The Rich Man and Lazarus—Luke 16:19-31

(Image courtesy of http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/)

Please read today's text here: Luke 16:19-31 In yesterday's posting Luke recorded how Jesus affirmed the authority of the "Law and the Prophets", a standard way in his day of referring to what we call the Old Testament. He further stated that the Law and the Prophets led up to the ministry of John the Baptizer and the climax, when the Good News of the Kingdom of God would be proclaimed. In this way Jesus was saying what the Apostle Paul later said using a different imagery. Paul wrote that "For us (Jews) the law [i.e., the Old Testament] was (like) a tutor to lead us to the Messiah" (Galatians 3:24-25).

In today's passage which immediately follows, the link is the role of the law of Moses and the Prophets (v. 29-31). In this case too, the Law and the Prophets function not as legal and ethical authorities alone, but rather as witnesses pointing to the one way to avoid Hell (here called "Hades") and ensure an afterlife in Heaven (here called Abraham's lap/bosom). That one way is not actually mentioned until the end of the story proper ("believe" or "be convinced"), but it is implicit when viewed alongside the preceding passage about the Law and the Prophets leading to the Gospel of the Kingdom, meaning the message Jesus proclaimed. But now let us get to the story itself, which again is one of many that are unique to the Gospel of Luke.

The two main characters in the story are an unnamed rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus. The fact that the beggar is given a name prompted many scholars to assume that there was a real incident behind this story. But this leaves unexplained the anonymity of the rich man. Furthermore, it ignores what we now know: that Lazarus (a form of the name Eleazar) was one of the most common names borne by Palestinian Jewish men and boys in Jesus' day (see Tal Ilan's indispensable study of Jewish names in this period). To name a character in a story "Lazarus" was like calling a man in a story today "John Doe". This combines nicely with the anonymity of the rich man, to whom in fact later Christian tradition supplied the name "Dives", which also is not really a name, but the Latin adjective "rich". What we have here, then, is really Daddy Warbucks and John Doe!

Only Daddy Warbucks in this case is also Ebenezer Scrooge, as we see as the story unfolds. The rich man not only has lots of everything, but he squanders it all on self-indulgence instead of using his wealth to help the poor and needy. He feasted sumptuously and wore the most expensive clothes (v. 19). At his very gate, where he could not possibly have been unaware of him, lay a beggar who was not only poor but injured or diseased, for he had sores (v. 21). The hungry man longed to eat even the scraps from the rich man's table, just like the Prodigal Son in the earlier story was glad in his poverty to eat the husks of the pigs he herded. The condition of this man was also like that of the injured man by the wayside in the story of the Good Samaritan. People passed by and saw him, but no one stopped to help him but the Samaritan. In this story the only ones to show him any pity were the dogs who licked his sores (v. 21)!

Finally, the beggar died, and was carried by angels to paradise. The rich man also eventually died. But in his Afterlife he found himself in Hell (called "Hades" in Greek), from where he was he could apparently see paradise, but only far off. What made his suffering in Hell all the more painful was the sight of Lazarus in paradise. In his teachings Jesus sometimes described those who died rejecting God's forgiveness as weeping and gnashing their teeth in frustration at a lost opportunity.

Now the tables were turned! Lazarus is enjoying paradise, just as the rich man banqueted in his home in full sight of the poor hungry Lazarus at the gate. And now it is he who must call out as a beggar for pity. The words he used, "have mercy on me" (v. 24), are the words Jewish beggars used as they lay on street corners. The rich man was now the beggar, and Lazarus was now a rich man!

But why did the rich man call out to Abraham, and not rather to Lazarus? Perhaps because he saw Abraham as "in charge" or because he knew he had neglected Lazarus during his lifetime and figured that now Lazarus would not in turn have any pity on him. But interestingly enough, the rich man doesn't ask for an angel to bring him water to cool his horrible thirst, but rather for Lazarus! Perhaps what he thirsts for more than water is Lazarus' forgiveness. And he figures that Abraham could command Lazarus to be merciful and to forgive the rich man.

In v. 25-26 Abraham gives two reasons why he cannot comply with the rich man's request. First, the reversal of states that the two now have experienced reflects what they did or did not do in their lifetimes. God must be just and fair. And secondly, it is not permitted for residents in Paradise and Hell to visit the other side.

