Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Ephesians 4:9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Ephesians 4:9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had previously descended [from the heights of heaven] into the lower parts of the earth? |
Subject: Jesus decended into hell? |
Bible Note: 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. |