Thank you for tying in the OT and NT teachings. The whole Bible is beautifully woven together to illuminate Christ and what He did for us. The hope we have is precious.
Oh this is good! When you observed that there is a case for the rich man being Ciaphas this parable makes so much more sense. Ciaphas, I believe was a Sadducee, which would make it offensive when Jesus has the rich man affirming a “resurrection.” If you go back to Israel and have not been to the Wahl Museum in Jerusalem I highly recommend it as it is believed to be Ciaphas house and you get a flavor for the level of wealth he had. Great video again, Chad!
Thank you so much for this and all your videos! I am growing in understanding God’s Word so much from what you share on UA-cam . This especially helped me today with a deep question I’ve had on the life after death experience and whether or not people can change for the better after death. It’s even helped me with fears I’ve had in this present life. Thank you so much
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV) 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Cor 15:22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive 1 John 2:2 New International Version 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
New subscriber here. I hope you don't mind that I start out with a friendly and respectful disagreement. Those who believe that the account of the Rich Man & Lazarus in Luke 16 is a fictitious parable will point out that the primary objection most people have to the idea that Luke 16 is a fictitious parable is that a person's name is used (in contrast to other parables). I think that it is highly significant that Jesus didn't just use one real name in the account, but TWO real names, Lazarus and Abraham. And since Abraham is a real person with a real name, then that indicates the same for Lazarus. However, my primary objection to this being a fictitious account is that (imho) Jesus would not portray Abraham (a man highly respected by the Jews and considered to be a “friend of God”) saying or doing something that he did not. Portraying Jesus as quoting Abraham saying something or doing something that he never actually said or did would be dangerously risking bringing reproach upon the character of Jesus. Accusing Jesus of fabricating a quote or an action to a highly respected person could not absurdly be construed as "poetic license" or some other such nonsense. But if one does think it is perfectly fine for Jesus to falsely attribute quotes or actions to someone, then, in order to be consistent, it would be perfectly fine for Jesus to falsely attribute quotes or actions to our Heavenly Father, correct? Personally, I've never been comfortable with fictitious stories and jokes portraying God as saying or doing something that He did not (ala’ Pearly Gate puns). Nor am I okay with believing that Jesus would falsely attribute quotes or actions to real people. We should regard the character of our Savior as above and beyond reproach.
Had one of those serendipitous moments when you were talking about how people in hell are there through their own will and I said out loud, "Just like The Great Divorce", then you quoted the book! LOL Well done, my friend. Great exegesis.
Yet another wonderful and invaluable teach brother Chad. Here are a few comments. (20:26) "The rich man in Hades wants Abraham to send Laz'arus as a servant". A servant to do what? To put one drop of water on his finger, and then put that in his mouth to cool his tongue? This seems like a poor fit to the context. A rich man looking for a servant wants far more than a drop of water, and doesn't want it from the finger of a servant. An ask that small from a rich man means he has accepted defeat and humility, and is pleading for a small act of mercy. It means he has repented in Hades, repentance that comes too late. Repentance after judgment is too late. (20:45) "It's a good indication that the afterlife does not change people." I think the message is that the afterlife does change people, but if we wait until after judgment to change, we have changed too late. There is an indication that's what this scripture means. Mercy not entitlement is the context of it. (24:05) "The rich man knows that like himself his brothers will not listen to Moses and the Prophets and wants Abraham to send Lazarus to be a preacher to them." This is evidence of profound changes in the rich man, to send the poor man Laz'arus to bring the message of repentance to the non-believers. Rich men don't send servants to save souls unless they have had a spiritual awakening, which came too late for the rich man. (25:30) "Faith based solely on miracles has an extremely short shelf life." There must be a large difference in witnessing a miracle and only hearing about it. This should be especially so when the miracle is resurrection from the dead, which is unlike any other miracle. The essence of Christ's teaching is that witnessing a miracle is a grace leading one to faith, i.e., the blessing of faith to the few who get there by witnessing the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Blessed are they who believe without seeing acknowledges that the miracle of resurrection alone can be enough if you see it yourself, but merely hearing of resurrection and ascension is a hard path to faith, not the easy one that witness uniquely provides. (25:45) "Just read the Torah, look what happened to the Israelites... they saw miracle after miracle... and what happened... rebellion and punishment". Amen to that. Isn't that why God sent his son to us because exodus, water from rocks and parting seas did not rescue man from his degenerative course? The Torah has three resurrections, two of children, and one of a corpse upon touching the Hebrew Prophet Elisha's bone is a grave. That is not what the rich man was pleading with Abraham to do. The rich man was pleading that Laz'arus' body be raised from dead, and then have him use that miracle status to preach repentance. (26:45) "If they won't give heed to Moses and the Prophets then nothing [including Laz'arus' resurrection and preaching] is going to work". The context is Jesus is telling the story of Laz'arus and the rich man as a past event with the story arc of Abraham saying to his "son" in Hades the his "five brothers" won't "be convinced if some one should rise from the dead" and repeat the lessons of Moses and the Prophets. Luke does not explain the moral of the parable nor say that Jesus agreed with Abraham's admonition that sinful people won't repent because a resurrected dead person is sent to preach the word of God. I think that is the point-- that Abraham was wrong, and that a resurrected Laz'arus with Moses and the Prophets in his words might have convinced them. And as Luke [24:46] later explains, that is what Jesus himself did. Jesus said: " "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead..." The dead rising and preaching repentance works on the living which is the primal teaching of Christianity, but it is too late when that teaching comes too late after judgment.
You are all trying to apply what is said and you are all correct. Both the afterlife does not change people in some ways, and it also does change people in some ways; most personalities don't change. However, saying that "Luke does not explain the moral of the parable" is false. Maybe one day you will see "moral" of the story.
