| PARABLES "Parable: [Greek, para bole'= BESIDE CAST]--A statement 'cast beside' or parallel to its real spiritual significance, a figure of likeness in action."GREEK-ENGLISH KEYWORD CONCORDANCE p. 216. In Old English it was called a "near-story." The "parable of Lazarus and the rich man" has become a sort of theological passport to the annihilation of hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture. Next to the gross error in translating aion into "eternity," I know of no greater misrepresentation of any section of Scripture than that which occurs with this parable. Therefore, I demonstrate the absurdity of teaching this parable or any other parable as a literal and historical event. Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable? I was surprised and puzzled to hear you call this a "parable" in your sermon on Hell. If you know this is a parable, how is it you think it is a literal, historical fact? It CANNOT be both. Many in orthodoxy say, however, that it is not a parable because a person is mentioned by name. The mention of an identifiable person is not the test of a parable. Besides other parables mention identifiable persons:
Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and multitudes in parables.
Jesus spoke to the multitudes only in parables.
Jesus spoke in parables so that his listeners would not understand Him.
Not even the apostles understood these parables. Jesus had to explain their meaning to them in private (Mat. 13:18, 36), (Mat. 15:15), etc. A parable is not to be taken literally. It is to be understood figuratively. The real meaning is not in what the parable literally says, but in what the symbols and figurative language represents. That's why they are called parables. Literal, factual, historical stories are never called parables. Let's test this just to be doubly sure there's no misunderstanding the purpose of a parable.
If the parable (and I heard you call it a parable) of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic, but also hundreds of plain verses of Scripture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN According to your teaching, the Rich man is in an eternal Hell of torture and Lazarus is in eternal Heavenly bliss. If this is so, let's be sure to pay special attention to those traits of character that have separated these two individuals into two entirely different realms. Below is listed in each column the exact "literal" facts regarding each man's character, virtue and deeds that are the reason for the fate of either eternal Hell or eternal Heaven:
Examine these two columns closely. Is it not obvious that what is literally revealed here does not lend itself to an eternal life of torture for the Rich man or an eternal life of heavenly bliss for the poor man? If you are going to teach this gospel to the Gentiles, it cannot but confuse them. Where else in Scripture do the character traits in the left column deserve eternal condemnation? And where else in Scripture do the character traits in the right column deserve salvation in Heaven? From what is literally stated about these two individuals, it is hard to find condemnation or praise for either party. We know for sure that the Rich man is in a state of condemnation and that Lazarus is in a state of consolement, but there is nothing in the narrative to tell us why this is so. The Rich man received "good things" in life and Lazarus received "evil things" in life. That is obviously true. However, neither of those is Scriptural grounds for either being rewarded or condemned. Christ said that it is difficult for a rich man to inherit the Kingdom, for example, and that certainly is true. But it is not the fact of being rich that makes this so, but rather the power that wealth has over the soul to keep one from pursuing spiritual things. Some people are "rich" and are right with God. Other people are "rich" and are not right with God. But it is how God has constituted the person himself that makes the difference, not the fact that he is wealthy. Don't suppose that I am siding with the Rich man at the expense of Lazarus. I am not. Verse by verse now we will see if this parable can possibly be taken literally:
Is this a sin? Abraham, just talking distance away here, was very rich (Gen. 13:2). Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Joseph was rich, David (a man after God's own heart) was rich. Job was the richest man in all the East (Job. 1:3). And it was God Who made them that way. Being "rich" is no character flaw. The Scripture says: " ... God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, shall be reaping also ... " (Gal. 6:7) And " ... who is sowing sparingly, sparingly shall be reaping also, and who is sowing bountifully, bountifully shall be reaping also ... " (II Cor. 9:6-7).
Why should we care what color or what fabric clothing he wore? Fine clothing is not a sin. What does clothing have to do with a man's character, virtue, or deeds? If taken literally, nothing. But, if these clothing have some symbolic meaning, then even the clothing could be a key to understanding the whole parable.
Is having a cheerful and glad spirit a sin? I don't think so. Paul says: " ... that I may be of good cheer ... " (Phil. 2:19). David's heart was "glad" ( Acts 2:26). And the angels dressed "splendidly" (Acts 10:30).
Being poor is no virtue! In fact the Scriptures have a lot to say about "poverty." " ... a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come ... " (Prov. 6:10-11). "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand ... " (Prov. 10:4). " ... The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing ... " (Prov. 13:4). Many Scriptures show poverty to be the direct result of sin. Again, Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7. It is God Who makes rich and poor (I Sam. 2:7). "All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18).
Why should we know this man's name? A common name like "Lazarus" is of little value, unless we can determine who this particular Lazarus represents. Remember, to understand a parable, one must know what the figurative language and symbols represent.
Being thrown out into the street is no virtue.
Being sick and diseased is not a virtue. Diseases associated with "the botch, open sores, boils and ulcers" are very often a direct curse from God in the Scriptures. See: Ex. 9:2, Job 2:7, Deut. 28:27, 35, Rev. 16:2, and many others.
It is no virtue to be begging for bread. "Crumbs falling from a table" is an idiom. It is not literal. I have eaten at "Rich men's tables" myself, (off a $25,000 a place setting from some Chinese Dynasty collection), and I can guarantee you that scraps of food were not falling from that table. A few "crumbs," possibly, but not enough to feed a hungry ant, let alone a grown man. Read Psa. 37:25: " ... Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed BEGGING BREAD."
It is a dog's nature to lick sores, but they didn't come to this man's house for that purpose. They came there to get scraps of food as well. However, think for a moment. What does this bit of information add to our understanding of this story if it is to be taken literally? Nothing! He could have told us that, "the sky was cloudy" or "the cock was crowing" or "there were holes in the street." So what? What do "wild dogs" add to our understanding, if it's literal? The Rich man was obviously blessed of God. "The Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods ... " (Deut. 28:11). And " ... bless all the work of thine hand" (Ver 12). As he sewed, so he reaped (Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7). He got "good things in life" and the Scripture plainly tells us that "Every GOOD gift is from above ... " (Jas. 117). Lazarus was obviously cursed of God. " ... thou shalt not prosper" (Deut. 28:16). The "botch and scab" (Ver. 27 & 29). He obviously sowed sparingly and reaped even more sparingly. When one is homeless, hungry, and diseased in the street, it doesn't get much worse. I don't know what you are thinking, Mr. Hagee, but if you are going to continue to teach that "hades" is an eternal burning hell of torture and Abraham's "bosom" is an eternal heaven of bliss, and that this parable literally proves that this is already an historical fact, then you have more than a few major problems with the rest of God's Word. You will have to use a black marker or cut from the Bible most verses dealing with spirit, soul, body, death, resurrection, immortality, grave, hades, sheol, sin, punishment, chastisement, firstfruits, rewards, justification, reconciliation, prophecy, grace, salvation, and the sovereignty of God, just to name a few! All of these contradict your teaching. All of them.
Impossible. This statement if taken literally is neither historical nor Scriptural. You say this represents Lazarus in Heaven. How, pray tell, could Lazarus be in Heaven while his Lord was still on the earth? "Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the firstfruit of those who are reposing." (I Cor. 15:20). Abraham wasn't the "firstfruit." Lazarus wasn't the "firstfruit." Christ was. The latter fruit, Paul tells us, "are [still] reposing." Jesus plainly said, not only had David not ascended into the heavens, but that "NO MAN has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven." (John 3:13). You make Christ out to be a liar. When our Lord was alive on this earth giving us this parable, He said: " ... no man has ascended up to heaven ... " You say, at the same time our Lord was telling us that no man has ascended up to heaven, that Lazarus and Abraham are up in heaven. There's just one of your many problems with the Scriptures, Mr. Hagee. There are many Scriptures that tell us where a person goes when he dies. The Scriptures say he "returns" to where he "came." So if he goes to Heaven, then he "came" from Heaven; if he goes to Hell, then he "came" from Hell. But this is unscriptural. Read these plain and simple verses that tell us exactly where man came from and where he goes when he dies:
Beasts don't go to either heaven or hell when they die. Here is irrefutable Scriptural proof that when a person dies he returns to the dust. Messengers or angels don't take dead people anywhere when they die. If this is literal, then they would have had to carry a "dead" Lazarus into the ancient cave of a "dead" Abraham, for the resurrection is yet future (I Thes. 4:16:18). Or, are you, Mr. Hagee, in the same camp as Hymeneus and Philetus who
Lazarus was carried (in the parable) into Abraham's bosom. Abraham's bosom is not the reward of the saved. Abraham's bosom is not Heaven. Not more than one person could literally fit into Abraham's chest. It's a parable. Besides, Abraham is dead.
