A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part IX
Lazarus and the Rich man (Fourth Use of “Unseen”)
We will launch into his
next response, concerning the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. I will wrap
this up in one article.
“Since it is too long to quote, I will be summarizing what part I am
quoting. I am quoting the section where you speak about Lazarus and the rich
man in its entirety. First of all, the rich man does not go to this place of
torment because he is rich but because he is a sinner.”
Proof?
“Second of all, even if I grant that this is a parable which,
interestingly enough, Jesus never said it was, if not much of the bible is
true, then pray tell, how can we confirm or deny our positions? For if there is
‘no truth’ in scripture, then we cannot determine whether you are right or
wrong. Congratulations! You wrote 70+ pages for nothing.”
I will begin by citing my
portion of the articles here that Alex seemed to skip, which answer these
questions:
“Let’s start with the word “parable.” What Jesus is sharing here is
commonly understood as a “parable.” Jesus begins giving five parables
(each respectively starting in Luke 15:3, 15:8, 15:11, 16:1, and of course,
16:19.) The word “parable” is used multiple times in the four accounts, and kicks
off Luke 15:3.”
This quote on my part answers the objection that Alex asks here. Now,
this simple declaration is completely fair, and the only reason we shouldn’t
at least consider Luke 16 in this manner is if we have a
pre-supposed belief that Luke 16 is somehow literal (though most
scholars concede that the first half of Luke 16 is a parable,
though they hardly agree on its interpretation.) What Alex seems to be looking
for are more proofs beyond the logical argument, here. Since this is already
long enough, I’m happy to oblige.
First: if we are to consider Luke 16 as a literal story that
takes place in some historical, purgatory/hell/intermediate state, then we are immediately
conceding that the Old Testament is incorrect on its teachings
concerning death. As we considered in a previous article, body and spirit,
when combined, create the soul, which is our seat of sensation. This
parable is, in part, why such a teaching matters. A few examples of verses
that would be completely disregarded include:
Ps. 146:2-4–
Let me praise Yahweh throughout my life; let me make
melody to my Elohim through all my future. Do not trust in patrons (in a son
of humanity, with whom there is no salvation.) His spirit shall go forth,
and he shall return to his ground; in that day, his reflections shall
perish.
Yet according to Alex, this Luke 16 business would show us that one’s
reflections do not vanish in death, and that people like the rich man
will indeed be reflecting on their life, bemoaning their mistakes. How do we
reconcile these two verses? Do we concede that there is an inconsistency in
scripture, or do we realize that our Lord had something much larger in
view by the time He reached the last bit of figurative imagery in Luke 16?
Here’s another one, in Ps. 115:17–
The dead cannot praise Yah, nor all those
descending into stillness.
And again, we have the same dilemma. The dead cannot praise Yah,
which comes into direct conflict with the Christian theory of the immortality
of your soul, when in truth, your soul ends in death.
Let’s keep going! Ps. 6:4-5–
Do return, O Yahweh! Do extricate my soul! Save me on
account of Your benignity. For in death, there is no remembrance of
You; in the unseen, who shall acclaim You?
Not only do we see, yet again, the lack of remembrance from the dead,
but we also see yet another major issue with Alex’s claims, which
seem to fall under the notion that it is only some of mankind that will
be saved. We see that, in the unseen, none can acclaim Yahweh. Yet if
some spend an eternity in this unseen place, as Alex proclaims, then
Philippians 2:10-11 shall never come to pass:
In the name of Jesus every knee should be
bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every
tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory
of God, the Father.
This verse loses its credibility if, according to
pop-Christianity, eternal torment will remain a pillar of God’s condemnation
against the sinner.
Are you sick of Psalms? So am I, for now. Let’s hop over to Ecclesiastes
9:1-5–
For I laid all this on my heart, and my heart saw all
this: that the righteous and the wise and their services are in the hand of the
One, Elohim; whether it be love or hate, a man is not able to know. Everything
before them is vanity.
Just as to all, there is one destiny
for the righteous one and for the wicked one, for the good one and for the bad
one, for the clean one and for the unclean one, for the one who sacrifices and
for him who makes no sacrifice, so it is for the good person as for the sinner,
for the one who swears just as for one fearful of an oath.
This is the evil that is done under the sun: that one
destiny is for all. Moreover, the heart of the sons of humanity is full
of evil, and ravings are in their heart throughout their lives, yet after it,
they are joined to the dead.
Indeed, for anyone who is joined with all the living,
there is trust; for it is better to be a living cur than a dead lion. For the
living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing whatsoever. There is
no further reward for them; indeed, remembrance of them is forgotten.
A universal truth has been stated, here. All have one destiny, being
death. No one escapes it. Paul makes this abundantly apparent at the
beginning of Romans (1:18-32,) but it is more clearly stated here in
Ecclesiastes. No one can escape it. This is reality: you are going to die. The
Ecclesiastes guy (Debby Downer, I call him) continues, in Ecc. 9:10–
All that your hand finds to do, do so with your
vigor, for there is no doing or devising or knowledge or wisdom
in the unseen, where you are going.
Bars. It doesn’t
look like we’re doing much thinking at all in the death state. God did
this little thing called creating death (Gen. 3:18-20.) If
He made it, then He is the final say on the concept of death. No
one knows better than He – if He says that there is no action, no
planning, no understanding, and no growth in this unseen
state, then we should be inclined to agree with Him as opposed to man’s
philosophical considerations (such as the “immortality of the soul.”)
This all points to the fact that Luke 16 is a parable, and
not true as to fact, for all of these verses (and many others previously
referenced) speak directly against the notion that Luke 16 should be
taken as some historical fact.