The parable was created to save the Pharisees...by bringing them to judgement that they were in the position of the rich man...and that their 'Abraham' who they were the children of ...in the parable was given their evil, ungodlikel attributes = lack of mercy and love...there is a great gulf (since when?). Then being convicted, the Pharasees feel the angish of the same treatment they had heaped on other people they judged as being outside the kingdom and unworthy people. Abraham and God are attributed with the opposite type of qualities they have by nature. Jesus says even if One raised from the dead were to go to them, in their current state it would be useless. Thus Jesus forecast to them his crucifixion and their guilt. The judgements brought to their minds by the HS did prompt many of them to cry out to God after the crucifixion of the Messiah and many were reborn from above. Judgements are God's means for salvation ...read John 4 ..the woman at the well. Brought to judgement that she was evil, then saved.
Chad, you have acquired most favored status among commentators in my world. You always suprise me with new insights and you always bless me with your 24 karat quality of knowledge. That said, I would like to recommend that you look into Prof. Richard Bauchams research on this parable in his excellent scholarly work titled "The fate of the dead". There he discovers that this parable actually preexisted Jesus in the form of a popular justice/hope motif in as many as six different variations in Jewish religious tradition and which actually seems to have been traced to have originated in Egyptian lore. We find in this motif a common pattern of wealth and compassion disparity being rectified in the afterlife by way of a reversal of fortunes. He details a particular version called Bar Majar and the poor scholars. In it there are two poor jewish scholars and a rich tax collector named Bar Majar. (Note in this version the antagonist is granted a name but not the protagonist) The tax collecter is not held in high regard by the people and so he tries to win favor by holding a banquet, but no one shows up. Sound familiar? One of the poor scholars dies and the tax collector also dies. The poor jewish scholars surviving friend then has a dream in which he sees his friend frolicking in paradise and drinking from the springs of life, while the tax collector is chained to a stake next to a river. The chain is long enough to keep his tongue and inch away from the water. The paralells are undeniable. I think this adds tremendous weight to the notion that Jesus is rebuking hoarding and indifference to the poor rather that setting forth a precise theology of the afterlife. Further, Jesus seems to sabotage any attempt at using the parable as an afterlife revelation in as much as he sets forth a soteriology that is in complete defiance of New Testament theology. Abraham says the reason that the arrangement of the two souls is so, is because in life Lazarus had "bad things" and so now he is getting his "good things". Wheras the rich man had his "good things" and now is getting his "bad things". This speaks of a soteriology completely disconnected from sin and righteousness. As such if we are to demand a literal interpretation of this story as a descriptor of judgement, then we would have to say that people who suffered in this life are granted comfort in the next life simply because of the degree of thier suffering rather than faith in Christ.
Thank you for this, Mark! I surveyed some of the literature regarding the various proposals for the background story of the parable. The one most commentators point is of Egyptian origin. Given the disparities between the rich and the poor, it is no surprise that a body of stories developed in which the inequalities in this life would be rectified in the next. I checked out Bauckham's book, but it is beyond my price range (paperback for $50!). One thing I would want to investigate is how one dates the particular Jewish story which you recount. I am unaware of its inclusion in any pre-1st century Jewish writings. Perhaps I simply have not come across it yet. That, for me, would be determinative as it whether it was the possible source of this parable or if the parable itself is the possible source of this Jewish legend. I offer this caution because I quite regularly come across material included in, for example, the Mishnah (AD 200) that is said to be contemporaneous or even prior to the NT. Thanks again!
@@chadbird1517 I have a hard cover of the book. If it is of any help in dating the stories, here is the reference Baucham cites. According to page 99 he says the earliest of the Jewish versions of the story can be found in the Palestinian Talmud (y. Sanh. 23c; y. Hag 77d.) The footnote for the citation says Sanhedrin Gerichtshof (trans. G.A. Wewers; Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalemi 4/4; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1981) 148-149. It's all way over my head but there it is for your digging.
@@markdeckard6865 , thank you. The Palestinian Talmud was compiled 200 years after the NT was complete (at the very earliest). Even though some would argue it preserves a Jewish story that predates the NT, that is an unprovable claim.
There are tales from midrash of Eliezer walking throughout the earth, disguised as a beggar, to see how well his master’s children keep the Torah-especially how well they care for the poor and show hospitality to strangers. Eliezer then reports back to his master, telling Abraham of his descendants’ faithfulness or faithlessness. Jews were encouraged to welcome strangers because one of them might be Eliezer in disguise (this is possibly the background for Hebrews 13:2). From John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable and L. I. Rabinowitz, “The Study of a Midrash,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 58, no. 2.
I agree that the story of Lazarus and the rich man should be considered a parable. But I don't see why the story, by being a parable, should be limited in application, when it also contains historical elements (like the reference to Caiaphas) as well as theological elements (like the nature of the afterlife). More often than not, passages of Scripture serve multiple purposes simultaneously.
I'm not so sure that parable isn't aimed directly at the Pharisees as v-14 begins: Luke 16:14-15 (NASB) 14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. Was Jesus using this parable to call out the Pharisees on their love of money and their claim to be "Children of Abraham"? Like to hear your thoughts.
The importance of not naming the main character in a parable is so that the person the parable is directed to, is more likely to take it to heart. This parable is clearly directed at the Pharisees and the people of Judah in general. That's why the Rich Man is not named. Lazarus is named, but to think he's a main character is absurd. He shouldn't even be in the title, he has basically zero role. Never even speaks one word. But there is a purpose to him, and it's also why he NEEDED to be named. Jesus just taught a parable about another rich man, and it specifically says the Pharisees were lovers of money and scoffed at him. At the time, the Pharisees also thought that riches were a sign of God's favor. So this Parable was a direct assault on their false belief about riches equaling God's favor. It was also a warning to them about the fate of Judah and the suffering they would endure for the next 2000 years. weird
Love your work, but wouldn’t the interpretation of Abraham’s bosom as Heaven/God’s presence negate the work Jesus did upon His bodily death? It’s in 1 Peter and in the Apostle’s Creed. Flavius Josephus also explains Sheol to the Greeks in a letter that explains Abraham’s bosom as the holding place in Sheol for the righteous. It also explains that there is a prison where the heat from the lake of fire can be felt, where the unrighteous are imprisoned. This would be the contemporary Jewish understanding of Sheol during Jesus’ time.