Seeing his own state now as hopeless, the rich man for the first time in his life now shows concern for others, although they are still only his own close relatives. He has five brothers in his father's household (v. 27-28) whose manner of life he knows to be the same as his own was. He has good reason, therefore, to fear for their ultimate fate. They need to be warned! Although he suspects that he himself would never be permitted to go to them, he hopes that Lazarus would. Again, he doesn't ask for an angel, but for Lazarus. Abraham's answer is very revealing:

"There is no need for such extraordinary measures! Your brothers have the Scriptures—the Law and the Prophets! That is sufficient warning, as well as sufficient guidance for how to obtain Paradise." (my paraphrase)

Again, we are reminded of Jesus' words in the previous passage: the Old Testament Scriptures were to prepare Israel for the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Messiah who would proclaim that gospel. If anyone carefully read and understood the Old Testament, they would inevitably be led to the person of Jesus the Messiah.

But the rich man persisted to object. He too had had the Law and the Prophets, Yet that had not been enough! So in desperation he objected: No. But if someone were to go to them from the dead, then they would repent" (v. 30). This leads to the "kicker". Abraham's words are pregnant with meaning for Luke's readers who by this time know that Jesus rose from the dead, and his disciples testified to this to many Jews in Jerusalem, who still would not believe. Abraham therefore said: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (i.e., the Old Testament prophesies of the coming of the Messiah, fulfilled in Jesus), they will not believe, even if one should rise from the dead" (v. 31).

And did you notice? The condition for avoiding Hell in the Afterlife has changed in this last word from Abraham. That condition is now believing. Not simply being merciful or following the ethics of the Bible, but believing—precisely what Jesus' critics who heard these words refused to do.

But before we leave this story, I wish to caution you. This was a story Jesus told. We are not intended to use it to inform ourselves about the geography of Hell or of Heaven. Many of the details were designed by Jesus to allow him to get across his point. We must not expect that Heaven for us, were we to die today, would be sitting with Abraham, looking across a chasm at people suffering in Hell. Instead, the picture of "Heaven" that the rest of the New Testament gives is simply being in the presence of Jesus. Being with him will be all we ever wanted. To know that is to know enough. We can fill in the details when we get there!

The Widow of Na’in — Luke 7:11-17

Courtesy of http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18503/18503-h/images/p278.jpg

The Text: Luke 7:11-17It is easy to see why Luke follows up the story of the Centurion’s slave with this one. In the former, the slave was “at the point of death”, while here the young man has already died. In the former, the faith of the Centurion elicits Jesus’ miraculous healing, while here nothing is said of the widow having faith: Jesus is merely moved by her plight and acts unilaterally for her.

Although it was not possible for Jesus in his three years of public teaching and healing to eliminate the sufferings of person in the Galilean countryside, where he lived, his mission was to make possible—by his life, death and resurrection—an ultimate elimination of all suffering and unhappiness in the kingdom of God at the end of history. Yet even so, when a notable case of deep human suffering met him face to face, as it did here, Jesus could not help but intervene to help the sufferer. It was his nature to do this.

The woman was a widow already before her only son died. Now she was without any obvious male protector or supporter in a time and culture in which women did not work outside the family, except as prostitutes. Whether she had a father still living or brothers who might help her is not made clear from the story. But her situation was certainly a bleak one. When Jesus saw her walking sadly behind the coffin of her son in the small funeral procession that filed through the village gate toward him, he knew he had to help her. The text says:

Then he went up and touched the bier they were carrying him on, and the bearers stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" 15 The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

The widow’s reaction is not recorded. We can easily imagine what it was. Rather, Luke gives us the reaction of the onlookers:

“They were all filled with awe and praised God. ‘A great prophet has appeared among us,’ they said. ‘God has come to help his people’” (Luke 7:16).

Now admittedly, Luke does not say they said “the great prophet”, i.e., Elijah, the prophet who was supposed to come right before the Savior-Messiah, promised by God in the Jewish prophets in the Old Testament. But the words “God has come to help his people” certainly refer to the great and final intervention of God in human history predicted in the Old Testament prophets. That the divine intervention was to be directed to Israel (“his people”) is also clear from these words.

What was there about this particular miracle of Jesus that led people to such a conclusion? Perhaps it was in the raising of a dead man, which could not but remind those familiar with Ezekiel’s (37:1-14) and Daniel’s (12:2) prophecies of the End of History, which spoke of a massive resurrection from the dead of God’s people.

I would certainly not deny that this deed showed more than Jesus’ kindness. It showed that he was a “great prophet”, indeed much more. For who but God raises the dead? And nothing indicates that Jesus needed to call upon God for the power to raise this young man: he merely acted as God, commanding the dead man to rise.