Second: the notion that, because the word “parable” is not used in Luke
16 means that this is not a parable falls flat on a number of
levels. We know that the chapter and number citations are imparted by man,
and are used for scholars to easily find sections of the text. It is
not some “right division” of the text, however, and should not be
treated as such. This is a mechanical division – not a logical
one.
Moreover, with the logic that “parable” is not used before a parable is still
fallacious, for one chapter earlier, in Luke 15, we read of
what looks like three different parables, being the shepherd losing one
of his sheep, the woman losing the drachma, and the prodigal son. We all know
that the prodigal son is a parable, and yet the word “parable” is nowhere to be
found preceding its setup!
Let’s track the same logic – for a moment, we may disregard the
chapter/verse concept (as we did for Matt. 4:23-5:1,) and consider the text as
the cohesive, Greek run-on, as it was originally formatted. We may also detach
from this idea that we must see the word parable in order for it
to appear (as we did not see this word prior to the other two parables
in Luke 15.)
Since Alex did not probe me on the right questions, and instead asked
the same question that I had already answered, he missed the opportunity
to catch me on a few logistical errors (which I will correct throughout this
study.) The first is that I began my original dissection of my study by
claiming that we are studying five separate parables, from Luke
15:3-16:31. However, when we observe Luke 15:3, we read that Jesus “told them this
parable.” The word “parable” here is singular, not plural. As such,
I was led to realize that, while there are five separate pictures
illustrated between Luke 15 and 16, these are all pieces of the same whole.
As such, we are dealing with one, multi-layered parable, which
encompasses Jesus’ entire teaching.
We’ll consider each of these under the next sub-header of this article, but
first, we must return to Alex’s other claim, where he claimed that I was
blindly saying that the Bible is false. Of course, I very much did not state
that there is ‘no truth’ in scripture, and already answered to his emotional
reaction in my original series of articles, meaning that Alex is likely trying
not to hear what I’m saying:
“Much of the Bible is not true.
There, I said it. I know, it’s a very frustrating saying, and feels so
wrong to say, but you must understand. Take this verse, for example,
Genesis 3:4–
Not to die you shall be dying!
On its own? The statement is BS. Who said it, but the serpent to
Eve? Of course, we would call the serpent a liar, and his
statement false. In fact, Eve’s response to the serpent was in itself an
elaborate falsification of God’s initial law given to Adam!
Let me stop messing around. Much of the Bible is not true – not to say
that the Bible itself is false. The presentation of each and
every event is historically accurate, when you’re paying attention to the
grammar. It is true that the serpent spoke to Eve, and what he said is accurately
documented. But the Bible itself is full of people who don’t know
what they’re talking about. Most of everything Job’s friends tell him, for
example, is bullshit philosophy that they reasoned out for themselves. True as
to fact? I think not – God shuts them down, starting in Job 38. The student of
Scripture would do well, again, to carefully consider the context of a
verse, because just saying this:
And in hell he lifts up his eyes,
being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
On its own, is bullshit. It must be considered in its context,
with every word we’ve looked at so far.”
Alex, of course, reveals that he did not understand what I was saying,
for he further spoke in his second reply:
“You see, this is an issue. I view everything as
true. It is true that Satan lied at the garden. It is true that some warrior
lied to David about killing Saul. It is true that there is sin in the Bible as
well as historical events and the like. These sins were truly committed, these
events truly took place.”
I find it very sad when my opponent will disagree with the point
I make, only to agree with the very rationale I made, as if I
didn’t directly state that “Much of the Bible is not true – not to say that the
Bible itself is false. The presentation of each and every event
is historically accurate, when you’re paying attention to the grammar.” This is
the same point, re-worded slightly. Virtually no difference between these two
points.
I recommend, for future reference, that Alex slow down and focus
on the argument in the argumentative paper. Both of the quotes
from my original articles accurately responded to the question Alex
asked (which are the very questions I had in mind when I wrote
this portion of the study,) so why he asks it again as if I didn’t answer is
beyond me. Because of this lack of critical reading, I am now going to share
the rest of Alex’s blind accusations against me, while underlining the
portions that he would not have written if he had read what I said:
“Even if much of the bible is not true and [only] some is
true, you still wrote for nothing, because now you have to demonstrate that the
portions you wrote about are true. Once again, congratulations for wasting time.
The only logical way for us to determined what is true on all matters of
doctrine is if it is ALL true. Moreover, that is a big statement you
said there, that “much of the bible is not true.” Pray tell, where is the
evidence? Now, I do understand what you mean as you give your weak
evidence but the bible records events reliably. It is true that the serpent
said what he said to Eve. It is true that what the serpent said was a lie.
However, something more important is that all of scripture was given by
inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17) meaning that the authors of the Old and
New Testament wrote as God guided them (2 Peter 1:19-21). In God there is no
lie (Numbers 23:19).”
Moving on,
“Now
what exactly do you mean of bad men who will never repent? The men who never
repent are surely bad, but not all bad men out there never
repent!”
Arguing semantics.
Moreover, I believe I expressly contextualized what I said – “If we don’t [consider the context of a
verse,] then we lose the meaning of the passage and begin to make erroneous
claims about the rest of Scripture, in order to make it make sense with
our skewed perception of morality, that bad men will never repent and must be
eternally tormented for it.” No “all” is referenced here, and I never made that
correlation, as to do so would dismiss a little over half of the eternal
torment interpretations that I’ve been arguing against.
“We
have seen plenty of verses out there giving unto the interpretation that
they will be eternally tormented.”
Where?
“After all, they loved their own sin more than God.”
