Is it fair for me to assume that , Simon the leper of Matthew Ch 26 V 6 is actually Lazarus of John Ch 11 V 1-6 ? Maybe his name is changed to Lazarus because it means God will help ? When Jesus reaches Bethany , Lazarus has been in the grave , or rather cave , for four days and his body will be corrupted and will smell like it . In Leviticus Ch 7 V 17+18 we read that meat should not be eaten even on the third day , as it is likely to be decaying , good advice which is still heeded by many today . Is it possible , that Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus ,when he was on his way to Bethany ? If so , it would add an even deeper significance to the final words of the parable : neither will they be persuaded , though one rose from the dead , might this imply that Jesus was not speaking of his own ressurection but of what he was about to accomplish in ressurecting Lazarus from the dead after four days ? In Ezekiel Ch 37 , we read of the ressurection of the bones of the whole house of Israel , which we are part of now having been grafted in . This , by implication , takes place after those bones have been laid in the earth for many years . Four days or four hundred or four thousand years , it makes no difference to the God of all creation . Luke Ch 20 V 38 . We are Lazarus , unclean in life as gentiles ( Lazarus was unclean in life because of his leprosy ) and in need of God's help .
Hi Jema. Just a couple of points to note from your understanding of those passages you quoted. You believe that Simon the Leper ( Matthew 26:6) might be the same person, now named Lazarus (in John 11:1-6). As I understand it, the account of the sickness, death & resurrection of Lazarus (brother of Mary & Martha) took place some time before the account of Simon the Leper. Jesus was on His second journey (after first leaving Jerusalem (in Winter): John 10:22, then onto Jordan: John 10:40) when news came to Him of Lazarus' sickness ( John 11:3). But Jesus continued to stay at Jordan ( John 11:6) & then went to Bethany to deceased Lazarus.
Now the account of Simon the Leper, also in Bethany, occurred very near to the Passover Feast ( Matthew 26:2). And we know this to be so, because after the woman's anointing of Jesus in Simon the Leper's home, Jesus' disciples were annoyed at the waste of this ointment, & Judas Iscariot then left them to put into effect his wicked act. And of course, Jesus then celebrates the Passover with His disciples at the appointed time. So the Lazarus (in John 11) & Simon the Leper (in Matthew 26) can't be the same person and of course it would have saddened Lazarus (& others) tremendously that he who died because of some sickness & was raised by Jesus, yet wasn't healed of his leprosy.
As well, the account of the rich man & (the other) Lazarus ( Luke 16:19-31) is understood to have happened after the Lazarus (of John 11) was raised to life, not before. A synopsis of the Gospels shows that after Jesus began His journey towards Bethany, He also ministered along the way ( Luke 13:22 to Luke 17:1-10). After this, Jesus arrives in Bethany to see the lifeless body of his friend.
The account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the Dead is an actual historical event. It occurred exactly as recorded in John 11. But like many of the historical events recorded in the Bible, and in particular like all of the miracles that Jesus did, this is a "historical parable" in that God has placed it the Bible to teach us something about the Gospel, the Nature of Salvation.
Lazarus was DEAD. God makes that crystal clear in that his Body had started to decay; "he stinketh". So Lazarus could do absolutely nothing to contribute in any way whatsoever to his resurrection back to physical life. But Christ, Eternal God Himself, spoke and said "Lazarus come forth". And Lazarus did rise and came forth.
This is a beautiful picture, a "parable", teaching us what happens to someone when Christ applies Salvation to their life and they become Born Again. Before God saves us we are Spiritually Dead in trespasses and sins. We "stink spiritually" and have no ability to contribute to our Salvation in any way whatsoever ( Rom 3:10-18); CHRIST MUST DO ALL OF THE WORK, 100%, TO SAVE US IF WE ARE TO BECOME SAVED. So when Christ saves us He raises us from Spiritual DEATH to Spiritual LIFE and gives us Eternal Life by giving us a New Resurrected Soul. This is becoming Born Again. Christ in effect says, SINNER COME FORTH. AND WE DO COME FORTH. Just like Lazarus.
The passage in Luke 16 regarding a Rich man and Lazarus CANNOT be a literal historical event for many reasons when we examine the language carefully. The Language is describing a situation which is contrary to the Nature of Salvation itself; no one in the grave has eyes to see or a mouth to speak. And there is no communication between those in the grave and those in heaven. This is indeed a story, a "parable", like many that Jesus told which were not historical events, but were designed to teach some aspect of the Gospel. But a discussion of this "parable" is a subject for another comment and another day.