So in a real sense, but one different than what the crowd intended, the miracle did show that “God has come to help his people”. For Jesus was God, and his whole being longed for nothing so much as to help his people, not only the ethnic Israel, but all those who like the Roman Centurion showed themselves by faith to be “his people”.

1 Cor. 15:1-11 The Gospel Paul received and taught

At this point in his letter, Paul turns to a very serious doctrinal problem in the Cornithian church, which has far-reaching practical consequences. But he doesn't barge into the subject with words like "Now as for your misconceptions about resurrection…" Instead he approaches it carefully and through a doorway that was his hearers own doorway into faith: the gospel.

There are several ways we use the word "gospel" today. One can refer to "the gospel of Matthew" by which we mean a part of the Bible, one of the four accounts in the New Testament of the earthly life of Jesus. Or we can say we heard Billy Graham "preaching the gospel." This means his explanation to non-believers of what Jesus accomplished for us in his life, death and resurrection, and what is expected from us if we wish to be "saved" from our sins. Some people would call this "the way of salvation". It is the short version that is told to inquirers, who want to become Christians.

What Paul calls "the gospel" in these verses comes close to the second use described above, but it lacks the information about what the hearer must do in order to benefit from it. Paul states that part in v. 2, but it is not part of what he describes as received in vv. 3-8. We can compare this description of "the gospel" in vv. 3-8 with what Luke describes as the first evangelistic messages given by Peter in Jerusalem after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1-4). What we find is uniformity: what Paul describes here as what the other apostles passed on to him is exactly what Luke tells us that they preached in Jerusalem from the beginning. But of even greater significance to his readers, Paul reminds them that it was what he made known to them, and on which their faith and salvation was based.

Notice that in v. 2 Paul stresses that a superficial and casual "believing" that is not accompanied by a firm conviction of the truthfulness of the message and that is not the product of God's inner working in the heart of the believer will not in fact save. "Believed in vain" (v. 2) recalls Psalm 127:1 "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." Paul was well aware that a true conversion was the product of supernatural, divine action in the mind and heart of the believer.

Notice in v. 3 that Paul describes this gospel as "of first importance." This means that he taught them many other things of great importance, but nothing can compare with this monumental truth: the the Messiah ("Christ") died for our sins according to Old Testament prophecies (see Isaiah 53:4-6), was buried and rose again the third day, also in harmony with what was predicted (see Psalm 16, as interpreted by Peter in Acts 2:24-36).

The verb "received" (Greek parelabon v. 3) refers to receiving a tradition.

It is very likely that the tradition Paul received is contained in verses 3-7, and that verse 8 begins Paul's own addition to the primitive tradition. That tradition contained the following elements: (1) the Messiah (Greek ho christos "the Anointed One") died for our (i.e., all humans) sins, as the Scriptures predicted he would; (2) he was buried and rose again on the third day, also as predicted; (3) and the resurrected Messiah Jesus was seen, heard and felt by many witnesses, some here named so as to allow verification.

This should be familiar to you all, for this is in essence what we confess to each other in Christian fellowship. If you worship in a church where old creeds are used, you are also familiar with the clause "that he was buried". And you may have wondered why this phrase is included. It serves a purpose similar to the "third day": it is to make clear that Jesus did not just swoon, but really died, was interred, and his body remained dead until the third day. It also serves to remind us that, when we speak of "resurrection", we are not speaking of a spirit coming to life, but a body. This, in fact, is what is primarily on Paul's mind here, as he addresses the Corinthians' unwillingness to believe in resurrection: that it implied a future beyond death for the human body.

If the so-called "apprearances" of Jesus to his disciples after the crucifixion were not bodily ones, then one would expect the list to go on and to include more than Paul himself. For a vision of Jesus ascended was had by Stephen as he was dying (Acts 7:56), and countless visionary believers down through Christian history have claimed to have received visions of Jesus (I will not attempt to validate such claims, but I cannot completely exclude their possibility). Yet the list stops with James and "all the apostles" in verse 7. Why? Because after the ascension of the body of Jesus as recorded in Acts 1, a validation of the bodily resurrection of Jesus was no longer possible for a person living on Earth!

But notice how carefully this list was drawn up, and with such caution. No one was mentioned here who could not be interviewed, and his experience validated. This statement was of a type that could be submitted to the authorities or to a court. But it was also what was presented to potential believers, honoring their legitimate desire to know on what basis they should believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah promised centuries beforehand and that his resurrection proed that he was also divine and able to grant salvation from sins.

Notice too that this is called the "gospel". It is not a credal statement such as one finds in certain parts of Paul's letters (Philippians 2:6-11). It omits the pre-existence of the Son of God, which is included in the Philippians passage. It focuses on what is necessary for a new believer to confess and on what was predicted in the Old Testament.