Loving ‘your own sin’
more than God begets death, per His righteous penalty stated in His
righteous lawbook, and His evangel; not ‘eternal torment.’
“Which brings me to another point. You say that this excerpt is not
about morality yet even the Concordant states “repenting” in its rendition.
Likewise, it mentions the law and the Prophets and how the rich man doesn’t
want his family to go to the place he’s at. All of this points to morality
being discussed.”
And again, I covered these
points already; Alex takes the end of the parable and forces it into the
beginning of the parable to try and make his point, while ignoring my
original study:
“The rich man is merry. This doesn’t mean he’s
inherently evil by any means. Nowhere does the passage say this, apart
from remaining ignorant to the poor man. Morality is oft considered during this
passage because, well, people want to see bad people in hell, existing
in torments. Yet here, the “merry splendid”-ness of the rich man is the very
same happiness entertained by saints (Acts 2:26, Rom. 15:10, 2 Cor. 2:2, Gal.
4:27, Rev. 11:10, 12:12, 18:20.) Thus we have no reason to believe that this
man is inherently wicked. We read that Lazarus suffered evil
things, but was not himself evil. We read that the rich man was gifted good
things, but we do not read that he was inherently good. Morality simply isn’t
the focus, here, and again, to force this consideration when God does not ask
it of us is to doubt His word with our ideas.”
Just because Alex ignores these points does not invalidate them. He
replied to this, saying,
“How do I ignore your points, Stephen? You
quite literally quoted me acknowledging your points. I can acknowledge
something without agreeing with it! Me not agreeing with something does not mean
I am ignoring it. Stop lying about me. That is libel.
Anyways, what you are implying is much more
evil, then. God put the rich man in this place of torment because he was
happy? I guess the cops should arrest every single happy person out
there. Or is it because God predestined the man to be there without giving him
a choice? Equally as evil.”
When I read this, I admit, I fought kind of
hard not to put it in this series, but it was just too perfect. So,
while telling me that he is acknowledging what I say, Alex then stumbles
onto the very objection that Jesus was making against the Pharisees’
twisted view of God – that He would
be willing to enact an ideal as horrific as that in Luke 16! I very clearly
state this in the point that Alex must have missed (for, he either missed
it, or must concede that he is not acknowledging the points that are being
presented – that is, the context and the grammar):
“The story does not dwell on any righteous
morality at all, but a law of averages. “Rich man has something now, has
nothing later, whereas the poor man has nothing now, has something later.”
This, of course, is not at all the message of the law or grace, which
enlightens us even further that the passage is not concerned with obedience,
but something else.
The death of both characters pivots the story into a new phase.
We know that this law of averages is not how God works, so we can firmly
establish that Jesus is saying something else entirely, here. In order to grasp
it, we must accept a very difficult fact – one that may make you turn your eyes
away in disgust, but one that must be confirmed and understood if we are to
continue:
Much of the Bible is not true.”
(I will note here that, after Alex so poorly misunderstood this
statement, I doubt that he had any desire to follow the logical argument
through to its conclusion. Anyway,)
“This type of logical arguing, through figures full of… I guess ‘irony,’
are called ‘Epitropes.’ It takes your opponent’s argument and runs it through
to its logical extreme. Many people tend to implement their own logical
fallacy in this process, but, as this is our Lord, that’s simply not
what’s happening, here. He is assuredly the One most capable in
all creation to righteously utilize such a figure, and He does to great effect,
here. He is taking what the Pharisees believe and throwing it back at them.”
(A brief note. I don’t know where on earth I got the word
“epitrope” from. Was I stoned or something?? No, the argument is called a reductio
ad absurdum, or a “proof by contradiction.” Sorry about that, readers. I’ll
try to correct it whenever I get around to uploading these.)
One other thing: ‘repentance’ carries the elements “AFTER-MIND,” and
means a mind change, not some intimate moral reckoning. In its context,
it is sometimes used in such a prolific, moral manner, but it is not always
used in said manner, meaning that it is not the standard definition
for the word.
“Furthermore, nowhere does He say He’s addressing the Pharisees. It’s
just not true to say this is Jesus addressing the Pharisees.”
Let’s look at how this
five-fold parable began, back in Luke 15:1-2–
Now all the tribute collecters and sinners were coming near Him to be
hearing Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled,
saying that ‘This man, sinners are receiving, and are eating with them!’
Now He told them this parable, saying…
It looks as though Jesus
undeniably was speaking to the Pharisees while sporting a mixed crowd.
Alex replies:
“You want to force that context unto Chapter 16? The story of Lazarus
and the Rich Man starts in Luke (16:19) and ends in Luke (16:31). Nowhere in
those verses does it say that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. It is conjecture on
your part to say He was.”
“Conjecture” is something
given without evidence. Not only can we safely assert that Luke 15 and 16 are
indeed part of the same whole (you could even mix them together and make
one big Luke 15, if you really wanted to,) but we can also read
that the Pharisees are still listening during Luke 16 (seen in Luke
16:14, a few verses before the final parable, which directly concerns the
Pharisees.) The simple fact is that Alex does not say why we
cannot look at the surrounding context for Jesus’ speech, and instead blames me
for forcing something without explaining why it would be a forceful
action.
“Now,
you mention that Christians base their whole moral compass off of that one
story. This is just academically dishonest for you to even say. Besides that,
you do more argument by derision by making fun of the position instead of
actually addressing it.”
Says the man that rooted
his entire idea about ‘eternal torment’ and ‘what hell is’ around the
figurative imagery provided in this passage. And, says the man that
asserted that every Christian understands that ‘death is a return.’
Wait... That Was It??
