothed in purple 
and fine linen, descended into the flames. 

    To add 'burning coals', Jesus told how the high priest called on "Father 
Abraham" to show mercy, and Abraham refused. (The mythical ferryboat across the 
chasm in Hades was not in service!). Nor was Abraham inclined to help the Rich 
Man who had enjoyed such a good life on earth (v.25). 

    Then, as a final rebuke, Jesus has Caiaphas ask Abraham to send Simon the 
Leper back to the house of Annas in Jerusalem to warn his brothers-in-law. But 
again Abraham refuses, twice. 

    "They will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead". (Luke 
16:31) 

    In this refusal Christ has Abraham promising Caiaphas the same torment in 
the fire for his entire household: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and 
Annas the Younger, and no doubt his father-in-law Annas the Elder also. 

    No wonder, then, that this is the last of the series of parables in Luke 
Ch.14-16 either addressed to the Pharisees, or with the Pharisees present. 

    In the next verse (Luke 17:1) the Pharisees are gone, and Jesus is left 
alone with the disciples. 

    Conclusions 


      1.. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not as simple as it 
appears. Some of the keys (purple and fine linen, the beggar covered in sores, 
the crumbs from the rich man's table) can only be understood by comparison with 
other Old Testament and New Testament passages. 

      2.. The parable contains some details where a knowledge of history (the 
five brothers mentioned by Josephus), or of contemporary beliefs (the Bosom of 
Abraham), can be helpful. 

      3.. Even without these the parable certainly does not support modern 
ideas about heaven-going. 

      4.. The parable cannot be literal. Caiaphas did not literally die and 
descend to Hades. He was still very much alive in Acts 4:6. Likewise although 
Abraham refused to raise Lazarus in the parable, in reality Jesus did raise 
Lazarus. But Jesus says in John 11:11 that Lazarus "slept"; he was not 
literally in Abraham's Bosom. And finally of course we know from Hebrews 11:13, 
39-40 that Abraham is not literally presiding over the underworld; he is dead, 
awaiting the resurrection. 
    The only thing that is literal about the parable is the prophecy of Luke 
16:31 that was fulfilled in John 12:10 when Caiaphas and his family tried to 
kill Lazarus rather than accept the fact that Jesus had raised him from the 
dead. 

    Steven Cox 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions 

      1.. Why did Jesus speak in parables? 
      2.. What does the Bible teach about death? 
      3.. Who was Simon of Bethany? 
      4.. Who was the Rich Man? 
      5.. Who was his father? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cover illustration: Caiaphas rending his clothes in anger (detail from 
Giotto 'Christ before Caiaphas') 

    Scripture quotations taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION ®,
    Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by 
permission of Zondervan Inc. 

    Quotations from Apocalypse of Zephaniah, 4 Maccabees, and Testament of 
Abraham
    taken from J.H. Charlesworth, THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA,
    2 vols., Copyright © Doubleday, New York 1983. 

    References to 'Bosom of Abraham' in Kiddushin 72b and Ekah 1:85 are cited 
from L. Ginzberg,
    LEGENDS OF THE JEWS, republished John Hopkins, 1998, Vol.5, p. 269. 

    Quotations from Josephus taken from JOSEPHUS COMPLETE WORKS,
    translated by William Whiston, republished Kregel Publications, Grand 
Rapids, 1966.
    But note that 'The Discourse to the Greeks on Hades' found in this edition 
of Josephus is not genuine.
    It is by Hippolytus of Rome c.400AD, and is based on Luke 16. 

    ISBN: 81-87409-56-8 

    (second printing December 2000) 

    Published and printed by:
    Printland Publishers
    G.P.O. Box 159,
    Hyderabad 500 001, India

JPEG image

Other related posts: