"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being." Dictionary of the Bible, 317, John McKenzie
As quoted in _Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses_ by Ron Rhodes, p. 105: "The Watchtower reasoning seems to be that since Jesus was just a 'divine being,' He is less than Jehovah....However, on the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal being'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.' So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."
Reply: Is this really true though? A) Are not both Jesus and Jehovah "divine beings?" So what exactly is the point, especially since they are differentiated with the adjective "personal." Obviously, the fact that Jesus is only a "divine being" and Jehovah a "divine personal being" has led to some websites stating incorrectly that Jesus was termed a "divine personal being." See http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm] Next to "the God [=the Father]" Jesus was just a "divine being", not even a "divine personal being." Additionally, Catholics like McKenzie have no problems calling angels "divine beings": "All gods: divine beings thoroughly subordinate to Israel's God. The Greek translates 'angels,' an interpretation adopted by Hebrews 1:6." Ps. 97:7 NAB footnote I have no problem in "an identity between God and Jesus Christ" since it was Jesus who said that he that seen him has seen the Father. To see Jesus was to see what God was like. McKenzie goes on to state that this is an "identity of Jesus and the Father", and McKenzie's use of Scriptures like Jn 20:28 and Tt 2:13 in regards to Jesus, and titles "which belong to the Father." Trinitarianism do not see Jesus as the Father, and neither should anyone else. When the Judges are called "God" at Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82 and John 10, they are called a title "which belongs to the Father." This does not imply an ontological identity Further, McKenzie never uses the terms "God the Father and God the Son." In fact, I cannot find any reference to words *persons* or *nature* either. If you move ahead (to the subheading "Trinity") you will see that even he says these terms are from Greek philosophy and are NOT IN THE BIBLE. He DOES state that ho theos [the God] is not used of Jesus in the NT. The preceding paragraph in question states that "Yahweh is not man" and "Yahweh was not flesh" and the entire article ends with this beautifully put paragraph: "In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him God is known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him God is attained more nearly; for He speaks of "my Father and your Father, my God and your God"
BUT WHAT ELSE DOES MCKENZIE BELIEVE?
"The relation of the Father and Son as set forth in [John 5:17ff] is the foundation of later developments in Trinitarian and Christological belief and theology; it is not identical with these later developments. Much of the discourse seems to be a refutation of the charge that Jesus claimed to be equal to God. This is met by affirming that the Son can do nothing independently of the Father. Later theology found it necessary to refine this statement by a distinction between person and nature which John did not know" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.187).
"The New Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is God: God meant the Father. They could and did say that Jesus is God's Son" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.188).
"it is altogether impossible to deduce the Nicene Creed, and still less the dogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon from the Synoptic Gospels . . The word "consubstantial" had not even been invented yet: far from defining it, the evangelists could not even have spelled it. No, they did not know and they did not care" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.188).
It seems McKenzie's words actually argue against "Dr." Rhodes position.
____Ask...____________________________________________________________ .What conclusion can you make about Ron Rhodes when you learn that he consistently quotes scholars out of context to support his distorted views.
"What I want to say on this subject this evening will fall into two main divisions.The first will speak of the need for a reappraisal of the traditional interpretation of the New testament christology; the second will deal with evidence requiring special attention in any reappraisal of New Testament christology.
I
Aloys Grillmeier's valuable book entitled Christ in Christian Tradition(1965) has an epilogue headed "Chalcedon-End or Beginning?" Here, this learned Roman Catholic scholar reminds us that, react as we will to the christological disputations which agitated the church from the Council of Nicea to that of Chalcedon, the Fathers certainly "intended to preserve the Christ of the Gospels and the Apostolic Age for the faith of posterity". Then, however, Grillmeier goes on to mention a comment by Karl Rahner that Chalcedon was not an end but a beginning, refers approvingly to Pope John's call to the church at the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council to speak the language of the modern world, and finally himself asserts that "the demand for a complete reappraisal of the Church's belief in Christ right up to the present day is an urgent one"(p.494).
Some while ago, a high-ranking colleague of mine in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne[England] assured me that theologians are always wrong! Be it so, or not, the prevalence of Grillmeier's view among Catholic and Protestant theologians is evident from the number and nature of christological studies produced by New Testament scholars and others in recent years- an output to which the one whom we commemorate this evening with honour and gratitude made notable contributions. And if it is asked why a reappraisal of Christological doctrine is necessary today, I would give at least four reasons.
(1)First, is it not a pressing apologetic and catechetical need? Put more precisely, do we not find the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ a source of much perplexity to enquiring non-christians and to many a christian believer under instruction? "True God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father and "the selfsame perfect in Godhead, the selfsame perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man"- thus runs the familiar language of what we call the Nicene Creed and Chacedonian Definition, but how successful are ministers and clergy in making it intelligible? not to mention it's baffling elaboration in the Athanasian Creed! Must it not be conceded that to many intelligent lay folk it seems sheer mystification? Donald M. Baille confessed as much years ago in his widely read book God was in Christ. He remarked, "I am convinced that a great many thoughtful people who themselves feel drawn to the Gospel in these days are completely mystified by the doctrine of the Incarnation- far more than we theologians usually realise" (p.29).
(2)Secondly, if some of the thought about the nature of God now emerging outside and within the christian churches is accepted, a restatement of traditional christology is certainly necessitated. Quite obviously so, if we entertain the notion of a decrease of the transcendental, personal God of the Bible as propounded by Thomas Altizer and other exponents of the so-called "death of God" theology; but no less definitely so, if we opt for some form of the Ground-of-our-being theology associated particularly with the names of Paul Tillich and Bishop of Woolwich. This theology contends that, though personal, God in relation to us is not another Person. Yet Jesus was certainly another person; then if God is not to be conceived as another Person, in what sense may Jesus still be confessed as "True God from true God" and "perfect in Godhead"? The affirmation will require fresh clarification.
(3)Thirdly, for some time christological studies have been insisting strongly on the essential genuineness of the humanity of Jesus, often indicting the main stream of christological orthodoxy with proneness to Docetism and Apollinarianism- Docetism being that ancient heresy, which denied the physical reality of Christ's body, while Apollinarianism could not allow him a human mind. The trend is obvious in the book just mentioned, Donald Baillie's God was in Christ; it assumes robuster features in later writing like that of John Knox and W.N.Pittenger. "Chalcedon", says Pittenger," failed to prevent a modified Apollinarianism from becoming the orthodoxy of the Middle Ages"[The Word Incarnate(1959),p.102.]and Knox declares that "at whatever cost in terms of other cherished beliefs the reality and normality of Jesus' manhood must be maintained."[The Humanity and Divinity of Christ(1967),p.73.]
This emphasis derives in part from the success- however qualified-with which modern New Testament scholarship has brought us face to face with the historical Jesus of Nazareth, an achievement the real value of which has in my view been most unprofitably obscured by those recent theological fashions which have disclaimed interest in any other Jesus than the kerygmatic Christ of apostolic witness and have denied that our New Testament sources can yield up any other. However, be its causes what they may, does not so much outright insistence as we are hearing today on what Knox calls "the reality and normality of Jesus's manhood" demand new apologetic efforts of those who with the Fathers and the ancients credal formularies still affirm that this historical human Jesus, a prophet from Nazareth, while truly man was also ontologically "True God from true God"?
The embarrassing edge of this age-long problem is commonly thought to be turned by the plea that, despite the implications of some of their language, the Fathers never intended to identify Jesus with God outright. This is said to be evident from their use of the Logos christology in confessing Jesus as God's Son. So orthodox christology in confessing Jesus as truly God is not asserting that Jesus is God without qualification, or God absolutely. But will this line of arguement do? May I at least frankly admit that, coming as it so often does from eminent christian theologians, I find it quite extraordinary? For does it not at once evoke the query, What kind of God is it, then, who is only God with qualification, who is not God absolutely? On any legitimate christian use of terms is any being who is only God with qualification and not God absolutely, any longer truly God?
(4)I pass to a fourth reason for a re-examination of the traditional doctrine of the person of Christ. There now exists a widespread recognition that early christology, and especially New Testament christology, was an outgrowth of the christian experience of Jesus as Saviour-yes, indeed, as eschatological Saviour. That is, in, through and around him God was held to be providing man's full and final deliverance from the world, sin, death, from all demonic cosmic powers and Satan. To be sure, Jesus's advent was thought to portend the dissolution of the kingdoms of this world, the end of the present age and the in breaking of the kingdom of God. Then in consequence of his God-given role in this stupendous series of eschatological events, what was his rank? How must one assess his status in the light of his redemptive function? It was from this angle that the first christians formed their estimate of Jesus. When, therefore, they assigned him such honourable titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God's work. In other words, such designations originally expressed not so much as the nature of Christ's inner most being in relation to the being of God, but rather the pre-eminence of his soteriological function in God's redemption of mankind. That is, the earliest interpretation of the person of Christ found in the New Testament is predominantly not ontological but functional; and Oscar Cullman has stoutly maintained that the functional emphasis remained the dominant one through out the New Testament. He wrote, "When the New Testament asks 'Who is Christ?' it never means primarily 'What is his nature?' but 'What is his function?' "[The Christology of the New Testament(1959),pp.3f.]
However, interest in Jesus's personal nature and speculation about the relation of his inner being to God's being soon arose in the first christian communities, and asserts itself in the New Testament documents, especially in passages like Philippians ii.5-11; Colossians 1.15-20; Hebrews i and ii; and in the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, the three centuries following the New Testament period saw this concern for an ontological interpretation of the person of Christ eclipsing and overriding functional christology, until the question whether and in what sense Jesus was God became the dominant issue. Nicene and Chalcedonain christology was the credalizing climax of this process, with Jesus ultimately confessed as "of one substance with the Father", "perfect in Godhead" as in manhood, truly God and truly man.
And so arises a leading exegetical question, namely, to what extent is the ontological christology of the ancient creeds with their strong affirmation of the deity of Jesus a faithful credalization of the New Testament evidence? Is it a legitimate and inevitable development of New Testament christology, or a distortion of it? In the light of the knowledge now at the disposal of New Testament scholarship- knowledge so much greater than that possessed by the Fathers- does not this christological problem call for fresh and far more thoroughgoing elucidation?
Martin Werner, of course, has offered a solution of it in words both forthright and provocative. The dogma of Christ's deity, he has said, turned Jesus into another Hellenistic redeemer-god, and thus was a myth propagated behind which the historical Jesus completely disappeared.[The Formation of Christian Dogma(1957),p.298.]Professor H.E.W.Turner has pronounced Werner's book "brilliant, learned and perverse"[The Pattern of Christian Truth(1954),p.20.](a very possible combination of qualities in any erudite scholar!). Yet be that as it may, the fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have claimed any of the christological titles which the gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation "Christ", and certainly never believed himself to be God. For example, with the words of Mark x.19 in mind, H.W.Montefiore has of late remarked that Jesus seems to have denied explicitly that he was God[In his essay "Toward a Christology for Today", published in Soundings, ed. A.Vidler(1962),p.158.]; and R.H.Fuller's exhaustive analysis of the growth of New Testament christology brings him to a view of the self-understanding of Jesus resembling Bultmann's. Fuller thinks that Jesus understood himself as an eschatological prophet, not in the sense that he defined himself precisely, but that this was "the working concept" of his identity which guided him throughout his mission[The Foundations of the New Testament Christology(1956),p.130.].
Now if this is the position to which careful analysis of the Gospel evidence brings us, what becomes of the claim that the christological clauses of the ancient credal formularies are a right explication of the New Testament witness? Can you hold together, as many New Testament scholars seem to do, the two positions that on one hand critical study of the Gospels discloses a Jesus with no consciousness of being God and making no claim to be God and on the other hand the belief that Nicene christology, declaring him "True God of true God" is a right credalization of the New Testament evidence? I would at least suggest that this problem is becoming sufficiently acute today to be in itself a reason for that "re-appraisal of the Church's belief in Christ right up to the present day" which in the quotation made at the outset of this lecture, A.Grillmeier speaks as urgent.
II
Shall we now move on to our second main division, which will be a review of the evidence requiring special attention in any reappraisal of New Testament christology. In other words, if in consequence of the advance of New Testament scholarship this is a day for christological stocktaking and one which poses the question whether the traditional formulations of the doctrine of the person of Christ are in fact scriptural, what aspects of New Testament teaching about Christ's person require careful reconsideration?
May I say something about three? They are all familiar to New Testament scholars; they are not overlooked in christological apologetics; but are they apt to be underrated?
(1) First, there is the rarity of New Testament references to Jesus as "God."("theos"). Some nine or ten pages occur in which Jesus is, or might be, alluded to as "God"("theos"). Usually cited are John i.1, 18; xx.28; Titus ii.13; Hebrews i.8f.; 2 Peter i.1 and 1 John v.20. Two or three of these, however, are highly dubious, and, of the remainder, varying degrees of textual or exegetical uncertainty attach to all save one, which is Thomas's adoring acclaim of the risen Jesus in John xx.28 as "My Lord and my God!" Distinguishing this passage from the others, Vincent Taylor - a moderately conservative scholar on christological problems- speaks of it as "the one clear ascription of Deity to Christ"[In the article "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?", Expository Times, lxxiii, No.4(January 1962),p.118]in the New Testament.
But let me give another view. Karl Rahner, the eminent Roman Catholic theologian, considers that there are reliable applications of "theos" to Christ in six texts(Romans 9.5f; John i.1,18; xx.28; 1 John v.20; and Titus ii.13). Rahner, however, immediately goes on the say that in none of these instances is "theos" used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as "ho Theos", that is, the Supreme God.[Theological Investigations(1961),pp.135ff.]
Now obviously the very few New Testament passages-possibly only one-which without question call Jesus "God" outright do not exhaust the linguistic evidence. Notwithstanding, and in comparison with the frequency with which this form of christological confession is still required in the christian churches, is not it's rarity in the New Testament surprising? Would it, in fact, be unfair to press the point with the following query? If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as "God", is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?
(2)A second consideration when re-examining New Testament christology must certainly be the background of the divinizing christological language of the New Testament-that is, the background of all the New Testament christological language which in one way and another speaks as Jesus as though he were a divine being and which sometimes seems to be saying that he was God. And how rich, how far reaching, yes, how worshipful much of this language is! To these first Christians, Jesus bore God's image, was in the form of God, the effulgence of God's glory, the stamp of his very being. He had been raised far above angels, was the firstborn of all creation, the alpha and omega, a heavenly high priest, the man from heaven, the wisdom of god, God's Logos(or Word)which was with God at the beginning and his agent in creation. And when it came to personal titles, his were the highest they could bestow: they proclaimed him as the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, Lord and on occasion God!
One cannot but be moved with wonder at this glorification, but this should not suppress the question, What does such language really mean?
May I here interject a somewhat irreverent story? I was once conducting a Sunday service in a Baptist Church. Sitting in the minister's vestry with the deacons in their appointed places on the right hand and on the left, I was waiting to enter the church. The order of the service had been given me, but not the title of the anthem. The door opened a little, the organist put his face around it, looked at me and simply said, "Come, Holy Ghost!" When I replied that it was not yet the hour for worship the gravity of the deacons collapsed!
Thus by means of a digression into levity we happen upon a reminder of a serious linguistic point: wrenched from their right context, words can convey wrong meanings- words which in their right setting gave the title of the anthem became grotesque when apparently transferred to me! Related to the exposition of the christology of the New Testament, what then does this caveat imply? The point, of course, is that if what the New Testament says about the person of Jesus is to be understood aright, it must be read not in accord with our linguistic English usage in the 1960's, but in the setting of the categories of thought and the linguistic idiom of it's day, that is, in the context of the thought and speech of that first century Jewish and Hellenistic enviroment to which the New Testament documents belong.
Obviously, a few brief words cannot adequately show the interpretative consequences of doing this, when the relevant field of study is so far-ranging. The main considerations, however, are well enough known and appear in the commentaries, text-books, and works of reference, together with mention of the original sources of information.
Some of the specially important facts are these. The Greek world drew no sharp line of division between the human and the divine, and readily divinized human beings- outstanding people such as distinguished philosophers, soldiers or kings might be called "son of God", "lord" and even "God". For instance, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV whose policy provoked the Macedonian revolt, had himself styled "theos"(God) on his coinage, and the Roman emperor Domitian, a contemporary of some of the New Testament writers, affected the honour of being "Lord and God". So far accepted was this fashion that an able and cautious New Testament scholar, Professor C.F.D.Moule of Cambridge, has expressed the opinion that even christians might, in certain senses, have been willing to recognise the deity of the emperor.[The Birth of the New Testament(1962), pp. 116f.]That the New Testament writers were not unaffected by these modes of thought and speech appears in the striking words of 2 Peter i.4 where the readers are told that they- ordinary christians- would "become partakers of the (or 'a') divine nature"; and that the consequences of christian salvation would indeed be deification(in whatever sense)is said here and there by the christian Fathers. Athanasius's statement is often quoted; speaking of Jesus, he remarked: "He was humanized, that we may be deified."[On the Incarnation, 54(vol.iii, Library of Christian Classics, p.107).]
Then, to, notwithstanding its fervently sustained insistence upon monotheism, upon the belief that the only true God was the transcendental God of the Jewish Scriptures, Judaism, the cradle of christianity, sometimes went surprisingly far in applying divinizing terms to angels, to the personalized concepts of Wisdom and the Logos and even to men. Angels could carry the designations "son of God," "lord" and even "god"- the Qumran documents have brought further evidence of this. Jewish writing about Wisdom, the Logos and the Torah(the Law of Moses)contains close parallels to the New Testament description of Jesus Christ as God's image, the effulgence of God's glory, his firstborn, God's agent in the creation of the world and so on. Philo could speak of the Logos as a "second God". In honorific references to men, Hellenistic Judaism was beginning to speak of outstanding Old Testament characters as divine ("theioi"); a righteous man could be a "son of God"; and a passage can be cited in which Philo alludes to Moses as "theos" (god).[Cf. F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel(1963), pp. 294f.]
But, to be sure, already in the Old Testament, Israel's king as God's annointed finds mention as "son of God", and one or two passages occur in which the noun "god" is actually used of men. Psalm xlv.6f. provides a significant example, because here the greater and lesser senses of the substantive "God" appear side by side, namely, "God" in the usual sense of the supreme God of Israel and "god" denoting the person of Israel's king. Furthermore, this same passage appears in Hebrews i.8f. as a testimonium related to Christ, where it is "god" in its lesser connotation in the original which, following the usual translation of the passage, is apparently related to Jesus Christ.
This short and fragmentary survey of linguistic background material must end. Possibly, however, enough has been said to indicate that the New Testament writers spoke of Jesus in an enviroment in which terminology which we should reckon appropriate only when referring to a truly divine being could be used of angels and indeed of human beings. In that first century world, you could maintain that certain humans were in origin associated with the heavenly sphere; you could attribute to them a measure of ontological affinity with God's nature; you could honour them with such titles as "son of God","Lord"- yes even "god"; and you could do all this without any intention of investing those so honoured with the same divine status as that of the highest God.
I have already stated that this background, linguistic evidence has by no means been overlooked: it is too well known. Yet in expositions of the meaning of the christological language of the New Testament along traditional lines, has it so far been accorded its due weight?
(3)The third and last of the three considerations treated in this lecture as deserving of close attention in any reappraisal of New Testament christology is what may surely be described as the sustained subordination of New Testament christology. That is to say, is it not a fact that right through the New Testament the reader again and again encounters material which, implicilty or explicitly, represents Jesus as of lesser rank than God? And is it not so special significance that this position is maintained, even where the New Testament is speaking of the person and functions of the celestial Christ active in heaven after his resurrection and exaltation?
Whatever happened at that first christian Easter, the earliest Christians were convinced that God had raised Jesus from death, and had translated him to the highest heaven, where God himself was believed to dwell. Further, in and from his heavenly dwelling place the erstwhile terrestrial Jesus, now a celestial being, was continuing his redemptive function and would go on doing so until its consummation. In consequence, the resurrection event was a decisive turning point in the growth of New Testament christology. Recent research has stressed this. Barnabas Lindars, for example, wrote of his recent book, New Testament Apologetics, published in 1961: "...this study shows that the resurrection of Jesus is the primary factor in the formation of Christian dogma. The Messianic titles are applied to him as a consequence of this fact, and defended by appeal to it"(p.29).
This judgement is sound, and implies that a careful consideration of the New Testament accounts of the post-resurrection life and activity of the celestial Christ is essential, if a true elucidation of New Testament christology is to be achieved. May we, then look into a few significant points?
Noteworthy first of all is the fact that, in his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared to God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God's heavenly court, just as the angels were- though as God's Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them. Small wonder, then, that angel christology was a prominent strand of early christological thought, as Martin Werner has emphasised and other scholars have recognised.[Werner, op.cit.pp.120-41. Cf, too, Grillmeier, op.cit.pp.52-62.]Werner further argued that in calling Jesus "Lord"("Kyrios"), Paul and the early church meant that Jesus "was a high heavenly being of an angelic kind", the designation "Lord" being a particular instance of the designation and invocation of angels as "lords"("kyrioi") in late Judaism.[Werner, op.cit.p.124.]
But whatever is to be said for or against the validity of angel christology, the distinctness and separateness of Christ's heavenly person in his celestial life and activity from the person of God in heaven is plain enough.We are told that he sits at God's right hand; Stephen at his martyrdom is said to have seen him standing there(Acts vii.56); and ultimately, of course, men on earth are to see him again as a person quite distinct from God when, with his holy angels, he returns triumphantly from heaven at his parousia, that is, at his second advent.
Indeed, so completely and consistently is his individual separateness from God maintained that if the New Testament writers did consider him fully God, and if for the sake of the arguement the New Testament references to the Holy Spirit are left on one side, would not the resultant conception of God be a form of ditheism? I do not see how this conclusion can be avoided.
What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means or implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God. We learn that he confesses or denies men before God(Matt.x.23.f;Luke xii.8;) he intercedes with God on our behalf and as heavenly paraclete pleads our cause with the Father (Rom.viii.34; Heb.vii.25; 1 John ii.1); he is the mediator between men and God(1 Tim.ii.5); and in Hebrews there is the familiar description of his heavenly ministrations as a high priest who is faithful to God, who offers prayers and supplications to God and can in fact address the Father God as his God(i.9; x.7).
And how it will be at the end, when, with his outstanding work as celestial Christ accomplished, he re-appears in his parousia glory? St.Paul is quite explicit about it. The apostle writes that after that victorious event, and when Christ has put all remaining enemies beneath his feet, then he will hand over the complete dominion to God- to quote from the relevant passage in the New English translation passage:"...when all things are thus subjected to him, then thus God will be all in all"(1 Cor.xv.28).
In many another place, and apart from allusions to the celestial work of Christ, this New Testament stress on Jesus's subordination to God recurs. How strong it is, for example, in the Fourth Gospel- the very document which contains the two most certain references to Jesus as God in the whole New Testament! Yet in this Gospel not only is it Jesus as the Son rather than as God who is in the foreground, but he is also a Son who explicitly declares "the Father is greater than I"(xiv.28),or "I can of myself do nothing...I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me"(v.30)- even the will of Jesus, be it noted, is one will and the will of God another! The Fourth Gospel contains more in a similar vein, so when it comes to the exposition of the prologue's statement that Jesus as the Logos was "theos" ("God") or Thomas's exclamation in chapter twenty, "My Lord and my God!", J.M.Creed was entirely right in the statement, "Even the Prologue of St. John, which comes nearest the Nicene doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole".[The Divinity of Jesus Christ(Fontana edn.),pp.122 f.]
The situation is similar when one turns to the exposition of the christology of St.Paul. Whatever is made of the details of important christological passages like Philippians ii.5-11 or Colossians i.15-20, they have ultimately to be understood in the light of Paul's overall christological position. This position is clearly expressed in the passage used just now which speaks of Christ eventually handing over sovereignty to God that God may be all in all(1 Cor.xv.28). It comes out again with unequivocal clarity in the words of 1 Corinthians xi.3- "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
This discussion must now draw to a close, but with what kind of conclusion?
My reading of the facts must inevitably be limited and liable to error. Rightly or wrongly, however, I can but think that the main weight of evidence is on the side of those who conclude, as does H.W.Montefiore, that, "a christology which is expressed in terms of functional and personal relationship rather than in ontological categories means a return to the biblical perspective"[Soundings, p. 159.]. That is, in expounding and proclaiming the significance of Jesus Christ, the New Testament writers were moved primarily not by intellectual curiosity about the nature of Christ's person and to his relation to the divine being of God, though this interest is sometimes apparent. They were gripped mostly by the extent to which Jesus was in God's service, executed God's redemptive work and on God's authority. If, therefore, on occasion they went so far as to refer to Jesus as "God", this was meant as an expression of his soteriological significance- his God-given place in the unfolding of God's plan of eschatological salvation. In so speaking, they were not assigning Jesus equality of status with God, and certainly did not intend to say that ontologically he was truly God. They meant that he was God functionally. In terms drawn from 1 Corinthians viii.6, just as they knew of lords many, but of only one true Lord, namely, Jesus Christ, so too, were they aware of gods many, yet of only one who was truly God, and he the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. To him above all was the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever."
¹ The Manson Memorial Lecture delivered in the University of Manchester on the 30th of January 1968.
20th century Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner’s essay “Theos in the New Testament,” published in Vol. I of his 1961 Theological Investigations, is like a short book, a dense treatise on biblical theology. There’s a lot going on here, but in this post, I’ll highlight a few of what I consider the more interesting bits relating to New Testament language.
Rahner observes that the God of both Old Testament and New Testament is a great self, a Person with a proper name, who freely and intelligently acts in history; God is a unique and provident god. (This is in keeping with his approach to the Trinity.) He then notes the pervasive and central New Testament theme of monotheism:
When Jesus was asked which was the first of all the commandments and answered that it was the commandment of love—and this is the heart of the Pauline and Johannine message too (Romans 13:10; 1 Corinthians 8:3; 1 Corinthians 13; Colossians 3:14; 1 John 3:11) —he himself in this critical context (Mark 12:29) cited the Shema… This confession of the one God runs through the entire New Testament. In Jesus’ own words, eternal life is that they should know the only true God (John 17:3) and be mindful of the glory which is from this one God alone (John 5:44)… Thus testimony to the uniqueness of the sole God is constantly recurring: eis ho theos [God is one] (Romans 3:3o; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Galatians 3:2o; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19), monos theos [“one God,” or “only God”] (Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 6:15; Jude 25; Revelation 15:4). Now this monotheism is not just a fragment of tradition taken over from the Old Testament… It is bound up with the basic Christian confession; and when Christ wanted to state as briefly as possible what that eternal life was which he offered men, he spoke of the knowledge of the one true God (John 17:3). When St Paul, in the earliest portion of the New Testament, sums up what has come about in the Thessalonians who have become Christians, once again the first item to be mentioned is conversion to the living and true God in opposition to the many false gods (1 Thessalonians 1 :9). And from God’s uniqueness St Paul derives support for two of his central themes: the calling of the Gentiles to the same rights in the New Israel (Romans 3:28-30; Romans 10:12, 1 Timothy 2:4-5), and the unity of the multiple workings of the Spirit among Christians in the one Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:6 ; Ephesians 4:6). …Confession of faith in the one true God is one of the essential elements in the Gospel of Christ. (pp. 100-101)
As we’ll see, the New Testament not only asserts monotheism, but it also tells us who this one god is.
In order to see the New Testament clearly, Rahner tries to bracket off his trinitarian assumptions.
…what we are trying to discover is who is meant when the New Testament speaks of ho theos [“God,” literally, “the god”]. Thus our task is not to present the teaching of the New Testament concerning God as Trinity; this is simply presupposed as a doctrine of faith. We take it as something given that the content of the Church’s teaching concerning God as Trinity in the Unity of one and the same essence, is present in the New Testament too, though it is formulated there in different and simpler terms. But we are not concerned to ask whether, according to the New Testament, the three we find named there, pater, huios, pneuma hagion, are distinct from each other and yet identical with the divine nature possessed in common. Presupposing all this, we wish to learn which of these three is meant when the New Testament speaks of ho theos. (p. 125)
As Rahner notes, trinitarian usage of “God” is highly equivocal: it can refer to the Trinity, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. (p. 126) As an aside, I note that historically this phenomenon only goes back till just before the time of Augustine. But Rahner’s question is: is this New Testament usage? Rahner asserts that it is not.
We maintain that in the New Testament ho theos, signifies the First Person of the Trinity… and this applies to every case in which another meaning of ho theos does not become clearly evident from the context. (pp. 126-127)
In other words, normally “God” in the New Testament means the Father, but in rare circumstances, the context will demand our reading “God” as referring to something or someone else.
Rahner rebuts arguments that “God” in the New Testament should just mean God generally, not specifically the Father. (pp. 132-138) One such argument is: aren’t there a lot of texts where Jesus is called “God”? He concedes that there may half a dozen of them. (pp. 135-6)
Thus we have six texts in which the reality of the divine nature in Christ is expressed by the predicate theos. In none of them—it is not unimportant to note—is theos alone, without the addition of modifying clauses but with the article, used to speak of Christ. Theos is either found without the article (John 1:1, John 1:18; Romans 9:5), and so suggests a kind of conceptual generality; or it is particularized in some way, and so suggests that what is being referred to is not simply to be identified with what is elsewhere meant by ho theos. It is further to be observed that in all these cases (with the exception of Titus 2:13), theos stands as predicate or has a predicative sense, and in this way suggests the more general connotation of the word in the context. But the word never appears by itself as grammatical subject, about which something else is said, as though it were a characterization of Christ needing no further explanation, like kurios [“Lord”], for instance (Luke 7:13; Luke 10:1; John 4:11; John 6:23; John 11:2; Acts 9:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:10-12; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, etc.). But what is decisive for our inquiry is that these few texts in which Christ is called theos are vastly outnumbered by the other texts in which the New Testament intends to express Christ’s divine nature in one way or another, and yet does not make use of the word theos, as one would have expected if the word had a quasi-generic signification. Christ is called ‘Son of God’, the ‘true Son of God’, kurios, ‘Logos of God’, eikon [image] of God… All these are ways of trying to express Christ’s divinity, and what is more to express it as clearly as possible, without any pedagogic attempt to withhold the full sense of the affirmation, as may have been the case when Christ began to reveal himself; and yet in all these texts the writers avoid the use of theos for Christ. (pp. 136-137)
Right. Rahner chooses not to question his Catholic assumption that the writers in the above ways are trying to say that Jesus had a divine nature. One might think they could have done that far more clearly and often! But he surely is correct in noting what is at best an extreme reticence to use theos about God’s Messiah. He immediately continues,
The only way in which this can be explained is that for the linguistic sense of the New Testament theos originally signified the Father alone. Ho theos does not start by being neutral in a generic way, so as to be applicable to the Father and also, without explanation, to the Son. Originally it is associated with the Father and thus primarily signifies him alone; it is only slowly, as it were shyly and cautiously, that the expression is detached from him and evolves in such a way that a few texts (John 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 John 5:20) venture to use it of Christ. (pp. 137-138)
And we should pause to add that various translators and exegetes challenge all three of those cases!
He proceeds (pp. 138f) to give a “Positive demonstration” of his thesis. In brief, Rahner observes the overwhelming New Testament usage of ho theos for the Father. He the God who raised Christ, Christ’s god and Father, the one whom we access through the mediation of Christ. Many passages mention God/the Father and Christ, assuming their distinctness. This is the Father’s spirit which is “the holy spirit.” Even “in the so-called Trinitarian formulas” we often having “God” standing in for the Father. (p. 141)
This same one is Yahweh:
The God whom the Jews believed to be their Father, is the God from whom Jesus has proceeded and who has sent him: the Father in the Trinitarian sense (John 8:32). (p. 142)
Rahner can’t quite get those trinitarian goggles off of his head. Nonetheless, he is seeing clearly the New Testament pattern of usage of God-terms, theos and ho theos.
We may outline our results as follows. Nowhere in the New Testament is there to be found text with ho theos which has unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitarian God as a whole existing in three Persons. In by far the greater number of texts ho theos refers to the Father as a Person of the Trinity. It should be noted here that in the texts in which ho theos is used without its being absolutely clear from the immediate context who precisely is meant, the expression never contains anything which is not said of God in other texts; and in just these other texts, this God may be recognized (directly or indirectly) as Father in the Trinitarian sense. Besides this there are six complete texts in which ho theos is used to speak of the Second Person of the Trinity, but still in a hesitant and obviously restrained way (the restriction is concerned of course not with the reality but with the use of the word). In addition, ho theos is never used in the New Testament to speak of the pneuma hagion [Holy Spirit]. These findings are sufficient in themselves to justify the assertion that when the New Testament speaks of ho theos, it is (with the exception of the six texts mentioned) the Father as First Person of the Trinity who is signified. (pp. 143-144)
Rahner ends with a several concluding observations such as that when in the New Testament Jesus is called “the Son of God” this means the Son of the Father. (pp. 144-145)
Really, aside from those six alleged instances where theos is used of the Son, the above conclusions are indisputable facts. Dear student of scripture, a triad of questions for you:
Is this pattern of usage what you would expect if the New Testament authors assume a trinitarian (God is the Trinity) theology?
Is this pattern of usage what you would expect if the New Testament authors assume a unitarian (God is the Father) theology?
What is the evidential payoff of your answers to the first two questions, as concerns the rival hypotheses mentioned in 1 and 2?
Hans Kung Catholic Priest and Theologian in his voluminous book 'Christianity Essence, History, and future wrote:
Although there are so many triadic formulas in the New Testament, there is not a word anywhere in the New Testament about the ‘unity’ of these three highly different entities, a unity on the same divine level. … In Judaism, indeed throughout the New Testament, while there is belief in God the Father, in Jesus the Son and in God’s Holy Spirit, there is no doctrine of one God in three persons (modes of being), no doctrine of a ‘triune God,’ a ‘Trinity.’ But how does the New Testament understand the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit? There is probably no better story in the New Testament to show us the relationship of Father, Son and Spirit than that of the speech made by the protomartyr Stephen in his own defense, which has been handed down to us by Luke in his Acts of the Apostles. During this speech Stephen has a vision: ‘ But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ” behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”‘ [Acts 7:55-56] So here we have God, Jesus the Son of Man, and the Holy Spirit. But Stephen does not see, say, a God with three faces, far less three men in the same form, nor any triangular symbol of the kind that was to be used centuries later in western Christian art. Rather: – the Holy Spirit is at Stephen’s side, is in Stephen himself. The Spirit, the invisible power and might issuing from God, fills him fully and thus opens his eyes: ‘ in the Spirit’ heaven opens to him. – God himself (he theos = the God) remains hidden, is not in human form; only his ‘glory’ (Hebrew kabod, Greek doxa) is visible: God’s splendour and power, the brilliance of light which issues fully from him. – Finally Jesus, visible as the Son of Man, stands (and we already know the significance of this formula) ‘at the right hand of God’: that means in throne communion with God, in the same power and glory. Exalted as son of God and taken up into God’s eternal life, he is God’s representative for us and at the same time, as a human being, the human representative before God. … According to the New Testament the key question in the doctrine of the Trinity [i.e. the aforementioned triad] is not the question which is declared an impenetrable ‘mystery’… How three such different entities can be ontologically one, but the christological question how the relationship of Jesus (and consequently also of the Spirit) to God is to be expressed. Here the belief in the one God which Christianity has in common with Judaism and Islam may not be put in question for a moment. There is no other God than God! But what is decisive for the dialogue with Jews and Christians in particular is the insight that according to the New Testament the principle of unity is clearly not the one divine ‘nature’ (physis) common to several entities, as people were to think after the neo-Nicene theology of the fourth century. For the New Testament, as for the Hebrew Bible, the principle of unity is clearly the one God (ho theos: the God = the Father), from whom are all things and to whom are all things. So according to the New Testament, Father, Son and Spirit are not metaphysical and ontological statements about God in himself and his innermost nature, about a static being of the triune God resting in himself and not at all open to us. Rather, these are soteriological and christological statements about how God reveals himself through Jesus Christ in this world; about God’s dynamic and universal activity in history, his relationship to human beings and their relationship to him. So for all the difference in ‘roles’ there is a unity of Father, Son and Spirit, namely as an event of revelation and a unity of revelation: God himself is revealed through Jesus Christ in the Spirit. This is a thought-structure shaped in the framework of the Jewish-Christian paradigm which, as a structure – unlike that of a ‘triune God’ – need not have been absolutely alien to a Jew even down to the present day..
I recently watched a youtube video from David Brener, where he posits that usage and pronunciation of the divine name is really not that important. It's the character that is important. Although I do agree that the Character associated with that Name is important. To in some way belie its importance and usage, in that we vocalize it, Sing praises using it, and vindicate it by our faithfulness besmears a true love for that name. The fact that it is literally found 6828 times in the Hebrew text and is found more than any other name or title including Lord, God, or Jesus, should cause pause in our thinking, and we should truly reflect on biblical text that use that Name.
I suspiciously wonder about David Brener and his belief system and how tied he is to a belief that Jesus and Jehovah are the same. So why bother with Jehovah. Right. After all he is Jesus. Really? Check out Deut.18.15,18,19: "A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you--to whom you people should listen.......A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him." See also Micah 5.2,4 See also Isa. 26.13
2 “But in the latter days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow unto it. And many nations shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem; and he will judge between many peoples, and will decide concerning strong nations afar off: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of Jehovah of hosts hath spoken it. For all the peoples walk every one in the name of his god; and we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God for ever and ever.”—Mic. 4:1-5, AS.
Any wonder though the confusion. Substitute LORD. Jesus sounds like it's Jehovah's words when Jesus speaks. Both Lords must be the same lord (PS.110.1) Therefore Jehovah is Jesus.
George Howard in writing in "The Anchor Bible Dictionary, under Tetragrammeton," basically alludes to this very point:
It is possible that some confusion ensued from the abandonment of the Tetragrammaton in the N.T., although the significance of this confusion can only be conjectured. In all probability it became difficult to know whether KS referred to the Lord God or the Lord Jesus Christ. That this issue played a role in the later Trinitarian debates, however, is unknown.
When Jesus Christ was on earth, he ‘made his Father’s name manifest’ to his disciples. (Joh 17:6, 26) Although having earlier known that name and being familiar with God’s activities as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, these disciples came to know Jehovah in a far better and grander way through the One who is “in the bosom position with the Father.” (Joh 1:18) Christ Jesus perfectly represented his Father, doing the works of his Father and speaking, not of his own originality, but the words of his Father. (Joh 10:37, 38; 12:50; 14:10, 11, 24) That is why Jesus could say, “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.”—Joh 14:9.
This clearly shows that the only ones truly knowing God’s name are those who are his obedient servants. (Compare 1Jo 4:8; 5:2, 3.) Jehovah’s assurance at Psalm 91:14, therefore, applies to such persons: “I shall protect him because he has come to know my name.” The name itself is no magical charm, but the One designated by that name can provide protection for his devoted people. Thus the name represents God himself. That is why the proverb says: “The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection.” (Pr 18:10) This is what persons do who cast their burden on Jehovah. (Ps 55:22) Likewise, to love (Ps 5:11), sing praises to (Ps 7:17), call upon (Ge 12:8), give thanks to (1Ch 16:35), swear by (De 6:13), remember (Ps 119:55), fear (Ps 61:5), search for (Ps 83:16), trust (Ps 33:21), exalt (Ps 34:3), and hope in (Ps 52:9) the name is to do these things with reference to Jehovah himself. To speak abusively of God’s name is to blaspheme God.—Le 24:11, 15, 16.
Jehovah is jealous for his name, tolerating no rivalry or unfaithfulness in matters of worship. (Ex 34:14; Eze 5:13) The Israelites were commanded not even to mention the names of other gods. (Ex 23:13) In view of the fact that the names of false gods appear in the Scriptures, evidently the reference concerns mentioning the names of false gods in a worshipful way.
I briefly wrote David Brener with my concerns:
I respectfully disagree with you. Not on whether we know or have to use the correct pronunciation, but the usage of that name. To use shem, or ha shem, as a substitute is a copout. The divine name in the "Biblical Hebraica Stuttgartensia" occurs 6828 times. A failure to use that name and to say that YHWH just wanted us to display, preach, sing praises to his character is indeed a disservice to that very character you claim to want to espouse. "Make melody to YHWH O you holy ones. Is it to his Character we are to make melody? Possibly. But to whose Character are we thus making melody to? Is it not YHWH's? Ps 30.4. But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth. Ex.9.16. Is it his Character that is to be delclared ? Yes, but in association with who? Yhwh? Exodus 15 Moses' victory song " My strength and my might is Yah, since he serves for my salvation. This is my God, and I shall laud him, my fathers God, and I shall raise him on high. YHWH is a manly person of war. YHWH is his name. "So in the name of Jesus every knee should bend. Philippians 2.10. Is it his character or His literal name along with his character? "And all the peoples of the earth will have to see that YHWH's name has been called upon you.. Deut. 28.10 Whose name? His Character? Note the text says yhwh's shem
Roger;
Thanks for the research. I am a Conditionalist but see the Parable as a story. Not literal. Hades and its Hebrew counterpart Sheol are usually considered places of non activity. Eccl.9.5,10; Ps115.17; Ps 146.3,4; Isa. 38.10,11,18 . Your thoughts on Hades being a holding place for final Judgment where they are still conscious really doesn't square with text already quoted. See also Acts 2.27-35 (Was David also alive in this holding place? If so why the contrast between Jesus and David in this text?) It may be a holding place in the sense of the Grave holding them figuratively until they are resurrected but these ones are dead and in the Grave.
But I don't buy the fact that God has this real place that is called Hades that supposedly does punish some and not punish others. (Prior to the Judgment????) The scripture you used in Psalm 139 contextually just shows in effect, there is no place to hide from God's Spirit. Hyperbole to be sure. A close examination of Sheol and Hades may help in understanding. Matter fact many translations consider the context and translate Sheol and Hades as Grave in some text. Your understanding has everyone ALIVE in this place called Hades being judged and waiting on another Judgment to follow. The Dead are Dead, unconscious, they know nothing until the Resurrection. Everyone good or bad go to this figurative place called Sheol or Hades and wait on as Final Judgement . Until then they are DEAD. The Resurrection takes place when Christ comes again. This perpetuation of not dying and living on to Final Judgment is just putting a different twist on the original lie. Genesis 3.4.
Thanks for the article.
Bill
Ps I do kind of agree with you on the torment in Rev. 14.11, that it would have to be prior to Judgment. But just because it is the same word as used in Luke has no real relevance in the context of either text.
Linus;
Good thought. I accept that death is a reality, not used in a figurative sense, for the most part. The wages of sin is death. One thing is clear though, and that is the Soul dies whether you are good or bad. The Soul quite simply put, is you... the total you. It is not a part of you. It is you. You return to the dust and what you formally were...a state of nothingness if only for the memory of our Grand Creator and his Son who has been commissioned to do the judging. That is why the bible speaks of a dead soul or Nephesh. Many times the word is merely translated me or I because that is what it means. Then you must wait until the parousia of the Messiah, the Christ for the resurrection. It is really quite a simple idea. That a child can understand when reading the Bible.
I have to admit that this idea of Hellfire (Gehenna) shows a disservice to our Maker and seems to follow the course of Molech rather than our God.
It is an age old doctrine that comes from an age old lie Jo.8.44 "You certainly will not die." I will hang my life with what Elohim said to that original couple when he said, "You positively will die." and "Dust you are and dust you will return. Pretty simple. The Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable directed at the Religious Leaders. Possibly a well known story that many knew during that time.
Remember the Matthew 10.28 text says: "That God is going to Destroy both Soul and Body in Hellfire (Gehenna). By the way that is not in Hades. So many times people get the two mixed up. Why shouldn't they for Bible translators are even partial sometimes with extreme bias and attitude to give'm what they want to hear.. As Paul to Timothy put it "to have there ears tickled." Hades and Gehenna being translated bent on a bias. Of course many don't look at the Greek or Hebrew. Of course these are all ideas that our minister or Sunday school teacher taught us with little research done because we all are members of the good o'l boys club. Paul in writing to the Romans said: "Let God be found true though every man be found to be a Liar. Solomon said in Proverbs: There exist a way that is upright before man but death is the end of it. also in Proverbs: "A person that reply's to a matter before he hears it is foolishness.
The Rich Man and Lazarus
E.W. Bullinger
In dealing with this Scripture, and the subject of the so-called intermediate state, it is important that we should confine ourselves to the Word of God, and not go to tradition. Yet, when nine out of ten believe what they have learned from tradition, we have a thankless task, so far as pleasing man is concerned. We might give our own ideas as the employment’s, etc., of the departed, and man would deal leniently with us. But let us only put God’s Revelation against man’s imagination, and then we shall be made to feel his wrath, and experience his opposition.
Claiming, however, to have as great love and jealousy for the Word of God as any of our brethren; and as sincere a desire to find out what God says, and what God means: we claim also the sympathy of all our fellow members of the Body of Christ.
There are several matters to be considered before we can reach the Scripture concerning the rich man and Lazarus; or arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the state after death.
It will be well for us to remember that all such expressions as the Intermediate State, Church Triumphant, and others similar to them are unknown to Scripture. They have been inherited by us from tradition, and have been accepted without thought or examination.
“Ye were…redeemed..from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers.” (1 Pet. 1:18)
WHAT IS DEATH?
Putting aside, therefore, all that we have thus been taught, let us see what God actually does reveal to us in Scripture concerning man, in life, and in death; and concerning the state and condition of the dead.
Psalm 146:4 declares of man:
His breath goeth forth, He returneth to his earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.
God is here speaking of man; not of some part of man, but of princes, and manor any son of man(v. 3), i.e. Any and every human being begotten or born of human parents.
There is not a word about a disembodied man. No such expression is to be found in the Scriptures! The phrase is man’s own invention in order to make this and other scriptures agree with his tradition.
This Scripture speaks of man as man. His breath; he returneth; his thoughts. It is an unwarrantable liberty to put body when the Holy Spirit has put man. The passage says nothing about the body. It is whatever has done the thinking. The body does not think. The body apart from the spirit has no thoughts. Whatever has had the thoughts has them no more; and this is man.
If this were the only statement in Scripture on the subject it would be sufficient. But there are many others. There is Ecclesiastes 9:5, which declares that:
The dead know not anything.
This also seems so clear that there could be no second meaning. The dead are the dead; they are those who have ceased to live; and, if the dead do or can know anything, then words are useless for the purpose of revelation. The word dead, here is used in the immediate context as the opposite of the living,e.g.:
The living know that they shall die, But the dead know not anything.
It does not say dead bodies know not anything, but the dead,i.e. dead people, who are set in contrast with the living. As one of these living, David says, by the Holy Spirit (Psalm 146:2, 104:33)
While I live will I praise the Lord:
I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
There would be no praising after he ceased to live. Nor would there be any singing of praises after he had cease to have any being. Why? Because princes and the son of man are helpless (Psalm 146:3,4). They return to their earth; and when they die, their thoughts perish: and they know not anything.
This is what God says about death. He explains it to us Himself. We need not therefore ask any man what it is. And if we did, his answer would be valueless, inasmuch as it is absolutely impossible for him to know anything of death, i.e. the death-state, beyond what God has told us in Scripture. We find the answer is just as clear and decisive in Psalm 104:29,30:
Thou takest away their breath (Hebrew- spirit), they die,
And return to their dust:
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
And thou renewest the face of the earth.
With this agrees Ecclesiastes 12:7, in which we have a categorical statement as to what takes place at death:
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
And the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Neither the dust nor the “spirit” had any previous, separate, independent consciousness before their union, which made the “living soul, or after that union is broken, when man becomes what Scripture calls a dead soul. The other Scriptures we have quoted, and shall quote show that there is no such separate, independent consciousness after that union has been dissolved. The prayer in I Thessalonians 5:23 is that these three may be found and preserved entire…at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ(R.V.): i.e. preserved alive till (or at) that coming; and not to die and be separated before it.
This is the condition of man when this tabernacle has been put off (2 Peter 1:14), and when he is “unclothed” (2 Corinthians 5:4). Once separated from each other, we are shut up to the blessed hope of being reunited in resurrection. This is why the death of believers is so often called “sleep”; and dying is called “falling asleep” because of the assured hope of awaking in resurrection. It is not called “the sleep of the body” as many express it; or “the sleep of the soul.” Scripture knows nothing of either expression. Its language is, “David fell asleep” (Acts 13:36), not David’s body or David’s soul. “Stephen…fell asleep” (Acts 7:60). “Lazarus sleepeth” (John 11:11), which is explained, when the Lord afterward speaks “plainly” as meaning “Lazarus is dead” (v 14).
Now, when the Holy Spirit uses one thing to describe or explain another, He does not choose the opposite word or expression. If He speaks of night, He does not use the word light. If He speaks of daylight, He does not use the word night. He does not put ïsweet for bitter, and bitter for sweet(Isaiah 5:20). He uses adultery to illustrate Idolatry; He does not use virtue. And so, if He uses the word sleep of death, it is because sleep illustrates to us what the condition of death is like. If tradition be the truth, He ought to have used the word awake, or wakefulness.
But the Lord first uses a figure, and says Lazarus sleepeth; and afterwards, when he speaks plainly He says Lazarus is dead. Why? Because sleep expresses and describes the condition of the unclothed state. In normal sleep, there is no consciousness. For the Lord, therefore, to have used this word sleep to represent the very opposite condition of conscious wakefulness, would have been indeed to mislead us. But all His words are perfect; and are used for the purpose of teaching us, and not for leading us astray.
Traditionalists, however, who say that death means life, do not hesitate to say also that to fall asleep means to wake up! A friend vouches for a case, personally known to him, of one who (though a firm believer in tradition) was, through a fall, utterly unconscious for two weeks. Had he died during that period, traditionalists would, we presume, say that the man woke up and returned to consciousness when he died! But, if this be so, what does it mean when it says,
I will behold thy face in righteousness:
I shall be satisfied, when I awake with thy likeness?
If death is waking up, what is the waking in this verse? Surely it is resurrection, which is the very opposite of falling asleep in death. Indeed, this is why sleep is used of the Lord’s people. To them it is like going to sleep; for when they are raised from the dead they will surely wake again according to the promise of the Lord; and they shall awake in His own likeness.
WHAT IS LIFE?
And if we ask what life is, the answer from God is given in Gen. 2:7:
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,
And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,
And man became a living soul.
So that the body apart from the spirit cannot be the man; and the spirit apart from the body is not the man; but it is the union of the two that makes a living soul. The Hebrew is nephesh chaiyah, translated soul of life or living soul. What it really means can be known only by observing how the Holy Spirit Himself uses it. In this very chapter (Gen. 2:19) it is used of the whole animate creation, generally; and is rendered “living creature. Four times it is used in the previous chapter (Gen. 1.):
1) In verse 20 it is used of fishes, and is translated moving creature that hath life.ï
2) In verse 21 it is used of the great sea monsters, and is translated living creature.
3) In verse 24 it is used of cattle and beasts of the earth, and is again rendered living creature.
4) In verse 30 it is used of every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and every living thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is (i.e. to which there is) life. Margin Heb. living soul.
Four times in chapter 9 it is also rendered ïliving creature, and is used of all flesh. See verses 10, 12, 15, 16.
Twice in Leviticus 11 it is used: in verse 10 of all fishes, and is rendered living thing. In verse 46 of all beasts, birds, and fishes, and is translated living creature.
Only once (Gen. 2:7) when it is used of man, has it been translated living soul– as though it there meant something quite different altogether.
Surely one rendering should serve for all these passages, and thus enabled Bible students to learn what God teaches on this important subject.
This then is God’s answer to our question, what is life? The teaching of Scripture is (as we have seen) that man consists of two parts: body and spirit; and that the union of these two makes a third thing, which is called soul or living soul. Hence the word soul is used of the whole personality; the living ‘organism’ e.g. Gen. 12:5:
Abram took Sarai his wife…and the souls (i.e. the persons) whom they had gotten in Haran.(Genesis 12:5)
And Esau took his wives…and all the persons (margin. Hebrew – souls) of his house.(Genesis 36:6)
All the souls (i.e. persons) which came with Jacob into Egypt.(Genesis 46″15.26)
As persons, souls have blood:
In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents.(Jeremiah 2:34)
Hence, souls (as persons) are said to be destroyed: Lev. 5:1, 2, 4, 15, 17; 6:2; 17:11, 12. Numbers 15:30. See also Joshua 10:20, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39.
The soul, being the person, is said to be bought and sold. See Lev. 22:11, and Rev. 18:13, where the word soul is used of slaves.
Hence, also, when the body returns to dust and the spirit returns to God, the person is called a dead soul,i.e. a dead person. That is why it says:
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)
He spared not their soul from death. (Psalm 78:50)
What the breath of life is in Genesis 2:7, is explained for us in Gen. 7:22, where we read that every thing died, all in whose nostrils was the breath of life.Margin, Hebrew – the breath of the spirit of life, which is a still stronger expression, and is used of the whole animate creation that died in the flood.
But such are the exigencies of traditionalists, that often the word nephesh (soul) is actually rendered “body.
“Neither shall he go in to any dead body (Hebrew – soul) (Leviticus 21:11)
He shall come at no dead body (Hebrew – soul). (Numbers 6:6)
It is the same in Numbers 9:6,7,10; and 19:11, 13. It is also used of the “dead” in Leviticus 22:4 and Hagai 2:13. In none of these passages is there a word in the margin of either the A.V. or R.V. to indicate that the translators are thus rendering the Hebrew word nephesh (soul) by the word “body”.
Again, Sheol is the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament for the grave, or death-state, and Hades is the corresponding Greek word for it in the New Testament. It is Hades in Luke 16:23; and not Gehenna, which means hell.
HADES A PLACE OF SILENCE
The Scriptures are also positive and numerous which declare that Hades, where the Rich Man is said to be buried is always represented as a place of silence. There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge in the grave (Heb. Sheol) whither thou goest (Ecc. 9:10).
But the rich man, here, was making “devices”, based on his “knowledge”. Of those who are there it is written:
“Their love, and their hatred, and their envy is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun (Ecclesiastes 9:6).
But the rich man is represented as having love for his brethren; and as having a portion in what is being done on earth. The Psalms declare that:
In death there is no remembrance of Thee,
In the grave (Hebrew – Sheol) who shall give Thee thanks?(Psalm 66:5)
Let them be silent in the grave (Hebrew – Sheol). (Psalm 31:17)
The dead praise not the Lord;
Neither any that go down into silence (Psalm 115:17)
The Scriptures everywhere speak of the dead as destitute of knowledge or speech; (see Psalms 30:9; 88:11; Isaiah 38:18,19); and as knowing nothing till resurrection. If these Scriptures are to be believed (as they most surely are), then it is clear that the teaching of tradition is not true, which says that death is not death, but only life in some other form.
THE DECENT INTO HELL
Hades means the ‘grave‘ (Heb. Sheol): not in heathen mythology, but in the Word of God. It was in hades the Lord Jesus was put: for ïHe was buried. As to His Spirit, He said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit (Luke 23:46). And as to His body, it was laid in a sepulchre. Of this burial He says:
Thou wilt not leave my soul (i.e. me. Myself) in Sheol (or Hades), Neither wilt Thou suffer Thy holy one to see corruption.(Psalm 16:10)
These two lines are strictly parallel; and the second expands and explains the first.
Hence, sheol (Greek, hades) is the place where corruption is seen. And resurrection is the only way of exit from it. This is made perfectly clear by the Divine commentary on the passage in the New Testament. We read in Acts 2:31:
He (David) seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul (i.e. he) was not left in hades; neither his flesh did see corruption.
To make it still more clear, it is immediately added, and expressly stated, that David is not yet ascended into the heavens(v. 34), and therefore had not been raised from the dead. Note, it does not say David’s body, but David. This is another proof that resurrection is the only way of entrance into heaven.
But this passage (Psalm 16:10) is again referred to in Acts 13:34-37, and here we have the same important lesson restated:
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he saith…thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption…For David fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption. But he whom God raised again saw no corruption.
He saw it not, because He was raised from the dead, and thus brought out of the Sepulchre, where He had been buried.
This is the teaching of the Word of God. It knows nothing whatever of a descent into hellas separate, and distinct, from His burial. That is tradition pure and simple.
THE APOSTLES’ CREED
Not one of the Ancient Creeds of the Church knew anything of it. Up to the seventh century they all said And was buried and nothing more. But the Creed used in the Church of Aquileia (A.D. 400), instead of saying buried, had the words ,he descended into hell, but only as an equivalent for he was buried. This was of course quite correct.
These are the words of Bishop Pearson (Exposition of the Creed, Fourth Edition 1857, pp. 402-403):
ïI observe that in the Aquileian Creed, where this article was first expressed, there was no mention of Christ’s burial; but the words of their Confession ran thus, crucified under Pontius Pilate, he descended in inferna. From whence there is no question but the observation of Ruffinus (fl. 397), who first expounded it, was most true, that though the Roman and Oriental Creeds had not these words, yet they had the sense of them in the word buried. It appeareth, therefore, that the first intention of putting these words in the Creed was only to express the burial of our Saviour, or the descent of his body into the grave. In a note he adds that the same may be observed in the Athanasian Creed, which has the descent, but not the Sepulchre (i.e. the burial)…Nor is this observable only in these two, but also in the Creed made at Sirmium, and produced at Ariminim(A.D. 359).
By the incorporation of the words ïhe descended into hellin the Apostles’ Creed and the retention of the word buried, tradition obtained an additional article of faith quite distinct from the fact of the Lord’s burial. This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of history. Not only are these historical facts vouched for by Bishop Pearson, but by Archbishop Ussher, and in more recent times by the late Bishop Harold-Browne in his standard work on the Thirty-Nine Articles.
Those who have been brought up on The Apostles’ Creed naturally read this spurious additional article ïhe descended into hell, into Luke 23:43 and I Peter 3:19, and of course find it difficult to believe that those passages have nothing whatever to do with that descent. They are thus led into the serious error of substituting man’s tradition for God’s revelation.
THE SPIRITS IN PRISON
This tradition about the descent into hell led directly to a misunderstanding of I Peter 3:17-22. But note:
1) There is not a word about hell, or hades, in the passage.
2) The word spirit, by itself, is never used, without qualification, of man in any state or condition; but it is constantly used of angels, of whom it is said, He maketh his angels spirits,i.e. they are spiritual beings, while a man is a human being.
3) In spite of these being ïin-prison spirits, they are taken to refer to men; notwithstanding that in the next epistle (II Peter 2:4) we read of ïthe angels that sinned,and of their being ïcast down to tartarus (not hades or gehenna), and delivered into chains of darkness to be reserved unto the judgment. These angels are again mentioned in connection with Noah and are thus identified with the spirits (or angels) in 1 Peter 3:19, who were also disobedient “in the days of Noah.” We read, further, what their sin was, in Jude 6,7 which can be understood only by reference to Genesis 6. Here again we read of these angels being “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. It is surprising that, in the face of these two passages (II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, 7), which speak of angels (or spirits) being ïin chains, anyone should ever have interpreted the ïin-prison spirits of I Peter 3:19 as referring to human beings!
4) Moreover, the word preached does not, by itself, refer to the preaching of the Gospel. It is not evangelise,which would be evangelizo. But it is kerusso, to proclaim as a herald, to make proclamation, and the context shows that this paragraph about Christ is intended as an encouragement. It begins with verse 17: For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. For Christ also suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Then it goes on to explain that as Christ suffered for well-doing, and not for evil-doing, they were to do the same; and if they did they would have, like Him, a glorious triumph. For though He was put to death in the flesh, yet He was made alive again in spirit (i.e. in a spiritual body, I Corinthians 15:44): and in this He made such proclamation of His triumph that it reached even to tartarus, and was heard there by the angels reserved in chains unto judgment. Never mind, therefore, if you are called to suffer. You will have a like glorious triumph.