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV) 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Cor 15:22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive 1 John 2:2 New International Version 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Hi Chad, great explanation. I have a question. Is the rich man in purgatory or hell? Someone said he is in purgatory bacause if he was in hell he would not care if his brothers go there but if he's in purgatory he could pass to heaven and yet there's a gulf preventing passing from where he is to heaven. Can you please explain?
The parable says that he went to Hades, which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. Ordinarily, Sheol in the OT is the place of the dead, but in the NT, Hades takes on the negative meaning of the place of punishment, that is, hell. Clearly, that is what the rich man is suffering, since he "in torment" and "in anguish in this flame." I do not believe that the Bible teaches the existence of purgatory, so this is hell for the rich man. As far as not caring if his brothers go there, that is based upon the assumption that people do not care in hell. We have no evidence for that.
@@chadbird1517 Thanks for your reply and explanation. I believe the Bible does refer to purgatory eg you wont get out until you have paid the final penny. But logically purgatory makes perfect sense. Very few people are saints when they die. If Jesus let impure souls into heaven they would contaminate heaven apart from being unworthy to be in Christs presence. Purgatory is an enormous gift of mercy to mankind. Without it most of mankind would go to hell.
Parables are meant to shed light on something. Like for instance, if you were talking about Usain Bolt the greatest sprinter of all-time, you might say, "There is a man from Jamaica, who is an absolute cheetah." This would be a metaphoric parable. People would understand that just like a cheetah is the fastest land animal, so Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter. But it would make no sense, even metaphorically to call Usain bolt a snail or a sloth. It would not make sense literally or metaphorically. It makes no sense whatsoever to tell a parable about annihilation by describing someone dying and then instantly going into conscious torment in flames. What is the metaphorical meaning of a person being conscious enough to carry on a rational conversation while describing how he is "...in torment in these flames." Does this really sound like annihilation or torment? Revelation 20:10 says, "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and ever. . .Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if ANYONE"S name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." By the way, the word torment is translated from the Greek word Basanismos, and it means to torture. It absolutely does NOT mean to annihilate and put out of existence. Revelation 14:9-11 says, "“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand...He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have NO REST DAY OR NIGHT, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” If an unrepentant sinner is annihilated in hell, (put out of existence) the phrase "NO REST DAY OR NIGHT" makes no sense.
@Mike. It's not a question of annihilation versus torment. The question is annihilation versus eternal torment. Annihilationists acknowledge there is torment for the wicked, they just don't believe it's eternal. Rev. 20:10 "forever and ever" is a mistranslation. The Greek is "eis ho aion ho aion" - "into the eon the eon" -- 'Into' or 'In', not 'For'. This does not indicate eternity. Neither does "no rest day or night". "Day or night" simply indicates that their torment is constant for multiple days and nights - (apparently into the eon of the new creation). Eventually though they die, therefore it's called the "second death" and in other passages "destruction" or "perishing" (Matt. 10:28, Acts 3:23, John 3:16, etc.).
It is possible that the purple and linen could be referring to the tribe of Judah since they were the kingly tribe and it was Judah who had 5 brothers ( the others were half brothers ) The reference to riches could be that they had to oracles of God which they wouldn’t share even the crumbs because they considered gentiles as dogs. It might be that the reference to Moses and the prophets Yehoshua is referring to Himself because He is the one who would rise from the dead and many would not believe ( a prophetic picture ). Got Torah Got Truth
Amen. The rich man represents all "Jews" in the first century who did not believe Jesus rose from the dead. This is the fifth parable in a five-part series of parables. It's a portrait of the reversal of Jew and Gentile as the people of God.
If the rich man is indeed in Hell, why he felt compassion and love? It says that the damned has only hatred in hell, no space for GOD who is love. Let me know the explanation.
It is a parable. We know this simply because Jesus rejected the false teachings of the Pharisees including the teaching of the immortality of the soul (Mt 23). And riches nor being poor means anything as to the outcome. Nor is it an indication of one being better than the other. So here is the meaning behind this whole section: Jesus was again calling out the religious leaders. They looked down on beggers and tax collectors and prostitutes as unworthy of their compassion or attention yet these were the ones begging for spiritual truths. That is why they are favored. And that is simply it. Same applies today. Many religious leaders continue ceremonies that are pagan in origin and they know this and refuse to stop them. This includes actual teaching from the bible. Most do not do it. This is an impediment to those begging for spiritual truth and refreshment from the scriptures. (Another highlight, Lazarus says he wanted a sign. In other words the law and the prophets weren't enough but Jesus had said no other sign would be given except that of Jonah. Another sign would eliminate the need to preach and would not show why the traditions of the Judaism were not longer needed. (Mt 16:1-4, 12:38-41) Jonah was enough to get Nineveh to repent. Jesus even says in John 5:39 "If you believed Moses you'd believe in me." But they rejected him.)
Spot on! JC said no man has ascended into heaven. So there was no Abraham in heaven either. Acts 2:34 - David (a man after God's own heart) has not ascended to heaven. The torment was the grave and the instant after he would be resurrected after JC's return when he would realize he was being resurrected unto condemnation and likely the lake of fire. JC hated hypocrisy and arrogance (the leaven of the Pharisees) and this whole parable is directed at the Pharisees.