Man, I love this portion of Alex’s “study,” actually! It’s so much
easier than I thought it would be! The way he was talking about the Luke 16
passage, and how it was the foundation of his entire belief system concerning
hell’s look and feel… I really thought he would do more than make a few
nonsensical responses that do no more than invalidate the objections given!
Well, look. I was kind of expecting more, here, so instead of jumping
away to the next point, and leaving any real inconsistencies in my
original study to be pushed by some other “Alex” a year from now, I will
take the time to correct myself on a few more points, and go into a bit more
detail on them. Alex may not have gone into detail on any of this, but because
his claims didn’t spur anything, let’s study this five-fold parable, shall we?
To begin, let’s consider Luke 15:1-2 again. The “mixed crowd” that Jesus
was sporting included tribute collectors, Pharisees, and scribes (His
disciples were, of course, around Him as well – 16:1.) All of them are sinners
(15:1.) The inciting incident that caused Jesus to give this
parable was because the Pharisees and scribes, who believed themselves to be above
the tribute collector, disagreed with the fact that this crowd was, itself,
mixed. The entire parable, then, is entirely focused on the disparity between
these two groups, and contextualized as such.
The photo on the right will give us a right structure
to the parable. We will quote each parable, and then briefly consider their
placement in the structure of the chapter (being proven through the provided contextual
evidence,) with an added stress on the Rich Man and Lazarus. As we can see,
the Rich Man and Lazarus stand parallel to the Prodigal Son and His
Brother. We will observe what this means as we proceed.
A Brief Consideration of "The Shepherd" Illustration
Let’s take a look at the first image in the parable. Here’s Luke 15:3-7–
Now He told them this parable, saying, “What man of
you, having a hundred sheep, and losing one of them, is not leaving the
ninety-nine in the wilderness and is going after the lost one, till he may be
finding it? And finding it, he is placing it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And,
coming into the house, he is calling together the friends and the neighbors,
saying to them, ‘Rejoice together with me that I found my sheep that was lost!’
I am saying to you that thus there will be joy in heaven over one sinner repenting,
more than over the ninety-nine just persons who have no need of repentance.”
This first portion is not
so misunderstood by the Christian community, but they do miss a few critical
details. For starters: many Christians presume themselves to be the
sheep – whether they are part of the 99, or the “lost” sheep, does not
change the fact that they will presumably place themselves in place of
the sheep, to be found by their Shepherd. They usually pair this passage with
Psalm 23 – “Yahweh is my Shepherd – nothing shall I lack.”
Such a conclusion is in
complete disagreement with the text, for, though we are all sinners, we are not
all “sheep” – especially not at the time of Jesus’ ministry.
At the time of His ministry, Jesus makes it explicitly clear that He was not
commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt.
15:24.) The people Jesus spoke to must be kept in view – tribute
collectors, and Pharisees, both Jewish in nature. Thus we
should not place ourselves in place of these sheep; the notion of
“sheep” to the “Shepherd” are for the Israelites and their evangel
– not for us today (Gen. 48:15, Ps. 23:1, 100:3, Is. 53:6, Jer. 31:10, Micah
5:4, Matt. 15:24, John 10:11, 27-30, Unv. 7:17, to name a few.)
Interestingly, our
apostle Paul, who gives us doctrine and instruction for today, never
once uses the “shepherd” analogy to describe the Lord. Whereas Israel is
explicitly titled the “Bride of the Lambkin” (Unv. 21:9,) Paul calls us
the body of Christ – the body of the Lambkin Himself. The “body” in
Paul’s view is always the body of Christ (Rom. 12:4-5, 1 Cor. 12:27,
Eph. 1:22-23, 4:12, Col. 1:18, etc.) These are simple figures which play a
significant role in our understanding of the distinctly Israelite nation
that must be kept in view in our five-fold parable. For all of you married couples
out there, your own body and your bride are not the same
thing. The two of you are spiritually bound, sure (Eph. 5:22-32,)
just as Jesus is spiritually bound to His body (Eph. 5:22-32,) but they are still
distinct figures, and the “body” is not used in relation to Israel at any
time.
When we keep the context
in mind, and do not assert ourselves in the passage, the beginning of
the parable becomes clearer to us. The kingdom of Israel must be in
view, as they are the only ones called God’s sheep in the text. In order
to grasp the full force of Christ’s figure, we may observe a use of the “sheep”
analogy in the Old Testament, in order to interpret the figure properly. Observe
Is. 53:6–
All of us, like a flock, have strayed; each to his own way, we
have turned around, yet Yahweh Himself causes the depravity of us all to come
upon Him.
What a wonderful verse.
Eagle-eyed readers may note that Isaiah does not say “one sheep was
lost, and the other 99 stayed and had no need of repentance,” as Jesus does in
the first illustration. Isaiah points at a repentant nation – not a
repentant portion. This should show us that the entire flock
represents Israel – not a mere couple.
Of course, no one would
argue that only some are in need of a Savior, but all have
sinned, and are wanting of the glory of God (Rom. 3:21.) As such, there is a
forceful irony (or, in my lax mind, a sarcastic demeanor) toward
the 99 sheep that do not yet realize that their mind must be changed. Very few
yet understood their need for salvation (as we see in a later event
in Luke. A few have probably told you about it? A little event which entailed the
crucifixion of the only innocent Man to walk the earth?)
How would this piece of
the puzzle connect to the rest? I’m glad you asked! Notice how the parable
lowkey mocks the 99 sheep who had no need for repentance? Look at the
action of the shepherd. He leaves the 99 to go find the lost one –
the one furthest from his flock was the closest to his heart, and
while he left to go find the one sheep that knew it was lost, and
needed its master, the 99 who believed they were safe on principle were left without
the security of the shepherd. We will indeed see this principle play out in
the future illustrations (particularly, the Prodigal Son, and the Rich
Man and Lazarus.)