Hi David 0921. I agree with you that raising of Lazarus from the dead was "an actual historical event". And yes, not only from actual defined parables, but also from such real-life events as this one, there are lessons to be learned.
However, with the Luke 16:19-31 account I simply cannot accept it as a 'non-literal historical event'. You mention that "no one in the grave has eyes to see or a mouth to speak". It is true, that the deceased's physical eyes & mouths have long been destroyed in the grave, yet in the spiritual realm there still remains a consciousness, for the spirit of man cannot die. Now whether those three mentioned in Hades (under the OT economy) had physical members or not is not mentioned, but that a conversation took place. Now, if these figures in Hades were only presented as a story "to teach some aspect of the Gospel", then wouldn't it be very wrong of Jesus to name them & place them?
Look at any of the parables of Jesus (e.g. the Sower, the Tares, the Hid Treasure, the Ten Virgins, the Rich Fool, the Lost Sheep, etc.). Do any of them give the names or even the exact locations where the events took place? So a parable's definition is not just the Truth that Jesus wanted to impart to the people (a Truth that generally they could not perceive, therefore the need of 'story-telling'), but a parable had to meet this other criterion (of not naming people or places), or else it wasn't a parable. The Luke 16 account was an actual event told by Jesus as He claimed that Abraham & Lazarus were there in the Hades portion of comfort. If this were not true, then I would have to admit to Jesus being deceptive, when He could just as easily have shared a similar Truth without resorting to names of actual people & places. The lesson learned from this does conform to the message of a parable, but the actual event is real, unlike other of His parables.
I'm sorry Chris, but it seems to me that you are imposing a limitation (i.e. not naming of individuals) on the parables that Jesus told and accepting concepts (i.e. eyes in the grave and communication between the grave and heaven) that are not taught in scripture in order to support a concept regarding OT Believers that is not taught in scripture.
That's fine David0921. I don't believe I'm imposing any limitations - just reiterating Jesus' Own Words of what takes place (or, could take place) in the underworld pre-Cross. For me, even if there's no other Scripture that speaks of such an environment existing (for then the writer must have either gone there himself or had an explicit instruction from God to proclaim it), then even that one verse that speaks of it must at least cause the reader to consider the Truth & reality of it.
Yet, it remains the reader's choice, as do the many verses that show the Deity of Christ or of everlasting torment (& other Truths), that some folk can somehow explain them away to justify their belief or from Church teaching. So if a lesson as the one in Luke 16 is not taught anywhere else in the Word & is therefore relegated to join the list of simple parables as a result, then I believe we do great disservice to God's Word, and in this case, Jesus' specific teaching of life in Hades must either be scratched out or re-translated to suit our belief. And I'm sorry, I'm simply not prepared to approach God's Word in this way.
"For me, even if there's no other Scripture that speaks of such an environment existing (for then the writer must have either gone there himself or had an explicit instruction from God to proclaim it), then even that one verse that speaks of it must at least cause the reader to consider the Truth & reality of it."
One basic and fundamental characteristic of the Bible, of which I have become convinced, is this:
God does not build our understanding of a doctrine from a single passage or two. God builds our understanding of any Truth in many ways and from many different vantage points throughout the Bible; but always coalescing on the same Truth. And when we have come to Truth, we will find harmony and conformation of that Truth throughout the entire Bible in many many passages.
Why? Because the Bible has ONLY ONE AUTHOR, God Himself. And we MUST compare Scripture with Scripture, using the principles that God Himself has laid down in His Word.
If we fail to do this and do not allow the Bible, the Entire Bible, to be its own interpreter and it's own dictionary and our ultimate authority, we can pretty much go off in any direction that suites our fancy and find a verse or two here or there to support our belief.
Unfortunately, the Churches and many Bible Teachers throughout the Church Age have done exactly that. Which is the primary reason that we see so great divergence in fundamental doctrines held by churches and individuals in our day.
David0921, we have already discussed at length, both correct Bible hermeneutics & the salvation of souls, both pre and post Cross. And as you've stated several times before, "we must compare Scripture with Scripture, etc, etc.".