The contact starts and Luke 15 × 5 fold parable.A he addresses the pharisees.Do you think the after life is 2 men talking to each other?You gotta be out of your mind
What did Moses preach that Jesus also preached? Commandment keeping. THAT would include the 4th commandment. Its one of the commandments that Mother Rome changed and in her own literature, she says that Sunday is her MARK. Here: Sunday is our MARK or authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923. “Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act...And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons. “Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.
This is not a parable The reasons: 1. It mention specific key person name like Abraham, Moses and prophet. 2. The culture of rich people truly literal. 3. Mention the real state of hell and paradise. 4. Mention the actual state of sinners which need to be repented. Most moral lesson, they interpreted the application as literal.
A biblical falsehood can travel half way around the world while a biblical truth is putting on its shoes. Lazarus and the rich man is a parable; the fifth of a five part series all told as a result of the Jews' objection to Jesus accepting "sinners". The resulting five parables are Jesus' way of saying to the Jews...you just wait and see what sinners I accept and who I forsake. Lost sheep/coin just says rejoice when that which is lost is found. The prodigal son is lost and then found. But his elder brother refuses to rejoice. The Older brother is Israel. This parable is a reiteration of Deut 32. Israel was to be made angry and jealous by a nation that is "not a nation". Paul quotes this in Romans 10 and it plays out in acts 13. Gentiles become saved, Israel, the firstborn son (Exo 4 22) refuses to rejoice and Instead becomes angry and jealous exactly as the prophecy stated. The steward about to lose the stewardship....also Israel about to lose their blessing and birthright. Israel is Esau in prophecy. God ended up hating Israel but Loves His only begotten. Lazarus and the rich man....complete reversal. Lazarus is the Gentiles...those who were afar off but have been drawn near. The rich man has five brothers like Judah. He calls Abraham his father and wants his brothers warned....brothers who have not listened to the prophets nor will believe even though one rises from the dead. This PARABLE has NOTHING to do with the afterlife. It's about Jesus accepting Gentiles (sinners) while casting out unbelieving, national Israel. Abraham's bosom is salvation in Jesus...not some cavity deep in the Earth I expect this post to be ignored. People almost always believe what the want to believe.
@@contemplate-Matt.GFar from being ignored.... I think this is a very interesting way of looking at the parable of the rich man and Lazarus! Thank you for sharing:)
True statements. However I'm a little disappointed that you don't mention being renewed in the mind ... moving toward transformation. Not perfection. Not free from temptation. And my identity is not tied to my sure salvation, but to my imagebearing status as a witness for Christ as found in Eph 3.10. I'd love to see more exhortation toward being a son or daughter of the last Adam with the missional emphasis. Own that dear Christian and serve; watch temptations at least abate some. Seek to let God's love replace thoughts that lead to temptations. Take Ephesians 3.16-20 to heart and be sanctified! My journey recognized too much Western culture appropriation rather than being transformed, (Ro 12.1-2). And yes, I'm a secure in Christ sinnersaved by grace. ...still tempted too. Shalom unto my sisters and brothers in your journey.
I disagree. The concept of the eternal soul is totally of Greek origin. The Pharisees did believe in a modified Greek Hades, replacing Charon with Adam or Abraham. We can't look at this parable with Jewish eyes, because the Jews did not believe in an eternal soul. We have to look at this parable through the eyes of Hellenized, paganized Jews such as the Pharisees.
I also disagree. Find the real meaning of this parable here: ua-cam.com/video/5crjXWEnM-U/v-deo.html Also find the biblical truth about hell: ua-cam.com/video/EPM-vXrRRLE/v-deo.html
No unsaved person in the Bible wore the color purple. Fine linen is defined as the righteousness of the saints in Revelation. A saved person is desiring food from the rich man's table. A saved person food is the word of God. The rich man prayed. God doesn't hear the prayers of the wicked. Abraham called the rich man Son. Jesus clearly said to the Pharisees their father is the devil. The rich man is asking for mercy. The unsaved will never ask for mercy as they are cast into the lake of fire. The rich man is in hell with brothers on the earth. The unsaved no nothing after they die as their spirits goes back to God.
@@24728481 If the story is true, it is giving us an accurate account of what happens after death and what ppl should prepare for if they're not saved. Saying it's a parable lessens this.
No. Not at all. Its not a parable, but a true story narrated by Jesus. Jesus never used any name of anyone in His parables. Here he used the actual names of Lazarus and Abraham. Tell me what names Jesus used in any of His parables. So understand the Word of God properly before preaching it to others.
Thank you for tying in the OT and NT teachings. The whole Bible is beautifully woven together to illuminate Christ and what He did for us. The hope we have is precious.
Your teaching strengthen my faith. Prayers for us and our families. Thank you, Sam
God bless you and your family, Chad. Thank you for the thorough study. Very helpful!
Very good and meaningful message. 👍✝️ May God bless you
Thank you, Chad, for this teaching......and I especially like the prayer at the end....
Thank you for this study
Learning from the lens of biblical hebraic roots. Great lesson🙌🏻 Thank you, Chad!
So grateful for the amazing resource of these videos. They have been so very helpful to me. Thank you.
You’re such a great teacher. Thank you brother.
Oh this is good! When you observed that there is a case for the rich man being Ciaphas this parable makes so much more sense. Ciaphas, I believe was a Sadducee, which would make it offensive when Jesus has the rich man affirming a “resurrection.” If you go back to Israel and have not been to the Wahl Museum in Jerusalem I highly recommend it as it is believed to be Ciaphas house and you get a flavor for the level of wealth he had. Great video again, Chad!
Love the teaching. Found you on tic tok. Amen brother bless you as you go.
Thank you bro . For this great study.