Brief Considerations of "The Woman and the Coin" and "The Unjust Steward" Illustrations
As we considered in the
structure for this elaborate parable, The Woman and the Coin parallels
with The Unjust Steward, being the second and fourth illustrations,
respectively. These two pieces begin to differentiate between the two
groups which made up Jesus’ crowd. The second piece considers the tribute
collector on his own, while the fourth piece considers the pharisee on
his own. We will consider how and why this is the case, but we must first read
these pieces in full in order to consider the part they played. We will consider
The Woman and the Coin first. Please observe Luke 15:8-10, Jesus
speaking–
“Or what woman having ten drachmas, if she should ever be losing one
drachma, is not lighting a lamp and sweeping the house and seeking carefully
till she may be finding it? And, finding it, she is calling together the
friends and the neighbors, saying ‘Rejoice together with me that I found the
drachma which I lose!’ Thus, I am saying to you, there is coming to be joy in
the sight of the messengers of God over one sinner repenting.”
I’m going to begin by
noting two things which will become more apparent as we consider the first half
of Luke 16. First, look at the small value of the coin this woman seeks!
One singular drachma in comparison to the ten she owned! Second, may
we ask why Jesus uses a woman here, seeking a drachma? Why was He so
specific about the gender of the person, here?
Finally, check out the conclusion
of the illustration – thus, the repentance of one sinner will
be celebrated at this magnitude. The woman in the parable is a favorable
picture – not an indict…ful… one.
That wasn’t a word.
Indicting-ful? Uh…
condemnable? I don’t know. I guess that’s fine. Condemnable! Not a condemnable
one.
Anyway, we can only fully
apprehend the contrast between the tribute collector and the pharisee
(per these illustrations) by now considering the fourth illustration,
and contrasting them. Please observe Luke 16:1-13–
Now [Jesus] said to His disciples also, “A certain man, who was rich,
had an administrator, and this man was accused to him by an adversary as
dissipating his possessions. And summoning him, he said to him, ‘What is this I
am hearing concerning you? Render an account of your administration, for you
can no longer be administrator.’ Now the administrator said in himself, ‘What
shall I be doing, seeing that my lord will be wresting the administration from
me? To dig I am not strong enough. To be a mendicant I am ashamed. I knew what
I shall be doing that whenever I may be deposed from the administration, they
should be receiving me into their homes.’
And calling to him each one of the debtors paying usury to his lord,
he said to the first, ‘How much are you owing my lord?’ Now he said to him, ‘A
hundred baths of oil.’ Now he said to him, ‘Receive your bills, and, being
seated, quickly write fifty.’ Thereupon to another he said, ‘Now you, how much
are you owing?’ Now he said, ‘A hundred cors of grain.’ And he is saying to
him, ‘Receive your bills, and write eighty.’
And the lord applauds the unjust administrator, for he does prudently,
for the sons of this eon are more prudent, above the sons of light in their own
generation.
And am I saying to you, Make for yourselves friends with the mammon of
injustice, that, whenever it may be defaulting, they should be receiving you
into the eonian tabernacles? He who is faithful in the least is faithful in
much also, and he who is unjust in the least is unjust in much also. If, then,
you did not come to be faithful in the unjust mammon, who will be entrusting to
you the true? And, if you did not come to be faithful in that which is an
outsider's, who will be giving you that which is yours? No domestic can be
slaving for two lords, for either he will be hating one and loving the other,
or he will be upholding one and despising the other. You can not slave for God
and mammon.”
Because the pictures are
not literally the same, many fail to consider that the two passages
before us are relatable in any way (I highly doubt that Alex would give this
view any legitimate leeway, but I’m not really asking him.) Yet when we observe
them, we do not find parallel images, but contrastive images.
Let’s begin by
considering the two points I referenced prior to citing the “administrator” illustration.
First: notice the large value of the items that these administrators are
working with, in contrast with the smaller value of the woman’s coin!
Instead of one drachma, we see large amounts such as “a hundred baths of
oil” and “a hundred cors of grain.” We do not need to know the exact amount
of “baths of oil” and “cors of grain” to perceive that these debtors owed far
more than a drachma or two. Whereas the woman (representative of the
tribute collector) searched with great concern for one
small item (very similar to the shepherd’s hunt for the one lost sheep,)
the unjust steward (representative of the pharisee) did not carry
this same sense of reverence, instead bending the rules in order to benefit himself.
It is extremely easy,
I think, to make the connection that the unjust stewards represent corrupt Israelite
traditions (Matt. 23:23, Mark 7:1-13, Luke 11:39, etc.) Just as the unjust
stewards discounted their lord’s claims so that they could gain wealth
for themselves apart from him, so also the pharisees discounted the
law’s righteous claims so that they could establish their own
righteousness apart from God (Rom. 10:2-4.) And what’s even worse is
witnessing that the unjust steward is commended by the unjust lord!
This correlation between the pharisees and a false lord is not an
unfamiliar one. Jesus spent plenty of time during His ministry
highlighting that the pharisees’ father is not God, but Satan (John
8:15-55 is the written example of this.)