Here we have Luke 16:19-31, a passage where there seems no other Scripture in the Bible that lends support/complements it, with such graphic detail. In your application of the principles you've suggested, what would you do with such a passage in Luke 16, when there is no other related teaching or other verses? The choices I see are: accept what Jesus spoke, as a one-off account of life after death pre-Cross; rewrite the verse to bring it into line with other verses that speak of the after-life; or, reject the passage altogether & read it as just another story/parable of Jesus that isn't intended to describe a real-life event.
To use your principle, that there 'must be other Scriptures relating to each other so as to form a belief/doctrine', I would reject that passage & never refer to it at all. I wouldn't even quote it as a parable, as it doesn't fulfil the definition of a parable. Therefore, not wanting to take such a drastic action, I'm forced to do something else with the passage; and that 'something' is to accept Jesus' Words as Truth & the events declared as real, since I won't accept that Jesus was intentionally deceptive when speaking about the fate of certain people for the purposes of a sharing a story/parable. But you're right about a 'divergence of doctrines by the churches'; just look at the LDS Church & 1 Corinthians 15:29: this is an example of a major departure from the Truth.
I do not believe the Bible supports your conclusion as to how one should handle the parable in Luke 16 if there is no other passage supporting the historical literal nature of the "events" described. God has placed this "parable" in the Bible to teach Spiritual truth related to the Gospel.
The Bible is replete with "parabolic" language that is not literally historical, but figurative. For example, Christ is not a literal "Lamb", and Christ will not be returning on a literal "white horse" with a literal "sword" protruding from His mouth nor will the True Believers return fighting a literal battle with "bows and arrows", etc. This is "parabolic", figurative language.
And we don't have to look at churches that claim extra Biblical revelation for deviation from Scripture. We need only look at the Baptists, the Methodist, the Presbyterians, the Reformed, the Lutherans, etc. in order to see tremendous deviation amongst them and many doctrines and practices contrary to what the Bible teaches. And in our day, an acceleration of departing from the Bible as their ultimate authority.
This is why God's judgment is upon the churches and why Matt 24, Mark 13, 1 Pet 4:17 and 2 Thess 2 are now in play. This is the Day in which we are living, the Great Tribulation. The "fig tree", "National Israel", is in "leaf", but bearing no "fruit" and this will continue until Christ returns to at the Last Day.
Well David0921, as in all things biblical, the student of the Word must come to his own conclusions, yet knowing that not everything can be known or correctly understood. You've stated your interpretation of that Luke 16 account using the principles that have no doubt served you well through the years. I too have studied the Word, & in this instance, Jesus' use of parables, their structure, their message, & the need for His interpretation of them (at least to His disciples, when asked) is essential to my examination.
This account of Lazarus in Hades, to my reading, stands out as one totally different to the rest of Jesus' parables. In fact, I would even place it in the same category as John 14:2,3. I hope we believe that Jesus was truthfully speaking of "mansions" or 'rooms' in His Father's House. Or, maybe He wasn't & just wanting to comfort & assure His disciples that they wouldn't be forgotten at His appearing. Now I can hear some saying that there's no such thing as "mansions" in Heaven & this message to them was simply figurative. Should we believe this account & not the other? Or, maybe reject both? What would make one account truthful & the other not? Individual perceptions are very strong based on a variety of factors that bear upon us, even when we read from the same Bible. GBU.
Is it fair for me to assume that , Simon the leper of Matthew Ch 26 V 6 is actually Lazarus of John Ch 11 V 1-6 ? Maybe his name is changed to Lazarus because it means God will help ? When Jesus reaches Bethany , Lazarus has been in the grave , or rather cave , for four days and his body will be corrupted and will smell like it . In Leviticus Ch 7 V 17+18 we read that meat should not be eaten even on the third day , as it is likely to be decaying , good advice which is still heeded by many today . Is it possible , that Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus ,when he was on his way to Bethany ? If so , it would add an even deeper significance to the final words of the parable : neither will they be persuaded , though one rose from the dead , might this imply that Jesus was not speaking of his own ressurection but of what he was about to accomplish in ressurecting Lazarus from the dead after four days ? In Ezekiel Ch 37 , we read of the ressurection of the bones of the whole house of Israel , which we are part of now having been grafted in . This , by implication , takes place after those bones have been laid in the earth for many years . Four days or four hundred or four thousand years , it makes no difference to the God of all creation . Luke Ch 20 V 38 . We are Lazarus , unclean in life as gentiles ( Lazarus was unclean in life because of his leprosy ) and in need of God's help .