When Jesus was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. "Abraham is dead" (John 8:52)! After Christ's crucifixion and resurrection (nearly 30 years after), Abraham was still dead.
Abraham had not yet, as of the writing of the book of Hebrews, received the promises God made to him. Besides, Abraham was not promised Heaven but Earth, along with King David (Jer. 30:9) and the Twelve Apostles who will be ruling over the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rev. 5:10). And the City, New Jerusalem, comes down from heaven to the New Earth. (By the way, after Christ's resurrection, David was also still dead. " ... David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day ... " "For David is not ascended into the heavens ... ") (Acts 2:29 & 34). You teach your doctrines as if these Scriptures I just quoted don't even exist. The Scriptures says that Abraham died. When Christ was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. And thirty years after that we read in Hebrews that Abraham has not yet received his promise. So how can you say he's been in Heaven with Lazarus for thousands of years?
Impossible. He died, was entombed, and lifted up his eyes? Where did he get a body in hades, seeing that they just sealed his body in a tomb? What happens when a body is exhumed from a grave? Six days, six months, six years after death, when they open a grave, the body is still there. And it's usually rotten and the "eyes" are decayed away. " ... was entombed. And in hades ... " No man can be "entombed and in hades" at the same time. And we know his body was still in the tomb. So, where did he get a new one? And how could this man literally lift up his eyes in the unseen [hades or the imperceptible]? He's in hades. He just died. He can't be dead and alive at the same time. Hades is a Greek word (and is synonymous with Sheol in the Hebrew O.T.) and it has a meaning. The elements are "UN-PERCEIVED." It can be properly translated into English as "unseen" or "imperceptible." Now how can one "see" in the unseen?" It's ridiculous. How can anyone have "perception" in the "imperceptible?" The dead can't "see." It's a parable. You said in your sermon that there is consciousness in hades. There is no consciousness in [Heb: Sheol] or [Gk: Hades](Psa. 146:4)--none. "Sheol" and "Hades" are synonymous. In Acts 2:27 hades is translated from the Hebrew sheol. Look carefully at these two verses: "His spirit [ruach] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa. 146-3-4). " ... there is no works, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol where you go" (Ecc. 9:10). "Device" [Heb. mchesh - bown - contrivance, intelligence, reason]. Now, seriously, do these two verses sound like "dark sayings?" or "tricky proverbs?" or "difficult parables?" or "deep mysteries?" They are plain, simple statements that any child could understand. They also contradict your "consciousness in hades" theory.
In the left column we have seeing, feeling, hearing, talking, and reason. In the right column we have nothing. The left column is based on one parable that should never be taken literally while the right column is quoted right from the Hebrew Scriptures' teaching on death. You said in your sermon: "This is no soul sleep ... here." You said that in a very loud, sarcastic and demeaning voice, as though you were poo pooing such a ridiculous idea. I would be careful, Mr. Hagee, since it is God Himself Who likens death to sleep. Although the phrase "soul sleep" itself is unscriptural, the idea that the "dead" are "sleeping" is most Scriptural.
I believe all of these Scriptures. Either Abraham is dead, buried, and sleeping with his fathers, just as Moses, David, etc., or these Scriptures can't be trusted. You said that this eternity of Hell begins the second after death in a life without Christ. What about all these verses? Not only did all these patriarchs go to sleep, but they went to sleep with their fathers. And many of their "fathers" were idolaters. I just gave you a dozen Scriptures stating that God likens death to sleep. In what way is being conscious and tortured in the flames of Hell analogous to "sleep?" Well? God says death is "sleep." In what way is conscious torture in Hell fire analogous to "sleep?" In what way is a blissful life in Heaven analogous to "sleep?" Therefore, your teaching that the dead Rich man and dead Lazarus are not asleep is unscriptural heresy. Let me give you a Scripture that will "lay to rest" (pun intended) this issue once and for all. What happens after one dies:
When a person dies, he must: wait ... till ... appointed time ... change comes ... God calls ... he lives again ... and answers thee. When Jesus taught this parable there were no Greek Scriptures. So when this "rich man died" he went to Sheol [Heb. "the unseen or imperceptible"] It's the same sheol that Christ's soul went to at death: Psalm 16:10--"For Thou will not leave my soul in the unseen [Sheol]." This verse is quoted in the New Testament Greek: Acts 2:27--"For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [Gk. Hades]." Sheol and Hades are synonymous. The Old Testament says Christ's soul went to "Sheol," the New says His soul went to "Hades." Surely you have read the Scripture stating that Christ was the "firstfruit" of them that slept (I Cor. 15:20, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, I Thes. 4:16-18). And we follow, in His presence, at His coming, at the last trump. This does not occur the second after death, as you suggest. Read I Cor. 15 again. "Christ died for our sins," "He was buried," "He rose again the third day." All right, let's be Scripturally exact.
Now, back to the parable:
Impossible. The man is enveloped in "flames" and can clearly identify two personalities from "afar" across a great chasm? Not with human eyes.
Impossible. Proof: Psalm 31:17-- " ... let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [Heb. SHEOL]." There it is! There is no talking and no shouting in sheol. If anyone can literally shout in hades or sheol they make God a liar.
Impossible. If someone were in a literal fire they would not be asking for a drop of water for their tongue. Their skin and eyes would be in much greater pain than their tongue! The tongue is at least somewhat protected in the mouth cavity. If anyone is so silly as to debate me on this issue, let them jump into a fire and see for themselves which burns most-the eyes and skin, or the tongue? Besides a "drop" on the "tip" of one's finger would be less than useless. It would have no effect. None. It's a parable. This language is figurative.
Impossible. It is possible to be "pained in flame." However, it is impossible to talk about it while it is happening! If his body was "human" so as to have a nervous system and "feel pain," then of necessity that same body would burn up. It is the destruction of the skin cells that is causing the pain. Within seconds the skin no longer pains (it's dead). Now it is the deeper flesh that pains. But by then the man would pass out and soon die.
We're still talking "literal," right? The Rich man is in Hell, right? Why then didn't Abraham say something like this: "Be reminded that you were a liar, cheat, robber, blasphemer, drunkard, murderer, ungodly, unholy, unrepentant, incorrigible piece of slime in your life-so burn in Hell for ever." Considering the colossal penalty put on this man, I would think that somehow the "crime" would have to come a little bit closer to matching the "punishment." Don't you think that is sound reasoning? Doesn't God match the punishment with the crime? Suppose one of our Federal Courts were to sentence a man to one hundred years at hard labor. Don't you reckon he would have had to do something pretty bad to get a sentence like that? Well, you're sentencing (yes you, not God) the Rich man to all eternity in Hell fire and I don't see where he did anything bad. He lived a life of "good things!" You want to take this literally? Okay. According to you then, here is the reason that the rich man is in hades (which you interpret as Hell) and Lazarus is in Abraham's bosom (which you interpret as Heaven). The rich man got good things and Lazarus got evil things.
So we are to take this parable literally? As an historical fact? Okay. What does it "literally" say? Not what you "think it means" but what it actually says:
Quite frankly neither one is a pretty picture. That's because this is figurative and symbolic language. It's a parable. Your interpretation of this parable is ridiculous. If what you teach about this parable is true, here's the bottom line:
You know, if this parable is literal, Abraham is on the wrong side! Abraham possessed many more of the qualities of the rich man (if literal) than he did of Lazarus! Abraham was very rich, loved his family, was concerned for the welfare of others, provided for his servants, was respectful of authority (especially of God), was tremendously blessed of God and had a life of many good things. According to your interpretation of this story Abraham should be in Hell. Actually Abraham is in hades (sheol), as are all the "fathers." "And these ALL [all mentioned in this chapter], being testified to through faith, are NOT requited with the promise of God concerning us (the looking forward is to something better), that, apart from us, they may NOT be perfected" (Heb. 11:39-40). It's very quiet in hades; no thoughts, no praise, no anything-it's "imperceptible" and "unseen." Like Job, they are all waiting (in sleep) until their "change comes." Back to the parable:
You say that this is Heaven. Lazarus is in Heaven? Where are the other people? Where is Christ? Where is the reward? Where is the happiness and joy? Lazarus is "consoled." This word in Greek is used in conjunction with someone who is "in distress." So Lazarus is being "consoled in his distress." Doesn't sound like much of a Heaven to me. And the rich man is "in pain." Why? It doesn't say he did anything wrong, or evil, so why is he in pain? Who judged him? When? For what? If this is literal, you place a huge blot on the character of God. According to you, this man is spending an eternity in Hell fire, but has never had his day in court. He has been sentenced without being judged! This man could not have been judged, because when our Lord spoke this parable, "The Judgment" was yet future. "Verily, I am saying to you, More tolerable will it be for the land of Sodom and the land of Gomorrah in that day of judging than for that city." (Matt. 10:15) Now I never was good at grammar, but I don't think "will be" is in the "past tense," is it? And again, "Men, Ninevites, will be rising in the judging with this generation and will be condemning it ... " (Mat. 12:41) The "evil" men of Sodom have not yet been judged. The "righteous" men of Nineveh have not yet risen or been judged. What are we to do, Mr. Hagee? Get the scissors out again and clip more verses from the Bible so that you can be at liberty to turn a parable into an historical event? Besides, judging has to do with setting things right. "Punishment is meted out according to the degree of the crime. Punishment is never eternal. (Refer again to section on the "eons.") And how does eternal torture in Hell fire equate to the punishment for "having good things in your life?" But you say, "No, he's in Hell for rejecting Christ's sacrifice." But it doesn't say that. And it's you who demands that this parable be taken literally. Well, okay, let's look at your premise anyway. I heard you say in your sermon: "You go to Hell for rejecting Christ's sacrifice." But, you do err not knowing the Scriptures or your history! Not only didn't the rich man literally "reject Christ's sacrifice," but it was literally impossible for him to literally do so. When Christ taught this parable (Luke 16) He was not yet sacrificed (Luke 23). You have the audacity to teach millions of people that our Merciful God has sent millions of fellow human beings to an eternal Hell to suffer in torturous agony, all without a "hearing" or "trial" or "just judgment" and for rejecting a "sacrifice" that had not yet been sacrificed? Dr. Kennedy says: "Hell is fair." You say: "It is justice." I say: "You are binding loads, heavy and hard to bear on men's shoulders!"