The second point I
had referenced, concerning the gender of the one seeking the lost coin, should also
not be understated. Believe it or not, God is quite the feminist (in
a Pride and Prejudice sense of the word, I think.) More often than not,
the failures of Israel to deliver themselves from destruction were
offset by a woman’s ministry, which would be given divine approval
by God (Ex. 15:20-21, Joshua 2, 6, Judges 4-5, 2 Kings 22:14-20, Ruth, Esther
4-8, etc.) Would it not track that the failure on Israel’s part to
maintain an upright and righteous administration should be offset by a woman’s
faithfulness, as indicated in Luke 15:7-10? The (perceived, I repeat, PERCEIVED,
AS IN, NOT TRUE AS TO FACT, BUT MERE PERCEPTION) weakness of a woman,
especially in the time period Luke wrote this document, is, in truth, a
beautiful faith considered one of the greatest strengths by our
Lord. In truth, faithful Israel is continually represented by a faithful
woman. In contrast, the great men who ran the administration, with
all their power and pretentious attitudes, are revealed, with this picture, to
be the ones lacking in care and solicitousness.
Finally: as we can see,
the search enacted by the woman is similar to that of the shepherd,
which is opposite the pharisees. We see, very clearly throughout
the four accounts of our Lord’s ministry, that the lowest of Israel’s social hierarchy
(including the tribute collectors) would diligently seek out the Lord in order to
grow and learn from Him (the primary example being Matthew himself, who
worked for Rome as a tribute collector before Jesus called him out as His
disciple.) As such, we do not find mention of the Pharisees in the second
illustration, just as we do not find mention of the tribute collectors
in the fourth illustration.
To cap off this
dissection, I will quote A.E. Knoch’s concordant commentary, p. 121, which sums
all of this up nicely:
“The parable of the unjust
steward confines itself to the Pharisees and scribes, the stewards of Israel’s
wealth. They were dissipating His treasures and were fond of money and served
their own greed for gain rather than ministering to the glory of God. They were
prudent in the things of this life to the extent of jeopardizing their
prospects in the eons to come.
The emphatic I shows
that there is a contrast intended between the lord of the unjust steward and
Christ. This cannot be expressed in the indicative. Moreover, the Lord does not
commend unrighteousness, and advise deceit. Besides, the sentiment immediately
followed is quite opposed to such double dealing. Faithfulness, not shrewdness,
is the requisite for honors in the kingdom.
Money, or means of any
kind, are only trivial and temporary factors in the life of faith, unless we
view them as tests with a view to the acquisition of the true riches. Those who are faithful stewards of material
wealth, which is theirs only to use for a time, and not to possess
forever, may expect a reward in kind in the kingdom. The Pharisees died rich,
and will have no place in the glories of the Messianic reign. Christ died
in the most abject poverty, yet He will be weighted with the wealth of all earth’s
highest glories. Even in this day of sovereign grace, present riches are too
often a hindrance to future reward, when they may well be a means of preferment
by their faithful and gracious dispensation. Neither the most conservative
investment nor the most fortunate speculation will yield as safe or as
profitable proceeds as a share in the concerns of God. It yields, not only
temporary returns, but eternal dividends.”
Brief Consideration of "The Prodigal Son" Illustration
We can see the larger
picture beginning to form. Three of the five illustrations considered
fit beautifully with the larger scope of Jesus’ speech, and the other
two may just make sense, if we detach from the notion that Luke 16 must
be taken literally, as randomly disconnected from the other pieces of Luke
at play, here.
Upon viewing the third
illustration – The Prodigal Son – we will be able to fully appreciate
the final illustration, being The Rich Man and Lazarus. Let’s take a
brief look at Luke 15:11-32–
Now He said, “A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said
to the father, ‘Father, give me the part of the estate accruing to me.’ Now he
apportioned to them the livelihood. And, after not many days, gathering all
together, the younger son travels into a far country and there dissipates his
estate, living profligately.
Now, he spending all, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he
begins to be in want. And, going, he was joined to one of the citizens of that
country, and he sends him into his fields to graze hogs. And he yearned to be
satisfied with the little carob pods which the hogs ate, and no one gave to
him.
Now, coming to himself, he averred, ‘How many of my father's hired men
are being cloyed with bread, yet I am perishing here of famine! Rising, I will
go to my father and declare to him, “Father, I sinned against heaven and in
your sight. No longer am I worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your
hired men.”’ And rising, he came to his father.
Now, at his being still far away, his father perceived him and has
compassion, and running, falls on his neck and fondly kisses him. Now the son
said to him, ‘Father, I sinned against heaven and in your sight. No longer am I
worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired men.’ Yet the father
said to his slaves, ‘Quick! Bring forth the first robe, and put it on him, and
give him a ring for his hand and sandals for his feet. And bring the grain-fed
calf, sacrifice it, and, eating, we may make merry, for this my son was dead
and revives; he was lost and was found.’ And they begin to make merry.
Now his elder son was in the field, and, coming, as he nears the
house, he hears music and choral dancing. And, calling one of the boys to him,
he inquired to ascertain whatever this may be. Now he said to him that ‘Your
brother is arriving, and your father sacrifices the grain-fed calf, seeing that
he got him back sound.’ Now he is indignant and would not enter. Yet his
father, coming out, entreated him. Now he, answering, said to his father, ‘Lo!
so many years am I slaving for you, and I never passed by your precept, and you
never give me a kid that I may make merry with my friends. Yet when this son of
yours came, who is devouring your livelihood with prostitutes, you sacrifice
for him the grain-fed calf!’
Now he said to him, ‘Child, you are always with me, and all mine is
yours. Yet we must be merry and rejoice, seeing that this your brother was dead
and revives, and was lost and was found.’”
Many of us recall the first
half of the story very easily – the portion where the younger son asks for
his livelihood early, spends it all, and returns home, having been humbled.
What many don’t recall is the older brother’s reaction to
this news. Yet understanding the brother’s reply is just as critical as
the first half of the illustration in order to fully apprehend the message.