In verses 8-11 we sense that Paul feels a certain isolation from the "club of the super-apostles". He respects the Twelve and acknowledges in this very passage his indebtedness to them for their knowledge of the earthly ministry of Jesus and their invaluable eyewitness testimony to the bodily resurrection. But we hear an echo in v. 8 of what he had heard that they called him: "the least of the apostles" and "one untimely born" (perhaps a miscarried fetus?). And he is willing to accept that sobriquette, although interpreting it in his own way (v. 9-10): he admits that he once persecuted the church of God, something none of the Twelve were guilty of. Paul may or may not have known of Peter's denying Jesus three times on the night of his betrayal. But if he did, he does not strike back viciously with this weapon. Instead, he confesses that it was through the undeserved mercy of God that he was turned around by the vision of the exalted Jesus on the Damascus Road. Paul dares to compare this experience to the appearances to the Twelve and to James, although the bodily resurrected Jesus was seen only in a vision. But this "appearance", he would have admitted, was of a different kind, and was not intended to be used as the others would to validate the resurrection. Jesus' appearance to Paul was in the nature of a divine commission to an apostolic mission to the Gentiles. Hence, he adds: "I worked harder than all of them" (v. 10).

And finally, in v. 11 he returns to his readers: You came to believe this gospel either through my direct ministry in Corinth or through one of the Twelve ("whether it was I or they"). This statement is intended to pave the way for his argument in the rest of the chapter. Persons who saw, heard and felt the body of the resurrected Lord Jesus brought this message which either one of them or I preached to you, and through believing it, you are now saved.

These facts have ramifications on what you are to believe about the future resurrection to take place at the end of this age, when Jesus returns. And those ramifications Paul will spell out in the rest of the chapter.

I hope to devote an eight-part blog series in the Fall, on this site, to an examination of the plan of God for the ages, in which both the resurrection of Jesus and the end-time resurrection of believers plays a crucial role. It will entail many other parts of the Bible than 1 Corinthians 15. I hope that many of you will join me for that series.

ⓒ2008 Harry Hoffner

1 Cor. 6:12-20 How Liberating is Selfish "Freedom"?

Today's text is 1 Cor. 6:12-20:

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (NIV).

The quotation marks in the NIV translation above are a pretty good guess at where Paul was quoting the slogans being tossed around in the Corinthian churches by those who were flaunting their "liberty" in Christ. But we cannot be sure in all cases if the quotation might have continued farther than indicated. For example, in v. 13 it is possible that "but God will destroy them both" also belongs to the slogan, not to Paul's reply.

We would all like to know just who in the Corinthian churches was using which slogans. Gender-wise, it has been plausibly suggested on the basis of the mention of "liberated" believers using prostitutes (v. 16) that those urging sexual freedom were men, not women. Perhaps, but we should be aware that the NIV's "he" and "his" in verse 16-18 is gender-neutral which can equally correctly be translated "she" and "her". And the Greek word anthropos which the NIV renders "man" in v. 18 is also the gender-neutral word "person". Were these "liberated" persons Jew or Gentile believers in Jesus? Would Gentile (i.e., pagan) converts have felt "un-liberated" sexually before becoming believers? These are questions for which we simply do not have answers. And in terms of the corrosive sexual liberation in today's world, the great hue and cry in TV, movies and mass media is for women to be liberated and to enjoy a promiscuous life style. So in terms of application of this passage to today's Christians, it is best not to pigeon-hole it with a gender category. All of us believers—men and women—need to hear this word of God through Paul.

As in his previous remarks about civil lawsuits, Paul stresses that what one has a right to do—even if that claim were to be correct—is not the really important issue for a disciple of Jesus. The issue is not what is permissible, but what is beneficial to all persons concerned. He has stressed in chapter 3 that it is corporately that the believers constitute God's temple. So much about the ways in which God has richly endowed them (1 Cor. 1:4-7) is true only in their corporate—not their individual—existence. Consequently, their personal lives and ethical decisions must all be governed by what is good for the entire body of believers. What will be helpful in strengthening others in the believing community? What will clarify the witness of the community to the outsiders? Will my action help or hinder the growth of my brothers and sisters in Christ?

What appear to be "free" choices, especially in matters of sexual practice, also usually lead to habits—and habits have a way of becoming addictions. Hence, Paul's warning "'Everything is permissible for me'—but I will not be mastered by anything" (v. 12).