[Comment Removed]
Now the account of Simon the Leper, also in Bethany, occurred very near to the Passover Feast ( Matthew 26:2). And we know this to be so, because after the woman's anointing of Jesus in Simon the Leper's home, Jesus' disciples were annoyed at the waste of this ointment, & Judas Iscariot then left them to put into effect his wicked act. And of course, Jesus then celebrates the Passover with His disciples at the appointed time. So the Lazarus (in John 11) & Simon the Leper (in Matthew 26) can't be the same person and of course it would have saddened Lazarus (& others) tremendously that he who died because of some sickness & was raised by Jesus, yet wasn't healed of his leprosy.
As well, the account of the rich man & (the other) Lazarus ( Luke 16:19-31) is understood to have happened after the Lazarus (of John 11) was raised to life, not before. A synopsis of the Gospels shows that after Jesus began His journey towards Bethany, He also ministered along the way ( Luke 13:22 to Luke 17:1-10). After this, Jesus arrives in Bethany to see the lifeless body of his friend.
The account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the Dead is an actual historical event. It occurred exactly as recorded in John 11. But like many of the historical events recorded in the Bible, and in particular like all of the miracles that Jesus did, this is a "historical parable" in that God has placed it the Bible to teach us something about the Gospel, the Nature of Salvation.
Lazarus was DEAD. God makes that crystal clear in that his Body had started to decay; "he stinketh". So Lazarus could do absolutely nothing to contribute in any way whatsoever to his resurrection back to physical life. But Christ, Eternal God Himself, spoke and said "Lazarus come forth". And Lazarus did rise and came forth.
This is a beautiful picture, a "parable", teaching us what happens to someone when Christ applies Salvation to their life and they become Born Again. Before God saves us we are Spiritually Dead in trespasses and sins. We "stink spiritually" and have no ability to contribute to our Salvation in any way whatsoever ( Rom 3:10-18); CHRIST MUST DO ALL OF THE WORK, 100%, TO SAVE US IF WE ARE TO BECOME SAVED. So when Christ saves us He raises us from Spiritual DEATH to Spiritual LIFE and gives us Eternal Life by giving us a New Resurrected Soul. This is becoming Born Again. Christ in effect says, SINNER COME FORTH. AND WE DO COME FORTH. Just like Lazarus.
The passage in Luke 16 regarding a Rich man and Lazarus CANNOT be a literal historical event for many reasons when we examine the language carefully. The Language is describing a situation which is contrary to the Nature of Salvation itself; no one in the grave has eyes to see or a mouth to speak. And there is no communication between those in the grave and those in heaven. This is indeed a story, a "parable", like many that Jesus told which were not historical events, but were designed to teach some aspect of the Gospel. But a discussion of this "parable" is a subject for another comment and another day.
However, with the Luke 16:19-31 account I simply cannot accept it as a 'non-literal historical event'. You mention that "no one in the grave has eyes to see or a mouth to speak". It is true, that the deceased's physical eyes & mouths have long been destroyed in the grave, yet in the spiritual realm there still remains a consciousness, for the spirit of man cannot die. Now whether those three mentioned in Hades (under the OT economy) had physical members or not is not mentioned, but that a conversation took place. Now, if these figures in Hades were only presented as a story "to teach some aspect of the Gospel", then wouldn't it be very wrong of Jesus to name them & place them?
Look at any of the parables of Jesus (e.g. the Sower, the Tares, the Hid Treasure, the Ten Virgins, the Rich Fool, the Lost Sheep, etc.). Do any of them give the names or even the exact locations where the events took place? So a parable's definition is not just the Truth that Jesus wanted to impart to the people (a Truth that generally they could not perceive, therefore the need of 'story-telling'), but a parable had to meet this other criterion (of not naming people or places), or else it wasn't a parable. The Luke 16 account was an actual event told by Jesus as He claimed that Abraham & Lazarus were there in the Hades portion of comfort. If this were not true, then I would have to admit to Jesus being deceptive, when He could just as easily have shared a similar Truth without resorting to names of actual people & places. The lesson learned from this does conform to the message of a parable, but the actual event is real, unlike other of His parables.
Yet, it remains the reader's choice, as do the many verses that show the Deity of Christ or of everlasting torment (& other Truths), that some folk can somehow explain them away to justify their belief or from Church teaching. So if a lesson as the one in Luke 16 is not taught anywhere else in the Word & is therefore relegated to join the list of simple parables as a result, then I believe we do great disservice to God's Word, and in this case, Jesus' specific teaching of life in Hades must either be scratched out or re-translated to suit our belief. And I'm sorry, I'm simply not prepared to approach God's Word in this way.