Thank you so much for this and all your videos! I am growing in understanding God’s Word so much from what you share on UA-cam . This especially helped me today with a deep question I’ve had on the life after death experience and whether or not people can change for the better after death. It’s even helped me with fears I’ve had in this present life. Thank you so much
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV)
10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
1 Cor 15:22
for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive
1 John 2:2
New International Version
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
New subscriber here. I hope you don't mind that I start out with a friendly and respectful disagreement.
Those who believe that the account of the Rich Man & Lazarus in Luke 16 is a fictitious parable will point out that the primary objection most people have to the idea that Luke 16 is a fictitious parable is that a person's name is used (in contrast to other parables).
I think that it is highly significant that Jesus didn't just use one real name in the account, but TWO real names, Lazarus and Abraham. And since Abraham is a real person with a real name, then that indicates the same for Lazarus.
However, my primary objection to this being a fictitious account is that (imho) Jesus would not portray Abraham (a man highly respected by the Jews and considered to be a “friend of God”) saying or doing something that he did not. Portraying Jesus as quoting Abraham saying something or doing something that he never actually said or did would be dangerously risking bringing reproach upon the character of Jesus. Accusing Jesus of fabricating a quote or an action to a highly respected person could not absurdly be construed as "poetic license" or some other such nonsense. But if one does think it is perfectly fine for Jesus to falsely attribute quotes or actions to someone, then, in order to be consistent, it would be perfectly fine for Jesus to falsely attribute quotes or actions to our Heavenly Father, correct?
Personally, I've never been comfortable with fictitious stories and jokes portraying God as saying or doing something that He did not (ala’ Pearly Gate puns). Nor am I okay with believing that Jesus would falsely attribute quotes or actions to real people. We should regard the character of our Savior as above and beyond reproach.
Another phenomenal teaching
Had one of those serendipitous moments when you were talking about how people in hell are there through their own will and I said out loud, "Just like The Great Divorce", then you quoted the book! LOL Well done, my friend. Great exegesis.
Excellent teaching. You always do such good work, brother. I needed to hear this tonight. Thank you for your faithfulness.
Yet another wonderful and invaluable teach brother Chad. Here are a few comments.
(20:26) "The rich man in Hades wants Abraham to send Laz'arus as a servant". A servant to do what? To put one drop of water on his finger, and then put that in his mouth to cool his tongue? This seems like a poor fit to the context. A rich man looking for a servant wants far more than a drop of water, and doesn't want it from the finger of a servant. An ask that small from a rich man means he has accepted defeat and humility, and is pleading for a small act of mercy. It means he has repented in Hades, repentance that comes too late. Repentance after judgment is too late.
(20:45) "It's a good indication that the afterlife does not change people." I think the message is that the afterlife does change people, but if we wait until after judgment to change, we have changed too late. There is an indication that's what this scripture means. Mercy not entitlement is the context of it.
(24:05) "The rich man knows that like himself his brothers will not listen to Moses and the Prophets and wants Abraham to send Lazarus to be a preacher to them." This is evidence of profound changes in the rich man, to send the poor man Laz'arus to bring the message of repentance to the non-believers. Rich men don't send servants to save souls unless they have had a spiritual awakening, which came too late for the rich man.
(25:30) "Faith based solely on miracles has an extremely short shelf life." There must be a large difference in witnessing a miracle and only hearing about it. This should be especially so when the miracle is resurrection from the dead, which is unlike any other miracle. The essence of Christ's teaching is that witnessing a miracle is a grace leading one to faith, i.e., the blessing of faith to the few who get there by witnessing the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Blessed are they who believe without seeing acknowledges that the miracle of resurrection alone can be enough if you see it yourself, but merely hearing of resurrection and ascension is a hard path to faith, not the easy one that witness uniquely provides.
(25:45) "Just read the Torah, look what happened to the Israelites... they saw miracle after miracle... and what happened... rebellion and punishment". Amen to that. Isn't that why God sent his son to us because exodus, water from rocks and parting seas did not rescue man from his degenerative course? The Torah has three resurrections, two of children, and one of a corpse upon touching the Hebrew Prophet Elisha's bone is a grave. That is not what the rich man was pleading with Abraham to do. The rich man was pleading that Laz'arus' body be raised from dead, and then have him use that miracle status to preach repentance.
(26:45) "If they won't give heed to Moses and the Prophets then nothing [including Laz'arus' resurrection and preaching] is going to work". The context is Jesus is telling the story of Laz'arus and the rich man as a past event with the story arc of Abraham saying to his "son" in Hades the his "five brothers" won't "be convinced if some one should rise from the dead" and repeat the lessons of Moses and the Prophets. Luke does not explain the moral of the parable nor say that Jesus agreed with Abraham's admonition that sinful people won't repent because a resurrected dead person is sent to preach the word of God. I think that is the point-- that Abraham was wrong, and that a resurrected Laz'arus with Moses and the Prophets in his words might have convinced them. And as Luke [24:46] later explains, that is what Jesus himself did. Jesus said: " "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead..." The dead rising and preaching repentance works on the living which is the primal teaching of Christianity, but it is too late when that teaching comes too late after judgment.
You are all trying to apply what is said and you are all correct. Both the afterlife does not change people in some ways, and it also does change people in some ways; most personalities don't change. However, saying that "Luke does not explain the moral of the parable" is false. Maybe one day you will see "moral" of the story.
The parable was created to save the Pharisees...by bringing them to judgement that they were in the position of the rich man...and that their 'Abraham' who they were the children of ...in the parable was given their evil, ungodlikel attributes = lack of mercy and love...there is a great gulf (since when?). Then being convicted, the Pharasees feel the angish of the same treatment they had heaped on other people they judged as being outside the kingdom and unworthy people. Abraham and God are attributed with the opposite type of qualities they have by nature. Jesus says even if One raised from the dead were to go to them, in their current state it would be useless. Thus Jesus forecast to them his crucifixion and their guilt.