Impossible. "Thus also is the resurrection of the dead ... It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body" (I Cor. 15:42 & 44). How can a "gulf" or "chasm" keep such a spiritual being from crossing it? " ... those wanting to cross hence to you ... " What? Do you think that is translated correctly, Mr. Hagee? I assure you it is translated correctly. So why, why, would anyone in Heaven "want" to go to Hell? "Nor yet those thence may be ferrying to us." King James uses "pass" both times. The first "pass" is [Gk. diabaino=THROUGH-STEP], cross. But the second "pass" is [Gk. diaperao =THROUGH-OTHER-SIDE, and is used of passage over water], "ferrying." Here is WATER! Since there is water separating Lazarus from the rich man in this chasm, why doesn't the rich man just jump into the water? And the word "ferrying" also presupposes ferry boats. Even if the Rich man can't swim; better to drown than burn. Imagine that - "water" in HELL!
Impossible. The rich man recognized Abraham on sight. He even called him "Father." How could someone who knows Abraham " ... hear Moses ... ?" Moses didn't live until hundreds of years after Abraham. How could the rich man's "brothers" hear Moses? Moses didn't live until far into their future. And where in Moses and the Prophets does it warn that if one is rich and blessed of God that when he dies he will go to an eternal hell of fire and torture? Or that a poor man cursed of God will go to an eternal heaven of bliss? I have a few concordances, Mr. Hagee, but I can't find any such verse. Can you help me? You said this is literal, so somewhere in Moses and the Prophets it must say such a thing! Where?
Impossible. You say that Lazarus isn't dead. You say he's alive in heaven. Why didn't the rich man say, "No, father Abraham, but if someone should be going to them from heaven, they will be repenting?" How could Lazarus, who you say is alive, " ... go to them from the dead?"
The rich man is now persuaded. Why wouldn't they also be persuaded? Because it will take more than Moses and the Prophets and more than one returning from the dead to persuade them. Matt Crouch said on international television that since the Jews were prophesied to not understand, Christ spoke in parables so that this prophecy would be apparently voided and they would understand. Unscriptural nonsense!
It wasn't Christ's "explanations" that none understood, it was his "parables" that none understood. The multitudes did not understand Christ's parables: "This parable spake Jesus unto them; but they understood NOT what things they were which He spake unto them." (Jn 10:6). If, as Matt Crouch suggests, Christ taught in parables so that the the masses would understand, then the Scriptures themselves would prove that He failed utterly. Are we sure that we want to make such an unscriptural assertion? Not even Christ's own disciples understand His parables. "Therefore speak I to them in parables; because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Mat. 13:13). "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower" (Ver. 18). "Then answered Peter and said unto him, declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, 'Are ye also [like the multitudes] yet without understanding?'" (Mat. 15:15-16). "And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?" (Mk. 4:13) Christ had to explain all the parables to them! "And with many such parables spake he the word ... but without a parable spake He not unto them: and when they were ALONE, He expounded all things to His disciples" (Mk. 4:33-34)! It is interesting what Christ said here. If his disciples didn't understand this parable, "how then will ye know all parables?" There is a continuity among most of the parables. They basically speak of the same peoples and the same events. The disciples weren't so foolish, however, as to believe that this parable was to be taken literally, any more than they believed any of the parables were to be taken literally. That's why our Lord explained all the parables to them in private. Read it and believe. As I have said, one can't take this parable "literally" at the expense of contradicting hundreds of other plain Scriptures. I have presented ample Scriptural proof that this is a parable and that it cannot be taken literally. Like most parables, it was prophecy not history. If one persists in thinking this parable is literal, that person will remain ignorant of God's revelation. Maybe the "Flat Earth Society" of Great Britain is still accepting new memberships. Before I explain this parable, please notice something. The condition the Rich man now finds himself in was not something he had anticipated in "life." Abraham's reference to Moses and the Prophets presupposes that the Rich man was familiar with these writings. However, nothing in these writings gives any warning of going to a "fiery place of torment" immediately upon death. Nor does the parable state that this condition of the Rich man [in torment] and Lazarus [consoled in his distress] is permanent or endless. Furthermore, being "not persuaded" by either "Moses and the Prophets" or "someone rising from the dead" does NOT preclude that there is nothing that ever will persuade them in the future. The truth is, there are many, many Scriptures that do tell us when and what actually will persuade the "Rich man," "his brothers," "all mankind," and "every celestial being" in the universe, that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father. That, Mr. Hagee, is the truly Good News Gospel that
you and most of Christendom are failing to teach. (Read Eph. 1:10-11, Phil. 2:10 &
Isa. 45:22-23, I Tim. 2:4-6, 4:10) "These things command and teach" (Ver. 11). THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN Before I explain Lazarus and the Rich man, some background information is necessary. Biblically speaking there are two broad categories of people in the world-the Children of Israel and the other nations. Later this designation was shortened to "the Jews and the Gentiles." It all began with Eber [Heber] the forefather of all Hebrews (Gen.10:21). Abraham [Abram] was of this lineage and so is an "Hebrew." There were other lines of Hebrews also. God changed Abram's name to Abraham signifying that he would become a "Father of Many Nations" (Gen. 16:7-11). Abraham had a son Isaac, and Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob. God changed Jacob's name to "Israel" (Gen.. 32:28). Israel had twelve sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Napthali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin (Gen.. 35:23-16), who then became known as "The Children of Israel." The "Children of Israel" became God's "chosen" people: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut. 7:6). God's relationship with Israel was so close that He married them: "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall He be called" (Isa. 54:5). The Tribe of Judah was chosen of God to lead in battle (Jg. 1:2). The various Tribes warred against each other during a period of civil wars. They finally became united under two houses, Judah and Israel. David was anointed King of Judah (II Sam. 2:4) and then later King over Israel (II Sam. 5:3). In I Kg. 12:19-21 Judah (with the tribe of Benjamin) was again at war with Israel. Israel was then known as the "Ten Tribes." Many of the Priests and Levites left Israel and went to Jeru- salem under Judah (II Chron. 11:13). And so the Kingdom of Israel (with its capital at Samaria) and the Kingdom of Judah (with its capital at Jerusalem) were separate nations for several centuries. Eventually, Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians (II Kg. 18:11) and later Judah was taken into captivity by Babylon (Jer. 30:9). According to II Kings 17:24-27, the king of Assyria brought people from numerous nations, including Babylon, and repopulated the cities of Samaria. He then sent one of Israel's priests to go back to these cities and teach them about God, because God sent lions to devour some in the land. These displaced foreigners intermarried with the remaining Israelites, and thus we have the "Samaritans" who were part Israeli and part Gentile (II Chron. 30:6.) They became known as "Hellenists," who were imitators of the Greek language and culture, with their religion a modified form of Judaism. There was constant antagonism between the Hellenistic Jews (dispersed Israel) and the Jews at Jerusalem. It is interesting that even these dispersed ten tribes of Israel were historically known as "Hellenistic Jews." Nehemiah came to power and returned eventually to Jerusalem to rebuild it. He took Priests and Levites with him (Neh. 2:1-8). Ezra also returned to Jerusalem with a large company of Jews (Ezra 7:8). "Even all the Jews returned out of all places whither they were driven ... " (Jer. 40:11-12). I doubt that many in Judea and Jerusalem even knew for sure which Tribes they came from by the time of our Lord's ministry. To show how dominant Judah was in absorbing many from the ten Tribes and passing on his name to them, look at Judges 17:7: "And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite ... " He was a Levite who was considered Juhah's family. The priests, of course, had to know their lineage or they were disqualified for the Priesthood. Paul was an extremely well-educated man and therefore knew his lineage. With all these things in mind, maybe we can better understand how these different names are used and applied to even the same person. Paul, for example, was an Hebrew (Phil. 3:5) through Abraham (Rom. 11:1). He was of the line of Isaac, and was an Israelite through Israel (Rom. 11:1) through Jacob. He was a Benjamite through the Tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1). Paul came from Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 21:39), was educated in Jerusalem, trained a Pharisee under Gamaleil. Paul spoke Hebrew & Greek (Acts 22:2-3), and was also a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37). Yet, Paul