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: Dear Tim, Thanks for your response re: Lazarus and the Rich Man. Firstly, I have to concede that there is a slim possibility that Lazarus is not Simon the Leper, because it is not explicitly stated. On the other hand, all the evidence points to the fact that Simon was Lazarus. 1. The meal occurs straight after the account of the resurrection of Lazarus, when Jesus had visited the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. 2. John 12:1 indicates that they came to "Bethany, where Lazarus was" – they had come to see Lazarus. 3. This was days before Jesus was to be crucified – whose house would Jesus want to go to more in Bethany for comfort than those he loved: "Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus." 4. Apart from Christ and his disciples only Mary, Martha and Lazarus are said to be there - no surplus Simon. 5. Martha served at the meal indicating it was her familys house. Your source, Mr. A. T. Johnson, says this means nothing, yet totally fails to indicate why. When was the last time Mr. A. T. Johnson walked into someone elses house and started cooking a meal? 6. Comparing with Luke 10 when they were at Marthas house, Martha served while Mary sat at Jesus feet – exactly as in John 12. 7. Neither writer mentions Simon by name at the meal at all. In one gospel we are told Jesus went to see Simon the Leper, and in the other we are told he went to see Lazarus, and Lazarus is the only one named as being there. 8. "Simon the Leper" must have been a previous name, as they could not have eaten at the house of a leper. But what if in reality Simon the Leper was not Lazarus? Well it makes virtually no difference to the parable, as it is eminently clear that the parable IS about Lazarus, whether he was Simon or not. It can be put no plainer than the very words of Christ: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though [Lazarus] rose from the dead." Your second point is addressed in the above list. Thirdly, we are told that the Lazarus in the parable was a beggar, and you say he could not have owned a house. Simon the Leper would have been a beggar but not by poverty. It is quite possible that he could have owned a house, but under Mosaic Law (Lev 13:46) he could not enter it. Also he could not enter the inner court of the Temple, which would explain why he is, in the parable, laid at the rich mans gate, Caiaphas gate, the gate of the Temple. You have simply compared a beggar in your own vernacular to one at the time of Christ, which is a mistake. Fourthly, you claim that naming Caiaphas as the rich man is a "major stretch", yet fail to provide any evidence why. I have provided 9 identifying factors between the rich man and Caiaphas, (and there are many more secondary ties – such as the rich mans gate being the Temple gate etc.) and the only detracting point you make is that we are told he had "5 brothers", not "5 brothers in law". And this can be very easily dismissed: 1. The term "brother in law" does not occur once in the entire Bible. Not once. You have to therefore conclude that the term was not in popular use, and hence they are called brothers. 2. I am not trying to prove that this is a 100 percent accurate historical record as you are. I claim it is a parable, in which case the description of the men as "brothers" identifies them accurately enough for us to know exactly who they are. Fifthly, you say that this could not possibly be a parable, because we are not told it is a parable. But this is not the only parable which is not described as such by Luke: Luk 7:41 The parable of the Two Debtors. Luke 10:30 The parable of the Good Samaritan. There is no mention that these are parables! If Luke does not always state that a parable is a parable, then it does not matter if it is explicitly stated or not. We must deduce from the evidence provided if it is a parable or not. And the evidence here is overwhelming. With respect it seems to me that you strain at a gnat: "the brothers could not possibly be brothers in law!" But you swallow a camel: The Pharasaaic superstition mocked by Christ - the completely unscriptural, pseudepigraphical teaching of a place called "Abrahams Bosom." "Abrahams Bosom" can be found in "The Apocalypse of Zephaniah" and "The Testament of Abraham" as evidence of an unscriptural superstition held by the Pharisees of the time (and even there it differs from your own view of the place), but it can only be found once in the Bible in this parable where Jesus uses it to deride the Pharisees just as they derided him in Luke 16:14. The parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus must be a parable because Christ gave us a wealth of information to understand every aspect of it – who it was spoken to, the characters in it and the reason it was given. On the other hand there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is an historical account. God bless, Dr. B. |