The judgements brought to their minds by the HS did prompt many of them to cry out to God after the crucifixion of the Messiah and many were reborn from above. Judgements are God's means for salvation ...read John 4 ..the woman at the well. Brought to judgement that she was evil, then saved.
Thank you.
Chad, you have acquired most favored status among commentators in my world.
You always suprise me with new insights and you always bless me with your 24 karat quality of knowledge.
That said, I would like to recommend that you look into Prof. Richard Bauchams research on this parable in his excellent scholarly work titled "The fate of the dead". There he discovers that this parable actually preexisted Jesus in the form of a popular justice/hope motif in as many as six different variations in Jewish religious tradition and which actually seems to have been traced to have originated in Egyptian lore. We find in this motif a common pattern of wealth and compassion disparity being rectified in the afterlife by way of a reversal of fortunes.
He details a particular version called Bar Majar and the poor scholars. In it there are two poor jewish scholars and a rich tax collector named Bar Majar. (Note in this version the antagonist is granted a name but not the protagonist) The tax collecter is not held in high regard by the people and so he tries to win favor by holding a banquet, but no one shows up. Sound familiar? One of the poor scholars dies and the tax collector also dies. The poor jewish scholars surviving friend then has a dream in which he sees his friend frolicking in paradise and drinking from the springs of life, while the tax collector is chained to a stake next to a river. The chain is long enough to keep his tongue and inch away from the water. The paralells are undeniable. I think this adds tremendous weight to the notion that Jesus is rebuking hoarding and indifference to the poor rather that setting forth a precise theology of the afterlife.
Further, Jesus seems to sabotage any attempt at using the parable as an afterlife revelation in as much as he sets forth a soteriology that is in complete defiance of New Testament theology. Abraham says the reason that the arrangement of the two souls is so, is because in life Lazarus had "bad things" and so now he is getting his "good things". Wheras the rich man had his "good things" and now is getting his "bad things". This speaks of a soteriology completely disconnected from sin and righteousness.
As such if we are to demand a literal interpretation of this story as a descriptor of judgement, then we would have to say that people who suffered in this life are granted comfort in the next life simply because of the degree of thier suffering rather than faith in Christ.
Thank you for this, Mark! I surveyed some of the literature regarding the various proposals for the background story of the parable. The one most commentators point is of Egyptian origin. Given the disparities between the rich and the poor, it is no surprise that a body of stories developed in which the inequalities in this life would be rectified in the next.
I checked out Bauckham's book, but it is beyond my price range (paperback for $50!). One thing I would want to investigate is how one dates the particular Jewish story which you recount. I am unaware of its inclusion in any pre-1st century Jewish writings. Perhaps I simply have not come across it yet. That, for me, would be determinative as it whether it was the possible source of this parable or if the parable itself is the possible source of this Jewish legend. I offer this caution because I quite regularly come across material included in, for example, the Mishnah (AD 200) that is said to be contemporaneous or even prior to the NT.
Thanks again!
@@chadbird1517 I have a hard cover of the book. If it is of any help in dating the stories, here is the reference Baucham cites. According to page 99 he says the earliest of the Jewish versions of the story can be found in the Palestinian Talmud (y. Sanh. 23c; y. Hag 77d.) The footnote for the citation says Sanhedrin Gerichtshof (trans. G.A. Wewers; Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalemi 4/4; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1981) 148-149.
It's all way over my head but there it is for your digging.
@@markdeckard6865 , thank you. The Palestinian Talmud was compiled 200 years after the NT was complete (at the very earliest). Even though some would argue it preserves a Jewish story that predates the NT, that is an unprovable claim.
I love & learned alot from this!
Amen and AMEN again 🙏🏽
There are tales from midrash of Eliezer walking throughout the earth, disguised as a beggar, to see how well his master’s children keep the Torah-especially how well they care for the poor and show hospitality to strangers. Eliezer then reports back to his master, telling Abraham of his descendants’ faithfulness or faithlessness. Jews were encouraged to welcome strangers because one of them might be Eliezer in disguise (this is possibly the background for Hebrews 13:2). From John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable and L. I. Rabinowitz, “The Study of a Midrash,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 58, no. 2.
Thank you, Bret! Fascinating stuff.
Thank you Chad
•
God bless
Thank you❤✝️
I agree that the story of Lazarus and the rich man should be considered a parable. But I don't see why the story, by being a parable, should be limited in application, when it also contains historical elements (like the reference to Caiaphas) as well as theological elements (like the nature of the afterlife). More often than not, passages of Scripture serve multiple purposes simultaneously.
I'm not so sure that parable isn't aimed directly at the Pharisees as v-14 begins: Luke 16:14-15 (NASB)
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him.
Was Jesus using this parable to call out the Pharisees on their love of money and their claim to be "Children of Abraham"? Like to hear your thoughts.
That is a very good contextual point. Notice too that Lk 16:16 mentions "the law and the prophets," which recurs in the parable at 16:31.
The importance of not naming the main character in a parable is so that the person the parable is directed to, is more likely to take it to heart.
This parable is clearly directed at the Pharisees and the people of Judah in general. That's why the Rich Man is not named. Lazarus is named, but to think he's a main character is absurd. He shouldn't even be in the title, he has basically zero role. Never even speaks one word. But there is a purpose to him, and it's also why he NEEDED to be named.
Jesus just taught a parable about another rich man, and it specifically says the Pharisees were lovers of money and scoffed at him. At the time, the Pharisees also thought that riches were a sign of God's favor.