said he was a Jew (Acts 21:39). So here's what happened. In the Old Testament all Jews were Israelites, but not all Israelites were Jews. Like all Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians. Because Judah was always the dominant Tribe, many Israelites who once again gathered in Judea, came under Judah's leadership. Many of the individual Ten Tribes became mixed in intertribal and interracial marriage. By the time of our Lord, they all were designated "Jews." Even today, many known "Jews" may really be "Danites" or "Reubenites" etc. Many thinking themselves Gentiles could really be descendants of Israelites or Jews or other lines of Hebrews and not even know it. I always considered myself a "Gentile" until a recent trip to Germany and Amsterdam, where I talked to different people about the early immigrants to America. My last name was "Schmidt" two hundred years ago, but when I mentioned other family names in my genealogy they told me: "That's Jewish, that's Jewish, etc." My father was David, his father was Charles, his father was Thomas, his father was Manuel, his father was Isaac, his father was Abraham, and his father was Jacob. They told me that true Germans almost never named their children with Hebrew names. So maybe I'm a Jew. Only God knows for sure. But the point I want to make is that at the time of our Lord, Judah (the Jews) dominated to the extent that all non-Gentiles were referred to as Jews, although "Israel" as their historical origin was still used. The name "Israel" is used some 120 times in the N.T., while "Jews" is used some 360 times. So they really are used interchangeably. They are all Israelites, but Judah has always dominated. It will be important to keep these things in mind as we discuss this parable. Without this background information it would be impossible to narrow the "rich man" of this parable down to one historical personage. Parables are of little spiritual value if taken literally. When taken literally, most parables are physiological impossibilities, or they tell us little we didn't already know. Let's look at the parable of the tares: A man sows good seed. An enemy sows tares. A servant suggests they pull out the tares. The owner suggests that would pull out the good wheat too. So he says to wait till harvest and then separate the wheat from the tares. (Mat. 13:24-30). None of the parables are to be understood in their literal language. Interestingly, this parable of the tares could be taken literally. That is, it makes sense even in its literal language, and does not contradict other Scriptures. However, this parable was not meant to be taken literally, and if we do, what do we learn? Quite frankly, not much. Did Christ waste His time giving little household hints and horticultural tips? I don't think so. When Christ explains this parable to His disciples, it takes on enormous meaning never even suggested in the "literal" story. The "sower" is the Son of man. The "field" is the world. The "good seed" are the children of the Kingdom of God. The "tares" are the children of the wicked one [Satan]. The "harvest" is the end of the age (Mat. 14:37-43). Now that's some pretty heavy stuff! This is no horticultural tip to farmers. And, in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Christ is not telling us about some "one" individual rich man and some "one" insignificant beggar in the street. Look at that parable of the "tares" again. Literally, it is nothing. But what it represents in figurative and symbolic language is awesome. It has to do with the operations of God", "Satan", "millions of people", and the very "end of this age." Through "symbolism" and "personification," God often uses one thing or person to represent many or even multitudes and whole nations of people: "This image's head was of fine gold ... Thou, O king, art a king of kings ... thou art this head of gold" (Dan. 2:32, 37, 38). The "image" represented King Nebuchadnezzar, but the "King" represented all Babylon and all the nations and kingdoms that he conquered. "And this is the blessing of Judah: and he said, Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah ... " (Deut. 33:7). This was not "literally" the voice of the one man, "Judah," but of his Descendants. Judah had "literally" died hundreds of years earlier. "And Judah said unto Simeon his brother ... and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men." (Judges 1:3-4). Judah was dead, Simeon was dead, and two individuals could hardly "slay ten thousand men!" Clearly, Judah represents the children of Judah or as they are called, Jews. Remember this, for it is important. All of the parables have huge consequences. They depict giant events yet to come. They deal with the future of millions of people-not just a beggar in the street somewhere. Let's not cheapen or demean this parable. There is a continuity running through most of the parables. Virtually all of the parables deal with punishments and rewards for the same people at the same event. Although the meaning of His parables was hidden, on one occasion Christ did identify Himself in a parable. Correctly translated thus: "Undoubtedly you will be declaring to me this parable: 'Physician cure your self'" (Concordant Literal New Testament). On one occasion the Pharisees did realize that Christ was talking about them. "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on Him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that He had spoken this parable against them" (Luke 20:19). Note that a few verses before this parable it is stated that Christ was giving these parables partly because the Pharisees were " ... inherently fond of money" (Lk. 16:14). But in the parable of "Lazarus and the Rich man," surely they understood who Christ was speaking of. In the parable of the "tares" no one could even guess who or what the "tares" represented without explanation. But in "Lazarus and the rich man" there are more hints and more identifiable symbols and facts given than in any other parable in the Gospels. The Pharisees may have been hypocrites. Nevertheless, they were highly educated and familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. They knew what "Purple and Fine Linen" symbolized. The name "Lazarus" wouldn't necessarily have meant much to them (it was a common name) until we find him "in the bosom of Abraham." Then they knew for sure which Lazarus our Lord was speaking of. And when they were told that the rich man had "Moses and the Prophets" there was little doubt left. And this rich man had "five brothers." That clinched it. Surely they knew for sure who this man was. And although they probably hadn't a clue as to the real meaning of the parable, there was no doubt that our Lord did not portray the rich man in a very favorable light. THE PARABLE
I believe that the first and second verses of this parable may be a question. The Greek word ti (neuter), tis (mas. and fem.) generally has the meaning of "any." However, "Any, the indefinite pronoun, used freely, especially in questions, where English uses 'who,' 'whose,' 'which,' 'what,' 'why,' or with negatives, '(any)one', though, when possible, we seek to preserve its indefiniteness by rendering it 'any,' 'some,' or 'certain.'" (Greek-English Keyword Concordance p. 15). Certainly we can render this word in this particular passage as "certain," that is if we use Webster's Third definition of "certain" which means "3. not named or described, though perhaps known." However, if we use Webster's First definition of "certain" it destroys this "questionable" character of the word: "1. Without any doubt or question; sure; positive." Christ asked: "Who [tis] touched my clothes?" (Mk. 5:30). Certainly, the answer couldn't be "ANY." And, likewise, Christ asks "Whose [ti] is this image and the inscription?" (Matt. 22:20). Again, the answer certainly could not be "any image," or "a certain image." It was definitely "Caesar's" image. Showing someone a famous image and then asking "who" it is, is a pretty big clue. Now this verse is particularly interesting, because everyone or anyone would have known whose image was on the coin, yet Christ merely asked the question to confirm that fact! In the same way I believe Christ asked "who" was this rich man and "who" was this poor man Lazarus, (with all the accompanying clues and symbols) to merely confirm in their minds that they already knew who these two personages were. I firmly believe that the "who" of this parable is just as important or even more important than the "what" of the parable. Without knowing "who" is spoken of, the "what" makes almost no sense. Although I know of no translation that does translate this verse into a question, I nonetheless, do not at present believe it would violate any rules if it were translated a question.
Yes, "Who?" That is the question. And it appears evident from the rest of the clues and symbols in the parable that they did know "who," but Christ asked them anyway, just as He asked "Whose image ... " was on the coin when surely everyone knew "whose" image it was. And remember, it is the same Greek word ti or tis that is used in all four of these places. There were lots of "rich men" and lots of "poor beggars" and Lazarus was a common name. But "who" was this rich man and "who" was this particular Lazarus, that's the question! It is not necessary, however, to the explanation of the parable whether it should have a question mark or not. I just believe it lends itself to a question as do the other scriptures where "who?" is used. There is only one man who Scripturally fits all the descriptions of the "rich man" in this parable. Only one person who "personifies" all of the symbols and identifying clues given of this rich man. And that man is:
But not just Judah as an historical individual, but Judah collectively, representing all of Israel under the headship of Judah, the Jews. And the Jews were "rich." Beginning in Gen. 15:14 God prophesied that Abraham's descendants were to be very rich.