No other explanation of this passage takes in the argument of the context; or complies with the strict requirements of the original text. Thus the support for the tradition about Christ’s descent into hell as distinct from His being buried, vanishes from the Scriptures.
Eph. 4:9 also speaks of the Lord’s descent ïinto the lower parts of the earth before His ascension on high. But this word here is what is called the genitive of apposition, by which of the earth explains what is meant by ïthe lower parts and should be rendered ïthe lower parts ,that is to say the earth.
This descension stands in contrast with His ascension He that descended is the same also that ascended (v. 10). It refers to His descent from heaven in Incarnation, and not to any descent as distinct from that, or from His burial.
SATAN’S FIRST GREAT LIE
But tradition is only handing down of the Old Serpent’s lie which deceived our first parents. God said, Thou shalt SURELY die (Gen. 2:17). Satan said Thou shalt NOT surely die(Gen. 3:4). And all traditionalists and spiritists agree with Satan in saying, There is no such thing as death; it is only life in some other form.
God speaks of death as an “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26)
Man speaks of it as a friend.
God speaks of it as a “terminus”:
Man speaks of it as a gate.
God speaks of it as a “calamity”:
Man speaks of it as a blessing
God speaks of it as a “fear” and a “terror”:
Man speaks of it as hope.
God speaks delivering from it as shewing “mercy”:
Man, strange to say, says the same! and loses no opportunity of seeking such deliverance by using every means in his power.
In Philippians 2:27 we read that Epaphroditus was sick unto death; but God had mercy on him. So that it was mercy to preserve Epaphroditus from death. This could hardly be called mercy if death were the gate of glory, according to popular tradition.
In II Corinthians 1:10, 11, it was deliverance of no ordinary kind when Paul himself also was delivered from so great a death which called for corresponding greatness of thanksgiving for God’s answer to their prayers on his behalf. Moreover, he trusted that God would still deliver him: for he was not then in prison, as he was some four or five years later, when death would have been a “gain” (Philippians 1:21) compared with his bonds and his sufferings in a Roman dungeon.
Hezekiah also had reason to praise God for delivering him from the king of terrors.It was mercy shown to Epaphroditus; it was a gift to Paul; it was love to Hezekiah. He says:
Thou hast in love to my soul (i.e. to me) delivered it (i.e. me) from the pit of corruption. For thou has cast all my sins behind thy back. For the grave (Hebrew – sheol) cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: They that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day.” (Isaiah 38:17-19)
On the other hand the death of Moses was permitted, for it was his punishment, therefore, there was no deliverance for him though he sought it (Deut. 1:37; 3:23, 27; 4:21, 22; 31:2). Surely it could have been no punishment if death is not death; but, as is universally held, the gate of paradise! In Philippians 1:21, death would have been Paul’s gain,for Paul was not on Pisgah, but in prison; and it would have been a happy issue out of his then afflictions.
So effectually has Satan’s lie succeeded, and accomplished its purpose that, though the Lord Jesus said ïI will come again and receive you unto myself, Christendom says, with one voice, No! Lord. Thou needest not to come for me: I will die and come to Thee. Thus the blessed hope of resurrection and the coming of the Lord have been well nigh blotted out from the belief of the Churches; and the promise of the Lord been made of none effect by the ravages of tradition.
Men may write their books, and a spiritist may entitle one There is no death, etc. They may sing words and expressions which are foreign to the Scriptures, about the Church triumphant. They may speak of having passed on; and about the home-going; and the great beyond; and the border-land; and beyond the veil; but against all this we set a special revelation from God, introduced by the prophetic formula, the Word of the Lord”.
THE REVELATION OF 1 THESSALONIANS 4:15
This we say unto you by the Word of the Lord that we which are alive and remain shall not precede (R.V.) them which are asleep (I Thessalonians 4:15).
To agree with tradition this ought to have been written, shall not precede them which are already with the Lord. But this would have made nonsense; and there is nothing of that in the Word of God. There are many things in Scripture difficult; and hard to be understood: there are many figures of speech also; but there are no self-contradictory statements such as that would have been.
Moreover, we ought to note that this special Divine revelation was given for the express purpose that we might not be ignorant on this subject, as the heathen and traditionalists were. This revelation of God’s truth as to the state of the dead is introduced by the noteworthy words in verse 13:
I would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep.
Unless, therefore, we know what the Lord has revealed, we must all alike remain ignorant”. What is revealed here by the Word of the Lord, is:
1) That as the Lord Jesus was brought again from the dead (Hebrews 13:20), so will His people be. If we believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even so (we believe that) them also which sleep in (R.V. margin, through) Jesus will God bring with him (i.e. bring again from the dead), even as the Lord Jesus died and rose again(v. 14).
2) That we which are alive and remain till His coming shall not precede those who have fallen on sleep.
3) And therefore they cannot be with the Lord before us (v. 15).
4) The first thing to happen will be their resurrection. They are called the dead in Christ. Not the living, but the dead, for resurrection concerns only the dead(v. 16).
5) The next thing is we, the living, shall be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air (v. 17). Not (as many people put it) to meet our friends, who are supposed to be already there; but to meet the Lord Himself (v. 17).
6) Finally, it is revealed that this is the manner in which we shall be with the Lord. The word is houtos thus, so, in this manner, and in no other way.
Those who do not know the truths here given by special Divine revelation have invented other ways of getting there. They say the death is the gate of glory. God says that resurrection and ascension is the gate.
It is the tradition that those who have fallen asleep are already in heaven that has given rise to the idea of the Church Triumphant. But no such expression can be found in Scripture. Eph. 3:15 is supposed to teach or support it, when it speaks of-
THE WHOLE FAMILY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH
But it is by no means necessary to translate the words in this way. The R.V. and the American R.V. render them every family in heaven and earth so does the A.V. also in Eph. 1:21, where we have the same subject, viz. the giving of names (as onomazo, in both places, means. See Luke 6:13) to some of these heavenly families, e.g. principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.
It is not the whole family that is named; but every family has its own name given to it. A few verses before Eph. 3:15 we have two more of these families, “principalities and powers(v. 10). Why then create a new thing altogether by forcing verse 17 apart from its context? These families in heaven are clearly set in contrast with the family of God upon earth. In verse 10 the earthly family is used as an object lesson to the heavenly family.
Now, these being the positive and clear statements of revelation as to man in life and in death, there are certain passages in the New Testament which seem to speak with a different voice, and to bear a different testimony. We say advisedly seem; for when properly understood, and accurately translated, not only is there no difference or opposition to the teaching of the Old Testament, but there is perfect harmony and unity in their testimony. The one corroborates and supports the other.
There are five passages which are generally relied on and referred to by traditionalists viz (1) Matthew 22:32; (2) Luke 23:43; (3) 2 Corinthians 5:6,8; (4) Philippians 1:23; (5) Luke 16:19-31. We will deal with them in this order.
THE GOD OF THE LIVING
Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 2:38
In these scriptures it is stated that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. But traditionalists, believing that the idea dare the living, making God the God of the dead, which He distinctly says He is not. Interpreting the words in this way, they utterly ignore the whole context, which shows that the words refer to the resurrection, and not to the dead at all. Notice how this is emphasized in each Gospel:
1) Then come unto Him the Sadducees, which say there is no “resurrection(Matt. 22:23. Mark 12:18. Luke 20:27).
(2) The one issue raised by the Sadducees was the question, Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection?(Matt. 22:28. Mark 12:23. Luke 20:33).
3) The answer of our Lord deals solely with this one issue, which was resurrection.
Hence He says:
1) Matt. 22:31; as touching the resurrection of the dead.
2) Mark 12:26, as touching the dead that they rise.
3) Luke 20, ïnow that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, for he is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him (v. 38).
These words were spoken by the Lord Jesus in order to prove that the dead are raised. Traditionalists use them to prove that the dead are living without being raised! The Sadducees may have denied many other things, but the one and the only thing in question here is resurrection. Christ’s argument was:
1. God’s words at the bush prove a life for the dead patriarchs.
2. But there is no life for the dead without a resurrection.
3. Therefore they must be raised from the dead or live again by Him.
This argument held good, for it silenced the Sadducees. For if they are living now, and not dead, how does that prove a resurrection? And, moreover, what is the difference between them and those who are in ïthe land of the living? For this is the expression constantly used of the present condition of life in contrast with the state of death. See Psalm 27:13; 56:13; 116:9; 142:5; Jeremiah 11:19; Ezekiel 26:20. In this last passage the contrast is very pointed; where God speaks of bringing down to death and the grave and setting His glory ïin the land of the living. The argument as to resurrection was so conclusive to the Scribes who heard Him, that they said, Master, thou has well said. And after that they durst not ask him any questions at all(Luke 20:39, 40).
We may as well consider in connection with this, the case of Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount of Transfiguration. With regard to this, it is surely enough for us to remember that Elijah never died at all; (*note: although he had to have died sometime because Elijah cannot possibly be immortal, since ONLY Christ has immortality, 1 Tim. 6:16, John 3:13) and that Moses, though he died, was buried by God. The mysteriousness of his burial, and the contest and dispute between Satan (who has the power of death, Hebrews 2:14) and Michael the Archangel about “the body of Moses” (Jude 9), points to the fact of his subsequent resurrection. It could hardly have been other than about its being raised from the dead. Christ has now “the keys of the grave and of death” (Revelation 1:18). For “He was declared to be the Son of God in power by a resurrection of dead persons” (Romans 1:4 and Matthew 27:52-54). Christ was the first who “rose” (i.e. of His Own Divine power, but not the first who was “raised” by the power of God. He called the “first-fruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23), in relation to the future harvest, not in relation to past resurrections.
CHRIST’S WORDS TO THE DYING MALEFACTOR – Luke 23:43
To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. This can mean only Verily I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise.
In the first place we must remember that the punctuation is not inspired. It is only of human authority. There is none whatever in the Greek manuscripts. We have, therefore, perfect liberty to criticize and alter man’s use of it, and to substitute our own.
The verb say when used with to-day, is sometimes separated from it by the word oti hoti (that); and sometimes it is joined with it by the absence of hot. The Holy Spirit uses these words with perfect exactness, and it behooves us to learn what He would thus teach us.
When He puts the word hot (that) between say and to-day, it throws to-day into what is said, and cuts it off from the verb say, e.g. Luke 19:9, Jesus said…that (Gr. hoti) this day is salvation come to this house. Here to-day is joined with the verb come, and separated from the verb I say. So also in Luke 4:21 And he began to say unto them that (hoti) this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Here again the presence of hoti cuts off to-day from say and joins it with fulfilled.
But this is not the case in Luke 23:43. Here the Holy Spirit has carefully excluded the word hoti (that). How then dare anyone to read the verse as though He had not excluded it, and read it as though it said ïI say unto thee, that this day,etc. It is surely adding to the Word of God to insert, or imply the insertion of the word that when the Holy Spirit has not used it; as He has in two other places in this same Gospel (Luke 4:21; 19:9).
We are now prepared to see that we must translate Luke 23:43 in this manner, Verily I say to thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise.The prayer was answered. It referred to the future, and so did the promise; for, when the Lord shall have come in His Kingdom, the only Paradise the Scripture knows of will be restored.
Further we must note that the formula ïI say unto thee this day,was a well known Hebrew idiom used to emphasized the solemnity of the occasion and the importance of the words. See Deuteronomy 4:26, 29, 40; 5:6; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 19; 9:3; 10:13; 11:2, 8, 13, 18, 27, 28, 32; 13:18; 15:5; 19:9; 26:3, 17, 18; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13, 14, 15; 24:12; 30:2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 18; 32:46. The expression, therefore, ïI say unto thee this day,marks the wonderful character of the man’s faith; which, under such circumstances, could still believe in, and look forward to the coming kingdom; and acknowledge that Christ was the King, though on that very day He was hanging on the Cross.
ABSENT FROM THE BODY – 2 CORINTHIANS 5:6,8
The third passage, II Corinthians 5:6, 8, we have dealt with in Things to Come for July, 1902 (Volume 9, page 3), and in The Church Epistles, page 103, where we have shown that ïto be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord, was the inspired desire of the Apostle, which could be realized only in resurrection. Resurrection (and not death) is the subject of the whole context.
These words are generally misquoted Absent from the body, present with the Lord,as though it said that when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord. But no such sentence can be found. No less than nine words are deliberately omitted from the context when the quotation is thus popularly made. The omission of these words creates quite a new sense, and puts the verse out of all harmony with the context; the object of which is to show that we cannot be present with the Lord except by being clothed upon with our resurrection body, our ïhouse which is from heaven.
We might with equal justice quote the words hang all the law and the prophets,and leave out on these two commandments (Matt. 22:40); or say there is no God and leave out The fool hath said in his heart(Psalm 53:1), or say Ye shall not drink wine, and leave out Ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but (ye shall not drink wine) of them(Amos 5:11); or talk about the restitution of all things and leave out which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets(Acts 3:21). All these partial quotations are correct so far as the text is concerned, but what about the context? The context is,
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord (v. 8).
By omitting the words printed in bold the sense is entirely changed. Being at home in the body in both verses is explained, in verse 3 as being in this tabernacle, which, in v. 1, is called our earthly house of this tabernacle; and being present (or at home with) the Lord is explained in verse 2 as being clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. The Apostle distinctly says, on the one hand, that he did not wish to die (v. 4, not that we would be unclothed); and on the other hand, he was not merely willing rather but earnestly desiring to be clothed upon(v.2). It is true that some years later he did say to die is gain; but as we have seen above, the circumstances were very different, for he was then in prison. This brings us to the expression:
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. (Philippians 1:23-24)
PAUL’S DESIRE IN PHILIPPIANS 1:23
Philippians 1:23, we have dealt with in Things to Come, February 1900, Volume 6, page 87; The Church Epistles, pages 157-8; and in Figures of Speech, pages 206, 415-6. We have there shown that the desire of the Apostle was not to depart himself, by dying; but his desire was for the return of Christ; the verb rendered depart being used elsewhere in the New Testament only in Luke 12:36, where it is rendered return: when he shall return from the wedding. May we not fairly ask, Why are we not to translate it in the same way in Philippians 1:23?
The preposition ana, again, when compounded with the verb luo, to loosen, means to loosen back again to the place from whence the original departure was made, not to set out to a new place; hence, analuo means to loosen back again or to return, and it is so rendered in the only other place where it occurs in the New Testament, Luke 12:36: when he shall return from the wedding. It does not mean to depart, in the sense of setting off from the place where one is, but to return to the place that one has left. The verb does not occur in the Greek translation of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, but it does occur in the Apocryphal books, which though of no authority in the establishment of doctrine, are invaluable as to the use and meaning of words. In these books, this word always means to return, and is generally so translated.
But there is another fact with regard to Philippians 1:23. The English verb depart occurs 130 times in the New Testament; and is used as the rendering of 22 different Greek words. But this one verb (analuo) occurs only twice, and is rendered depart only once; the other occurrence being rendered return, and used by the Lord Himself of His own return from heaven.
We must also further note that it is not the simple infinitive of the verb to return. It is a combination of three words: the preposition (eis) unto, and the definite article (to) the, with the aorist infinitive (analusai) to return; so that the verb must be translated as a noun — having a strong desire unto the return; i.e. of Christ, as in Luke 12:36.
The Apostle’s argument is that for himself, it would be better to die than to live. It would be a “gain”, for it would release him from his bonds, and his imprisonment, and from all his trials. For them, it would be better that he should live on in the flesh. But the return of Christ would be better than either, both for them and for him.
The translation of the verse in light of this figure and the context compels us to observe the parenthesis (verse 23) by with the continuation of one subject is suspended by the insertion of another subject. The interruption occurs at the word “labour”, and the resumption of it takes place after the word “better”. Thus; “what is the fruit of my labour (yet…better) but to remain in the flesh,” etc..The translation of the whole passage will therefore stand as follows:
But if live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour {yet, what I shall choose I wot not, for I am being pressed out of these two [i.e. living or dying (vs. 20, 21), by a third thing (v. 23), viz.], having a strong desire unto the return (i.e. of Christ), and to be with Christ, which is a far, far better thing}, but to remain in the flesh is more needful for you (i.e., better than dying; but not better than Christ’s return”).
It is for the traditionalists to show how they deal with these facts. It is not sufficient to say they do not believe in this our understanding of these passages: they must show how they dispose of our evidence, and must produce their own support of their own conclusions.
Here we have four passages which seem to be opposed to those we have quoted from the Old Testament. Both cannot be true. We must either explain away the Old Testament passages, or we must see whether these four passages admit of other renderings, which remove their apparent opposition. We have suggested these other renderings, based on ample evidence; which, not only deprive them of such opposition, but show that their teaching is in exact accordance with those other passages.
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
There remains a fifth passage, Luke 16:19-31, commonly called the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,or of Dives and Lazarus. It is absolutely impossible that the traditional interpretation of this can be correct, because if it were, it would be directly opposed to all other teaching of Scripture. And the Lord’s words cannot and must not be so interpreted. If it be Bible truth (as it is) that the dead know not anything, how could the Lord have taught, and how can we believe that they do know a very great deal? If it be that fact that when man’s breath goeth forth, in that very day his thoughts perish, how can we believe that he goes on thinking? and not only thinking without a brain, but putting his thoughts into words, and speaking them without a tongue?
When the great subject of resurrection is in question, one of the most solemn arguments employed is that, if there be no such thing as resurrection, then not only all the dead, but they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished (I Corinthians 15:18). This is also the argument which immediately follows in verse 29 (after the parenthesis in verses 20-28), and is based upon verse 18.
Else, what are they doing who are being baptized? It is for dead (corpses) if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then being baptized for corpses?
Which is,of course, the case, if they are not going to rise again.
We are expressly enjoined by the Lord Himself: Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice (John 5:28). These are the Lord’s own words, and they tell us where His Voice will be heard; and, that is not in heaven, not in Paradise, or in any so-called intermediate state, but in the graves.
With this agrees Dan. 12:2, which tells us that those who awake in resurrection will be those ïhat sleep in the dust of the earth. It does not say, in Abraham’s bosom, or any other place, state, or condition, but in the dust of the earth; from which man was taken(Gen. 2:7; 3:23), and to which he must return(Gen. 3:19. Ecclesiastes 12:7).
It is, of course, most blessedly true that there is a vast difference between the saved and the unsaved in this falling asleep. The former have received the gift of eternal life(Romans 6:23): not yet in actual fruition; but in Christ, who is responsible to raise them from the dead (John 6:39), that they may enter upon the enjoyment of it. The unsaved do not possess eternal life, for it is declared to be the gift of God (Romans 6:23). No one is responsible for them, to raise them up. True, they will be raised (Revelation 20:12,13), but it will be only “the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29); for judgment, and to be cast into the lake of fire. Very different, therefore, are these two cases. The atonement and resurrection, and ascension of Christ has made all the difference for His people.
They die like others; but for them it is only falling asleep. Why? Because they are to wake again. Though dead, they are now called the dead in Christ, but it remains perfectly true that we who are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord shall not precede (R.V.) them. And, therefore, it follows, of necessity, that they cannot precede us.
But it is sometimes urged that the Lord led forth a multitude of captives from Hades to Paradise when He wrested from Satan his power over death and Hades(Eph. 4:8). But the fact is that Eph. 4:8 says nothing about Hades or Paradise! Nothing about multitudes of captives, and nothing about the state between the moment of His dying and rising. It was when He ascended up on high that there was this great triumph for the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not told what were all the immediate effects of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension, in Satan’s realm of evil angels. Col. 2:15 tells us the great fact that He spoiled principalities and powers. Henceforth He held the keys of death and the grave (hades) (Revelation 1:18). There was a mighty conflict and a glorious victory when Christ rose from the dead and conquered him that had the power of death. In proof and token of His triumph many(not a few) rose from the dead (Matthew. 27:52, 53); but these again sleep in Christ awaiting the return and the final resurrection from the dead.