So this Parable was a direct assault on their false belief about riches equaling God's favor. It was also a warning to them about the fate of Judah and the suffering they would endure for the next 2000 years.
weird
Amen...!!
Love your work, but wouldn’t the interpretation of Abraham’s bosom as Heaven/God’s presence negate the work Jesus did upon His bodily death? It’s in 1 Peter and in the Apostle’s Creed. Flavius Josephus also explains Sheol to the Greeks in a letter that explains Abraham’s bosom as the holding place in Sheol for the righteous. It also explains that there is a prison where the heat from the lake of fire can be felt, where the unrighteous are imprisoned. This would be the contemporary Jewish understanding of Sheol during Jesus’ time.
ua-cam.com/video/PSqZiEJfx2w/v-deo.html
Here is a link to an audio recording of the letter from Flavius Josephus I mentioned.
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV)
10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
1 Cor 15:22
for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive
1 John 2:2
New International Version
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Hi Chad, great explanation. I have a question. Is the rich man in purgatory or hell? Someone said he is in purgatory bacause if he was in hell he would not care if his brothers go there but if he's in purgatory he could pass to heaven and yet there's a gulf preventing passing from where he is to heaven. Can you please explain?
The parable says that he went to Hades, which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. Ordinarily, Sheol in the OT is the place of the dead, but in the NT, Hades takes on the negative meaning of the place of punishment, that is, hell. Clearly, that is what the rich man is suffering, since he "in torment" and "in anguish in this flame."
I do not believe that the Bible teaches the existence of purgatory, so this is hell for the rich man.
As far as not caring if his brothers go there, that is based upon the assumption that people do not care in hell. We have no evidence for that.
@@chadbird1517 Thanks for your reply and explanation. I believe the Bible does refer to purgatory eg you wont get out until you have paid the final penny. But logically purgatory makes perfect sense. Very few people are saints when they die. If Jesus let impure souls into heaven they would contaminate heaven apart from being unworthy to be in Christs presence. Purgatory is an enormous gift of mercy to mankind. Without it most of mankind would go to hell.
Parables are meant to shed light on something. Like for instance, if you were talking about Usain Bolt the greatest sprinter of all-time, you might say, "There is a man from Jamaica, who is an absolute cheetah." This would be a metaphoric parable. People would understand that just like a cheetah is the fastest land animal, so Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter. But it would make no sense, even metaphorically to call Usain bolt a snail or a sloth. It would not make sense literally or metaphorically. It makes no sense whatsoever to tell a parable about annihilation by describing someone dying and then instantly going into conscious torment in flames. What is the metaphorical meaning of a person being conscious enough to carry on a rational conversation while describing how he is "...in torment in these flames." Does this really sound like annihilation or torment?
Revelation 20:10 says, "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and ever. . .Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if ANYONE"S name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." By the way, the word torment is translated from the Greek word Basanismos, and it means to torture. It absolutely does NOT mean to annihilate and put out of existence.
Revelation 14:9-11 says, "“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand...He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have NO REST DAY OR NIGHT, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” If an unrepentant sinner is annihilated in hell, (put out of existence) the phrase "NO REST DAY OR NIGHT" makes no sense.
@Mike. It's not a question of annihilation versus torment. The question is annihilation versus eternal torment. Annihilationists acknowledge there is torment for the wicked, they just don't believe it's eternal. Rev. 20:10 "forever and ever" is a mistranslation. The Greek is "eis ho aion ho aion" - "into the eon the eon" -- 'Into' or 'In', not 'For'. This does not indicate eternity.
Neither does "no rest day or night". "Day or night" simply indicates that their torment is constant for multiple days and nights - (apparently into the eon of the new creation). Eventually though they die, therefore it's called the "second death" and in other passages "destruction" or "perishing" (Matt. 10:28, Acts 3:23, John 3:16, etc.).
It is possible that the purple and linen could be referring to the tribe of Judah since they were the kingly tribe and it was Judah who had 5 brothers ( the others were half brothers )
The reference to riches could be that they had to oracles of God which they wouldn’t share
even the crumbs because they considered gentiles as dogs. It might be that the reference
to Moses and the prophets Yehoshua is referring to Himself because He is the one who
would rise from the dead and many would not believe ( a prophetic picture ). Got Torah Got Truth
Amen. The rich man represents all "Jews" in the first century who did not believe Jesus rose from the dead. This is the fifth parable in a five-part series of parables. It's a portrait of the reversal of Jew and Gentile as the people of God.
If the rich man is indeed in Hell, why he felt compassion and love? It says that the damned has only hatred in hell, no space for GOD who is love. Let me know the explanation.
It is a parable. We know this simply because Jesus rejected the false teachings of the Pharisees including the teaching of the immortality of the soul (Mt 23). And riches nor being poor means anything as to the outcome. Nor is it an indication of one being better than the other. So here is the meaning behind this whole section: Jesus was again calling out the religious leaders. They looked down on beggers and tax collectors and prostitutes as unworthy of their compassion or attention yet these were the ones begging for spiritual truths. That is why they are favored. And that is simply it. Same applies today. Many religious leaders continue ceremonies that are pagan in origin and they know this and refuse to stop them. This includes actual teaching from the bible. Most do not do it. This is an impediment to those begging for spiritual truth and refreshment from the scriptures. (Another highlight, Lazarus says he wanted a sign. In other words the law and the prophets weren't enough but Jesus had said no other sign would be given except that of Jonah. Another sign would eliminate the need to preach and would not show why the traditions of the Judaism were not longer needed. (Mt 16:1-4, 12:38-41) Jonah was enough to get Nineveh to repent. Jesus even says in John 5:39 "If you believed Moses you'd believe in me." But they rejected him.)