So yes, Judah was "rich." And "who" to this day are universally known for having money and being successful in the financial world? The Jews. However, these were just some of Judah's material possessions. Judah was rich in another way - very rich. Judah possessed something far more valuable than all of these possessions. God bestowed on Judah a treasure greater than any other on the face of the earth, in the history of the world.
Prerogative is translated from [Gk. perisson' EXCESS, SUPERABUNDANTLY] Who has a diamond collection, an art collection, a string of corporations, or fifty Swiss Bank accounts that could begin to approach the value of the oracles of God?
So not only was Judah rich materially, but God bestowed on Judah His very word. And from the tribe of Judah came Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World. Who but Judah possessed such wealth?
Imagine Christ asking His disciples: "Oh, by the way, would you fellows be interested in knowing what color clothing this Rich man was wearing just before he went to Hell?" Nonsense! But what is nonsense in the literal becomes symbolic in the parable. And this symbol is one of the main keys to understanding the rich man's identity. Purple is: "A color used in garments of a bluish red, by a dye obtained from a shell fish, purpura. It denotes rank of royalty" (Greek-English Keyword Concordance p. 236). Purple was worn by Kings (Judges 8:26). Even the Caesars of Rome wore Purple as a symbol of their royalty. And who was to carry the "royal" line in Israel? Judah.
David was of the Tribe of Judah and was anointed King of Judah. Our Lord was of the line of Judah (Mat. 1:2), and will be not only King of Judah, but King of Kings. During our Lord's ministry, Judea was under Roman rule, however, there were still rulers in Judea-The Jews. There were Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests. Jesus said they had power and authority from God. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ... " (Mat. 23:2-3). God has always elevated Judah above the other Tribes. In I Chron. 2:1-3 we read: "These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. The sons of Judah; ... " Notice Judah was the third born to Israel [Jacob] and is listed third, but when God gives their children's names He starts first with Judah. To show Judah's dominance in Rulership, Judah is put at the head of the list, when the Tribes of Israel are enumerated in Revelation 7:4. This, without being the firstborn.
The Rich man didn't just dress in "Purple," but "Purple and Cambric." He wore both. Cambric or Fine Linen was the clothing of the priests (Ex. 25:4, Ex. 28:5), and of the interior decorations of the Tabernacle itself (Ex. 26:1). Our Lord would not have told us that the Rich man wore these two specific types of garments except that they have great symbolic value in identifying who this man typifies.. But if "Purple" symbolizes "Royalty" and "Fine Linen" symbolizes "Priesthood," how can the same man wear both? Only our Lord is both King and Priest. Remember, the Levites and the priests were loyal to Judah through their long history. When they got the opportunity, they went with Ezra and Nehemiah back to Jerusalem-back to Judah. They were "part" of Judah. They were "called" Jews. Only one had both the Scepter and the Priesthood: Judah. Notice this Scripture carefully:
There it is! Judah had both the royalty and the priesthood. And all these leaders of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, became who were known in Christ's time as "the Jews." And that's why, although the Apostle Paul was of the Tribe of Benjamin, nonetheless, he said of himself, that he was "a Jew." In Judah were both the Royal Scepter (purple) and the Priesthood (fine linen). And that's the reason Christ took the time to tell us what the Rich man was wearing. No other personality in Scripture has both these designations, along with all the other identifying features attributed to "the Rich man."
The Rich man could therefore legitimately call Abraham, "Father." Abraham was Judah's Great Grandfather. Abraham could legitimately call the Rich man, "Child." Judah was Abraham's Great Grandchild.
The Kingdom of Judah did have "Moses and the Prophets." They were the protectors and scribes of those very documents till the time of our Lord's ministry, when Jesus said that they "sit in Moses' seat." Judah was the very depository for The Law (Moses), The Prophets, and the Writings. Remember the Oracles were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:1-2). The Rich man said: "I have five brothers ... " There's a rule of Scripture study that is very sound, which I believe is applicable here. It goes like this: "Literal where and when possible." Most of this parable cannot be taken literally. Why? Because for one, it often contradicts the laws of science and physics. And two, it would contradict hundreds of other plain verses of Scripture. It's the "parable" that cannot be taken literally. That does not mean that certain facts contained in the parable are not literal. Abraham is, undoubtedly, "literally" Abraham. Moses and the prophets are, undoubtedly, "literally" Moses and the prophets. They obviously represent themselves, not someone else. So, at first glance, you might think Judah can't be this "Rich man." Didn't Judah have eleven brothers? Yes and No. True, there were twelve sons of Israel, one of which was Judah, but not all by the same mother. Judah's Mother, Leah, bore (1) Reuben, (2) Simeon, (3) Levi, (4) Issachar, (5) Zebulun and Judah makes six (Gen. 29:31-35, 30:18-19). So who had five brothers? Judah. That "Judah" (the Jews), is here personified in this Rich man, there can be little doubt. Who then is this "Lazarus?" The answer is not far to find when we see where he is: "in Abraham's bosom." Being in someone's bosom shows a very close emotional relationship and position of honor. Christ likens Himself as being in the "bosom" of His Father (Jn 1:18). John, likewise, who was very fond of Jesus leaned back into Jesus' bosom (Jn 13:23). To be in the bosom of Abraham, or the bosom of Christ, or the bosom of the Father, are certainly positions of great honor. The Jews coveted that relationship with Abraham. They were so proud of their Father Abraham. They knew that God thought highly of their Father Abraham, and they wanted to be connected to that lofty position themselves. However, they did not come even close to qualifying for such an honor. They loved to say: "We have Abraham for our father!" But as Christ told them, they didn't do the works of faith that their Father Abraham did. So Judah is not in the bosom of Abraham, but Lazarus is. Why? Who is this "Lazarus" that he should have such a lofty position of honor with the Father of the faithful? I said earlier that the Jews, undoubtedly, understood "who" Christ was referring to in both the Rich man and Lazarus. Remember that the Jews of Jerusalem knew Hebrew. Their scriptures were written in Hebrew. They were a lot closer to these symbols and the Hebrew language than we are today. "And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed; and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir." (Gen. 15:2-3). In chapter 13 God had already promised great land and possessions to Abram's seed. But Abram had no seed! Abram told God that since he had no son, his chief steward, Eliezer, would be his heir and inherit all that was his. Eliezer was so faithful a steward to Abraham that Abraham was planning to make him his heir and give Eliezer all his possessions and inheritance. Eliezer would have been wealthy. He would have inherited the "promised land." He would have received the "oracles of God." Ah, but no, God had different plans. Abraham would have a son Isaac who would continue the Abrahamic line. It appears that Eliezer will be left out, for he lost his one big claim to fame. Now he's just a "Gentile" from Damascus. All his generations will be "gentiles" (dogs). Eliezer knew he would inherit all of Abraham's possessions one day. And now, that's all gone. But he remains faithful. He had ample opportunity to do away with Isaac on any number of occasions, but he remained faithful to Abraham. He even journeyed to get a wife for Isaac. He did all that a faithful steward should do. Imagine just how faithful and trustworthy a steward would have to be for Abraham to leave ALL his possessions to him. Abraham was extremely rich. Why look for "another" to pass these blessings onto? Eliezer has already proved himself faithful. Abraham had already concluded that Eliezer was the only logical heir: "This Eliezer of Damascus ... born in my house is mine heir" (Gen. 15:2-3). It appears that either Eliezer becomes Abraham's heir, or nothing. Absolutely no spiritual promises or possessions were ever made by God to Eliezer If he is not to get Abraham's inheritance, which included all that Abraham already had plus all that God is about to bless him with, then Eliezer is going to be poor as far as spiritual blessings are concerned. As a Gentile, all he can ever hope for are the spiritual "crumbs" that fall from the Rich man's table. Not to fear: through faith God works many miracles. Note: "Now the woman was a Greek, a native of Syro-Phoenicia [A Gentile], and she asked Him that He should be casting the demon out of her daughter. Yet Jesus said to her, 'Let first the children [The Jews] be satisfied, for it is not ideal to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.' Yet she answered and is saying to Him, 'Yes, Lord, For the dogs also, underneath the table, are eating the scraps from the little children.' And He said to her, 'Because of this saying, go. The demon has come out of your daughter.'" (Mk. 6:27-29). Clearly this Syro-Phoenician woman was not asking for a small portion of food (crumbs or scraps), but rather a small portion of Christ's spiritual blessing. And clearly, Lazarus does not represent a street beggar in need of a small portion of food. When Christ entered Capernaum a centurion [a Roman, a Gentile] asked Christ to heal his boy. Christ said He would come. The Centurion said He need only to "say the word" and he would trust Christ for the healing. "When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to them that followed, 'Verily I say unto you I have not found so great faith no, not in Israel'" (Mat. 8:5-10). Why then, are the Gentiles relegated to "dogs?" Not in all Israel did our Lord find such faith as in these Gentile "dogs!" But "Judah" gets all the blessings while the "Gentile" dogs get the crumbs. Ah, just when we think things are going bad and God isn't fair, He shows us His strange and marvelous wisdom! As Paul Harvey says, "And now for the rest of the story ... " What was Christ's response to this marvelous exhibition of faith by the