We must not lose sight of
the fact that the tribute collector and the Pharisee are
primarily in view. In this piece of the puzzle, the tribute collector is
represented by the younger son, and the Pharisee is represented by the older. The
tribute collector was far from the Father’s heart – they were given the
livelihood, and sent off to experience the wanton nature of life’s little… uh… “novelties.”
He blew all his money, and ended up on the brink of starvation. This, of
course, brought him to himself – he was undoubtedly bewitched under the
spell of this eon, and it was not until he lost everything that he was freed
from vain desire.
We can see that the
father in the picture did not stop the younger son from taking his livelihood
early. This was not because “his father respected his decision,” as many
mindlessly suppose (for a wealthy man would hardly ever accept their son’s
request to just “have money” that they are supposed to receive when he passes,)
but because it is a necessary experience that the younger son had to go
through in order to realize that he was fondly loved by his father all along.
When he returned, it did
not matter “what,” exactly, the younger son had done “wrong,” but that he
had been humbled. The father knew what the return of his son meant, and did
not wait to hear some bargain from his son. Oftentimes, we believe we
must do something to get back to good with God (Alex has certainly proclaimed
this a number of times throughout this series.) Yet the father here doesn’t
take the son up on his offer, but celebrates his return with new garbs, a great
feast, and lively music.
This attitude is the
attitude God has toward the tribute collectors of the day – the sinners that know
they are sinners. While this is not our administration, God does express
His heart in this image, and it is shown more extravagantly with the
great honors He bestows upon sinners today in Paul’s evangel (displayed
in Romans 3:21-26.) The God of scripture does not leave His children to be
swallowed up forever – but draws them in once their experience of evil
has ended. Death (as represented in the father’s words – 15:32,) is not the
end for those who have been lost. That they are lost is merely a precursor
to the sweet, tender moment when they can be found.
The older brother cannot
apprehend the father’s actions. This is why the older brother is represented by
the Pharisees. The older brother was bitter at the return of the sinner
(which can be correlated to Alex’s bitterness at the prospect of the salvation
of all sinners.) The older brother could not understand that his actions
in his father’s household did not establish a favor toward him. The
older brother could not understand his father’s affection toward him, as he did
not see himself as lost, and instead figured himself to be superior to
the younger son because of his choices.
In fact, the loss of
his younger son left the father in a greater pain, having been separated from
him, whereas he was graciously never separated from his older. The father
had to clarify that, while the older brother is his own, and he loves him
dearly, the younger brother had, in a sense, died and revives! The
pleasure of seeing his lost son again overjoyed his father, and beget the grand
feast.
This is how it will be
with sinners, and pharisees, in the Lord’s day. The Lord forgives sinners –
they are not going to be given some task to “rectify” their wrongdoings. They
will be saved apart from works, and will be able to rest in grace. In
relation to Israel and this parable specifically, it is faith that
will bring one to the blissful kingdom – not works of merit. Sin, in this
aspect, is of temporary, vital value to God, as He uses it to reveal
Himself. If the younger son had not been able to leave his father’s
presence, then he would be just as the older brother – unable to appreciate the
father’s unconditional love toward him. If the sinner had not come to grips
with his sin, then he would be just as the Pharisee – unable to appreciate The
Father’s unconditional love toward him.
Tying
it All Together
Before we wrap up with The
Rich Man and Lazarus, let’s consider the few verses which precede this
final portion of the parable. Observe Luke 16:14-18, coming off the
illustration of The Unjust Steward –
Now the Pharisees also, inherently fond of money, heard all these
things, and they scouted Him. And [Jesus] said to them, “You are those who are
justifying yourselves in the sight of men, yet God knows your hearts, for what
is high among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
The law and the prophets are unto John; thenceforth, the evangel of
the kingdom of God is being brought, and everyone is violently forcing into it,
and the violent are snatching it. Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass
by than for one serif of the law to fall.
Everyone dismissing his wife and marrying another is committing
adultery. And everyone marrying her who has been dismissed from a husband, is
committing adultery.”
As we know, the Pharisees
were inherently fond of money, and scouted Jesus because of His illustration of
the unjust steward – which represented them. What I’d like to focus on
is the last paragraph – where Jesus references divorce. The layers to
these two chapters are wonderfully displayed, particularly in this last
chapter, here. The fourth illustration begins with a promise that the unjust
administrator will be removed from office (i.e. the pharisees will be
removed from their position, between the sinner and God.) The fifth
illustration is prefaced with the declaration that the unfaithful wife
is adulterous – and we know, per the law, that the penalty for adultery is
death (i.e. the pharisees, represented by the unfaithful, will be dumped,
and faithful Israel, Christ’s true bride, will no longer be imposed upon.)
And, the fifth illustration itself concerns us with the death of the
unthankful rich man from the objects he worships (i.e. the pharisees will be
stripped of their blessing of the coming kingdom.)
The divorce leads straight
into the final illustration, denoting the close correlation between divorce
and death. Indeed, with the death of Christ, Israel will be divorced
from her covenant with Yahweh, and a new covenant will later be established
(which we considered earlier in this series.)
Let us now briefly re-consider
The Rich Man and Lazarus illustration, with the clear surrounding context
to assist us. I already considered much of the figurative imagery in my
original study, so I don’t wish to repeat myself. As we make the contrasts,
there are a few details to set straight, as well as a few corrections I will
make.
We must consider the placement
of The Rich Man and Lazarus, at the end of the parable. The
introduction of the rich man in the final illustration is similar to the
introduction to the rich man in the previous image – “a certain man, who
was rich.” Both are calloused – the first, in regards to righteousness, and
the second, in regards to charity. These two themes highlight the nature
of the Pharisee.