We now come to the so-called parable itself. It is evident that this Scripture (Luke 16:19-31) must be interpreted and understood in a manner that shall not only not contradict that plain and direct teaching of all these passages; but on the contrary, in a manner which must be in perfect and complete harmony with them: and in such a way that it shall be necessary for the better understanding of the whole context in which it stands. That is to say, we must not explain the Parable apologetically, as though we wished it were not there; but as though we could not do without it. We must treat it as being indispensable, when taken with the context. Let us look first at some of the inconsistencies of the Traditional Interpreters.
Some of them call it a parable; but the Lord does not so designate it. It does not even begin by saying He said. It commences abruptly – There was; without any further guide as to the reason or meaning of what is said.
Then they follow their own arbitrary will, picking out one word or expression, which they say is literal; and another, which they say is parabolic. For example, Abraham’s bosom is, according to them, parabolic; and denotes Paradise. They are bound so to take it, because if literal, Abraham’s bosom would hold only one person! It refers to the act of reclining at meals, where any one person, if he leaned back, would be in the bosom of the other. John was so placed with regard to the Lord Jesus (John 13:23; 21:20), and it was a token of favor and love (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7).
Then they take the fire and the water, the tongue and the flame, etc., as being literal; but when the Lord elsewhere speaks of the worm that dieth not, they take that as parabolic, and say it does not mean a worm but conscience. In all this they draw only on their imagination, and interpret according to their own arbitrary will.
If we follow out this illogical principle, then according to them Lazarus was never buried at all; while the rich man was. For the rich man also died and was buried(v. 22); while Lazarus, instead of being buried, was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.
There is the further difficulty as to how a man who has been actually buried, could think without a brain, or speak without a tongue. How can the spirit speak, or act apart from the physical organs of the body? This is a difficulty our friends cannot get over: and so they have to invent some theory (which outdoes the Spiritists’ invention of an Astral body) which has no foundation whatever in fact: and is absolutely destitute of anything worthy of the name evidence of any kind whatsoever.
Then again, Hades is never elsewhere mentioned as a place of fire. On the contrary, it is itself to be cast into the lake of fire(Rev. 20:14).
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS – Part 2
Moreover, there is this further moral difficulty; in this parable, which is supposed to treat of the most solemn realities as to the eternal destiny of the righteous and the wicked, there is a man who receives all blessing, and his only merit is poverty. That, for ought that is said, is the only title Lazarus has for his reward. It is useless to assume that he might have been righteous as well as poor. The answer is that the parable does not say a word about it; and it is perfectly arbitrary for anyone to insert either the words or the thought. On the other hand, the only sin for which the rich man was punished with those torments was his previous enjoyment of good things and his neglect of Lazarus. But for this neglect, and his style of living, he might have been as good and moral a man as Lazarus.
Again, if Abraham’s bosom is the same as Paradise, then we ask, is that where Christ and the thief went according to the popular interpretation of Luke 23:43? Did they go to ‘Abraham’s bosom’? The fact is, the more closely we look at tradition, the more glaring are the inconsistencies which it creates.
The teaching of the Pharisees had much in common with the teaching of Romanists and Spiritists in the present day. We have only to refer to the Lord’s words to see what He thought of the Pharisees and their teachings. He reserved for them His severest denunciations and woes; and administered to them His most scathing reprobations. It was the teaching of the Pharisees, which had made the Word of God of none effect, that was the very essence of their sin and its condemnation. Everywhere the Lord refers to this as bringing down His wrath; and calling forth His woes.The Word of God said one thing, and the Pharisees said another; they thus contracted themselves out of the Law of God by their traditions.
The context shows that the Lord’s controversy with the Pharisees was now approaching a crisis. It begins, in chapter 14:35, with the solemn formula, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. We are immediately shown who had these opened ears; for we read (15:1):
Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth
sinners and eateth with them.
They professed to have the key of knowledge, but they entered not in themselves; and those who were entering in they hindered (Matthew 23:13-33). They had the Scriptures, but they overlaid them with their traditions, and thus made them of none effect (Matt. 15:19). They were like the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-12) in the parable which immediately follows Luke 15. For He would explain to His immediate believing followers the iniquity of these murmuring Pharisees.
They dealt unjustly with the oracles of God which were committed unto them (Rom. 3:2). They allowed His commandments to be disobeyed by others that they might make gain. In Mark 7:9 the Lord said, Full well ye reject (margin, frustrate) the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. This was said in solemn irony; for they did not well in the strict meaning of the word, though they did well, i.e. consistently with their own teaching when they practically did away with the fifth and seventh Commandments for their own profit and gain, just as Rome in later days did away with the doctrine of justification through faith by the sale of indulgences.(Read carefully Matthew 15:3-6 and Mark 7:7-13). They were unjust stewards; and contrary to their teaching, the Lord declared there was no such thing as little or much when it came to honesty, especially in dealing with the Word of God; and that, if they were unfaithful in the least, they would be in much also, and could not be trusted. The time was at hand when the sentence would go forth, thou mayest be no longer steward.
Then in Luke 16:14 we read: The Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things; and they derided him(v. 14): lit., they turned up their noses at Him! The supreme moment had come. We may thus paraphrase His words which follow and lead up to the Parable:
You deride and scoff at Me, as if I were mistaken, and you were innocent. You seek to justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts. You highly esteem your traditions, but they are abomination in the sight of God (v. 15). The law and the prophets were until John, but you deal unjustly with them, changing them and wresting them at your pleasure, by your tradition, and by the false glosses ye have put upon them.
And when John preached the Kingdom of God, every one used violence and hostility against it by contradictions, persecution, and derision (v. 16). And yet, though by your vain traditions you would make the law void and of none effect, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail (v. 17).
Take one instance out of many. It is true that God permitted, and legislated for, divorce. But ye, by your traditions and arbitrary system of divorces, have degraded it for gain. Nevertheless, that law still remains, and will stand for ever, and he who accepts your teaching on the subject, and receives your divorces, and marrieth another, committeth adultery(v. 18).
Then the Lord immediately passes on to the culminating point of His lesson (v. 19):
There was a certain rich man, etc.
He makes no break. He does not call it, or give it as one of His own Parables; but He at once goes on to give another example from the traditions of the Pharisees, in order to judge them out of their own mouth. A parable of this kind need not be true in itself, or in fact; though it must be believed to be true by the hearers, if not by the speaker. No more than Jotham’s parable of the Trees speaking (Judges 9:7-15). No more than when the Pharisees, on another occasion, said ïthis fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils; and He, judging them out of their own mouth, did not contradict them, nor did He admit the truth of their words when He replied, If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?(Matt. 12:24-27). No! The Lord did not bandy words in argument with these arch-traditionists, but turned the tables upon them. It was the same here, in Luke 16. He neither denied nor admitted the truth of their tradition when He used their own teachings against themselves.
It was the same in the case of the parable of the pounds a little later on, when He said, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up what I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow(Luke 19:22). The Lord was not, of course, an austere and unjust man; but He uses the words which those to whom He was speaking believed to be true; and condemned them out of their own mouth.
We believe that the Lord is doing the very same thing here. The framework of the illustration is exactly what the Pharisees believed and taught. It is a powerful and telling example of one of their distinctive traditions, by which they made the teaching of God’s Word of none effect. It is, of course, adapted by the Lord so as to convey His condemnation of the Pharisees. He represents the dead as speaking, but the words put into Abraham’s mouth contain the sting of what was His own teaching. In verse 18 He had given an example of their practice in making void the Law of God as to marriage and divorce; and in the very next verse (19) He proceeds to give an example of their doctrine to show how their traditions made void the truth of God; using their very words as an argument against themselves; and showing, by His own words, which He puts into Abraham’s mouth (verses 29 and 31), that all these traditions were contrary to God’s truth.
They taught that the dead could go to and communicate with the living; the Lord declares that this is impossible; and that none can go from the dead but by resurrection; ïn either will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead(v. 31). Note, these latter are His own words; He knew that their traditions were false, and in this very parable He corrects them. He distinctly declares that no dead person could go to the living except by resurrection; and that if one did go it would be useless; for, there was one of the same name Lazarus, who was raised from the dead shortly afterward, but their reply was to call a Council, in which they determined to put Lazarus also to death, as well as Himself (John 12:10). And when the Lord rose from the dead they again took counsel, and would not believe (Matt. 28:11-15). Thus the parable is made by the Lord to give positive teaching as well as negative, and to teach the truth as well as to correct error.
THE TRADITIONS OF THE PHARISEES
In the Talmud (see the link:, what is the Talmud?) we have those very traditions gathered up which the Lord refers to in His condemnation. Many are there preserved which were current in our Lord’s day. We can thus find out exactly what these popular traditions were.
In Kiddushin (Treatise on Betrothal), fol. 72, there is quoted from Juchasin, fol. 75, 2, a long story about what Levi said of Rabbi Judah: ïThis day he sits in Abraham’s bosom,i.e. the day he died.
There is a difference here between the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmuds the former says Rabbi Judah was carried by angels; the latter says that he was placed in Abraham’s bosom. Here we have again the Pharisees’ tradition as used against them by our Lord. There was a story of a woman who had seen six of her sons slain (we have it also in II Maccabees vii). She heard the command given to kill the youngest (two-and-a-half years old), and running into the embraces of her little son, kissed him and said, ïGo thou, my son, to Abraham my father, and tell him ‘Thus saith thy mother. Do not thou boast, saying, I built an altar, and offered my son Isaac. For thy mother hath built seven altars, and offered seven sons in one day, etc.
(3) Another example may be given out of a host of others: ïThere are wicked men, that are coupled together in this world. But one of them repents before death, the other doth not, so one is found standing in the assembly of the just, the other in the assembly of the wicked. The one seeth the other and saith, ‘Woe! And Alas! there is accepting of persons in this thing. He and I robbed together, committed murder together; and now he stands in the congregation of the just, and I, in the congregation of the wicked.’ They answered him: ‘O thou foolish among mortals that are in the world! Thou wert abominable and cast forth for three days after thy death, and they did not lay thee in the grave; the worm was under thee, and the worm covered thee; which, when this companion of thine came to understand, he became a penitent. It was in thy power also to have repented, but thou dist not’. He saith to them, ‘Let me go now, and become a penitent’. But they say, ‘O thou foolishest of men, dost thou not know, that this world in which thou are, is like a sabbath, and the world out of which thou comest is like the evening of the sabbath? If thou does not provide something on the evening of the Sabbath, what wilt thou eat on the Sabbath day? Dost thou not know that the world out of which thou camest is like the land; and the world, in which thou now art, is like the sea? If a man make no provision on land for what he should eat at sea, what will he have to eat?’ He gnashed his teeth, and gnawed his own flesh.
We have examples also of the dead discoursing with one another; and also with those who are still alive R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, How doth it appear that the dead have any discourse among themselves? It appears from what is said (Deut.34:4), And the Lord said unto him, This is the land, concerning which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying. What is the meaning of the word saying? The Holy Blessed God saith unto Moses, ‘Go thou and say to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the oath which I sware unto you, I have performed unto your children’. Note that ‘Go thou and say to Abraham,’ etc. Then follows a story of a certain pious man that went and lodged in a burying place, and heard two souls discoursing among themselves. The one said unto the other, ‘Come, my companion, and let us wander about the world, and listen behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the world’. To which the other replied, ‘O my companion, I cannot; for I am buried in a cane mat; but do thou go and whatsoever thou hearest, do thou come and tell me’,etc. The story goes on to tell of the wandering of the soul and what he heard, etc. There was a good man and a wicked man that died; as for the good man, he had no funeral rites solemnized; but the wicked man had. Afterward, there was one who saw in his dream, the good man walking in gardens, and hard by pleasant springs; but the wicked man with his tongue trickling drop by drop, at the bank of a river, endeavouring to touch the water, but he could not”.
6. As to ïthe great gulf, we read, God hath set the one against the
other (Ecc. vii. 14) that is Gehenna and Paradise. How far are they
distant? A hand-breadth. Jochanan saith, A wall is between. But the
Rabbis say They are so even with one another, that they may see out
of one into the other.”
The traditions set forth above were widely spread in many early Christian writings, showing how soon the corruption spread which led on to the Dark Ages and to all the worst errors of Romanism.
The Apocryphal books (written in Greek, not in Hebrew, first and second centuries B.C.) contained the germ of this teaching. That is why the Apocrypha is valued by traditionalists, and is incorporated by the Church of Rome as an integral part of her Bible.
The Apocrypha contains prayers for the dead; also ïthe song of the three Children (known in the Prayer Book as the Benedicite), in which ïthe spirits and souls of the righteous are called on to bless the Lord.
The Te Deum, also, which does not date further back than the fifth century, likewise speaks of the Apostles and Prophets and Martyrs as praising God now.
From all this it seems to us perfectly clear that the Lord was not delivering this as a parable, or as His own direct teaching; but that He was taking the current, traditional teachings of the Pharisees, which He was condemning; and using them against themselves, thus convicting them out of their own mouths. We are quite aware of the objection which will occur to some of our readers. But it is an objection based wholly on human reasoning, and on what appears to them to be probable.
It will be asked, is it possible that our Lord would give utterance in such words without giving some warning to us as to the way to which He used them? Well, the answer to such is that, warning has been given in the uniform and unanimous teaching of Scripture. His own words: ïthey have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them, addressed to the Pharisees through the Rich Man may be taken as addressed to us also. We have (as they had) the evidence of the Old Testament (in Moses and the Prophets), and we have also the evidence of the New Testament, which accords with the Old. If we hear them, it would be impossible for us to suppose, for a moment, that Christ could be teaching here, that which is the very opposite to that of the whole Word of God.
We have the Scriptures of truth; and they reveal to us, in plain, direct, categorical, unmistakable words, that the dead know not anything; and that when man’s breath goeth forth, ïin that very day his thoughts perish.It is taken for granted, therefore, that we shall believe what God says in these and many other passages of His Word; and had we not absorbed tradition from our earliest years we should have at once seen that the popular interpretation of this passage is quite contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture. We ought to discern, at the very first glance at it, that it is unique, and stands out so isolated, by itself, that we should never for one moment dream of accepting as truth that which, if we know anything of His Word, we should instantly and instinctively detect as human tradition used for a special purpose.
But, unfortunately, we have been brought up for the most part on man’s books, instead of the Bible. People draw their theology from hymns written by men who were saturated with tradition; who, when they did write a good hymn generally spoiled it in the last verse, by setting death as the church’s hope, instead of Christ’s coming. Hence, hymns are solemnly sung which contain such absurd, paradoxical teaching as the singing of God’s praises while our tongues are seeing corruption, and lie silent in the grave.
Persons saturated with such false traditions come to this Scripture with minds filled with the inventions, fabrications, and imaginations of man; and can, of course, see nothing but their own traditions apparently sanctioned by our Lord. They do not notice the fact that in the very parable itself the Lord corrected the false doctrine by introducing the truth of resurrection. But when we read the passage in the light of the whole Word of God, and especially in the light of the context, we see in it the traditions of the Pharisees, which were highly esteemed among men, but were abomination in the sight of God(v. 15).
PROTESTANTISM
All these traditions passed into Romanism. This is why we read in the note of the English Romish Version (the Douay) on Luke 16:
The bosom of Abraham is the resting place of all them that died in
perfect state of grace before Christ’s time heaven, before, being shut
from men. It is called in Zachary a lake without water, and sometimes a
prison, but most commonly, of the Divines, ‘Limbus Patrum’, for that it is
thought to have been the higher part, or brim, of hell,etc.
Our Protestant friends do not recognize this fact; and hence, they have not wholly purged themselves from Romish error. The Jews corrupted their religion by taking over the Pagan teachings of Greek Mythology. Romanism adopted these Jewish traditions of prayers for the dead and added others of her own; and the Reformed Churches took over Romish traditions connected with the so-called intermediate State,which they should have purged out.
Instead of completing the Reformation in respect to such heathen traditions, they are still clinging to them to-day; and so tenaciously, that they are giving Romanists and Spiritists all they want as the foundation for their false teachings; while they reserve their wrath for those who, like ourselves, prefer to believe God’s truth in opposition to the first great lie of the Old Serpent.
But once we see the truth of God’s word, that death means death; and cease to read the word as meaning life and away goes the only ground for the worship of the Virgin Mary, the invocation of saints, prayers to or for the dead; and all the vapourings and falsehoods of lying spirits and teachings of demons(I Timothy 4:1,2), who would deceive, by personating deceased persons of whom God declares their thoughts have perished.
FATHER ABRAHAM
But there is one further argument which we may draw from the internal evidence of the passage itself, taken with other statements in the Gospel narrative. The Jews laid great stress on the fact that they were Abraham’s seed (John 8:33). They said, Abraham is our Father, whereupon the Lord answers that, though they might be Abraham’s seed according to the flesh, yet they were not Abraham’s true seed, inasmuch as they did not the works of Abraham (vv. 39, 40).
Early in the Gospels this fallacy was dealt with judicially, when John said by the Holy Spirit: Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father (Matthew 3:9). This was when He saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to His baptism; and called them ïa generation of vipers, and not the sons of Abraham. They thought and believed that inasmuch as they were the sons of Abraham by natural generation
In many sermons that are preached on this message this rich man is presented as being exceedingly vile, and is set forth as a representative sinner. There is no such picture here, and our Lord exercised care that no idea of great wickedness is set forth. That would have spoiled the picture He is drawing. All that we know of this man is that he was rich, that he wore expensive clothing and that he lived luxuriously every day. This is all we know of him, and it is very little. There is not enough here to form any true estimate of his character, since the facts given deal with his state. They reveal nothing of his character. As Trench says: “He was one of whom all may have spoken well; of whom none could say worse than that he was content to dwell at ease, would fain put far from himself all things painful to the flesh, and surround himself with all things pleasurable.”
In our smug self-righteousness we are apt to think that these statements describe a great sinner like Ahab or Judas Iscariot, but this is wholly imaginary. The average middle-class American of today probably dresses better, eats better, and enjoys comforts far beyond what this man ever dreamed. We do not judge a man’s character to be bad when we discover that he is rich. Neither do we judge a man as wicked because he dresses well. And while we may question the wisdom of living luxuriously and splendidly, we do not question its morality. Why then should the man in this story be judged as flagrantly wicked’? Do we dare to calumniate one whom our Lord did not? True it is that he may not have fed the beggar, but even of this we cannot be sure.
We are not told how this man gained his wealth, so, if we desire to be among those who “impute not evil” let us not say that his riches were gained dishonestly. Our Lord gave no revelation concerning this, and Abraham made no such accusation when he spoke to him. In view of this, a simple quatrain fits well here:
Be sure that you have Scripture, For all you say or do;
And where God’s Word is silent, May you be silent too.
It is evident that our Lord desired to set forth a composite picture of the rich and powerful men in Israel at that time, especially the Pharisees, but also the Sadducees, the Scribes, Lawyers and Priests. Let us not be guilty of taking from or adding to His picture.
The Poor Man
The next character set before us is a poor man, a man in desperate need. In many studies this poor man is represented as being a godly man, a devout man, a saint. But there is no such portrayal in the words of our Lord. He sets him forth as a poor man, one afflicted all over his body with ulcerating sores, but nothing more than this. Our Lord seems to have exercised care in avoiding any such picture of this man. There is not one single fact revealed about this poor man that would bring forth admiration or compliment. His condition arouses our sympathy, but we see nothing about him that is worthy of emulation. We would not dare to advise anyone to pattern their life after his, nor can we point to him and say “Go thou and do likewise.” We would feel more rapport with him if we had been told that he looked to God to supply his needs, rather than looking to a rich man for crumbs. We wonder if God’s provision of prayer had a place in his life. From what we are told we know only that his expectation was in the rich man.
Some who read these lines will feel that I am treating this poor man somewhat harshly. I admit this, but hasten to say that this does not arise from lack of feeling and sympathy for him. It springs only from my desire to maintain the true picture the Lord gave of him, and to counteract the false picture of great godliness that men are so prone to paint of him.
It must be admitted that there are some things about the rich man that deserve censure. He dressed too well and lived too luxuriously, but, all in all, he was not a bad character. But while there are things about him we might condemn, there is not one thing about the poor man we can commend or admire. There is no known fact about him that suggests a righteous man or a man of faith. If he had lived in David’s time, David could not have written his great testimony:
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. Psalm 37:25.