Centurion? "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and the west [Gentiles], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of Heaven, but the children of the kingdom [Judah] shall be cast into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mat. 8:11-12). If these "from the east and the west" are not the "children of the kingdom" (that is some combination of Jews and Israelites), then they would have to be gentiles. Christ is not telling us that "Jews" from the East and "Jews" from the West will sit down with Abraham, but that the "Jews" shall be cast out. That's contradictory. It's the "Jews" (also containing members of the other ten tribes) who are the "children of the kingdom" who are "cast out." Those from the East and West are "Gentiles." Christ is telling us who these "many" are because He is commenting on the faith that God has given to this Centurion "Gentile." This statement of Christ's at this particular occasion would be totally out of context, except for the fact that He is marveling over the faith of these Gentiles. In His ministry, Christ speaks only rarely of the Gentiles. But He does speak of them. And, although He said He was sent only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (Mat. 15:25), in His human ministry He nonetheless was making provisions for the Gentiles, as in this prophetic statement. As Christ's disciples were to be like "salt" to the earth, this Syro-Phoenician woman, Cornelius of the Italian squadron, the Roman Centurion, and others were certainly like "salt" among the Jews. When it comes to God's blessings, faith is thicker than blood. God has not "cast off" the Gentiles! So we find "Lazarus" [Gk: helpless] begging scraps from a rich man's table. Can "helpless" find "help?" Will God have mercy on him just as He did the Syro-Phoenician woman and the Centurion? Yes! "Lazarus" is "Eliezer." The Greek "Lazarus" is from Lazaros
[Heb. HELPLESS]. If Lazarus knew his Hebrew name, he would have known that help was on the way. The "God of Help" had already planned this whole marvelous drama from the time of Abraham. Just as the Jews can look to their ancient "father" Abraham as a sterling example of faith in God, so now, likewise, can the Gentiles look to Abraham's Steward, Eliezer as a "father" of rare faith. Truly there is no partiality with God - it only appears that way when we let the relative get in the way of the absolute. It is the Gentiles that God is primarily dealing with today. Paul says there is to be only a remnant of Jews. His calling was to the nations. Paul, however, knew that God was still calling a few of the Jews. "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh [Jews], and might save some of them" (Rom. 11:14). For nearly two thousand years now God is calling primarily people among the Gentiles.
It was the "Gentiles" who were not allowed into the Royal and Priestly House of Judah. They could go no further than "The court of the Gentiles." Any blessings they received had to come to them from inside where they were never allowed to go. Though designated as "proselytes," they were, nonetheless, like "dogs" who only got the "crumbs" or scraps. Hence we find Lazarus cast "at the gate." Little could these Jews hearing this parable realize that in just a few short years all this would change. "Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you [Gentiles], who once are far off are become near by the blood of Christ. For He is our Peace, Who makes both one, and razes the central wall of the barrier [middle wall of partition] ... He brings the evangel of peace to you [Gentiles] ... for through Him we both [Jews and Gentiles] have had the access, in one spirit to the Father" (Eph. 2:13-18). And so today, the Gentiles don't have to stand outside the gate, or be separated by a barrier, or stay in their own court and wait for handouts. They have direct access to God. And who has been preaching the Evangel for the past two thousand years? The Jews? Hardly. It has been the Gentiles (as far as we can know the identity of modern nations), that have translated the Scriptures into nearly every language on earth. It is those called of the Gentiles that are accepting Christ Jesus as their Savior, not the Jews. It is a rare thing to find a person known for sure to be a Jew accepting Christ as the Messiah. And that's why we find Lazarus [Eliezer-the Gentiles] in the bosom of Abraham, and the Rich man [the Jews] engulfed in the flames of Anti-Semitism for the past two thousand years.
Lazarus is not full of sores in Abraham's bosom. He has been healed. In fact, that's what "salvation" meant in New Testament times. "Salvation" is a beautiful sounding Latin word, however, it was never part of the New Testament Greek Vocabulary. Not until six or eight centuries ago did the word "salvation" come into translations. Before that time it was "health" that was one's salvation. And all of the very oldest Anglo-Saxon Scriptures translate it "health" not "salvation." So for Lazarus, "health" in the bosom of Abraham was salvation! Lazarus doesn't represent "materialistically" poor Jews, but "spiritually" poor Gentiles. That's the whole point in the parable. Judah was rich and knew it! They were like the Laodiceans who said: "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:17).
In "figurative and symbolic language" the Rich man asks for a drop of water on the tip of Lazarus' finger. How appropriate! Who was it that refused to help the "poor" with so much as their little finger?
Now Judah begs the assistance of a "finger" from a poor man! And not just a poor man, but a poor Gentile! It was custom for pious Jews to cut a section of their garment off if it where so much as touched by the finger of a Gentile. Now he begs for the assistance of that Gentile finger. "God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall he be reaping also" (Gal. 6:7).
It isn't his "flesh" that he wants cooled from the flames, but his tongue. This man is frightened. His tongue is swelling. And well it should be. When people are petrified from fear their tongue dries and swells. That's why some public speakers often need a whole glass of water just to get through a 15 minute speech. King David said: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion" (Psa. 137:1). Well, God brought Judah back from Babylon to Jerusalem, but Judah didn't have the same heart as King David. He failed to "remember." David said: " ... let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ... if I forget to remember Jerusalem." It was because of Judah's "tongue" that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first place: "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen; because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord ... " (Isa. 3:8). So in the parable we find Lazarus [Eliezer] (a Gentile) in the bosom of Abraham, and Judah, who should be there, on the other side asking for mercy. But Lazarus can't come over to the Rich man even if he wanted to, because of this "chasm."
Earlier I showed you from the Greek that there is water in this gulf or chasm. What could this be all about? Certainly there is no literal chasm between hades [unseen] and Abraham's bosom. What or where is this great chasm? Does the Bible speak of a great chasm that has anything to do with salvation or rewards? When the Children of Israel made their exodus out of Egypt, they were on their way to the "Promised Land." After receiving the Ten Commandments at Mt Sinai, (where they stayed approximately one year), they headed north to Kadeshbarnea. They sent men to spy out the land. They were very close to Canaan. But God sentenced them to thirty-nine more years in the wilderness for their unbelief. How different they were from their ancient Father Abraham. After thirty-nine years they again headed north, only this time through Edom and Moab and approached the Jordan from the East. To get to the Promised Land they had to cross over the Jordan River Valley. The River Jordan runs through a "great chasm [or gulf]." From Mt. Nebo Moses could see the Promised Land. The Jordan is in a huge chasm. It's a "far" way to the other side. This chasm is, in fact so large that it may well be one of the largest fault lines on Earth. It starts on the southern boundaries of Turkey and runs through Palestine, through the Dead Sea, through the Red Sea, through Africa to Lake Victoria. Some scientists and geologists believe it continues through Africa and the South Pole and reemerges again in the Pacific Ocean. Now that's a "Great Chasm." Because of Moses' sin, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land. "Crossing over Jordan" has always been symbolic as a type of salvation. Just as Israel couldn't cross the Red Sea except by a miracle of parting the waters, so too, God supernaturally dried up the Jordan so they could cross over. So literally they didn't get wet crossing the Jordan; they didn't "get baptized." Neither did most of the rulers of the Jews "get baptized" at John's baptism. It is always God who determines boundaries. Moses could not cross that chasm. And no one else could cross over except it were God's intention. Just as Israel looked to the crossing over Jordan as their salvation in a new land, so we too, are looking for a future Kingdom of God. And God alone determines who will and who won't be in that Kingdom. In a real sense we too go into the Kingdom of God by way of the Jordan. Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan (Mat. 3:13). And " ... whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death. We, then were entombed together with Him through baptism into death ... For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also ... " (Rom. 6:4-5). Mortality kept the majority of Israelites from entering the Promised Land. The generation that started on this journey died in the wilderness. Only a remnant crossed over Jordan under the leadership of Joshua. Likewise, today, God is calling only a "remnant" to salvation: "God does not thrust away His people whom He foreknew ... Thus, then, in the current era also, there has come to be a remnant according to the choice of grace" (Rom. 11:2 & 5). Mortality kept most of Israel out of the promised land, and by immortality we will enter the Kingdom of God: "Lo! a secret ... we all shall be changed ... at the last trump ... the dead will be roused ... this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality (I Cor. 15:51-53). And we enter the Kingdom under the new Joshua (Jesus) the Christ! Judah had the "promises," the "Oracles" of God, the "Royalty," the "Priesthood," the "Seat of Moses," the "Temple of God," the "Ark of the Covenant," enormous "wealth and riches," the "Possession of the Land," and the prophesied "Messiah." And still, they rejected God!