The slogan "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food" in v. 13 has a very modern ring to it. Some people today reason this way: If I have an urge for sexual intercourse with someone, is it not just as much a natural bodily function as being hungry or thirsty? Why should it be considered wrong to satisfy that urge? If the slogan Paul quotes includes "and God will destroy them both", it is possible that the "liberated" person claims that what one does with one's body, which eventually dies, is unimportant. It is the soul that continues and will live on with God. Paul will eventually puncture that "balloon" with teaching on the resurrection of the body of believers as an essential part of eternal living in God's final kingdom. David Wenham has raised the interesting possibility that these "liberated" believers were basing their view on what they understood of the teachings of Jesus himself.

"It may seem surprising, but it is possible that the men going to prostitutes were [quoting Jesus' teaching]! … This is suggested by the way Paul describes their view: 'Food for the stomach and the stomach for food. But God will destroy both' (6.13). We may wonder what the food and stomach have to do with the question of prostitution. Is the context one of orgiastic meals, with sex thrown in? Possibly. But it is also possible that the Corinthians were taking what Jesus said about food and applying it to sex. To understand this point, we need to recall a story of Jesus in Mark and Matthew (Mark 7.1-23; Matthew 15.l-20). Jesus' disciples, according to the gospels, caused offence to the Pharisees and scribes by 'eating food with hands that were unclean, that is, unwashed' (Mark 7.3). Jesus replied by attacking his opponents' inverted priorities, and then commented, 'Nothing outside a person can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean' (Mark 7.15). When pressed by his disciples to clarify this he comments: 'Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him "unclean"? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body' (7.18 19a). Mark then adds, 'In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean' (7.19b). … It is entirely likely, given its importance for him, that Paul will have passed on this teaching to the Corinthians (cf. also Colossians 2.21-2). He will have taught them about Christians being free from the law, and quoted Jesus' teaching in that connection. What he will not, presumably, have anticipated is that some of the Corinthians would seize on his teaching about Christian freedom, and in particular on the idea of 'nothing coming into a person from outside' making a person unclean, to justify sexual licence. After all, in the gospel story itself the question of food is linked to the question of hand-washing, and it was convenient logic for the Corinthians to apply the teaching about food to another bodily function, i.e. sex. Jesus' comment about food going into the stomach and so passing on could well have led the Corinthians to say 'Food for the stomach, the stomach for food. God will destroy both', and then to argue that sex is a similarly harmless physical function of the body which has no relevance to the heart and the spirit; they are what matter, as Jesus said. This logic may seem perverse to us, but we are familiar enough in the modern world with people interpreting the Bible perversely to suit their own views! … What is interesting in this reconstruction of things is that both [Paul] and his opponents are quoting the teaching and traditions of Jesus. He had taught them what Jesus had said about all sorts of things, including marriage, divorce, celibacy, the kingdom of God, and cleanness; they took this teaching on board, but interpreted some of it in ways that Paul rejected; he then has to correct their interpretations. In doing so, he uses a variety of arguments, some of which draw further on the teaching of Jesus" (Wenham, Paul and Jesus: The True Story [2002], p. 153-55).

If, however, the final phrase "and God will destroy them both" is not part of their slogan, but Paul's response, then he is stressing that even with a resurrected body, saints in eternity will no longer need to satisfy physical hunger or thirst.

Either way, Paul wishes to clear the air theologically. What believers do in their bodies now, in this life, is not unimportant. Our bodies are part of God's temple (v. 15-17). Our bodies have been redeemed by Jesus and belong to him (v. 19-20). As the bride is joined physically to her husband, so we as the bride of Christ are joined to him spiritually (v. 17), and must remain faithful to him in both body and spirit. Paul's biblical and theological logic is impeccable and irrefutable. What is expected of those whom Jesus has liberated from bondage to sin is purity of body and spirit. Purity does not exclude the proper use of our God-given sexual desires, which should be channeled through our marriage partners to the glory of God. Not every bodily urge is "innocent" or morally "neutral" like thirst. And even hunger and thirst must never dominate us. After all, both Jesus and Paul at times felt it necessary to practice the discipline of fasting.

What then should be the lessons that we leave this passage with?

• First of all, our bodies belong to Jesus and must be used to bring glory to him, not to satisfy selfish desires.
• Secondly, we belong to a worldwide community of believers in Jesus, as well as to a local sub-unit of that community. Our conduct, including out sexual conduct, should foster the very best goals of that community.
• And thirdly, we should all realize that actions become habits, which become addictions, and should avoid letting momentary urges create harmful patterns in our lives—even patterns of thinking about the opposite sex.