The reader can confirm all that has been said about these two men by carefully reading the words of the Lord. The honest seeker for truth cannot accept the idea that this is a story in which the righteous and wicked are set in contrast. There is nothing revealed concerning the rich man that even suggests great wickedness, and nothing revealed about the beggar that suggests righteousness. The rich man is no picture of a sinner. The beggar gives no picture of the saint.
Their Death
As the story continues we find that in course of time the poor man died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. Here greater questions present themselves. Is this an actual historical record? Are we to understand this literally? If not, then how is it to be understood? Did the angels actually carry the dead Lazarus? If one should say, “A man died in the street and friends carried him home” what would this mean? Shall we understand this to mean one thing and the statement concerning “the poor man” to mean another thing?
It is just at this point that those who insist on the historical reality of this passage want to inject the ideas of a “soul” or a “disembodied spirit.” But how does one carry a soul and why would a soul need to be carried? No such idea is conveyed by the words of our Lord. It was the poor man who was laid at the rich man’s gate, it was the poor man who died, and it was the poor man who was carried by the angels.
This is the first and only reference in the Bible to “Abraham’s bosom.” This term presents a new problem-one which many solve by saying that this is a new name for heaven or for paradise. But if this is true, why is it never used again? And if, as many insist, it speaks of some compartment in a mythological hades where the spirits of the righteous dead are supposed to be between death and resurrection, then why is it suddenly given this name? Further more, what was it called for several thousand years before the time of Abraham? Even the superficial student must admit that there is something strange about this term and its sole appearance in this passage.
Next, we are told that the rich man died and was buried. There are many who feel that the words of our Lord here need some polishing. They insist that it was not “the rich man” who died that it was the rich man’s body, and that the rich man was not buried only his body was buried.
After the declaration that the rich man died and was buried, we get a picture of his condition. “In hades he lift up his eyes, being in torments.” As the story continues we find that he is in the same general locality as Abraham and Lazarus, and that his sufferings are greatly intensified as he looks across a gulf and sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. From this it is seen that even though the distance between them was great, yet it was within seeing and speaking distance, since he saw them and carried on a conversation.
If the rich man could see them in bliss, then they must have been able to see him being tormented. And if, as some hold, his torments were shut off from their view, they could still hear him. In view of this can anyone believe that Abraham and Lazarus were supremely happy while they looked upon a man being tormented and heard his pleadings for a few drops of water. To hear a tormented man pleading for water would cause supreme distress to any sensitive person. Callused indeed would be the man who could be in bliss under these conditions. No wonder that those who hold to the literal interpretation of this portion conveniently arrange to close out hades as the place of both good and bad, and move the good to heaven within a few months after these words were spoken.
Those who can get joy out of the sufferings of others, those who can find pleasure in a scene of suffering, are sadistic. Sadism is one form of insanity. Can we believe that Abraham’s nature had been so changed that he could be in bliss while witnessing the sufferings of another and hearing his plea for some slight relief? I fully believe that my own nature is such that if I had been there, I would have made some attempt to alleviate this man’s suffering even if I had plunged into the great gulf in the attempt. I trust that I will always be willing to risk the loss of my own comforts if by so doing I can alleviate the sufferings of another.
Their Conversation
The conversation between the rich man and Lazarus is one of the strangest to be found in the Bible. The rich man seeing Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom called to him, addressed him as “Father Abraham” and pleaded with Abraham to have mercy on him. This causes many questions to arise: Why did he appeal to Abraham? Was Abraham the chief man in that place? Was Abraham tormenting him? Was Abraham withholding water from him? Did Lazarus have a finger that could be dipped into water? Did the rich man have a tongue that could be cooled by it?
The rich man did not cry out to God. His plea was to Abraham, and his strange plea becomes even more strange when it is considered in the light of Abraham’s answer. Abraham addressed the rich man as “Child”, and bade him remember that during his lifetime he had received his good things and that Lazarus had received his evil things, with the result that he is now comforted while the rich man is tormented.
This reply of Abraham presents a major problem. How strange it is that when this man appealed for mercy he was not reminded of any sin, wickedness or unbelief. He is not charged with idolatry, with having oppressed the poor, of being a robber of other men’s goods, of being a spoiler of orphans, or a persecutor of widows. The only reply that is made is that the rich man had received his good things during his lifetime so he is tormented now.
If Abraham’s statement means anything, if it teaches anything, then what else can it say but that positions are surely reversed in the life to come? But this is repugnant to every passage in the Word of God that sets forth the things that affect a man’s destiny. From Abraham’s lips came no accusations against the rich man, neither were there any words of praise for the beggar. Their cases are summed up in the statement that one got his good things during his lifetime while the other got his evil things. This statement of Abraham should cause some serious thought. It cannot be lightly brushed aside as having no bearing upon the suffering and bliss being experienced by these two. If it has no bearing upon the matter, Abraham should not have said it. If it is an “answer” that is “no answer”, our Lord would not have reported it.
As I consider it, I consider my own life, which I must regard as one that has been filled with good things. I would be ungrateful and unthankful to consider it otherwise. I was born in a good home, of good parents who loved me and cared for me. I did not have it as easy as children do today, yet my childhood was a happy one. My life as an adult has been filled with innumerable good things. I have enjoyed good health. My marriage has been a benediction.
But Abraham said, Child, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Luke 16:25.
We have every right to question why Abraham said this. Was he wasting words on such a solemn occasion? Why did he remind the rich man of something that had no relationship to his suffering? Why did he refer to something that had no bearing upon the bliss of Lazarus? The problem of why he said what he did is a major one, but it all becomes even more puzzling when we realize that these words were spoken by one who in his lifetime had been very rich (Genesis 13:2), and whose life had been filled with good things, even including personal dealings with God. Does it not seem absurd for a man whose life has been filled with good things to answer a man�s request for a few drops of water by reminding him that he had received his good things during his lifetime. If the rich man was to be reminded of the good things he had enjoyed, Abraham was the last one who should have assumed the task.
The rich man’s plea was refused on two grounds. The ground of previous good things and the ground of impossibility. Abraham points out that in addition to the fact that he had received good things, a vast chasm exists between them, “put there in order that those who desire to cross from this side to you may not be able nor any be able to cross from your side to us.”
After this refusal the rich man entered a plea to Abraham that Lazarus should be sent to his father’s house to testify to his five brothers lest they should come into this place of torment. Abraham answered this by telling the rich man that his five brothers had Moses and the prophets, that is, the Old Testament, and that they should hear them. The rich man objects that this is not sufficient, they require more than this; that they will believe if one return from the dead. Abraham answered that if they would not hear Moses and the prophets, they would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead. And so ends the story.
No Portrayal of God or Christ
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a familiar story. When it is referred to, the average Christian has some knowledge of it. It would be well if each one would ask himself just how this knowledge was gained. Did it come from prolonged meditation upon this passage? Or was this knowledge gained from sermons that were heard? It is often true that we are quite ignorant things with which we are quite familiar. We are inclined to form certain conceptions which afterwards are superimposed upon that which we may be observing or reading.
The statements that have been made so far in this study will probably open the eyes of many for the first time as to the real character of the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They have long imposed their own conceptions upon it and read their own ideas into it.
They vision it as presenting a great picture of God and Christ, of the home of the redeemed and the abode of the damned, of heaven and hell, of a great sinner and a great saint, of the great sinner in torment because of a life of evil, and the great saint in heaven because of a life of righteousness.
This is the picture which many seem to have pasted on their eyeglasses, and they put these on their eyes each time they read or speak upon this portion. But this picture is not in this story. It contains no hint of God, and there is no one in it who represents God. It contains no word concerning Christ or the work of Christ. No one in the story stands for or represents Christ. There is no sinner in it and there is no great saint. There is nothing in it that sets forth redemption or salvation, and no teaching as to how a man can be justified in the sight of God. The only doctrine it contains in regard to the cause of the rich man’s torment or the poor man’s bliss is repugnant to every revelation of God’s righteous dealings with mankind. It sets forth Abraham, himself a rich man, giving an irrelevant and meaningless answer to the rich man as he attributes his sufferings to be the result of a life of good things, of which Abraham’s own life was parallel.
These are the problems and difficulties that arise from prolonged meditation upon, and penetrating study of this passage. They demand that we discover some understanding of this portion so that they no longer exist. It is imperative that we discover the true character of this story and the real purpose of Christ in telling it. When we do, all difficulties and problems will vanish and this portion will shine forth with all the glory that God has given to His Word. This is the task that is now before us.
What is the Bible?
The Bible is the Word of God. I accept without question and fully believe in its plenary and verbal inspiration. I take second place to no man when it comes to believing that the Bible is God’s inspired Word. The more than forty years I have given to assiduously searching its pages permits me to speak with some authority in regard to its character. This Book is God’s thoughts reduced to writing.
When thought is reduced to writing it becomes literature. Therefore, the Bible is literature-literature in its highest and best form. It must always be treated as a literary production. Those who ignore this are either ignorant, or else they desire this to be a book that can be made to say what they desire it to say. That the Bible is literature can be seen from this simple illustration.
If one should visit the largest library in the world! there would be thousands of volumes in many languages. Yet, there are only eight kinds of words in all these books. Even so it is with the Bible. Every word in it is a noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, or interjection. These words are arranged in sentences according to established rules. This is called syntax. Every sentence has a subject and a predicate. In other words, the Bible says something. In doing so it uses the means of communication that are common to man.
In communicating ideas there are many ways of saying a thing. These ways of saying things are usually called literary forms or rhetorical devices. For example when things are said poetically, the literary form is poetry. If they are said ironically, the literary form is irony, and if they are said satirically, the literary form is satire. Then there are also such forms as fable (used so cleverly by Aesop), parable, allegory, humor, proverb, and many others. All of these rhetorical devices are found in the Bible. Some of them (like parable and allegory) are named in the Word itself. Most of them (such as poetry) are so evident that they can hardly be missed. Nevertheless, many of these are flagrantly ignored because someone wants to use a figurative passage in support of some doctrine which has no other support in the Word of God.
In the interpretation of any passage it is essential that we determine what literary form, if any, is being used. If we do not we will go astray. We must know how the Bible says things in order to know what is being said. With this end in view let us examine a few of the literary forms found in God’s Book.
First, and probably the most abundant of all, is the actual historical narrative. An example of this is seen in the record of the raising of Lazarus as set forth in John 11. Another is the slaying of Goliath by David as set forth in 1 Samuel 17.
Next there is poetry. David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah all used the poetical method to give their massages. The Psalms are quickly recognized as poetry, but many do not see this in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Much of the poetic character of these books is lost in the translation.
Then there is the parabolic method of speaking. “All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitude in parables,” is the divine description of this literary method (Matt. 13:34). The writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke abound in examples of this rhetorical device.
The Bible shows that some men spoke their message by means of fables. There are fables in the Bible. By “fable” I mean a narration intended to enforce a truth or precept, especially one in which animals, plants, or even inanimate objects speak and act like human beings. Jotham’s fable of the trees is the oldest in all literature (Judges 9:8-15). In fact both satire and fable come together in this narration6 . And even though it is told as though it actually happened, anyone who takes it to be literal history would come under the censure of Proverbs 26:7, which while spoken of a parable, is also true of fable, satire or allegory.
The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools .
On one occasion Paul used the allegorical method to give his message, as Galatians 4:22-31 will show.
There is both humor and irony in some of the statements made by Christ. But as J. B. Phillips, the translator, has said: “the unvarying solemnity of language makes it almost impossible for us to realize either the irony or the humor of some of the things Christ said.” Some of these ironical statements will be pointed out later.
That many literary forms are found in the Bible, none can deny. Our question is, therefore; What literary form is used in the story of the rich man and Lazarus?
Is Luke 16:19-31 Historical Narration
My conviction has already been stated that these words of Christ cannot be treated as a narration of actual history. Nevertheless, there are those who strongly insist that since our Lord said, “There was a certain rich man” and “there was a certain beggar named Lazarus” that these two men must have existed and that everything said about them must have happened.
In the Bible a narration or parable told for the purpose of pointing out an important truth can begin with the words “There was” without the speaker actually vouching for its literality. Several parables begin with these words, as can be seen in Matt. 21:33 and Luke 18:2. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Greek to support the words “there was” at the beginning of this story. It should read, “Now a certain man was rich.”
These words of our Lord could be a parable, a satire, a fable, or a suppositional story, but it is impossible for them to be a narration of actual history. Those who insist upon this will back down the moment they come to the details of the story.
Some will insist that if we do not accept this narrative as being literal history, we will be guilty of making void and destroying a portion of the Word of God. This reasoning is false, as can be easily demonstrated.
A man would be foolish indeed to accept the fable of the trees, as told by Jotham (see Judges 9:8-15) as being literal history, even though Jotham told the story as if it actually happened. Some may believe that the story told to King David by Nathan (2 Sam. 12:1-4) was actual history, but I do not. In fact David was quite sure that Nathan was reporting an actual occurrence until he called for the man to be put to death who had done this foul thing, and then Nathan said “Thou art the man.”
It does not dishonor the Word of God in the least to hold that these two men narrated events that never took place. Therefore, it does not dishonor the Word to hold that the events narrated in the story of the rich man and Lazarus never occurred. Let the diligent student read once again Judges 9:8-15, 2 Samuel 12:1-4 and Luke 16:19-31 and he will see the truth of this. Jotham told a suppositional story about trees and a bramble bush, and Nathan told a story about a poor man, a rich man and a lamb. These were told for the purpose of indicting and exposing the ones at whom their words were directed. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a suppositional story told by our Lord in order to indict, expose Pharisees and all in league with them.
Is Luke 16:19-31 A Parable?
Suppositional stories can be parables, but I do not believe that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. However, I would at this point repudiate the many foolish arguments that are advanced by some who also insist that this is not a parable. There is a marginal note in the Scofield Reference Bible (page 1098) that declares this is not a parable because, “In no parable is an individual named.” Yet as a chapter heading for Ezekiel 23 the Scofield Bible gives, “The parable of Aholah and Aholibah.” If there is any single passage in the Word that is manifestly a parable it is Ezekiel 23:1-4, and yet two names are given in it. “Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.” I think it would be well for all to read this portion, then cease forever the puerile argument that Luke 16:19-31 cannot be a parable because a man is named in it.
I have carefully considered the position, set forth by many teachers, that this story is a parable. Some have corresponded with me concerning this, and I have ever been sympathetic to their arguments. It is evident that they are seeking some honest method of understanding this story. They cannot accept this narrative as literal history, since this conception throws it into conflict with the entire Old Testament revelation concerning death, sheol, and the state of men between death and resurrection. However, many of them err in their attitude that if this is not literal history, then it must be a parable. They assume that there are only two literary forms in the Word of God.
Those who declare that this is a parable are forced to interpret it as a parable. Every attempt that has been made to do this has been wholly unsatisfactory. In many cases doctrines are manufactured to fit the things set forth. The Greek word parabole means to cast alongside, that is, a placing beside for the purpose of comparison. The story in a parable must be in all main points parallel to that which it is illustrating. Not everything in a parable needs to be a representation, and some things are inserted for the purpose of carrying along the story and linking together the points that do represent. This can be seen in the parable of the tares among the wheat where the men who slept, and the servants who inquired about the tares are passed over in the interpretation given by our Lord. days of my life.” Otis Sellers
"In seeking to interpret the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable, a great number of meanings have been set forth for the figures and actions in it. A composite of these interpretations would seem to be that the rich man represents faithless and selfish Israel; the fine clothing and sumptuous living is made to represent God’s great provision for that people, and Lazarus is made to stand for the publicans and sinners who were thrust outside of Israel’s blessing by those in control. The deaths of these two men is regarded as being Israel’s national death which affected alike all classes of the nation. The flames and torments are regarded as representations of Israel’s present sufferings.
Other interpretations follow different lines or differ in details. I have tried to consider all of these in my study of this portion, but find them to be inadequate, incomplete, forced, and quite often contrary to divine revelation. It is my conviction that to treat Luke 16:19-31 as a parable will only increase our difficulties, leave all our questions unanswered, and all our problems unsolved. It forces upon us the task of trying to show what each main character, event, action, and place represents. This is utterly impossible, especially when we come to the conversation between Abraham and the rich man, and the “five brethren” who were still on earth and not being tormented.
Again let it be said that if we reject the idea that this story is literal history, and also reject the idea that it is a parable, we have not yet exhausted all methods of interpreting it. There are many other rhetorical devices used in the Word of God.
Is Luke 16:19-31 A Satire
The word satire is a broad term and its meaning is hard to encompass in a brief definition. As used in this study satire means a literary form or rhetorical device, a type of writing or speaking, wherein a suppositional story is told the object of which is to hold up vices, follies, ideas, abuses or shortcomings to censure by means of ridicule. It is a literary form which is by most feebly understood, and it has fallen into disrepute due to those who have grossly abused the use of it. Nevertheless there are excellent examples of satire in its most exalted form in the Bible, and our knowledge of this rhetorical form can be greatly advanced by examining several of these.
The Satirical Fable in Judges 9:8-15
In order to appreciate any satire one must be completely familiar with the thing that is being satirized. This is a simple matter in the case of Jotham’s satire, for the actual event that caused it to be spoken as well as the background for the event is given in detail in Scripture.
The man Gideon had placed the people of Israel forever in debt to him because of his deliverance of them from the bitter bondage of the Midianites. His grateful countrymen offered to make him king but he declined. Nevertheless, he served Israel as captain and judge throughout his life. At the time of his death he had forty sons for he had many wives, also one son, Abimelech, by a concubine. After his death his good works were quickly forgotten and his house and family were sorely neglected.
Soon after his death Abimelech went to his mother’s brethren in Shechem and intimated that the forty sons of Gideon were going to take over the government of Israel. And, as is so often the case, he had a prearranged solution for the false alarm he had raised. He asked if it were better to be reigned over by forty or by one, and at the same time he suggested himself as the one who should be sole ruler in Israel.
His words that accompanied this suggestion remember also that I am your bone and your flesh were nothing more than a promise that they would all enrich themselves at public expense when he became king.
So the men of Shechem supplied him with money with which he hired some worthless and reckless followers, and in true dictatorial fashion he went to his father’s house at Ophrah and killed thirty-nine of his brethren upon one stone. Only one, Jotham by name, was able to hide himself and escape. Following this the men of Shechem made Abimelech king, and a report of this was brought to Jotham.
Upon hearing it Jotham went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim and cried aloud, “Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.” This man had something to say. His purpose was to hold up their sin to exposure, ridicule, and condemnation. The method he chose to do this resulted in one of the oldest and one of the finest satirical fables to be found in all literature. Consider his words:
The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.
But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees ?
And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Then said the trees unto the vine. Come thou, and reign over us.
And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.
And the bramble said unto the trees, If in a truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon. Judges 9:8-15.
It can be seen that if this satirical fable is treated as a parable, then we would need to find parallels for each symbol in it, the olive tree, the fig tree, the grape vine, and the bramble. Of course we will have no problem concerning the bramble as it points powerfully and directly to Abimelech, but the rest of this fable fits nothing in history as far as is known. However, if we consider this to be a suppositional story told in a satirical manner then we are not required to find parallels for the leading actors and events in the story.
In fact this story in no way fits the course of Abimelech. The men of Shechem had not gone out looking for a strong and good man to be king over them, then upon being refused by three such men, offer the kingship to an incompetent as a final resort. It was Abimelech that sought the position; the position did not seek him. It was not a case of the bramble being asked by the trees, but just the reverse. Therefore, we cannot treat this as a parable, as Scofield suggests in his marginal notes; it must be recognized as a satiric fable. Some will even be able to detect a humorous strain in it when the bramble bush is made to say to the trees, “then come and put your trust in my shadow.” Imagine, if you can, a cedar of Lebanon finding refuge from the hot sun in the shade of a bramble.