Judah [the Jews] proved to be totally unworthy of their high calling. Their hearts turned from the declarations of God. Claiming Abraham as their father did not exonerate their evil.
Not only were they no longer " ... of the faith of Abraham," but they had, in fact, utterly corrupted themselves. After King David, Solomon broke God commandments and covenant (I Kg 11:11). King Rehoboam said:
And King Manasseh, of Judah, went from bad to worse:
According to your "literal" teaching of this parable, the Rich man did nothing to deserve his torment. Once we identify this Rich man, however, we find a mountain of sins and evils that are attributed to him: When John the Baptist saw these same descendants of the Jews, (the Pharisees and Sadducees) coming to his baptisms, he remarked: "progeny of vipers." Our Lord used the most derogatory language possible in describing the Jews of the first century:
Yes, there is more than ample reason for "Judah" finding himself in a "place of torment!" Can we see how God combines them all together? Christ said:
So why shouldn't Christ picture the Jews in hades viewing this disaster of their race? Of course it is figurative! But didn't God figuratively say that " ... the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground" (Gen. 4:10)? You could say, "impossible!" But God is talking figuratively. In Revelation 6 the dead souls of those slain for the Word of God are crying out. This too is figurative. God wouldn't allow His Conscious Saints to be all piled up on a bloody heap under an altar for thousands of years. Jonah was literally in " ... the fish's belly" (Jonah 2:1), but figuratively he called it " ... the belly of hell [sheol=IMPERCEPTIBLE]" (Jonah 2:2). And so we have the Rich man (Judah) "shouting from hades." Figuratively, we have great emotion here. The Jews corrupted themselves. In the person of Judah they see the result of their ways. Notice that the Rich man never said one word in his own defense. He knew what kind of people he represented. I find it hard to believe what I am reading when I see the terminology our Lord used against the Jews and their forefathers. Really, consider His words: adulterous, evil, transgressors, faithless, perverse, hypocrites, murderers, blind guides, fools, generation of snakes. The Jews were given so much by God, but showed ever so little appreciation to God. They have suffered like few races of people have ever suffered. Eliezer, on the other hand, lived an untarnished life of faithfulness, and yet is promised nothing from God, neither material blessings nor spiritual blessings. In life he received "evil." Abraham considered him worthy of inheriting all his possessions. God, on the other hand, disinherited him. This was an "evil" to Eliezer. It was God's wisdom in bringing this evil on Eliezer. Little did these Jews know at the time Christ spoke this parable, that it would be only thirty some years future that their beloved Jerusalem would once again be destroyed. But this time, God would also take from them the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant. And little did the Gentiles know that Saul [Paul] was already being prepared to take God's spiritual blessings "to the nations." It will be Eliezer himself who will be the first Gentile to not only justify God in His actions, but glorify Him for the marvelous blessings that God has bestowed on the Gentiles. For nearly two thousand years the Jews have been without a Temple. That, however, may change soon, as there is to be another Temple in Jerusalem: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation ... stand in the holy place ... " (Mat. 24:15). . The Jews have wandered from country to country for centuries never even having a country they could call their own until 1948 They have been persecuted everywhere they have lived! This greatest slaughter took place during Hitler's death camps when reportedly six to seven million Jews were exterminated. The Rich man said, "I am tormented in this flame." If one checks all the parables it becomes evident that most of them were prophecies. And therefore "flames" is most appropriate in describing the plight of the Jews through the millennia. Not just the "Flames of Anti-Semitism," but even literally-remember Hitler's ovens? I remember the words of a Jewish teenager after the Holocaust, bemoaning: "The world stood still while the Jews burned. The pain! The pain!" Yes, Judah is still crying out from the unseen. And it will get even worse. There is coming a time of great tribulation worse than the world has ever seen, and especially is this tribulation directed toward the Jews. So once again, (but thank God for the last time), "let them which be in Judaea flee ... " (Mat. 24:16)! The Rich man's thoughts turn to "his father's house" and his "five brothers." What will happen to them? Even if they didn't hear Moses and the prophets, surely, if "someone should be going to them from the dead, they will be repenting."
How could Abraham know that for a fact? Because, (1) it is really Christ who is speaking, (2) it's a parable, (3) it's a prophecy of things to come, and (4) Christ knows all. Ironically, the only person ever resurrected from the dead that we know by "name" at this time was Martha's brother Lazarus. Did that miracle persuade the Jews? Yes, many. "Many of the Jews, then, who came to Mary and gaze at what Jesus does, believe in Him" (Jn 11:45). Yet when other Jews reported this miracle back to the Pharisees, "From that day, they [the Jewish leaders] consult that they should kill Him" (Jn. 11:53). It's always the religious leaders who have the most trouble believing. But how many of these "many who believed" stayed faithful? When Christ began teaching them really "spiritual things," many could not handle it. Christ told them that "The flesh is not benefiting anything" (Jn 6:63). That was more than they would tolerate as most "Christians" today do not tolerate such a thought either, and therefore: "From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him" (Jn. 6:65-66). This parable, however, is not speaking about Lazarus' resurrection, but Christ's resurrection from the dead. All of Judea did not know of the resurrection of Lazarus, but everyone heard about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only the Jewish leaders who killed Him, but all Jerusalem, all of the Rich man's brothers and everywhere the descendants of his brothers were scattered: (1) Jerusalem, (2) Judea, (3) Samaria, (4) The limits of the land (Acts 1:8), and (5) to the dispersed among the nations. And the message sent to all these Jews, everywhere, was that the Christ whom they crucified had risen from the dead. Judah did not obey God through most of their long history. The Jews as a nation did not repent at the preaching of John the Baptist. They killed their own Savior! "Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God Makes Him Lord as well as Christ-this Jesus Whom you [Jews] crucify!" (Acts 2:36). But Christ forgave them before He even died: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). He commissioned his apostles to herald the good news of His resurrection and the coming Kingdom of God to them again. But again, as a nation, the Jews rejected Him. So now what? Christ calls Saul to be "Paul." Paul preaches and teaches in Jerusalem. And what kind of reception did Paul and his message receive? "Now he [Paul] argued in the synagogue on every sabbath ... Paul was pressed in the word, certifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. Now at their [the Jews] resisting and blaspheming, shaking out his garments, he said to them, 'Your blood be on your head! Clear am I! From now on I shall go to the nations" (Acts 18:4-6). Just as Christ prophesied, " ... neither will they be persuaded if someone should be rising from among the dead." Not that I expect you to believe this, Mr. Hagee, but the Scriptures do plainly state that the Jews shall yet find salvation through Christ's Sacrifice, because it was God who blinded them in the first place so that they would not and could not understand and repent. Isaiah prophesied that they would not repent and so Christ did not heal them (Mat. 13:1915). " ... us [Gentiles], whom He calls also, not only out of the Jews, but out of the nations also ... " (Rom.. 9:24). And "I shall be calling those who are not My people [Gentiles] 'My people,'" (Rom. 9:25). And "I became disclosed to those [Gentiles] who are not inquiring for Me" (Rom. 10:20). Since the time that Paul said "From now on I shall go to the nations," the Jews have, except for rare and individual cases, rejected Christ risen from the dead. What about these Jews then? Is the Rich man [Judah, the Jews, the whole house of Israel] going to suffer in a fancied Christian Hell of devils and flames of torment for all eternity? Why can't we believe the Scriptures? Not just one or two, but hundreds of Scriptures that point to the fact that all is of God. God is operating all. Many years ago I learned something most profound: "The 'blind' can't see!" Not many theologians believe that. Surely, if we present it in just the right way, they will see. No, they won't. If they get sick enough of their life and sins, then they will see. No, they won't. If we tell them often enough and with enough conviction, with hundreds of scriptures, and with charts and diagrams, and with analogies and examples, surely then at least "some" of the blind will see. No, they won't. I'll tell you why. Because the blind cannot see. I told you it was profound. You can hold it closer to their face, you can shout, you can shine a bright light on it. It doesn't matter, "The blind can't see!" Christendom teaches that if people want to see and understand, then they can. It's all up to them. No, it's not. I know people who are physically blind, and they want to see, but they can't because the blind can't see. When God Almighty "blinds" someone, they cannot see. I do not entertain any such notion that this letter will persuade anyone who is blind to see its truth unless God uses it to open their mind and remove the blindness. Let the Scriptures speak: "Does not God thrust away His people? ... God does not thrust away His people whom He fore knew" (Rom. 11:1-2). "Thus, then, in the current era also, there has come to be a remnant according to the choice [God's choice] of grace" (Rom. 11:8). "What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen [those God chose] encountered it. Now the rest [the rest of the Jews, all the rest of Israel] were calloused ... " (Rom. 11:7). Who calloused them? Who is operating all? Now pay close attention to this next verse. I just checked twenty-six translations and the Greek Text to be sure I'm right on this point, and they all say the same thing.