Spot on! JC said no man has ascended into heaven. So there was no Abraham in heaven either. Acts 2:34 - David (a man after God's own heart) has not ascended to heaven. The torment was the grave and the instant after he would be resurrected after JC's return when he would realize he was being resurrected unto condemnation and likely the lake of fire. JC hated hypocrisy and arrogance (the leaven of the Pharisees) and this whole parable is directed at the Pharisees.
And you thought it was in your power to throw the name of the parable.In a different order
The contact starts and Luke 15 × 5 fold parable.A he addresses the pharisees.Do you think the after life is 2 men talking to each other?You gotta be out of your mind
What did Moses preach that Jesus also preached? Commandment keeping. THAT would include the 4th commandment. Its one of the commandments that Mother Rome changed and in her own literature, she says that Sunday is her MARK. Here:
Sunday is our MARK or authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.
“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act...And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons.
“Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.
This is not a parable
The reasons:
1. It mention specific key person name like Abraham, Moses and prophet.
2. The culture of rich people truly literal.
3. Mention the real state of hell and paradise.
4. Mention the actual state of sinners which need to be repented.
Most moral lesson, they interpreted the application as literal.
A biblical falsehood can travel half way around the world while a biblical truth is putting on its shoes. Lazarus and the rich man is a parable; the fifth of a five part series all told as a result of the Jews' objection to Jesus accepting "sinners". The resulting five parables are Jesus' way of saying to the Jews...you just wait and see what sinners I accept and who I forsake.
Lost sheep/coin just says rejoice when that which is lost is found.
The prodigal son is lost and then found. But his elder brother refuses to rejoice. The Older brother is Israel. This parable is a reiteration of Deut 32. Israel was to be made angry and jealous by a nation that is "not a nation". Paul quotes this in Romans 10 and it plays out in acts 13. Gentiles become saved, Israel, the firstborn son (Exo 4 22) refuses to rejoice and Instead becomes angry and jealous exactly as the prophecy stated.
The steward about to lose the stewardship....also Israel about to lose their blessing and birthright. Israel is Esau in prophecy. God ended up hating Israel but Loves His only begotten.
Lazarus and the rich man....complete reversal. Lazarus is the Gentiles...those who were afar off but have been drawn near. The rich man has five brothers like Judah. He calls Abraham his father and wants his brothers warned....brothers who have not listened to the prophets nor will believe even though one rises from the dead. This PARABLE has NOTHING to do with the afterlife. It's about Jesus accepting Gentiles (sinners) while casting out unbelieving, national Israel.
Abraham's bosom is salvation in Jesus...not some cavity deep in the Earth
I expect this post to be ignored. People almost always believe what the want to believe.
@@contemplate-Matt.GFar from being ignored.... I think this is a very interesting way of looking at the parable of the rich man and Lazarus! Thank you for sharing:)
@@littlellamblet blessings. Hit those three crosses on the left for more info
Our Redemer has come. Sheol is empty my friend
True statements. However I'm a little disappointed that you don't mention being renewed in the mind ... moving toward transformation. Not perfection. Not free from temptation. And my identity is not tied to my sure salvation, but to my imagebearing status as a witness for Christ as found in Eph 3.10. I'd love to see more exhortation toward being a son or daughter of the last Adam with the missional emphasis. Own that dear Christian and serve; watch temptations at least abate some. Seek to let God's love replace thoughts that lead to temptations. Take Ephesians 3.16-20 to heart and be sanctified! My journey recognized too much Western culture appropriation rather than being transformed, (Ro 12.1-2). And yes, I'm a secure in Christ sinnersaved by grace. ...still tempted too. Shalom unto my sisters and brothers in your journey.
Though this pharisee sounds like religious people in your organization.They feast sumptuously while the congregation goes poor
There is a lot of real in this story, Abraham, Moses, the Prophets. Would Jesus use a Real name Lazarus to tell a parable with other real people!
The theme of poverty is not about a theme of poverty.It's satire and ridicule the pharisees into.It's addre it's not a theme that I have to life
I disagree. The concept of the eternal soul is totally of Greek origin. The Pharisees did believe in a modified Greek Hades, replacing Charon with Adam or Abraham. We can't look at this parable with Jewish eyes, because the Jews did not believe in an eternal soul.
We have to look at this parable through the eyes of Hellenized, paganized Jews such as the Pharisees.
I also disagree. Find the real meaning of this parable here: ua-cam.com/video/5crjXWEnM-U/v-deo.html
Also find the biblical truth about hell: ua-cam.com/video/EPM-vXrRRLE/v-deo.html
No unsaved person in the Bible wore the color purple.
Fine linen is defined as the righteousness of the saints in Revelation.
A saved person is desiring food from the rich man's table. A saved person food is the word of God.
The rich man prayed. God doesn't hear the prayers of the wicked.
Abraham called the rich man Son. Jesus clearly said to the Pharisees their father is the devil.
The rich man is asking for mercy. The unsaved will never ask for mercy as they are cast into the lake of fire.
The rich man is in hell with brothers on the earth. The unsaved no nothing after they die as their spirits goes back to God.
It’s not a parable. Most ppl believe it is a true story.
See my responses to other comments. And saying “most ppl” believe it’s a true story is simply untrue. That has always been a minority opinion.
@@chadbird1517 I only see comments supporting your opinion. There’s no reason to believe this is only a parable, I respectfully disagree.
@@BryanLChess My mistake. Those comments are under this same video on the 1517 channel.
Does it really matter if it is a true story or a parable?
@@24728481 If the story is true, it is giving us an accurate account of what happens after death and what ppl should prepare for if they're not saved. Saying it's a parable lessens this.
No. Not at all. Its not a parable, but a true story narrated by Jesus. Jesus never used any name of anyone in His parables. Here he used the actual names of Lazarus and Abraham. Tell me what names Jesus used in any of His parables. So understand the Word of God properly before preaching it to others.