Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 169265 | ||
Mark, The story of Lazarus and The Rich Man is a parable and that can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is largely because it is possible to identify who Lazarus and The Rich Man were - we know who they were, we know their names, and we know that they were in fact both alive and well at the time of the parable. The first thing to do when approaching a parable is to identify the characters in it. Starting with the easiest first, we can identify Abraham as Abraham of the OT. Next up, Lazarus. Well there is only one other person in the Bible called Lazarus, so we would immediately think of him. Interestingly though, the parable categorically points us to this man. If you compare the accounts of the anointing of Jesus in John 12:3 and Matthew 26:6 you will find that Lazarus was also known as "Simon the Leper". This explains why the Lazarus in the parable was "full of sores" (Luke 16:20) – he was Simon the Leper. His begging in the parable was not directly from poverty, but because he was ceremonially unclean under OT law. So we have two men, both called Lazarus, both lepers, both beggars, both of whom died, and both of whom would not convince people by their resurrection (compare Luke 16:30-31 and John 12:10.) I think we can safely conclude then that Lazarus in the parable was Jesus friend Lazarus. Now the rich man. We are told many specific details of this man, too many in fact for this to merely represent "all rich men" – let's see if we can identify him from the facts: 1. he was rich (vs.19) 2. dressed in purple and fine linen (vs.19) 3. lived in luxury every day (vs.19) 4. in his lifetime he received good things (vs.25) 5. he had five brothers (vs.28) 6. they lived in his father’s house (vs.27) 7. they had Moses and the Prophets (vs.25) 8. but they did not listen to them (vs.29) 9. they would not be convinced even if someone were to rise from the dead (vs.31) Now it might not be obvious to us who this person was, but it would have been instantly obvious to the Pharisees listening, because there was in fact only one person in all of Israel who dressed in purple and fine linen, and to whom ALL of the above clues matched perfectly – the High Priest Caiaphas. The Jewish historian Josephus records that Caiaphas meets the first 4 criteria above. Caiaphas was rich, dressed in purple and fine linen, lived in luxury and received good things. (see Antiquities of the Jews, XIII: 10:vi:p.281, XVIII:1:iv:p.377, also Wars of the Jews 11:8:xiv: p. 478). Furthermore, Exodus 28 records the instructions given to Aaron for making the High Priests garments, and tells us that they were "purple, and scarlet yarn and fine linen". There are no two ways about it - this man must have been a High Priest. Caiaphas the High Priest also had five brothers-in-law. Again, as recorded by Josephus: "Now the report goes, that this elder Annas [father in law of Caiaphas, John 18:13] proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. . ." (Antiquities, Book XX, chapter 9, section i, p.423)" They served as High Priest as follows: Eleazar 16-17AD Jonathan 36-37AD Theophilus 37-41AD Matthias 41-43AD Annas the Younger 62AD The reference to "their fathers house" is obviously to Annas, their father, and High Priest before Caiaphas. It is not difficult for us to agree with Jesus conclusion that these men had Moses and the prophets (vs. 25) but did not listen to them (vs. 29). And finally, John 12:10 confirms the last connection in our list. The resurrection of both the Lazarus of the parable and Simon the Leper was rejected by Annas, Caiaphas and his five brothers. So now we have established the identities of the characters of this parable: Abraham is Abraham Lazarus is Lazarus, also known as Simon the Leper of Bethany The Rich Man is Caiaphas the high priest His father is Annas His 5 brothers are Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Annas the Younger And now that we have done this, we can also prove that Jesus cannot be recounting an historical event, because both Caiaphas and Lazarus were both still alive. There is obviously more to say about this parable, but I think I will leave it at that for now. I will just leave you with the following conclusions: The parable cannot be literal. Caiaphas did not literally die and descend to Hades. He was still very much alive in Acts 4:6. Likewise although Abraham refused to raise Lazarus in the parable, in reality Jesus did raise Lazarus. The only thing that is literal about the parable is the prophecy of Luke 16:31 that was fulfilled in John 12:10 when Caiaphas and his family tried to kill Lazarus rather than accept the fact that Jesus had raised him from the dead. Okay for now, and God bless, Dr. B. |
||||||
2 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | Morant61 | 169267 | ||
Greetings Dr. B! There are some serious problems with your identification of the Lazarus in Hades with the Lazarus of Bethany. First of all, they are called two different names. In John, Lazaurus (who was raised from the dead) is mentioned, while in Matthew, Simon the leper is mentioned. What evidence is there that these two men are the same? Secondly, John only says that Lazarus was at the dinner, while Matthew specifically says that the dinner was held at the house of Simon the leper. Thirdly, the 'so called parable' says that Simon was a beggar, but according to Matthew, the Simon mentioned owns a house. The word beggar refers to someone who could not own a house. As for your identification of Caiphas as the rich man, this is a major stretch. The text says that he had five brothers, not brother's in law. Here is what A. T. Robertson says about Mt. 26:6 ********** Mat 26:6 - In the house of Simon the leper . Evidently a man who had been healed of his leprosy by Jesus who gave the feast in honour of Jesus. All sorts of fantastic theories have arisen about it. Some even identify this Simon with the one in Luk_7:36., but Simon was a very common name and the details are very different. Some hold that it was Martha’s house because she served (Joh_12:2) and that Simon was either the father or husband of Martha, but Martha loved to serve and that proves nothing. Some identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in Luke 7 and even with Mary Magdalene, both gratuitous and groundless propositions. For the proof that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the sinful woman of Luke 7 are all distinct see my Some Minor Characters in the New Testament. John (Joh_12:1) apparently locates the feast six days before the passover, while Mark (Mar_14:3) and Matthew (Mat_26:6) seem to place it on the Tuesday evening (Jewish Wednesday) just two days before the passover meal. It is possible that John anticipates the date and notes the feast at Bethany at this time because he does not refer to Bethany again. If not, the order of Mark must be followed. According to the order of Mark and Matthew, this feast took place at the very time that the Sanhedrin was plotting about the death of Jesus (Mar_14:1.). ********** So, in light of the shaky 'facts' you have cited, I would have to say that the account is not a parable since Scripture does not call it a parable. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | DocTrinsograce | 169272 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, I agree with what you have said regarding the identity of Lazarus in Luke 16. However, in my own thinking I would qualify your last statement: "I would have to say that the account is not a parable since Scripture does not call it a parable." The teachings just prior to Lazarus and Dives are the Unjust Steward and the Prodigal Son. Although Scripture does not explicitly state they are parables, they appear to qualify in every other respect. What do you think? In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | Morant61 | 169276 | ||
Greetings Doc! I would respectfully disagree! The fact that parables are used earlier in the chapter doesn't automatically make everything else a parable. :-) Would you say that Luke 16:16-18 is a parable? Either way, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is a parable, since Scripture does not call it a parable. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | DocTrinsograce | 169285 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, That isn't what I saying. Even so, I agree with your assessment of what you THOUGHT I was saying. :-) I further agree that the teaching of Lazarus and Dives is not parabolic -- assuming our definition of a parable is correct -- as you have quite clearly shown. What I meant to say was this: It appears that some parables in Scripture are not explicitly stated as being parabolic. I cited two examples just prior to Lazarus and Dives. This was the notion on which I asked your opinion. :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | Morant61 | 169294 | ||
Greetings Doc! Sorry about that my friend! :-) I misunderstood you! I would agree that there appear to be four parables in a row from Luke 15:3 to Luke 16:13, but the word 'parable' is only used in Luke 15:3. As I look at the Greek text, one could make an arguement that the word parable could cover the entire section since there is no break in the thought until Luke 16:14. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||