"Till this very day," was written 2000 years ago, and yet "till this very day" today, as a race, as a nation, as a religion, and as a people, the Jews have universally rejected their only Savior, Jesus Christ. Yes it was "God" Who did these things! Why would God do such a thing? Is there some purpose to it all? Yes there is.
Since it was God who blinded the Jews and cast them away, will He ever take them back and remove their blindness?
Look at Ezekiel 37 beginning in verse 13, "And ye shall know that I am the Lord when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves." (Notice they come out of their graves, not out of hell). Ver. 14, "And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live ... " (Notice they shall "live." That means they were "dead," not alive in hell.) Ver. 23, "Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, so shall they be my people, and I will be their God." Ver. 25, "And David my servant shall be king over them ... " I cannot see how you could possible believe any one of these verses and yet believe that unbelieving Jews will burn in Hell for all eternity. Let's be Scripturally honest here:
I know that you can read, Mr. Hagee, but can you believe? These Scriptures are not wrongly translated. And they contradict your whole teaching! Perverting a parable to such gross extremes so as to nullify hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture (that are not parables) is a damnable thing. Consigning billions of human beings to an eternal Hell of torture is unspeakable, not to mention totally unscriptural. God's punishments and chastisements are severe enough without multiplying them a trillion times to the power of infinity. That's INSANE! This parable, like all the others, has great and enormous consequences. This is not the story of a single, nameless rich man and one poor beggar in the street named Lazarus. Christ preached the kingdom of God. "I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent" (Lk. 4:43). Christ likened Himself to a "bridegroom" (Lk. 5:34). Look at all of the parables, and see how they point to the coming Kingdom of God when the Bridegroom will make a great feast and hand out rewards or punishments according to the "faithfulness" and "stewardship," or lack thereof, of His servants. But time and again, those initially invited to this Great Feast are rejected and those who had no claim to attend such a feast are invited in. "Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither, the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind" (Lk. 14:21). But, " ... none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper" (Ver. 24). Don't fight the Scriptures. First it looked as if God had forsaken the Gentiles-He had not. Then it looked as if He had forsaken His chosen people (the Jews)--He had not. It's God's way. This is God's wisdom. And it is so much higher than puny man's ability to appreciate or comprehend. When God removes all blindness, gives faith to believe, removes all sins, and convicts the heart of the greatness of God and the nothingness of our own selves, all will be persuaded. You can doubt it all you want, but we are not our own achievement. Rather: "For HIS achievement are we ... " (Eph. 2:10). " ... our Saviour, God, Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4). How dare any doubt God's own ability to fulfill and accomplish His own will? If God cannot accomplish and fulfill His own will, what hope is there for us? It is a gross lack of faith to believe that God will not accomplish His own will. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin. I heard you say that faith is "substance." Faith is "tangible." But, faith is no such thing. Mr. Hagee, you need to check the "exact" Greek words on such important topics. It appears that TBN places much emphasis on "tangibility." Beautiful buildings, great music, speaking in tongues, healings, financial blessings, miracles, etc. Things that can be touched, felt, heard, handled, and seen. That's not faith. That's sight. Have you not read what Paul prophesied? "Love is never lapsing: yet, whether prophecies, they will be discarded, or languages, they will cease, or knowledge, it will be discarded ... Now whenever maturity may be coming, that which is out of an installment shall be discarded ... I have discarded that which is a minor's ... Yet now are remaining faith, expectation [hope], love ... Be pursuing love." (I Cor. 13:8-13 & 14:1). It is these very "tangible" things that TBN emphasizes so highly that Paul calls immature toys of minors. But "faith" is one of the three that is "now remaining."
Heb. 11:1 is properly translated thus:
It requires no faith to observe something. The reason proof and evidence are presented in a court of law is because no one believes that anyone in the court room will tell the truth If everyone always told the truth, the court would have "faith" in their testimony and they wouldn't need to present proof and evidence. God always tells the truth. Probably ten thousand times a day people are being told by the clergy that "faith is the substance ... and evidence." It is clearly no such thing. You're teaching people to "live by sight" if you think "faith" is substance, proof, tangible, weighable, visible, evidence. I have not seen or handled the Resurrected Christ, yet I believe in Christ through faith. And it is certainly not my faith, but the faith of Christ, Who imparts it to me. We "assume" that God is Who He says and will do what He says not because we have proof and evidence, but because He is GOD! Those who believe in Him have received that grace from God. The reason Abraham is in this parable, is because Abraham is the "father" of the faithful. Both the plight and the flight (the bad and the good) of this parable have their origin in either belief or unbelief. "By unbelief are they [the Jews] broken out, yet you stand in faith" (Rom 11:20). Now listen to Paul's admonition very carefully: "Be not haughty, but fear" (Ver. 20). "God parts to each the measure of faith" (Rom. 12:4). Yet most Christians think faith is the one thing, for sure, that they must contribute on their own to be saved. To believe that is not only unscriptural, but vain. "Now what have you which you did not obtain? Now if you obtained it also, why are you boasting as though not obtaining?" (I Cor. 4:7). All of the arrogance of Christendom would vanish over night if they would just believe and comprehend this one beautiful and profound verse of Scripture! We must be thankful, not haughty, that God is calling us (the Gentiles). You think we are special but the cast-off Jews are not? No. The Jews are very special to God. The Rich man asked for mercy, and he will yet receive mercy.
God gave Abraham that kind of faith. God gave Eliezer that kind of faith. Faith that doesn't require substance, evidence, and proof. Every step of faith that Eliezer took put him that much farther from his inheritance. Eliezer's faith wasn't in the "visible evidence." It was faith in God. In Abraham's case the "evidence" (his and his wife's old age) that God would give them seed, was a faith destroyer. There was nothing in the visible evidence that would have given anyone faith. Abraham's faith wasn't in "evidence," but in God. Children need proof. The Mature live by faith. I am sure there is much more that can be learned and understood regarding this unique parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. However, whatever we teach regarding it must at least stand on solid Scriptural ground and not contradict. Please don't accuse me of not taking the Bible "literally." I believe with my whole heart that "Lazarus and the Rich Man" is literally, a parable. But the real truth of this parable is not nearly as morbid as it may appear at first glance. God has a plan that eventually brings all the Jews and all the Gentiles to salvation. And that, my friend, really does GLORIFY GOD! ------------------------------------------------------- Surely you are aware of the Geneva Convention. Even sinful human beings have seen fit to outlaw torture in war. Killing, slaughter, destruction, all are allowed, but not torturing. You make God out to be worse than the worst of corrupt men. Have you ever been burned? I have. I once had a stove blow up in my face. I was burned and blinded for some time. If nothing else, it allowed me to see the absolute absurdity of torturing someone with burns for all eternity. Burns are very painful things. A few minutes can seem like a very long time. Imagine being burned over your whole body and suffering with this for one year. No not in a hospital with a comfortable bed, with pretty nurses attending to your every need. Not with good food, or with friends visiting you and consoling you, and certainly not with pain killers. But rather in the middle of more flames, with no water, no food, nothing but pain, anguish, misery, and total despair. Imagine languishing and writhing without an instant of relief. Children screaming for mommy and daddy. Everyone blaspheming and cursing the name of the God Who put them here. All the while their friends and loved ones watch from Heaven, singing songs and praising God for the precision and extreme skill employed in exacting the most severe pain and torture possible. Have you ever meditated even for ten minutes on the absurdity of being tortured like this for eternity? I seriously doubt that one in a million has.
|