Nathan’s Satirical Narration
We read of this in 2 Samuel 12:1-4: And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had brought up and nourished up: and it grew together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
This story is mild satire, told to expose and rebuke King David. It is not harsh like Jotham’s fable as its purpose is to correct and bring about improvement. Scofield states that this also is a parable, but such a conception creates impossible difficulties. In this story the outstanding event is the killing of the poor man’s lamb. Without this there would be no story, but there is nothing in the great sin of David that is parallel to this. It is a simple matter to say as some do that the rich man represents David, the poor man represents Uriah, the “exceeding many flocks” of the rich man represents David’s numerous wives, and that the one little ewe lamb represents Bathsheba, the only wife of Uriah. However, at this point in the story all representations go awry since it was Uriah (the poor man) who was killed, and Bathsheba (the little ewe lamb) became the wife of David. If this were a parable then the story would probably have been that the rich man murdered the poor man, stole his lamb and added it to his numerous flocks.
A very important principle is seen in this. The flow of a parable must always be in harmony with that to which it is parallel, but in satire there is no such need. A satire is more free since it is not illustrating. Since it points to things but does not represent, it is at liberty to take off in any direction. It does not need to run parallel with that which it is exposing. Once we recognize that in the story of the rich man and Lazarus our Lord was speaking satirically, all difficulties will disappear. However, before we give this detailed consideration, several other principles related to our Lord’s words must be established.
Elijah on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18:17-41
An important principle in divine revelation can be found in the record of Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. Elijah seems to have been amused at the great physical efforts put forth by the prophets of Baal in order to stir up their god and cause him to act. He taunted them with these words of mockery and sarcasm: And it came to pass at noon that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awakened. 1 Kings 18:27.
Would anyone care to say that Elijah was serious in this advice, that he actually believed that Baal may have been in conference, on a hunting trip, or taking a journey? Could his statements be used to show that he believed that a god called Baal actually existed, and that he would answer if he were aroused from his preoccupation? Of course not!
These are words spoken in mockery, and they demonstrate that one of the greatest of all God’s prophets made effective use of this sharp weapon to cut down the pretensions of those who worshipped Baal and who rejected the true God. And since it is true that Elijah used the verbal weapons of sarcasm and mockery to demolish these false prophets, then it presents no problem when we find that our Lord used weapons like these against those who loved money, who served mammon, and who made the Word of God void by their traditions. Correct handling of the Word of God means that we must recognize the true character of Elijah’s statements. How unjust to him it would be to label his words, “Elijah’s conception of Baal.”
Careful study of the rhetorical devices used in the Word of God will show that when men deal in sarcasm, irony, or satire they may say things which are not at all expressions of what they believe.
The Ironical Statements of Christ
In the words of Christ we find certain statements that are sarcastic, ironical, and satirical and should not be regarded as expressions of what He believed or taught.
For example, the Pharisees came to the Lord in Perea, Herod’s country east of Jordan, and said: “Get thee out and depart from thence for Herod will kill you.” (Luke 13:31). They represented this information as coming straight from Herod, and their purpose was to frighten Him from Galilee into Judea where He would be more in the power of the Sanhedrin which they controlled. In reply He told them to go tell that fox that He had three days of beneficent works yet to do and would remain in Perea until His purpose had come to a full end. Then He added: For it cannot be that a prophet should perish anywhere except in Jerusalem. Luke 13:33.
This statement is ironical. Its humorous sarcasm should not be missed. Actually a prophet could perish anywhere if people turned against him. But so many prophets had been slain in Jerusalem, that our Lord infers that this city has a virtual monopoly on killing prophets. Thus our Lord states that He feels safe as long as He is in Herod’s country, since prophets have a place where they perish, namely Jerusalem. How it must have stung the self-righteous Pharisees who controlled everything in Jerusalem for our Lord to say He felt secure in Herod’s country since the only place a prophet could perish was in a city controlled by them .
False conceptions of Christ, based mostly upon the stylized character depicted in stained-glass windows and religious pictures, have caused many to feel that He was a listless man who never showed real physical or mental energy. But He who lashed the money changers with a scourge or cords, lashed the Pharisees again and again with a scourge of words.
There were times when our Lord took the very words of men, even though false, and turned them back upon them. If men are to be held responsible for their words, then He who will hold them responsible has the right to use these words against them11 .
This is seen in one of His parables.
Parable of the Pounds-Luke 19:11-27
As the Lord traveled toward Jerusalem, His disciples knew that His presence in that city would create a major crisis. Hopefully they supposed among themselves that the kingdom of God would immediately be manifested, solving all their problems. In view of this He spoke a parable about a certain nobleman who went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Upon his departure he called his ten slaves and delivered to them equal sums of money with the instruction that they should engage in some business enterprise until he returned.
There can be no doubt but that this nobleman represents the Lord Jesus. Passing over some of the details in this parable, let us consider the case of the slave who kept his pound wrapped in a handkerchief. His explanation of his failure to transact any business with the money trusted to him was:
For I feared thee, because thou are an austere (harsh) man: thou takest up that thou layest not down and reapest that thou didst not sow. (Luke 19:21)
The slave’s estimate of his lord was that he was mean and grasping, also a thief; for he who picks up what he did not lay down or reaps what he did not sow ignores the simplest requirements of honesty.
His lord did not deny the accusation or bother to refute it. He accepted the slave’s declared estimate of his character and said: Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked slave. Thou knewest that I was a harsh man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping what I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required my own with usury? Luke 19:22, 23.
It is evident that we can build no doctrine concerning the character of Christ upon this statement. Even though the nobleman in this parable is a representation of our Lord, we repudiate any conception of Him that might be based upon these words. Did He not declare in another place that He was meek and lowly in heart? Did He not instruct His own disciples to “lend, hoping for nothing again” (Luke 6:35) ? Did He not say that He came not to get but to give? It is from statements such as these that we form our conceptions of His character, not from Luke 19:22, 23.
These words were not spoken for teaching. They were spoken to reveal the utter falsity of the wicked slave’s position. His master was not this kind of man, and the slave did not believe him to be. He claimed he acted out of fear, but the truth is that he was lazy. If he had really believed his lord to be grasping and dishonest,he would have felt assured that he would welcome the opportunity to get some exorbitant interest. my life has been filled with good things, the life to come must be filled with evil things? And, if my life had been just the reverse, filled with sorrow and evil from the day of my birth, would this indicate that the life to come will be filled with good things?
I am sure that if my reader is instructed in the Word of God he will agree that the good things we have during this life, or the lack of good things, have no bearing upon the life to come. Our future is settled by our relationship to God through Jesus Christ. If a man enters into life, it will not be because of poverty, and if he goes into destruction, it will not be because he was rich.
In this parable the nobleman is made to speak with sarcastic irony. From it we learn that we can expect Christ to take the words of others, even though they be false, and turn them back upon the one who uttered them. There is much of this very thing in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
Prolonged study of this portion which has extended over a period of many years, during which I have read and considered most of the available material that has been written on this portion, has resulted in the following three convictions:
1.This story is not a record of literal history, not even of literal history couched in figurative language.
2.This story is not a parable. My reasons for this conviction have already been stated.
3.This is a suppositional story. The events set forth here never happened. The literary device used by our Lord here is pure satire. In fact we have in this story one of the finest pieces of satirical speaking to be found in all literature. Furthermore, it is a scrupulously fair satire-something which can hardly be found, if at all, in secular writings.
As suggested before, a basic necessity for successful satire is that the reader or hearer be familiar with that which is being satirized. This satire of our Lord was instantly intelligible to His hearers in the days when these words were spoken. They were quite familiar with their own wicked principles and purposes even though these were hidden from others. They knew they were being scourged with their own rods. Yet any objection they might have raised or any answer they might have given would have served only to show openly that they understood what the Lord was rebuking and that the truth had reached its goal.
However, while this satire was instantly intelligible to those at whom it was directed, it is not at all intelligible to the average reader today. His complete unfamiliarity with and misunderstandings about the conditions that existed and the things taught by the Pharisees in that day will mislead him into thinking that this story is a historical narrative, or a parable.
Since appreciation of any satire depends upon some degree of familiarity with the thing being satirized, it is evident that the satirical story about the rich man and Lazarus cannot be understood by those who are ignorant of the situations and conditions that caused these words to be spoken. Steps must be taken to correct the ignorance that exists concerning these. Since many of these same conditions still exist today, this satire has not lost its message of exposure and rebuke.
The Hearers
It will be helpful if we fix in our minds certain well defined groups to whom the words of Christ were spoken. These can be listed on the basis of their nearness to (or, distance from) Christ.
1. THE THREE. This group was made up of Peter, James, and John. It was to them that the Lord granted the most intimate revelation and visions. See Luke 9:28.
2. THE TWELVE. These were His disciples who became apostles. They represent all who were learners in the school of Christ. To these he gave revelations that were simple and expedient. If He used a parable in teaching them, He gladly explained it at their request.
3. THE PEOPLE. As described by Luke, this group was made up of those who listened to His words and considered them diligently. They were taught by Him, and they heard Him gladly, but they were never given as much as were the disciples. Further light for them depended upon them taking their place as disciples.
4. THE MULTITUDE. This was the careless, confused mob. They were the sensation seekers of their day. They trailed after Christ to see His miracles, to be with the crowd, to get a meal, or just to see what might happen.
They accepted no teaching, they rejected no teaching. They did not know what they desired. To them our Lord never spoke without a parable (Matt. 13:34).
This does not mean that every word spoken to them was a parable, but that in speaking to them He always included a parable in the message. It is as if we should say of a speaker: “He always uses illustrations, and never fails to use an illustration when speaking.”
5. THE PHARISEES. This party dominated and controlled a group in Israel which included the Sadducees, scribes, and priests. They formed the aristocracy in Israel. This group controlled all life and thought in Israel. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were doctrinally opposed to each other, but they were united in their enmity toward Christ. Since the story of the rich man and Lazarus was pointed at the Pharisees and their associates, it is essential that consideration be given to their beliefs, practices, and character.
The Pharisees
Of the three sects in Judaism at the time of Christ, the Pharisees were the most powerful. The actual group is believed to have numbered only about six thousand, but this was the inner circle. In the Gospels the scribes and Pharisees are constantly mentioned in the same connection, and in such manner as to imply that they formed the same party. The strength of their influence was such that they dominated everything in Israel. They controlled the Sanhedrin, the priesthood, the civil courts, and all Jewish society. The Sadducees opposed them, but their opposition was so weak that the Pharisees tolerated it, knowing that the conservative Sadducees would not push it too far, and that they had sufficient power to crush it at any time.
The Pharisees had arrogated to their party all the right and authority that God had vested in the kings of Israel. They were a plutocratic oligarchy exercising all the kingly powers. This explains why the royal family was so insignificant when Christ was born in the household of Joseph. The Pharisees had taken to themselves the real work of the priests, that of teaching the people, leaving the priests to carry on the empty ritual, which without true instruction was devoid of any meaning.
The inspired record in the four Gospels tells us much about the Pharasaic character. They were described by John the Baptist as being a generation of vipers (Matt. 3:7); they made use of calumny in dealing with those whom they opposed (Matt. 9:34); they did not hesitate to murder to accomplish their ends and maintain their power (Matt. 12:14); they rejected all signs given by the Lord then demanded a special sign be given to them (Matt. 12:38); they transgressed the commandments of God by their traditions (Matt. 15:2); they were hypocrites (Matt. 23:3); all their works were done to be seen of men (Matt. 23:5); they devoured widow’s houses, then made long prayers in presence (Matt. 23:14); they were lovers of money (Luke 16:14); and they rejected the commandments of God in order that they might maintain their own traditions (Mark 7:9).
Having made void the Word of God, the Pharisees had adopted most of the platonic philosophy concerning the nature of man. From a mixture of Greek ideas and old Egyptian and Babylonian myths they had developed a doctrine of purgatory and of prayers for the dead. Josephus declares that the Pharisees taught that every soul is incorruptible, that only the souls of good men pass over into another body, while those of the wicked are punished with eternal suffering. They held that there is an immortal vigor in souls, and that under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have lived virtuously or viciously in this life.
Their shameful treatment of the poor in Israel shows that they loved only themselves and not the people or the country of Israel. Long before the time of Christ the wealthy and ruling classes were taken to task by the prophets for their cruel and unjust treatment of the poor. The Pharisees held that the distinctions between poor and rich were part of God’s plan, and they made poverty to be a virtue that would be rewarded with wealth in the life to come. The Sadducees on the other hand had worked into their beliefs the idea that poverty was a crime, and that to be poor was evidence of the displeasure of God.
One of the worst features of the Pharasaic system was the expulsion or excommunication from the life of Israel of those who had transgressed. At times their acts may have had some justification, but the Pharisees had carried it so far that once a man came under their strictures, there was no possible way for him to get back again into the life of Israel. These were the “sinners”, so often mentioned in the gospel records. As a rule they were guilty of nothing more than refusal to bow down to the despotic power exercised by the ruling clique of the Pharisees.
Once a man brought down upon himself the wrath of the Pharisees, there was no hope of pardon. They never forgave him. Once excluded and branded as a sinner, no one dared to help him, or to do business with him. The testimony of “sinners” was not valid in courts, and if anyone wronged them, they had no recourse to law. They stood, in their miserable condition, as examples of what happened to any who challenged the position or claims of the Pharisees.
In their distress many of them were forced to do business with or collaborate with the Roman occupation forces. This paid them well, especially if they became tax-collectors (publicans). This explains why publicans and sinners are often linked together in one group. They were shunned as traitors in Israel. Nevertheless, their real character is seen in the fact that many of them became the first disciples of John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ.
When Christ came and started to teach the people, He, in so doing, challenged the Pharisees assumption that they alone were the teachers in Israel. When He presented His credentials, which were the gracious miracles He performed, they stepped into the arena to challenge Him. They could not match His wisdom so they plotted to destroy Him (Matt. 12:14). They refused to yield to anyone even one grain of the authority they had gathered to themselves. Their attitude toward Him was summed up in the words spoken by Christ: But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. Mark 12:7.
When the Pharisees appeared at the baptism of John, he wasted no time trying to change them, but branded them immediately as a “generation of vipers.” Jesus Christ called them whitewashed graves, hypocrites, serpents, children of Gehenna, thieves and murderers.
One important principle that must be kept in mind in studying the story of the rich man and Lazarus is that these words were spoken to the implacable enemies of Christ, the Pharisees. They were spoken to men whose doom was sealed when they charged that Christ performed His miracles by the power by Beelzebub the prince of devils. In doing this they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and committed the sin that had no forgiveness (Matt. 12:22-32). These words were spoken to men who were rigidly set against the will of God. Therefore, no revelation of truth was given to them (John 7:16, 17). And since this story is not a revelation of God’s truth, it has to be an answer to, a rebuke, an expose of the Pharisees. In other words, it is not a revelation of truth about future life, of the state of the dead, of future punishment or future bliss; but it is an expose of the base and warped ideas, principles, and practices of the Pharisees. Since satire is a type of writing or speaking, the object of which is to hold up vices and follies for ridicule and reprobation, then this is satire pure and simple. With these facts in mind we are ready to resume consideration of the story spoken by our Lord in the presence of the Pharisees.
The Occasion of the Story
It has been said that this story has always erroneously been considered “as a sort of an island in the Lucan narrative, cut off from the mainland of the Gospel, and having no necessary connection with its surroundings.” Those who regard it as such exclude all light that the context may throw upon the passage.
The key to the character of this story and to its meaning and purpose is found in the material that precedes it.
We must eliminate all man-made fences, such as chapter divisions and paragraph headings, from this portion of Scripture and begin our studies at the point where the Lord began to speak, then follow through to His last word on this occasion. The record begins at Luke 14:25 and continues without interruption to Luke 17:10. Every word spoken has a bearing upon the meaning, character and purpose of the story. It is evident that our Lord never moved out of His place while He spoke the words recorded between the two references just mentioned. It was the longest battle our Lord ever fought with the Pharisees.
As the scene opens in Luke 14.:25-35 our Lord is seen speaking to the multitude that followed Him. His words to them consisted of one dark saying and three parables.
The closing words of His last parable spoken to the multitude were, “men cast it out.” While these words were spoken of the savorless salt, they seem to have caught the ear and made an impression upon the publicans and sinners, for this was what the despotic aristocracy in Israel had done to them.
And since these words were followed by an invitation to those who had ears to make use of them, all the publicans and sinners drew near to Him in order to hear.
This scandalized and enraged the Pharisees since Jesus was receiving men whom they rejected and ostracized. They had assumed all the rights of kings and priests in Israel, but in no way did they accept the responsibilities toward others that were set forth in the shepherd and mediator character of kings and priests. The Pharisees never sought a sinner, and never brought one back to God. Between the aristocracy and the sinners there was a vast chasm that none of the people could cross and none of the Pharisees would cross. They maintained this irrevocable separation by their teachings. They insisted God had given them their place and only God could take it away. Our Lord ignored this caste system and went to the aid of those they had branded as sinners. This brought out their deepest hatred. They could not tolerate anyone alleviating the harsh punishments they had imposed upon certain men. They justified their lack of mercy by claiming that God was harsh, therefore they had to be.
When the publicans and sinners drew near to hear the Lord, the Pharisees and scribes began to murmur and to hurl their accusations (Luke 15:1, 2). And it seems that the publicans and sinners, long used to deferring to the Pharisees and desiring to spare the Lord any embarrassment that their nearness might cause, began to withdraw themselves from His presence. But His great love for the lost could not permit this, so our Lord spoke a parable to the Pharisees in the hearing of the publicans and sinners. This parable had two purposes-to rebuke and expose the Pharisees and to offer encouragement and hope to the publicans and sinners.
This parable is in three parts. There is a story about a lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7), a lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), and a lost son (Luke 15:12-32). Each part rebukes and exposes the Pharisees and offers encouragement and hope to the sinners in Israel.
While the story of the lost sheep is a parable, we should not miss the fact that the story is satirical. Many will never see this, since this parable is usually treated in a superficial manner. Hundreds of ideas have been preached into this passage, resulting in the most astounding importations. Every statement and every word has been loaded with extravagant fancies, many of which have their origin in Dr. Sankey’s well-known hymn about the “ninety and nine that safety lay in the shelter of the fold.” This line has no real foundation in this parable. The importation of such ideas blinds the minds to the satirical character of this story which so effectually exposes the sordid miserliness of the Pharisees. To expose and rebuke their inordinate love for material possessions is the purpose of this parable. The word shepherd does not occur in it.
The question, “What man of you having an hundred sheep?” is directed at the Pharisees. When faced with the loss of one sheep their greed is so aroused that they leave the ninety-nine shepherdless in the wilderness and open to the attacks of wild beasts. Sheep were common in Israel. They were an article of commerce, and any man that risked ninety-nine to get back one that had strayed revealed a cupidity that cannot tolerate the thought of losing one bit of anything already possessed. Furthemore, the idea of a man calling together his friends and neighbors to rejoice with him over the recovery of a lost sheep is amusing, to say the least. Such actions would be quite proper if a child had been lost and found, but they are preposterous in the case of sheep. A covetous man would think that all should respond to his invitation to rejoice, but there must have been one who said, “If that is all the party is about, I’m not going.”
Our Lord used a parable somewhat like this in Matthew 18:11-14, and it is to this that we should go for a great picture of the seeking Savior. In this parable all satirical elements are omitted. This was spoken to His disciples, not to the Pharisees.
However, in Luke 15 the statement about “ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” is pure satire which borders on sarcasm. There was no such thing in Israel as a just person who needed no repentance, but the Pharisees regarded themselves as such. The Lord Jesus took their assumed position, put it into words, then used these words in His satire against them.
The story of the lost coin is a further rebuke to the Pharisees (Luke 15:8-10). It emphasizes what He has already said. Their attitude toward a lost animal or a lost coin was one thing. Their attitude toward a lost sinner was something quite different. The addition of the story about the lost coin demonstrates that their search for the lost sheep was not due to their love for dumb animals since they showed the same care toward a piece of money. It was preposterous for the woman in this story to invite her friends and neighbors to rejoice with her over the recovery of a lost coin. It is normal for anyone to seek a lost coin, even to seek for it diligently if the value warrants it, but to call for people to rejoice over it is absurd. But it is only by a preposterous story that preposterous acts and attitudes can be satirized.