If I may quote you:
"For me, even if there's no other Scripture that speaks of such an environment existing (for then the writer must have either gone there himself or had an explicit instruction from God to proclaim it), then even that one verse that speaks of it must at least cause the reader to consider the Truth & reality of it."
One basic and fundamental characteristic of the Bible, of which I have become convinced, is this:
God does not build our understanding of a doctrine from a single passage or two. God builds our understanding of any Truth in many ways and from many different vantage points throughout the Bible; but always coalescing on the same Truth. And when we have come to Truth, we will find harmony and conformation of that Truth throughout the entire Bible in many many passages.
Why? Because the Bible has ONLY ONE AUTHOR, God Himself. And we MUST compare Scripture with Scripture, using the principles that God Himself has laid down in His Word.
If we fail to do this and do not allow the Bible, the Entire Bible, to be its own interpreter and it's own dictionary and our ultimate authority, we can pretty much go off in any direction that suites our fancy and find a verse or two here or there to support our belief.
Unfortunately, the Churches and many Bible Teachers throughout the Church Age have done exactly that. Which is the primary reason that we see so great divergence in fundamental doctrines held by churches and individuals in our day.
Here we have Luke 16:19-31, a passage where there seems no other Scripture in the Bible that lends support/complements it, with such graphic detail. In your application of the principles you've suggested, what would you do with such a passage in Luke 16, when there is no other related teaching or other verses? The choices I see are: accept what Jesus spoke, as a one-off account of life after death pre-Cross; rewrite the verse to bring it into line with other verses that speak of the after-life; or, reject the passage altogether & read it as just another story/parable of Jesus that isn't intended to describe a real-life event.
To use your principle, that there 'must be other Scriptures relating to each other so as to form a belief/doctrine', I would reject that passage & never refer to it at all. I wouldn't even quote it as a parable, as it doesn't fulfil the definition of a parable. Therefore, not wanting to take such a drastic action, I'm forced to do something else with the passage; and that 'something' is to accept Jesus' Words as Truth & the events declared as real, since I won't accept that Jesus was intentionally deceptive when speaking about the fate of certain people for the purposes of a sharing a story/parable. But you're right about a 'divergence of doctrines by the churches'; just look at the LDS Church & 1 Corinthians 15:29: this is an example of a major departure from the Truth.
I do not believe the Bible supports your conclusion as to how one should handle the parable in Luke 16 if there is no other passage supporting the historical literal nature of the "events" described. God has placed this "parable" in the Bible to teach Spiritual truth related to the Gospel.
The Bible is replete with "parabolic" language that is not literally historical, but figurative. For example, Christ is not a literal "Lamb", and Christ will not be returning on a literal "white horse" with a literal "sword" protruding from His mouth nor will the True Believers return fighting a literal battle with "bows and arrows", etc. This is "parabolic", figurative language.
And we don't have to look at churches that claim extra Biblical revelation for deviation from Scripture. We need only look at the Baptists, the Methodist, the Presbyterians, the Reformed, the Lutherans, etc. in order to see tremendous deviation amongst them and many doctrines and practices contrary to what the Bible teaches. And in our day, an acceleration of departing from the Bible as their ultimate authority.
This is why God's judgment is upon the churches and why Matt 24, Mark 13, 1 Pet 4:17 and 2 Thess 2 are now in play. This is the Day in which we are living, the Great Tribulation. The "fig tree", "National Israel", is in "leaf", but bearing no "fruit" and this will continue until Christ returns to at the Last Day.
This account of Lazarus in Hades, to my reading, stands out as one totally different to the rest of Jesus' parables. In fact, I would even place it in the same category as John 14:2,3. I hope we believe that Jesus was truthfully speaking of "mansions" or 'rooms' in His Father's House. Or, maybe He wasn't & just wanting to comfort & assure His disciples that they wouldn't be forgotten at His appearing. Now I can hear some saying that there's no such thing as "mansions" in Heaven & this message to them was simply figurative. Should we believe this account & not the other? Or, maybe reject both? What would make one account truthful & the other not? Individual perceptions are very strong based on a variety of factors that bear upon us, even when we read from the same Bible. GBU.
[Comment Removed]
[Comment Removed]
[Comment Removed]
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?