Of course, both believe
that the vain treasures of life are all there is to look forward to in
existence. They are apathetic toward the virtuous and the needy – and it is this
very point that Jesus was making to highlight the foolhardy nature of the
grumblings of the Pharisees and scribes back in Luke 15:2.
Yet again – morality is not
in view, here, and just because Alex ignores this point does not
invalidate it. “Rich” does not mean “bad,” no more than “poor” means “good.”
Wealth is the primary descriptor of these men. There were indeed many good
pharisees at the time of Jesus’ ministry (I would note Nicodemus as one of
them.) Cowardly? Sure. Blasphemous? Considerably so! But many likely truly believed
in the false message they proclaimed, and simply could not apprehend Jesus’
message.
Proof? Sure! Compare the
prodigal son and the rich man – it looks as though the prodigal son obtained
everything that the rich man was deprived of! Unless our Lord has
the memory of a goldfish, He should surely note that He used wealth in a
manner of blessing in one of the previous illustrations. The
prodigal son is not considered a “good guy” by any means, and yet he receives
the highest blessings. This should show us that morality is not in view in
this part of the illustration, whereas in the case of the prodigal son, true
(not epistemological) humility took precedent.
The actual symbols of the
parable are well-known to the Israelites (hence why Luke doesn’t explain
them in great detail.) Many of the symbols Jesus employs in this image are used
in the Talmud; there are so many examples, in fact, that I could write
another separate article including a metric ton of examples for
you. Alas, others already have done this, so I don’t feel a need to
repeat myself. But I will point out that the Talmud is not inspired by God, and
as such the images used here are not with a view to confirm, but to dismiss.
The rich man’s table represented
Israel’s great wealth. Her blessing could not be understated – she is
promised a great nation, to which all the others bow. This man’s table
stands in direct contrast to Lazarus, whose name means “HELPLESS.” He
was supposed, by the Pharisee, to not take part in Israel’s blessings.
The Pharisee believed that the helpless ones in their midst belonged outside,
with the dogs – represented by the nations.
(In my original article,
I referenced these dogs, and shunned the notion that they are representative of
the nations, claiming that the nations do not die, and thus that the dogs should
not be considered “nations” in the passage. I will now correct myself here, as
I failed to note that the dogs are not in view during death (just as the
nations are not in view anywhere in this entire parable.) The dogs can be
represented by the nations. I was tempted to correct this mistake on my blog
personally, but I honestly don’t really care, and would rather my mistake stand
at the forefront of my study.)
This view of Lazarus
looked right to the pharisees. They believed that Lazarus was right to
be set aside like this. After all, the pharisees are the 99 sheep that had no
need of repentance! They deserved the blessings Israel would be
bestowed! They weren’t like those nasty tribute collectors which Jesus
received! They were the right ones! Just as the pharisees viewed the
prodigal son as unworthy, so they also viewed Lazarus as unfit for blessing. Just
as the prodigal son ate little carob pods to survive, so also Lazarus ate
scraps from the rich man’s table. Just as the prodigal son sought food of the
hogs (which was an unclean animal by the law’s standards,) so also Lazarus
sought food that the dogs ate (which were unholy nations by the law’s
standards.)
These little images take
us back to the “proof by contradiction” concept I’ve been talking about. The Pharisees
believed they were right, and, as their argument was taken to its logical
extreme, Jesus flipped the script on them at the midpoint of the image, when
they both die. The Pharisees held two contrary beliefs, adhering also to
an intermediate state by which they could dismiss the Sadducee. However, their
belief in this intermediate state was founded on a law of averages, which
meant, rationally, that they were the ones who would suffer in death, as
opposed to Lazarus, who would receive the blessing they desired.
The death, however, is national,
not individual. When Christ died, the nation died – and their kingdom
went with them. The few faithful lost what they perceived as their only
hope, and the Pharisees were removed from the seat of blessing, as Christ
indicated earlier with The Unjust Steward. When they “died,” Lazarus was
seated in Abraham’s bosom to indicate that the kingdom would still be unveiled to
those who awaited in faith and expectation, and the rich man’s burning desire (see
what I did there?) to be a part of Lazarus’ blessing would not be cooled.
But what of the “pained
in this flame” business? Well, guys, I don’t know how to tell you this, but
that’s kind of been the Jewish state for nearly 2,000 years, now. The
nation has been tormented for a long time, from a metaphorical
burning (scattered among Europe, separated from their fellow brethren,) to
a literal burning (World War II.)
Yes – the rich man is
still an Israelite. Just because the pharisees give a “major douchebag”
vibe doesn’t mean that they are no longer Israelite blood. We can see this, yet
again, in the parallel between the older brother in The Prodigal Son
and the rich man here. The father still claims the older brother as his
own son, in spite of his shite attitude (15:31,) and Abraham still claims
the rich man as his own son, in spite of his torment apart from faithful
Israel (16:25.)
Is there more? Yes. Yes.
There’s much more. There’s so much more. God, I could write
about this for another fifteen pages. But I do have to wrap this up at
some point, and I feel like this is a good place to begin that process. What
can I say? This five-fold parable is undoubtedly the best use of
figurative imagery that I’ve ever seen in any book. Ever. The ties, the
structure, the parallels, the contrasts, all of it is impressive, and I’ve
only scratched the surface. I do believe that I’ve given more than
enough evidence to the fact that the rich man and Lazarus is by no means
some random example of eternal torment, disconnected from the rest of the
chapter, but the end of a large series of figures which highlight
the differences between the pharisees and the tribute collectors.
Comments
Post a Comment