There could be no joy among the Pharisees over a sinner that repented, but there was joy in the presence of the angels of God. The Pharisees made diligent search for lost animals or lost coins, but never for a man. They esteemed animals and coins to be of more value than men.ect to understand this satire.e rich man in answer to his plea for mercy.e entitled to all the blessings and privileges which were given to Abraham and his seed. So here, one of them is represented as saying, Father Abraham. Three times he calls him father, as though to lay claim to these blessings and privileges (vv. 24, 27, 30). And the point of the Lord’s teaching is this, that the first time Abraham speaks, he is made to acknowledge the natural relationship – Son, he says (v. 25). But he repudiates the Pharisee’s title to any spiritual favor on that account. He does not use the word Son again. Abraham is represented as repudiating the Pharisee’s claim to anything beyond natural relationship. He may be related to him according to the flesh, but there is no closer relationship, though the Pharisee continues to claim it. So the Lord does not make Abraham repeat the word son again; though the rich man twice more calls Abraham Father.
This understanding of the passage is, therefore, in strictest harmony with the whole of the immediate context, and with all other Scriptures which bear upon this subject. It was quite unnecessary for the Lord to stop to explain for us the sense in which He used this tradition, because it was so contrary to all the other direct statements of Scripture, that no one ought for a moment to be in doubt as to what is the scope of the Lord’s teaching here. No previous knowledge of Pharisaic traditions is necessary for the gathering of this scope. But as this is the conflict between tradition and Scripture, the evidence from the Talmud comes in, and may well be used to strengthen our interpretation.
No! the Lord was at the crisis of His condemnation of the Pharisees for their false traditions which made the Word of God of none effect, and He makes use of those very teachings, adapting them to the great end of condemning them out of their own mouth.
The story of the prodigal son portrayed the sinners in Israel. In it there is no condoning or excusing of their sins. All satire and sarcasm is left out, as it would be out of harmony with His expressed attitude toward them. His statement about the prodigal “joining himself to a citizen of that country” in order to avoid starving is probably a veiled reference to the fact that some in Israel were forced by want to take the demeaning labor of collecting the burdensome taxes imposed by the Romans. No greater or more positive words of encouragement could have been given to the publicans and sinners than those contained in the story of the prodigal son.
The record of the elder son (Luke 15:25-32) sets forth the attitude of the Pharisees. The younger son was lost in the far country but this one is lost in his own father’s house. The reception given the younger son caused all the hardness of the self-righteous brother to boil to the surface. From boasting about himself he turns to blame for his father.
The parable ends abruptly, and rightly so. No application is made. It is left to the Pharisees to make their own application. One is prone to wish they had asked the Lord, “What did that brother do in answer to his father’s appeal?”
All these words were spoken to the Pharisees in the hearing of the publicans and sinners. But our Lord is not yet through with the Pharisees. Without leaving His place He turned to His disciples and spoke to them in the presence of the Pharisees. The story He told them is one of the strangest to be found in the Bible, but it is the real key to the character of the story of the rich man and Lazarus which follows it. Therefore, it must be examined with care.
Luke 16:1-8
1 And He said also unto His disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5 So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
8 And the Lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
This strange story has perplexed Bible students throughout the entire Christian era. It is quite reasonable and believable as far as the seventh verse, but when the eighth verse is added, it becomes unbelievable, preposterous, and absurd. However, this is what our Lord intended it to be since absurd ideas and principles can be satirized only by means of an absurd story. The absurdity is all the more glaring if the story is paraphrased so that it appears in modern dress.
A certain man of great wealth and many holdings had a business manager who was in charge of all his affairs, and a report was brought to him that this manager was wasting his possessions. So he summoned him, questioned him concerning this, and finally told him to prepare a complete audit of his dealings, as he did not consider him fit to manage his affairs any longer. This greatly troubled the manager, for he did not know what he would do for future employment. His record of dishonesty would follow him and bar him from a like position, he was not physically able to do hard labor, and he was too proud to beg. The future seemed entirely black.
Thinking it over he hit upon a scheme to make quickly some friends and put them under obligation to him, all at his employer’s expense, so that when he was discharged, they would have to find a place for him in their establishments.
Putting his plan into action, he called in everyone that owed his employer money. The first one who came owed ten thousand dollars, so the manager told him to take his contract and write a new one for five thousand. The second one owed four thousand, so he told him to take his contract in exchange for a new one showing an indebtedness of two thousand, and so on down the entire list. They were very glad to do this, and they thanked the manager for it, telling him that they would be glad to return the favor if they could ever do so.
When the wealthy man discovered what his crooked manager had done, he commended him for acting so shrewdly in looking after his own interests and continued him in his position at a good increase in salary.
Whether we read it in the King James Version or recast it into modern language, the story is still absurd. Such a thing never happened, and it never will happen. This steward worked these creditors into a position where he would be able to blackmail them into supplying all his needs when his position was gone. They are parties to a crime, a conspiracy to defraud, to illegally enrich themselves at the expense of another. No employer will ever commend a man for such crooked dealings. A man of the world would never believe that such a thing would happen. Nevertheless, there were some who were supposed to be “the children of light” who were actually believing that such a thing was going to happen in their dealings with God. How true it is that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
The Lord’s story about the dishonest steward was told in order to expose the preposterous and absurd position of the scribes and the Pharisees. They controlled everything in Israel, but they used their position and power to bring gain to themselves. They discounted every requirement of God in order to make friends for themselves and to perpetuate their own systems and powers. They looked with pride and satisfaction upon their accomplishments, and actually thought they were commended by God since they were commended by men. They were out of favor with God, so they used the things of God to secure favor with men.
Our Lord laid bare their ridiculous position by telling a ridiculous story. It is a masterpiece of satire. No stronger rebuke could have been spoken. He summed it all up by calling to their attention the obvious fact that even men of the world would not believe that an employer, who planned to discharge a man for unfaithfulness, would change his mind and commend him when he became guilty of still greater unfaithfulness. No man of the world would ever believe this, but the scribes and Pharisees, who regarded themselves as children of light (John 9:41), acted as if they believed it. He put their principles into words and lashed them with this story.
This is then followed by one of the most ironic statements in the Bible.
And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations. Luke 16:9.
Many and varied have been the attempts to explain these words. Ingenious translations have been worked out in order to try to bring this statement of our Lord into harmony with His later statement, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” There is no need to do this. The difficulty here is man-made. This passage does not set forth a moral precept. Failure to recognize that the mode of expression here is irony has caused much confusion. In irony the meaning of the words is directly opposite to that which is literally stated. These words are parallel in character with the declaration of God found in Judges 10:14.
Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.
The disciples did not take His words as a moral precept. They knew they had already made friends of the One who alone could receive them into everlasting habitations (John 6:68).
The Lord continues speaking to His disciples, but the character of His words change to literal truth. All satire and irony is dropped, but every statement is a barbed shaft pointed at the Pharisees. They are to hear what He literally taught His disciples. This is what He says to them.
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:10-13.
Luke informs us that “the Pharisees also, who were covetous heard all these things.” (Luke 16:14). He was not even speaking to them, yet they got the meaning of His satirical and ironical remarks. They knew better than anyone else the things He was satirizing. They could not deny the truth of His words so they sought vain relief in bitter derision of the One who spoke them.
It was their love of money that prompted this derision of Him. In fact the love of money was behind most of their acts. Their love of praise was strong, their love of attention was stronger (Matt. 23:5), but their love of money was strongest of all. Love of God, love of parents, or love of mankind would never move them, but love of money would cause them to act every time. There were no appeals that could cause them to untie the strings of their purses. Many of the teachings were devised for the purpose of getting more money or holding on to what they had. A Scriptural example will illustrate this.
The law said “Honor thy father and thy mother; and who so curseth (dishonors) father and mother, let them die the death.” In view of this it would seem that if the parents of a Pharisee were in want that parental love would rise above their love of money. But this was not so. To keep from supporting their parents they had promulgated a teaching where all they had to do was say to their parents “It is Corban”, that is, that all their money was dedicated to God and therefore could not be used to relieve destitute parents. According to their teaching this freed them from all obligation to their parents. See Mark 7:9-13.
This derision of Him by the Pharisees as stated in Luke 16:14, caused the Lord to interrupt His message and to speak directly to them. Luke records His words which I will paraphrase in order to expand them. This is what I believe He meant (Luke 16:15-17).
You deride me and scoff at me, but you cannot deny the absurdity of your teachings, neither can you deny the charges I have brought against you. You have perverted the Word of God in order to justify yourselves and your acts before men, but God knows your hearts. By dealing unjustly with the oracles of God you have gained the esteem of men, but your acts which are highly esteemed among men are detestable in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were God’s means of dealing with Israel until John, but you have made the commandments of God ineffective by your traditions. Since John the Baptist the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is showing great enthusiasm for it, but not you. You lock the doors of the kingdom of God against men. You will not go in yourselves, neither will you allow those who purpose to enter to go in (Matt. 23:13). But I tell you it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for the minutest part of the law to fail. Consider this one example. It is true that God through Moses permitted divorce and gave the grounds for it. But you have degraded this in order to fulfill your own desires. You have worked out a system to get around God’s law and in your own eyes be free from the sin of adultery. Nevertheless the law stands and all who accept your teachings concerning divorce, then enters into relationship with another woman is guilty of adultery.
The interruption caused by their sneerings did not bring an end to His message. His words to His disciples are only momentarily suspended. After His direct rebuke to the Pharisees the onward flow is resumed. Other things are yet to be exposed and rebuked.
By the preposterous story about the unjust steward our Lord exposed the ridiculous practices of the Pharisees who discounted the righteous claims and requirements of God. They did this in order to make friends for themselves and to perpetuate their own system. But this was only one of their absurd actions. Our Lord referred to these when He said in Mark 7:13: “And many such like things ye do.” In continuing His discourse our Lord exposes and lays bare a number of these things. They are quite evident in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Some of these are:
1.Their assumption of the position and rights that God had ordained for the king in Israel.
2.Their intrusion into the priest’s office. They had taken over the chief work of the priests-that of teaching-leaving the priests to perform the empty ritual
3.The luxurious and magnificent style in which they lived at a time when most of Israel was suffering great hardship due to the Roman occupation.
4.Their shameful neglect of the poor in Israel in direct violation of God’s instructions in Deuteronomy 15:7-11.They justified this by their teachings.
5.Their harsh treatment of the sinners in Israel.
6.Their teaching that at death certain angels carried good men to a place which they called “Abraham’s bosom,” while others were taken to a place where “temporary punishments” were meted out to them “agreeable to everyone’s behavior and manners.” They held that poverty and hunger were God’s punishments upon men while they were upon earth, and if men accepted their punishment without complaint they would not need to pay for these sins in the future. They held that riches were a sign of God’s favor, and that poverty was evidence of His displeasure. They claimed that if they helped the poor they would be acting contrary to God.
7.The caste system which they had established in Israel and which they rigidly maintained.
8.Their idea that God would speak to them in a special way, and not in the manner in which He spoke to the common people. They were so exalted in their own minds that they rejected the idea of God speaking to them in the same signs He gave to others. This is seen in their actions of demanding a sign from heaven immediately after the Lord had fed four thousand from a supply that was hardly enough for one man.
9.Their teaching that if a man received evil things in this life, he would receive good things in the life to come. This teaching was concocted by the rich rulers in order to keep the poor in subjection. It was a “pie in the sky” sort of doctrine which was intended to keep the hungry from demanding bread here and now. The Pharisees never followed this teaching out to all its conclusions. Our Lord in His satire made this teaching a “two way” street.
These are some of the things taught and (whenever convenient) practiced by the Pharisees. They are woven throughout the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. Many of them will be found in the history written by Josephus15 . Many of them will be seen in the things censured and condemned by our Lord. These are the things exposed, ridiculed, and rebuked by our Lord in the satirical story of the rich man and Lazarus.
The Rich Man and Lazarus
There was a certain rich man. This character in the Lord’s story points to the aristocratic ruling class in Israel. This was composed of Pharisees, Sadducees, priests, and scribes. The word rich in Scripture does not refer exclusively to those who had money. It described a class of men, a definite caste. A place in it was usually hereditary. An idea of the general character of those in this caste can be gained from such passages as James 2:5, 6 and 5:1-6. This caste system was rigidly maintained in Israel. The gulf between rich and poor had no bridges, and the rich would permit none to be built.
Which was clothed in purple. The word purple describes a cloth which was customarily worn by kings. The kingly claims of our Lord were mocked by clothing Him in purple (John 19:2). The statement that this rich man was clothed in purple points to the fact that an aristocratic class in Israel had assumed the place of kings. They had assumed the authority while disregarding altogether the responsibilities that God had laid upon rulers in Israel. “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” 2 Sam. 23:3. The ruling class in Israel was tyrannical and oppressive. They were not just, they did not rule in the fear of God, and they lacked entirely the shepherd character that God expected of those who governed His people.
And fine linen. This was the garment worn by the priests in Israel. It points to the fact that a clique in Israel controlled the priesthood and had assumed the chief prerogative of the priests, that of teaching the people. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat,” was the Lord’s words concerning them (Matt. 23:2). His words stated a fact, but they do not admit the right of these men to Moses’ seat. They were not called to this seat as Moses had been. He assumed that seat reluctantly, but these men had assumed his seat of their own accord and were determined to hold it. They were self-appointed usurpers and acted as though their pronouncements were as binding as the revelations God gave to Moses. They taught precepts and bound them upon others but would not apply them to themselves. “They say, and do not” (Matt. 23:3 ) .
And fared sumptuously every day. This points to the splendid manner in which the rich ruling class in Israel lived. Their position shielded them from the oppression and sufferings which most Israelites had to bear because of the Roman occupation.
And there was a certain beggar. This character is brought into the story to point to the poor in Israel. In English the word poor is used to emphasize the poverty of the person or persons so described, but in the Hebrew and Greek the prominent idea is that of the ill-treated or miserable. Even though the poor were often, no doubt, persons in need, they were primarily those suffering from some kind of social disability or distress. Passages such as Amos 8:4; Isa. 3:14-15; 10:1, 2; 32: 7, Ezek. 16:49; 22:29, show the poor to be those who were oppressed by a high-handed and cruel aristocracy. In the writing of the prophets we find that the wealthy, ruling classes are constantly taken to task for their cruel and unjust treatment of the poor. This had not changed in the least in our Lord’s day.
Named Lazarus. The fact that this name is used is a definite part of our Lord’s satire. This name means “God a help” and it has reference to a practice that seemed to be common in Israel— that of the rich referring to God all requests by the poor for help. They would answer all requests for food and clothing with the stock phrases “Go in peace, be ye warmed, and be ye filled” and yet do nothing to fulfill these needs (Jas. 2:15, 16). These words actually mean “God! will warm you, God will fill you”, but the word God does not appear due to the fact that the Jews would not use His name in ordinary conversation.
Was laid at his gate. A gate in Scripture was the symbol of authority. The poor in Israel were the responsibility of the rich, but the rich threw the responsibility back upon God. They would devour a widow’s property, then make long prayers to God for her help.
Full of sores. A further description of their miserable condition, as is ever the case of the poor in an occupied and oppressed country. They suffered many wounds from the tyrannical and oppressive Roman conquerors. They also suffered deprivation from tax-gathers and lawless neighbors, and heaped upon this were the wounds they suffered from the aristocratic class in Israel. Indeed they were full of sores.
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. There is no record of a revolt of the poor in Israel against the rich. All they ever asked for was a little easing of their hard lot, a thing well within the power of the Pharisees to grant. But they refused to fulfill the directive of God as set forth in Deuteronomy 15:7, 8.
Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. There can be no doubt but that this statement points to the fact that many merciful acts were performed for the poor in Israel by individuals in the Roman army of occupation. Cornelius was one who gave much alms to the people (Acts 10:2).
Up to this point in His story our Lord has set the stage and placed the characters upon it. Now He is going to take these characters, move them about and cause them to speak, but in harmony with the principles and teaching of the Pharisees.
All teaching in Israel was rigidly controlled by the Pharisees. No one could teach without their authority. No matter how preposterous or unfair their teachings became, none dared to question or criticize them. What they bound upon others, none dared to bind upon them. The scribes took their precepts and repeated them parrot-like to the people. This is why they spoke as those having no authority (Matt. 7:29). The scribes did not believe what they taught, but they had to teach it or risk the anger of the Pharisees.
When the Lord appeared upon earth He took their doctrines and turned them back upon them. He exposed their principles by putting into words the things they practiced. By so doing He incurred their deepest hatred.
Among their teachings was one that implied that if a man were poor and needy in this life, he would be rich in the life to come. This kept many satisfied to be poor, helped maintain the gulf between rich and poor, and spared the Pharisees the task of helping them. They intimated that if this life were filled with evil things, the life to come would be filled with good things. But this was as far as it went. They never allowed this idea to go so far as to say that if a man were rich in this life, he would be poor in the next; or if a man enjoyed good things in this life, he would receive evil things in the life to come.
The motive behind their lopsided teaching is evident. No commands in the Word of God could be plainer than those which made it the duty of the rich in Israel to care for the poor. Even the crafty Pharisee would have difficulty in explaining away such plain statements as those found in Deuteronomy 15:7-11. So they made these words void: by a tradition that made poverty to be a virtue that carried a guarantee of great bliss in the next life. By getting the people to accept even gnawing hunger as being the will of God, they saved themselves from the unpleasant duty of untying their own purse strings.
While it is only surmise it may have been that by some such teaching as this the Pharisees had committed some grave offense against one whose name was Lazarus, and this could be another reason why the Lord gave this name to the character in His story. There may have been a man who was wretchedly poor and pitifully sick. Day after day he lay upon the streets, too weak to help himself in any manner. His condition may have touched the hearts of many, but they were in no position to help. Their sympathy and pity for him called for something to be done-but what could be done. Someone may have suggested that in view of this man’s desperate need, his case should be brought to the attention of the rulers in Israel. Certainly in view of their wealth and power they would not refuse the few crumbs required to relieve this poor man’s distress.
It may have been that a committee was sent to the Pharisees. We can imagine the fear and hesitancy that accompanied such a task, but their sympathies drove them on. So this man’s case was laid before the Pharisees.
This placed them in a difficult position. They could not deny that the poor man needed help, and they could not say they lacked the means to help him. If they bluntly refused, it would hurt them in the eyes of the people. It appeared that for once they would have to open their purses.
But the Pharisees were masters of every situation, always ready with some teaching that would relieve them of their obligations. They probably expressed their deep compassion for the poor man, wiping away a few tears as they did so. This always made a good impression. They recounted with sorrow how his whole life had been one of poverty, filled with evil things. But, said they, better times were sure to come soon for him. He had received his evil things in this life, and this signified that he would get his good things in the life to come. Why, then, should they go against God, and change the wretched state of this man when that very state presaged a better state in the next life.
If the people saw the contradictions in teaching such as this, they dared not state it, for the Pharisees were in authority and the common people never questioned or answered back. They may have reasoned within themselves that if evil things were the guarantee of good things in the future life, then good things in this life must signify evil things in the life to come. However, if they did reason after this manner they never expressed it. Few there were who dared to brave the wrath of a Pharisee (see John 12:42, 43). Thus the Pharisees protected their wealth and position by leading the people to believe that poverty was a cardinal virtue. But it was a virtue which no Pharisee cared to possess.
When the greatest of all teachers appeared upon earth, He was not afraid of them. They demanded to know of His authority to teach, but He refused to tell them. In His censure of them He took their own teachings, held them accountable for their idle words, judged them out of their own mouths, and bound upon them what they had laid upon others. He, by means of satirical stories, developed their teaching to all its logical conclusions and forced upon them all its consequences. If one position was to be reversed in the life to come, then all positions were to be reversed. If the poor were to be rich, then the rich should be poor. If a man on the good side of a great gulf in this life, then he should be on the evil side in the life to come. This is the situation we find in the second part of the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Our Lord caused all actors to move and be in complete harmony with the teachings and principles of the Pharisees. The result is most startling, especially so when dead men begin to act and talk." Otis Sellers
But how does the New Testament understand the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit?
But Stephen does not see, say, a God with three faces, far less three men in the same form, nor any triangular symbol of the kind that was to be used centuries later in western Christian art. Rather:
